# Price of gas...



## Bert H

Well, it's over $3 a gallon now in many places. Regular unleaded here is $2.95! As I was driving to the post office to mail some plants yesterday it struck me - shipping charges at $5 probably don't cover my expenses anymore.  So I am probably going to have to go to $6 for shipping. 

I know you guys in Europe are probably wishing it was that cheap, but we're not used to it over here. Two years ago when I was in Holland, it was going for 1.25euro per liter (over $5/gal).

What's everyone else paying for gas these days?


----------



## VITARTE

Well, the closest gas station to me has it at $3.10 , regular unleaded.
I'm not happy with that either.
Rafo


----------



## Runawaypencil

*go green*

In detroit it is upto 2.99 regualr unleaded.. Which doesnt bother me tomuch for the summer, because I am riding my bike now... so I am going to spend about the same...


----------



## neonfish3

Thursday of Friday it topped out at $3.09/gallon, now it is $2.99/gallon everywhere. Fortunatly for me theres a 24hr. post office on my way to work, and I won't charge more 'till the post office does.


----------



## cwlodarczyk

You guys might be interested in this:

http://www.gasbuddy.com/


----------



## nailalc

Gas here is $2.75 gallon.....We'll hit $3.00/gallon like elsewhere in the country real soon.


----------



## JanS

We've been sitting at $2.78/gal for most of the week here in northern Minnesota.

Luckily I only live 7 miles from work and it's all country driving, so I usually put around 100 miles/week on.

On average I have to fill my Explorer every 2 weeks (about $35), so I can't really complain about it as much as people with longer hauls to work.


----------



## taekwondodo

two words:

Drill ANWAR.


----------



## nailalc

No offense, but ANWAR would do nothing to affect the price of gas at the pumps.


----------



## taekwondodo

so - let's just do nothing. Now that's a solution. How do we know ANWAR wouldn't help. Start looing in the Bearing Sea, off the Coast of California, and more exploration along the Gulf coast. While we're at it, build a couple of large refineries.

Simultaneously invest in nuclear energy - new reactors as well as research into fusion.

Solar and wind won't cut it.

Look at Brazil - http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1875850&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

I'm tired of being dependant on the whims and revolutions of other coutries.

:boxing:


----------



## david lim

taekwondodo said:


> so - let's just do nothing. Now that's a solution. How do we know ANWAR wouldn't help. Start looing in the Bearing Sea, off the Coast of California, and more exploration along the Gulf coast. While we're at it, build a couple of large refineries.
> 
> Simultaneously invest in nuclear energy - new reactors as well as research into fusion.
> 
> Solar and wind won't cut it.
> 
> Look at Brazil - http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1875850&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
> 
> I'm tired of being dependant on the whims and revolutions of other coutries.
> 
> :boxing:


Ok.. great. but that costs money. And who's going to pay for it in the end? us. And since the government's building energy, it seems that they would charge extra for the energy that we're currenty consuming.

I'm all up for nuclear power plants and electric cars. But I don't think the general public would agree.

I think increasing gas prices will be good. Hopefully, it'll force americans to be less spenders and more savers. Maybe we'll become more like europeans, utilizing more alternative methods of transportation and look for cleaner/ more efficient methods of consuming energy. Hopefully, more american innovation will lead us into a prettier future .

Gas over here is 2.85.


----------



## Paul Higashikawa

Don't try to compare our country with other countries, particularly the more environmentally conscious Europe. If you do that you will only drive yourself mad. 

We operate things differently in the States because we have many levels of government. Plus, how big is our country? How big are those in Europe? So come on. To make such a comparison is simply naive. I am not saying it is impossible to improve our current status. However, we need to do things differently. Making things 'happen' here simply isn't as easy as other countries. I have begun to see some changes at the local levels, though. One example is when I went to Austin couple weeks ago. They now offer e-bus, which is a hybrid. A small but welcoming change, nevertheless, for the better tomorrow~ Now, that sounds like a commercial slogan

Gas is now 3.16 in Houston, BTW. I paid $30 before for the super unleaded, and I know have to pay $50. And I don't even drive a V6.


----------



## Gonzofish

Take the following ideas from the documentary film "The End of Suburbia" into consideration. 

The US is intoxicated from oil. Once we as a country finally sober up, we will find that we were all living at the end of the american dream.

Drilling won't stop the world's surplus from depleting. Most conservative estimates put us at or around the peak of oil extraction. Imagine a bell curve where we are at the top. Our population and industry will continue to demand oil even when prices rise because our lives and our production depend on it. After the peak ends we are on a downward slope of exponentially depleted oil every year. At then we will be fighting over the scraps.

Nuclear is too expensive.
Coal is dirty and ravages the land.
Natural gas is depleteing (remember the blackouts).
Solar and wind are expensive and for the most part unsubsidized.
Ethanol takes too much energy to produce.
Hydrogen is still a pipe dream.
Hydroelectric works in select locations.

I highly suggest this film. Drilling and conservation will only briefly delay the inevitable. We are in need of real, large scale solutions that will sustain our society for generations to come.


----------



## Paul Higashikawa

And in the end, who gets to be hit the hardest, like always?

Us middle-class folks~ To the rich and the elite, this is still nothing more than just a scratch on their fat bellies. To the poor, well, need I go there?

I agree changes are needed, but who will start by taking on the responsibilities??? And when? At this rate, I will pretty much just use my car to go to and fro from work. That's it. say good-bye to all the leisure drivings to picnic, outdoors, oceans. Shoot, say good-bye to taking girls out 

Happy Meals, here I come!


----------



## taekwondodo

and in the 70s, we all heard about how we were going to run out of fossil fuel in the next 10-20 years. Hogwash. More oil is available today that they thought was ever possible - but no one let's us drill for it.

And I'm OK with hybrids, but I like my avalanche - and the truth is any conversion will take 10-20 years to any alternative fuel source but there's nothing wrong with oil drilling in the meantime. We'll have gas burning vehicles on the roads for the next 50 years or so... at least.

And nuclear isn't as expensive as people think - France has created a very effective and cost conscious nuclear power system that powers most of their country.

And coal methods of mining are much cleaner than they were 20-30 years ago... P.O.F. My wife's aunt lives in PA - there was a beautiful several hundred acres that they stripped, kept contained and out of the rivers and put right back to the way it was when they were done. Done responsibly coal is a very cost efficient fuel and they are finding more all the time.

And as far as natural gas causing the california crisis with power is nonsense as well - the fact there was california hadnt built a power-plant in almost 20 years because of the greenies and the nimbys. It wasn't a fuel supply problem - it was a generation from that fuel problem.

oh - yeah, and those who are too caught-up with Global warming: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling, and
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no25/vo13no25_alarmism.htm, and 
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

and this statement "Hopefully, it'll force americans to be less spenders and more savers."

huh????

Now that I'm spending a fortune to go back-forth just to go to work and paying more now for gas than my last raise gave me - how am I going to save more? Nonsense.

The fact is we're not drilling or taking care of our own (like Brazil, Norway, Russia, etc...) and being held hostage and at the whims of the suppliers - basic economics they maintain the supply and we need the demand. Additionally, the number of countries increasing their fuel demand (particularly the explosive growth in China, India and Russia and the increasing wealth in many of the old "eastern block" countries) is going to severely hurt us in the end. Heck, its hurting us now.

As far as managing the supply - the number one topic at the OPEC summit this weekend was along the lines of "How high can we make the price of oil before we start crippling economies?" - they don't want to cripple the economies because it hurts them as well. They do want to maintain control and get as much as they can to get as much money as they can - and they can continue to do that as long as we refuse to supply ourselves. rayer: rayer: rayer:

Sheese.... Get your facts straight people. We're getting the shaft because of bad info given to the masses and fear spreading by waco groups that get too much attention.

:amen:

-j


----------



## shake

We just hit $1.39 litre in Australia. It's a long weekend here and traditionally the price goes up for long weekend of about 10 cents a litre and then starts to drop again mid week. By Friday it should be around $1.29 litre.

I'm lucky because I have a company car, so fuel cost nil.


----------



## david lim

taekwondodo said:


> and this statement "Hopefully, it'll force americans to be less spenders and more savers."
> 
> huh????
> 
> Now that I'm spending a fortune to go back-forth just to go to work and paying more now for gas than my last raise gave me - how am I going to save more? Nonsense.


exactly, so maybe more americans will look for alternative methods of transportation, which are more economical like riding the subway, bus, or car pool. Because gas prices aren't going to get cheaper any time soon. And once china raises the value of their yen, then Americans will really feel the strain from consuming.

Also, there's no guarantee in drilling that we'll find the next largest oil source. We are taking large risks that environmentalists are not willing to wager. If we did drill for more oil, then we'd only see the same situation reappear in the future (near or far). The solution should be to look for, support, and fund research into alternative methods of making and consuming energy and not provide ourselves with temporary relief.

I read most of those articles about global cooling and didn't get the main idea. Are you trying to state that in the 1970's, scientists and climatologists were wrong about global cooling, so that they could be wrong now? Maybe I missed the point, but please inform us.


----------



## banderbe

taekwondodo said:


> two words:
> 
> Drill ANWAR.


I agree 100%


----------



## banderbe

Bert H said:


> Well, it's over $3 a gallon now in many places. Regular unleaded here is $2.95! As I was driving to the post office to mail some plants yesterday it struck me - shipping charges at $5 probably don't cover my expenses anymore.  So I am probably going to have to go to $6 for shipping.
> 
> I know you guys in Europe are probably wishing it was that cheap, but we're not used to it over here. Two years ago when I was in Holland, it was going for 1.25euro per liter (over $5/gal).
> 
> What's everyone else paying for gas these days?


I could have sworn that some were crying "No blood for oil!", implying and often outright asserting that the US invaded Iraq for their oil (as if fighting a war for our economic life-blood were somehow a bad thing).

It begs the question then, why are gas prices still sky high?

If gas gets substantially more expensive, and I'm talking $5 a gallon, I am betting there will be people demanding blood for oil.

To your question, gas around the Twin Cities is about $2.75, give or take a nickle or so.


----------



## taekwondodo

david lim said:


> exactly, so maybe more americans will look for alternative methods of transportation, which are more economical like riding the subway, bus, or car pool. Because gas prices aren't going to get cheaper any time soon. And once china raises the value of their yen, then Americans will really feel the strain from consuming.


Frankly, I like my way of life - why should I, or any other american, have to pile into a packed sardine can to get to/from work when what we really need to do is invest in our future by continued exploration and drilling and working towards self sufficiency? I think its ironic that people think we should "conserve" when our very way of life thrives off of the liberties we gain from lower energy costs.



david lim said:


> Also, there's no guarantee in drilling that we'll find the next largest oil source. We are taking large risks that environmentalists are not willing to wager. If we did drill for more oil, then we'd only see the same situation reappear in the future (near or far). The solution should be to look for, support, and fund research into alternative methods of making and consuming energy and not provide ourselves with temporary relief.


I don't agree, at least in the next 50 or so years (and we can do that here  )... We should be doing everything we can to cover our backside by exploring, finding, drilling, refining. That doesn't preclude finding other forms of energy but right now Oil is the name of the game - and artifically creating a supply/demand issue to make other forms of energy more "economic" (i.e., not lowering the price of alternatives but raising the price of the current source closer to that of the currently un-economic alternatives) is utter nonsense.

To banderbe's point on the blood for oil - the same people who are shouting "blood for oil" are the same people bitching about/voting against drilling, and are now bitching about the high price of gas and the current administrations energy policy . Thats _got _to make you laugh...



david lim said:


> I read most of those articles about global cooling and didn't get the main idea. Are you trying to state that in the 1970's, scientists and climatologists were wrong about global cooling, so that they could be wrong now? Maybe I missed the point, but please inform us.


The main idea is that most people believe the world is warming when there is even more overwhelming evidence (that no one talks about) is that we may actually be in a cooling phase - predictions that were made in the 80's and 90's about the "global warming" theory are off by several _hundred_ percent. With results like that people are calling global warming factual science?

We can drill for oil and do it more responsibly that we ever could have 20 (even 10) years ago with our technology advances in drilling and exploration. We said in the 70s it would run out in 20-30 years and the same fear argument continues today (we'll run out in _another _ 20-30 years). That's just ridiculous. :blabla: :blabla: :blabla:

- Jeff


----------



## david lim

banderbe said:


> I could have sworn that some were crying "No blood for oil!", implying and often outright asserting that the US invaded Iraq for their oil (as if fighting a war for our economic life-blood were somehow a bad thing).
> 
> It begs the question then, why are gas prices still sky high?
> 
> If gas gets substantially more expensive, and I'm talking $5 a gallon, I am betting there will be people demanding blood for oil.
> 
> To your question, gas around the Twin Cities is about $2.75, give or take a nickle or so.


Gas prices are high now for a lot of different reasons. Our current relations with Iran/ OPEC/ Hamas(Palenstine), China's increasing demands, and also our transition to gas containing ethanol requires uprgrades/ changes in our refineries.

I think the Iran thing will be interesting. We will always have the military pressure, and now that Hamas and Israel are clashing, and all of the muslim countries are backing hamas whereas we're backing Israel, it'll be interesting. SOrry for the run-ons.


----------



## BryceM

Oil shale & oil sands haven't even been tapped yet. The oil sand deposits in Alberta hold as much oil as Saudi Arabia. It just hasn't been economical to process it yet. That day is coming...... Hopefully Alberta doesn't join the list of destabilized, whacko places that, out of sheer bad luck (or God's sense of humor), seem to own most of the world's oil.


----------



## taekwondodo

Back to the direct topic - I paid $3.07 to "fill up" the Yeti today (my avalanche). Irony is with the rising prices I can't fill it up even if I try - at least in a single filling.

The credit autorization at the pumps haven't been increased to keep up with the increases of the gas prices. The pump stopped at $75.00 before I got the tank full!!!

:doh: :doh: :doh:


----------



## Gonzofish

taekwondodo said:


> and in the 70s, we all heard about how we were going to run out of fossil fuel in the next 10-20 years. Hogwash. More oil is available today that they thought was ever possible - but no one let's us drill for it.


What happened in the 70's were price shocks because of problems associated with production. That's not what is happening now. We are producing more oil today than ever before because we are at a peak. Wells don't run forever. Republican VP Cheney admits this himself, 
"By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent
annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead,
along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline
in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we
will need on the order of anadditional 50 million barrels a
day."



taekwondodo said:


> And I'm OK with hybrids, but I like my avalanche - and the truth is any conversion will take 10-20 years to any alternative fuel source but there's nothing wrong with oil drilling in the meantime. We'll have gas burning vehicles on the roads for the next 50 years or so... at least.


I sort of agree with you here. Since we are admitting that gas burning vehicles will someday be extinct, why not devote some of this money and effort toward a more sustainable resource? In reality we should be saving oil to fuel ourselves. It takes approx. 10 calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of food eaten in the US. It also takes fossil fuel technology to develop renewable energy.



taekwondodo said:


> And nuclear isn't as expensive as people think -


A nuclear plant in Zion,Il cost $2 billion, adjusted for inflation, when it was built in 1973. Last year Congress allocated 1.25 billion to help Idaho build an experimental Nuclear reactor that produces a byproduct of hydrogen. And what about costly safety upgrades? Not to mention the spent fuel. I guess we could just dump it in outerspace.


taekwondodo said:


> Done responsibly coal is a very cost efficient fuel and they are finding more all the time.


Tell that to the folks in West Virginia who have seen 400,000 acres of their Appalachians stripped bare and replanted. How do you recreate a centuries old forest that's been completely denuded? Or how about the 125 dead and 1,000 injured from the collapse of a slurry pond in Buffalo Creek in 1972.



taekwondodo said:


> And as far as natural gas causing the california crisis with power is nonsense as well


I was reffering to the east coast blackouts. Many Canadian plants use natural gas and contribute greatly to the grid. Large, centralized plants leave us vulnerable to price spikes and acts of god.



taekwondodo said:


> The fact is we're not drilling or taking care of our own (like Brazil, Norway, Russia, etc...) and being held hostage and at the whims of the suppliers - basic economics they maintain the supply and we need the demand.


The US consumes 7 billion barrels of oil per year. Over three billion of this comes from imports. The top three ot these oil importers are Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia. The US has been stockpiling barrels of oil for a reason. It currently has around 700 billion barrels and counting. Does that mean that we could live off of our own oil for the next 100 years? Theoretically, yes, but somehow I don't trust that Uncle Sam would just give it away for free. Geologists have estimated ANWAR to have about 17 billion barrels worth of oil. Now, what's the point of destroying the Alaskan habitat if the government won't even use the oil it has?



taekwondodo said:


> Additionally, the number of countries increasing their fuel demand (particularly the explosive growth in China, India and Russia and the increasing wealth in many of the old "eastern block" countries) is going to severely hurt us in the end. Heck, its hurting us now.


You better believe it. Worldwide demand is skyrocketing. China has become the manufacturing center of the world, but is having trouble producing enough energy to reach the demand. The next time you buy something cheap and plasticky at Walmart or Target check to see where it is made. Most likely China or Taiwan. Think of it as casting another vote for China to burn more energy to grow thier own economy.



taekwondodo said:


> Sheese.... Get your facts straight people. We're getting the shaft because of bad info given to the masses and fear spreading by waco groups that get too much attention.


You are welcome to refute facts with more facts of your own, but opinion is just that. It is natural to want to deny that an energy crisis is beginning. The implications are vast. Unfortunately for us, many folks have a "what me worry" attitude and that will only dig the hole deeper. Just look at the information that's out there and then decide whether or not you want to be responsible.

I'll step off my soapbox now and go back to recycling co2.


----------



## david lim

taekwondodo said:


> The main idea is that most people believe the world is warming when there is even more overwhelming evidence (that no one talks about) is that we may actually be in a cooling phase - predictions that were made in the 80's and 90's about the "global warming" theory are off by several _hundred_ percent. With results like that people are calling global warming factual science?
> - Jeff


The world cools and warms about every 10,000 years. We are now at the end of a major ice age (~10,000 years ago) and in a trans-warming, interglacial phase. The problem is that humans are speeding up the warming process at unprecedented rates to where ecosystems cannot adjust quickly enough (global warming). The polar ice caps are melting. Glaciers in the north are receding much earlier in the seasons than before and taking more time to develop in the winter. And permafrost is melting further north than usual. Another massive extinction is predicted to occur, or is already occurring. So far, earth has seen 5 mass extinctions. Most of these have been due to sudden climatic changes (cooling and warming). On a timescale of the earth, humans have existed for a fraction of its time (~300,000 years for **** sapiens/ 4.5 billion years for earth) but have made enormous environmental and climatic impacts, to where nature cannot adjust quickly enough. So are we in need for another mass extinction? It seems kinda natural.

and how do y'all get all those smilies?


----------



## banderbe

gonzofish said:


> Now, what's the point of destroying the Alaskan habitat if the government won't even use the oil it has?


Are you aware of exactly how large the footprint of the drilling area would be in relationship to the entire ANWR area?

You don't gain any credibility when you make hysterical comments suggesting that drilling for oil there would be tantamount to destroying the habitat.


----------



## PMD

taekwondodo said:


> two words:
> 
> Drill ANWAR.


It's funny. The higher gas prices get, the more armchair energy experts come out of the woodworks hooting and hollaring about what should be done.

Does anyone here work inside the energy industry? Gonzofish's original post was the most accurate I've seen so far:



Gonzofish said:


> Nuclear is too expensive.
> Coal is dirty and ravages the land.
> Natural gas is depleteing (remember the blackouts).
> Solar and wind are expensive and for the most part unsubsidized.
> Ethanol takes too much energy to produce.
> Hydrogen is still a pipe dream.
> Hydroelectric works in select locations.


*ANWAR - Drilling ANWAR to lower the price of gas would be about as effective as adding a drop of water to your bathtub and expecting the water to rise an inch or two. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, just keep in mind it won't move the price of gas not even a penny. (Balance the development and ecological costs w/ what it will do for YOUR pocketbook at the end of the day.)

*Ethanol - Ethanol is a total and complete gov't pork product. It takes in more energy (to make the chemical fertilizers, plow/plant/till/harvest the fields, distill the ethanol, get rid of all the waste, etc) than you get out of it. But it makes our politicians look good here in Minnesota, Iowa, etc that they are doing "their part" to end our energy dependence on the Middle East. When really we're just using more oil to produce it.

*Coal - We have a few hundred years left of this. The problem is you can't just get the impurities (sulfur, heavy metals, etc) out of coal like you can petroleum. Then there are the ecological consequences of the mining process, which will be effected mainly by your state and local regulations and enforcement. Areas that are poor and desperate for cheap energy won't exactly be bringing the hammer down on the company for polluting the water, air, and tearing up the land. Don't expect the companies to clean up after themselves unless it affects their bottom line.

*Natural Gas - Have more available then oil, but less than coal.

*Solar/Wind - All the energy we produce today came originally from the sun. (In the case of nuclear power it came from a much bigger previous star. Geothermal energy came from the solar disk formation a few billion years ago.) It would make the most sense to go directly to the source, but unforunately the technology is just not economical at this point. But what would happen if you took all the money we're about to spend on oil for the next year and pumped it into R&D? Long term other technologies will be more economical, but people don't think long term as many of you might have realized.

*Nuclear/Fission - This is where I believe a lot of your replacement power will be coming from in the coming decades. This and some more hydroelectric. Now, the world has very limited amounts of uranium-235. However, we can make large amounts of plutonium-239 from the natural occuring uranium-238. Now, there are huge problems with creating massive amounts of fissile materials. Both of these reactions create tremendous amounts of radioactive waste products that have half-life's that extend for hundreds of thousands to billions of years. Where do you store it all? How do you keep it from getting into the wrong hands or escaping into the environment. (Keep in mind that while there is a natural amount of uranium-235, plutonium is a man-made element and virtually non-existant pre-1945.)

*Nuclear/Fusion - Like ethanol, this is also currently a negative energy sink. You have to contain the reaction to a pressure and temperature approaching the center of the sun or blast it with a super powerful laser. But like I mentioned in solar power, imagine what it would do for the technology if you would invest a years worth of the USA's energy use into R&D. Either way, I think 50-100 years from now this is where most of our energy will be coming from.

*Hydrogen/Fuel Cell - Almost forgot this one. Hydrogen gas is not present on the earth in anymore than marginal amounts. They create it by the electrolysis of water. (Running electricity through water to separate hydrogen and oxygen.) Needless to say you're *NOT* creating energy by making hydrogen. You're using it to transform energy (very ineffectively) to another more transportable form.

Another thing I want to mention that most people don't seem to realize is that oil is sold on the *WORLD MARKET*. So this means the price of oil is controlled by the *WORLD DEMAND*. It doesn't matter where the oil comes from, it is sent to the highest bidder. (Considering transportation costs as well.)

Also, creating more refinery capacity *WILL NOT* reduce the cost of gas. If you can process more oil, what do you do to oil demand? You increase it. Thus the price of oil goes up. I listened to the CEO of Exxon just talk about this subject.


----------



## banderbe

david lim said:


> The problem is that humans are speeding up the warming process at unprecedented rates to where ecosystems cannot adjust


What is your evidence that humans are speeding up the warming?


----------



## Erirku

Just my thoughts...
Here in Hawaii, gas is $3+ a gallon. Everyone here complains about it, but I don't. I don't know why everyone complains about gas so much! If your going to use a car to drive everywhere, then don't complain. If your gonna complain, then walk or mooch off someone for a ride! There is no telling when our fossil fuel will lasts, but it won't last for a couple more generations!!! This is ludicrous, maybe we should pay $10 a gallon, so we can conserve whatever resources we have! 
The latest issue we had in Hawaii, was on where the next dumping site of garbage would be. It was to be in the back of some peoples community, and that would mean waking up and smelling the trash. As you know, our Island is getting compact, and all the land is being used to accomadate more people. That's the price for living in paradise.
Also, the most biggest news we had, was the dumping of raw sewage in the Ala wai canal. Raw human sewage, because a pipe broke in Waikiki, and we had alot of rain that day. So what happened all over our beautiful island. Raw sewage spilling into the ocean in Waikiki and Ala Moana, and not to mention all over the island. The bacterial levels were high. One person died from the dirty ocean, and another mainlander, got an infection on her butt cheek. So what does this have to with my issue on gas.
Alot of things are running out. We don't conserve untill the last minute. We pollute our ecosystem, and take it for grantide. I wouldn't be surprised if a huge typhoon were to wipe the planet out. If you don't get the picture, then don't bash me untill you really try to understand my level, and how I feel badly for our little planet. Do you want your kids, and your kids-kid to suffer with breathing in polluted airs. No forrest to look at, because we either chopped it down or polluted it. Our oceans being dumped with chemical wastes, so no more clean ocean to swim in and no healthy fish to eat!!! Just think about how the future would be. We ain't got another planet to live on. So wake up and smell the coffee folks. Don't complain, because it's too expensive, that's the price you pay for living in this world. For those who understand where I'm coming from, thanks for understanding. Those who are going to bash me, and try to back up whatever you can, and think I'm wrong. I don't think so, "We are all at fault" !!! I don't mean to offend anyone, this is my thoughts and opinions.
Ps. If you drive any luxury car or a big a_ _ suv, you have no right to complain, because, if you can afford that stuff, then you have the money to pay for gas, and pull into your nice big Mansion. And if you own a car/suv and live in a small crappy apartment or in the ghettos, then get rid of it, because you can't afford and probally are abusing the system!


----------



## david lim

banderbe said:


> What is your evidence that humans are speeding up the warming?


Hey, I posted on your other thread. Good to keep them separate ... I need to get back to work!

David


----------



## jude_uc

I posted this in a different thread, but at Texas A&M, a professor recently published a paper on the design of a thorium cycle nuclear reactor. Thorium is a naturally occuring non-fissionable element. There is an abundant supply as thorium sand deposits. One third of all thorium sand is in India. The neat things about the thorium cycle are: it produces no long lived nuclear waste, it requires a fuel which is very abundant, it never produces plutonium or any other material usable for nuclear weapons, and it cannot meltdown. The reasons for this come from the fack that thorium is non-fissionable. In order to make it fission, you must first transmute it with a proton beam, and then the new heavier nuclei decay down to stable nuclei. The waste is transmuted as well and eventually "burned" down to short half life product. Finally, if the machine starts to run to fast, you just turn off the proton beam. Without it, the reactions rapidly stop. The calculations have been made, and it is possible to make one of these devices which produces enough energy to be profitable. The only catch is that no one wants to buy one. Traditional nuclear engineering has focused exclusively on the uranium cycle, and it is difficult to switch. The US has shown no interest, nor have almost anyone in the world except for Japan and India. Because of nuclear restrictions (though, this may have changed recently), we cannot share this technology with India. The only problem is that, although this reactor, when run as designed does not produce dangerous materials, people with less benevolent goals could redesign it to produce rather than destroy such materials. However, at least for the US, this offers a route to bypass all of the previous concerns for nuclear power. As for cost, all power plants are expensive. These would actually probably be cheaper since the safety concerns are no greater than your standard oil/gas/coal plant. But when it comes down to it, if a plant is expensive, but there is enough demand to merit it, at some point, energy companies have got to bite the bullet. It won't take that long to make up the difference. I mean, that's how capitalism works.

-Adam


----------



## BryceM

It's no surprise that industry isn't moving toward change yet. By any reasonable standard 3$ a gallon for gas in 2006 is still pretty darn cheap. In inflation-adjusted dollars, gas is still only about half as expensive as it was in 1920 and 1970 at the peak of the oil-crisis. In fact, apart from the 1970's the actual price of gas has been in steady decline since 1920. We might just now be on the end of that ride, but doom isn't upon us just yet.

Assume you have a $25,000 vehicle that costs $800/year to insure, and $400/year to maintain. Assume you drive 20,000 miles per year and that you get about 22 miles/gallon. Plan on keeping the car for 5 years, at which time it will be worth $5,000, or 20% of its original price. Assume gas costs $3/gallon.

You spend:

$4,000 per year on the cost of the vehicle
$1,200 per year for insurance & maintainence
$2,700 per year for fuel

Gas still only accounts for 34% of your transportation expense.

Once it hits $20 a gallon it's a whole different story. Then you'll see some BIG changes.


----------



## Gonzofish

Rather than making this a socio-political debate about things that we have little or no control over, let's get real. What can we do to waste less $$ at the pump?

1. Drive less aggressively. Speeding, and frequent stopping and accellerating can lower your gas mileage by 33% on the highway and 5% in town. Try to anticipate traffic situations, ie don't hurry up and stop.

2.Observe the speed limit. As a rule, fuel economy decreases greatly for speeds above 60mph. For each 5 mph you drive over 60 mph it's like paying an additional $0.19 per gallon for gas.

3. Remove excess weight. Gas mileage reduces 2% for every 100lbs of cargo. Of course, this effects smaller cars more.

4. Keep tires properly inflated. Inflate to the suggested pressure listed on the sidewall of the tire. This will prevent rolling resistance.

5. Do regular maintenance and keep a clean air filter.

6. Avoid idling. 

7. Use cruise control often.

8. Use overdrive gears.

And if you really want to reduce costs eliminate the demand. If everyone went to the pump less I suspect prices would drop.


----------



## dennis

I don't think the price would drop really ever again. Honestly, we are now a "trained" econemy used to this price. How much profit over the norm did oil companies make last year? One would think that rising resource costs and depleating supply would mean smaller profit margins, not ones 100's% higher

I personally don't think the price of gas is any concern....in that it is what it is and the consumer will not change it. I don't think it is right that so much profit is made and not recycled back in to civic/world improvements, R&D, etc but this is a capitalist world market. Hummers/hemi trucks are a status symbol for which a little more money on gas means nothing. Everyday people can drive better, more efficiently, and it will save them a few dollars, but I don't think it will have any impact the pumps.

However, there is something to be said for everyone doing even a tiny bit for the world. A small reduction in consumption and pollution is a start. IMO, we won't fix anything today but maybe we can stop it for tomorrow. Regardless of people's opinions about the climate, global warming, or pollution, no one can doubt the impact we have on our planet. Whether or not the change is a natural accurance or our created doomsday, the negative impact we humans have had on our planet is real and will have long lasting global consequences.


----------



## Robert Hudson

This conversation is going into all sorts of different political directions. Many analysts now say world demand particularly from China and India is driving the price up by increasing the demand. They say these two fast developing countries will surpass the USA in consumption in the near future.

Look, in the short term the cause is pure and simple... when the CEO of Exxon mobil retires and is paid 400 million dollars as a retirement gift, something is very wrong. There is no balance there. I am a moderately conservative, pro business kind a guy, but this is ridiculous. The government needs to step in and put some price caps on gasoline and heating oil. It's that simple. Big energy companies have no sense of honor and fair play for the American public. We learned that from Enron. Big corporate greed has to be pulled in.


----------



## Raul-7

Robert Hudson said:


> The government needs to step in and put some price caps on gasoline and heating oil. It's that simple. Big energy companies have no sense of honor and fair play for the American public. We learned that from Enron. Big corporate greed has to be pulled in.


Excatly! Along with government corruption, there is no real solution.


----------



## Bert H

Wow! When I started this thread, I had no idea it would evolve into the discussion it has. :!: But since it has, I'll throw my two cents into the ring here. What really gets me about gas prices is the fact that oil companies are making world record profits. Shortages? - BS! If there were shortages, there would be less product to sell. You wouldn't have the obsene profits that they are posting. As Robert says, when you're paid in the hundreds of millions as a ceo, something's wrong folks! Wake up and smell the cow dung! Oil companies have absolutely no reason to try to control prices. NONE! Many of us don't have alternate methods of getting to our jobs, going shopping, etc other than via fuel burning vehicles. I think it was Finland who recently said they will be free of petroleum based energy dependence in the next 20-25 years. I wish someone here in America would at least start to think along those lines. 

OK, I'm stepping down from the soap box now...


----------



## banderbe

Bert H said:


> Wow! When I started this thread, I had no idea it would evolve into the discussion it has. :!: But since it has, I'll throw my two cents into the ring here. What really gets me about gas prices is the fact that oil companies are making world record profits. Shortages? - BS! If there were shortages, there would be less product to sell. You wouldn't have the obsene profits that they are posting. As Robert says, when you're paid in the hundreds of millions as a ceo, something's wrong folks! Wake up and smell the cow dung! Oil companies have absolutely no reason to try to control prices. NONE! Many of us don't have alternate methods of getting to our jobs, going shopping, etc other than via fuel burning vehicles. I think it was Finland who recently said they will be free of petroleum based energy dependence in the next 20-25 years. I wish someone here in America would at least start to think along those lines.
> 
> OK, I'm stepping down from the soap box now...


Countries like India and China are buying more oil now than ever before.

It stands to reason that as demand rises, so will the cost. Right?

Edit: I see Robert already made this point.


----------



## taekwondodo

Bert H said:


> What really gets me about gas prices is the fact that oil companies are making world record profits.


It's called margins - when the price goes up and the margin (%) stays the same, the profits go up.

While I agree that a 400M$ bonus is a little nuts (unless of course it was me receiving it) the whole world is forgetting that:

1) the taxes governments collect on gas are way larger per gallon than what the oil companies get (don't have the numbers right now, getting ready to go into the office, but I think it was way over 2x of what the oil companies collect per gallon).

2) and as the price of the gallon goes up, so does the "record amount" of revenues the states and feds get.

I see _no one_ bitching about the governments "Record profits"...


----------



## BryceM

Unstable markets also lead to little breakdowns in the supply/demand relationship. When prices of crude go up, gas compaines raise their prices to match very quickly. When prices of crude go down (it can happen ), everyone is a little slower to respond - they need only stay even with the next guy after all. The stabilizing effect of competition, which brings prices down a common level, takes a little time to work.


----------



## taekwondodo

guaiac_boy said:


> Unstable markets also lead to little breakdowns in the supply/demand relationship. When prices of crude go up, gas compaines raise their prices to match very quickly. When prices of crude go down (it can happen ), everyone is a little slower to respond - they need only stay even with the next guy after all. The stabilizing effect of competition, which brings prices down a common level, takes a little time to work.


To prove this theory, one needs to look at the gross margins of, say Exxon, over the last several quarters/years to prove that theory. Sorry, I don't have the time - I have a job and am spening wayyyyy toooooo much time dinking around in the Water Bucket and that is directly hurting the productivity of this country... :lalala:


----------



## T-Bone

:focus: 

Here in vancouver price per liter is $1.16 
converted to gallons thats $4.39 per gallon Canadian and converted to us funds its $3.90 per gallon


----------



## dennis

True, but you have things like health care, small military and many excellent, state programs. We are starting to pass laws saying you have to have health-care (from companies that have you over a barrel) or they will add to your taxes, yet....many people can't afford to pay for the health care or the extra taxes.

Now I'll retreat and duck under the eggs.


----------



## plantbrain

You folks should use your bikes more
I use my truck for fun on the weekends
Aha, but not everyone has such options but if you really want, you certainly can make them happen......that part is a choice. I chose to move closer to work, chose to live where there is less snow and rain. Many want that, and have reasons why they cannot. I figure I'm saving 2 full hours or more out of my day and a lot of $$ out of my pay check. 

I like getting off work, no commute traffic, well, maybe a few squirrles, a wild turkey, the birds, rough.........parking is easy too. 
So's maintenance and the cost. I only get about 3,000 miles out of my tires though But I am all relaxed when I get home, not stressed like my roommate(Damn traffic, #$%^%&^@#%^!!)

Rain sucks, I live in CA, no snow, that would also suck. 
But I stay in great shape and bikes are good for hunting for weeds along back roads. 

So I think I'm going to go ride out along and nice creek going up into the mountains in Napa county with that thought

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## BryceM

Tom,

We'll all be re-learning the pleasures of a bicycle soon.


----------



## ranmasatome

i do the same Tom.. nothing beats overtaking a car in a jam..


----------



## plantbrain

Heck, even if it is slower than a car, you still get a work out and then there's no need to go to the gym or hop on those "gerbil machines" you see at the gyms these days. More $$ saved, and you do not have a choice about it if you want to get home, you can blow off the gym. 

The price of gas is not going down for some time... if ever.
The demand is too great. Glad my truck is 4 cylinder and gets nearly 30mpg.

Hummm, now a motocycle is starting to look real good also........
The days of cheap gas are over They might bob down and little, but I think high prices are here to stay, there's just a lot more demand from gas due to China, India and other countries as they develop. That's not going away and CO2 levels are going to skyrocket doesn't matter what we do here in the USA. "Conservation will hurt the economy......." Whah! what the heck is happening at the pump right now?

You get it easy through long range planning and using other resources or you get it painful later.

We will all have to bite the bullet at some point.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Robert Hudson

> It's called margins - when the price goes up and the margin (%) stays the same, the profits go up.


You have that backwards. If the profit margin stays the same, (the rising cost of oil means that companies like Exxon are paying more for the gas) that means they make the same amount of money this year as any other year. But they are making many many times more which means their profit margin is getting bigger and bigger.

When I lived in California during the energy crisis, nobody believed the people who said Enron was gouging prices to California. Now we know that they did, not just a little , but by huge amounts and they created the blackouts and orchestrated the whole crisis. Why would it be any different with the big gas companies that are several times bigger and more powerful than Enron?


----------



## taekwondodo

No, you are not correct (I do this for a living):

Gross Margins (GM) = ((Price of Sales)-(Cost of Product))/(Price of Sales) - it is the _*percent *return_ a corporation gets on a spent dollar (before subtracting expenses for net margins).

So if the Cost of product goes up (oil), the number of widgets sold (gallons of gas) stay the same, and the margins stay the same (%return on product purchased), the amount of gross profit increases. Example below (import from .xls)

Price Cost GM (%) (Gross Profit)
$50 $37.5 25% $12.5
$100 $75 25% $25

in this example, the return stayed at 25% (oil makes a much leaner margin by the way), the number of units sold (kept it at one for simplicity) stayed the same. When the cost of the product increased (doubled) their returns (GM%, or investment return) stayed the same - but the cash they got on their investment increased - they invested more (paying more for the product), they made more (selling the product).

America - I love it.

So when oil goes up, they keep their return on money the same (margins, as a percent), their net profit increases and everyone has a cow...

- Jeff

:kev:

(edit comment: While gross profit increases and gross margins stay the same, SG&A (Operating expenses - salaries, rents, taxes, advertising, etc...) generally don't go up when the cost of goods go up (or go up as much) - therefore _the net profit and operating margins_ (%profit on investment after everyone including uncle sam get paid) *both* go up - giving the overall earnings per share a real kick in the keister upwards... making people scream more that the gas companies are "gouging" the public).


----------



## trckrunrmike

How about the tar fields in Canada, can't we process that and use it?


----------



## Robert Hudson

No, that is baloney. It is oil speculators that force the price up. Today on Oreilly, the editor of Fortune Magazize, stated that Exxon Mobil's oil out of the ground costs them 10 to 15 dollars per barrell, and then sells it for whats the going price now... over 70 dollars a barrell. Their profits in this quarter before Katrina was over 400 BILLION dollars... thats one quarter of a fiscal year. They earn the most money of any corporation anywhere in the world in history.

Now, what they claim is that they have to answer to their stock holders who demand they always sell at the highest possible price that the market will bear. So, if we can not cap prices we have to do to Exxon and the other very few big companies what we did to Ma Bell, break them up into a bunch of little companies who will compete with each other.

Rising gas prices will eventually crashe the whole economy. UPS, FEDX, Air freight companies, rail freight, and even ocean freight conitinually raise their prices. Eventually this raises the cost of goods. Food, consumables, electronics, mail order businesses, manufacturing, all will go up. People will buy less. Interest rates will go up. Meanwhile Exxon executives are billionares. Not millionares. Billionares.


----------



## Dewmazz

Oh boy! What a _great_ time for me to be getting my liscence :suspiciou 
I don't think I can afford $3.60 a gallon, let alone my own car...


----------



## taekwondodo

Robert Hudson said:


> No, that is baloney. It is oil speculators that force the price up. Today on Oreilly, the editor of Fortune Magazize, stated that Exxon Mobil's oil out of the ground costs them 10 to 15 dollars per barrell, and then sells it for whats the going price now... over 70 dollars a barrell. Their profits in this quarter before Katrina was over 400 BILLION dollars... thats one quarter of a fiscal year. They earn the most money of any corporation anywhere in the world in history.
> 
> Now, what they claim is that they have to answer to their stock holders who demand they always sell at the highest possible price that the market will bear. So, if we can not cap prices we have to do to Exxon and the other very few big companies what we did to Ma Bell, break them up into a bunch of little companies who will compete with each other.
> 
> Rising gas prices will eventually crashe the whole economy. UPS, FEDX, Air freight companies, rail freight, and even ocean freight conitinually raise their prices. Eventually this raises the cost of goods. Food, consumables, electronics, mail order businesses, manufacturing, all will go up. People will buy less. Interest rates will go up. Meanwhile Exxon executives are billionares. Not millionares. Billionares.


Actually, the math and corporate accounting principles are quite correct. You were questioning profit margins and that I didn't know what they were. you said:



Robert Hudson said:


> If the profit margin stays the same, (the rising cost of oil means that companies like Exxon are paying more for the gas) that means they make the same amount of money this year as any other year. But they are making many many times more which means their profit margin is getting bigger and bigger.


I showed very plainly that when the cost of goods increase, the margins remain the same and the profits increase. But the whole logic that if I make $5 on a $100 investment (5%) to buy one stock, I should only make $5 on that same investment if the stock costs me $200 (2.5%) is ludicruos.

Speculators, _along with OPEC_ increase and set the price of the Barrel of Oil. And that is driven by supply, control of that supply, and demand.

I am not defending oil companies (they would neither hire me as their accountant nor their lawyer) - they can do that themselves. I am pointing out some basic corporate economics. The cost of their product clearly increased. And hence so did their profits (you're going to make me pull out their 10K, _aren't you _)

To fix the problem you need to increase the supply faster than the demand increases to make the cost of the supply drop - and that's not happening here. The reality of why we're not is *not* because we're running out, but because it's politically incorrect - plain and simple. You could have the cleanest operation in the world and the fearmongers and environuts would still have a fit.

Break-em-up (again, i.e., Standard Oil) and that won't increase supply at all and will most likely weaken any leverage we do have with opec - it sure won't strengthen it... (and if you hadn't noticed, Ma Bell's pretty much back together...now there's some irony for ya)

Lastly, You could refund what'shisheads name running exxon his $400M bonus and it wouldnt even cut a 1/2 of a cent for a full day off of the price of gas (and yes, I think that's a nutty bonus for anyone but if I want one like it, I'll have to aspire to run a gas company - America, I love it).

Oh - and try to find ANY public corporation who doesn't try to get as much for their product as they can... Anything less is just un-American.

- Jeff


----------



## jude_uc

It is true; however, that oil companies are selling oil, not buying it, so, while the price of oil has gone up tremendously, the price of oil production and refining is more or less constant. Exxon-Mobile is doing the best because, not only do they have a significant share of the oil, but they also have plenty of refining capacity. That means that they aren't paying anyone but their own workers in the entire process. Exxon-Mobile has not only the best profits (which they make simply by pushing more product) but also the best profit margins because they generally have lower overhead than companies which only produce oil or only refine oil (or have limited capacity for one of them). Oil companies complain that they don't have the manpower to immediately reinvest their phenomenal profits into alternative energy research and additional oil production, and that the american people are blaming them for factors beyond their control. However, the reason they don't have the manpower is because the last time there was an oil glut, they fired off large portions of their staff, not to mention the fact that many companies ditched either some of their oil production or refining capabilities. Since they are so fond of shooting themselves in the foot, they'll have to live with the fact that I am less than sympathetic with their cause.

-Adam


----------



## jude_uc

Oh, and the reason why we can't increase supply along with demand is that the largest oil producer, Saudi Arabia, is pumping at the maximum safe rate. On thing people don't realize is that if you exceed the maximum safe pumping rate, you can permanently ruin a well. More or less, you plug the reservoir rock and make the additional oil unreachable. So, while we are fond of blaming OPEC, it's not their fault. Generally speaking, it's not in their interests to let oil prices get this high because at this level, domestic oil production becomes much more viable. Add to all of this that our domestic off-shore production is still suffering after last hurricane season. Off-shore production is a much larger fraction of domestic production than traditional domestic wells will ever provide.

Also, as far as ANWAR goes, the reason why people don't trust oil companies not to mess it up is because BP already has the contracts for drilling in Alaska (not in ANWAR) and they are notorious for oil spillage. There have been many spills documented which were well over the legal limit which they did not report. They were fined, but there is no indication that they have fixed the problems. Mind you, were not talking about complete ecological disaster, Valdez level spills, but these smaller spills in a wildlife reserve certainly add up. Considering the fact that there is a miniscule amount of oil in that patch of land (all of the rest of Alaska is currently being drilled for oil - ANWAR is just a patch of it), it would make next to no difference in the oil prices. In addition, much of the price jump is directly attributable to fear over Iran and not any true shortage. All the gas shortages have been due to not enough refining capacity, and a failure to deal with the switch from MTBE to ethanol in a timely manner.

Finally, we should consider research into bio-fuels. The nice thing about them is that they come from renewable sources, they can be made gasoline and diesel-like so that current engines can continue to run without being modified, and finally, since they are made from plant matter, no net carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere since all the carbon dioxide added is just removed again with the regrowth of the plant matter. There are serious indications that it will be possible to make bio-fuels economical. In many ways, this is much better solution than hydrogen. Take a look here for more interesting things: http://www.starrotor.com/ - this is the work of an A&M professor on an ultra efficent engine.

-Adam


----------



## taekwondodo

jude_uc said:


> It is true; however, that oil companies are selling oil, not buying it, so, while the price of oil has gone up tremendously, the price of oil production and refining is more or less constant. -Adam


The refining issues are plain and simple - environuts and nimbys have prevented new refineries from being built - a new refinery hasn't been built in the US in over 20 years - so we are still living with the same production capacities (and refining technologies) we had 20 years ago...



jude_uc said:


> Oh, and the reason why we can't increase supply along with demand is that the largest oil producer, Saudi Arabia, is pumping at the maximum safe rate.
> -Adam


Im not talking about Saudia Arabia - I'm talking about us. I say we explore domesticallly, create and manage our own supply, and tell the Saudis to go pound sand. Relying on S.A. for oil is how we got here in the first place.



jude_uc said:


> Finally, we should consider research into bio-fuels. The nice thing about them is that they come from renewable sources, they can be made gasoline and diesel-like so that current engines can continue to run without being modified, _and finally, since they are made from plant matter, no net carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere since all the carbon dioxide added is just removed again with the regrowth of the plant matter._
> -Adam


I am OK and agree in further energy research into alternative technologies but we won't be able to convert in the next 10-15 years (economically at least). And the idea that its OK to create CO2 if we use plants to generate fuels is silly - I'll give you some rooted willow stems and they'll take CO2 out of the atmosphere just as easily from gas emmissions as they will from bio fuel emissions. I really don't think the willow cares, or can tell the difference.

And let's not forget the enviro-mess that farming creates... fertilizers, pesticides, erosion. Let's clear a few tropical rain forests or old growth forests and plant some corn fields to generate fuel (which is so heavily subsidized that without subsidization its not even financially viable)... A lot of the impacts to many (not all) of the worlds tropical and sub tropical reefs is NOT global warming related and can be attributed to sediment that flows down rivers thats full of Nitrates/fertilizers and pesticides.... And once the ethanal byproducts starts seeping into your wells (like the previous clean air savior MTBE did) and making an environmental mess because of the toxins and wast generated by its refinement, lets see how the environmentalists react. (I'm not against bio fuels, but just pointing out that there are/will be as many enviro issues associated with them people aren't talking about... yet).

There is no perfect solution - but we are doing little to address controlling the supply issue (everyone else controls it and we are at their mercy). I say we pick up the phone and call the Saudis, Iran, and the rest and give them their warning that in 3-5 years we'll be producing enough oil of our own by then.... because if we dont, we will continue to be at the mercies of the world market and India, China and Russia will be fighting for the limited supply as well.

And, If Brazil is allowed to explore for oil and build enough platforms (in conjunction with ethanol) to become 100% self sufficient, why can't we?

- Jeff


----------



## jude_uc

I'm sorry, but even if we managed to exploit all the oil sources in the US, there just isn't enough to satisfy demand. US demand is ourtrageous - if Saudi Arabia pumping at capacity, in combination with all the other sources of oil in the world, can't satisfy our need, then using only US oil is an impossibility. It would probably be impossible even if we had all the resources of both north and south america, but of course, there are as many political problems with south america as there are with the middle east. 

Additional refineries haven't been stopped from being built because of environmentalists. In the 80's, oil companies thought it would be more cost effective to run exploration only businesses. Refineries cost a lot of money, and that completely independant of whether or not there are environmental restrictions. Oil companies simply didn't think that gas prices like this were coming anytime soon, so they thought the risk of owning refineries wasn't worth it. If gas is cheap, you make more money off of the oil then you do refining it. 

The CO2 part has nothing to do with the fact that other plants are capable of removing CO2 regardless of the source. Of course that's true. My point is that when you use fossil fuels, the net CO2 increases because the current plant matter and ocean life (which are the two major CO2 sinks) stay the same while carbon is being added from ancient sources. When you use bio-fuels, the carbon being releases exactly equals the carbon input. If I could draw a figure, I would, but the point is that the carbon budget for these fuels is zero.

-Adam


----------



## jude_uc

Actually, I overstated myself.... environmental restrictions were an important factor in the decision of oil companies to divest refining capacity, but the major reason was a failure to understand that gas prices would not stay low. That was clearly the wrong choice. We can see that keeping refining capacity is certainly helping Exxon-Mobile now. 

-Adam


----------



## plantbrain

Actually the best alternative is the solar power, electric and hydrogen fuel cars are starting to look pretty good economically.

But........the USA is lagging, due to the cheap prices of oil over the last few years......but many other countries are and have been moving towards other forms of energy production for some time.

I saw a neat thing the other day. A simple flexible solar cell that could be placed on your car while you work during the day, the car is fully charged by the time you get off work and drive home.

It will not have the range of gas tanks, but quite large the nonetheless(100 miles etc). a spare battery back up is not a bad plan or battery swaps are "electric solar filling" stations.

Same with H2 gas, burn that and you get water.
Still, it takes some energy to process the H2.
So you still get back to solar power, even the oil/coal etc, that's all stored solar energy derived from plants. We are just using it up like mad and pumping ther CO2 into the air. The oceans will buffer the excess CO2, but the entire issue is one of *rate*.

It'll take a several million years to reduce the CO2 via the oceans, we also burned several millions years worth of stored plant solar energy with fossil fuels in the few hundred years and it's going only faster.

Cheap gas is over for the USA, time to start paying for not taking those steps to alternative energy and solar energy years ago.
Short term planning and thinking got us into this mess and now we will pay.

Using ETOH is fine as a short term thing, but it's still plants converting reduced carbon into fuel that is burned and turned back into CO2.

May as well go straight to the light or use plant waste( not corn and other food crops) for the bio fuels. What happens if there's a bad crop year? Price of fuel goes way.............use waste products and chaf only and that would be wiser than using the parts that we eat.

The solar power "crop year"? Not really one of those. Deserts are pretty good places for production, electricity is also much easier to transport than gas, ETOH , H2 gas.

Communications are well linked across the world, but the power grids are not.
I think that will change in the coming years.
We can transfer solar power since there's always sunshine on some part of the planet. But it's not set up yet to do this.

Economics aside, folks are pissed and it's now a political issue, they hear high profits, huge $$$ to CEO's, they want blood. 
It cost me a little more to drive the truck, but I bike mostly and am doing solar power for the home, so I am working towards getting away from big oil and certainly do not depend on it.

But transportation cost for all the other goods I like will go up........so will imported cheap goods and export cost. The only way to stop that is to get off being addicted to oil. There is no simple easy economic road for that.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## BryceM

If you're all that upset about big business, buy some Exxon stock and pay yourself when you fill up. 

It's all supply and demand. All of the oil pumps in the world run day in and day out and, during the best of times, they just barely keep up with demand. The system runs at something like 95% of capacity. When political unrest or hurricanes, or anything else happens to threaten the supply we start to ride up the steep part of the supply/demand curve very quickly. A 1% reduction in supply DOES NOT equal a 1% increase in price - more like 10 or 15%.

If we relied exclusively on domestic sources of oil we'd last about 10 minutes. You'd need another digit or two on the gas station signs very quickly.


----------



## Gonzofish

The best way to protest big business is to BOYCOTT, not reward them. If a larger percentage of the population spent less on gas and more on mass transit, bikes, etc. then the companies would feel the hit. 

If you want stock in something, invest in solar. 

I've heard of folks who have gone solar who often get a check from the local power company. They're generating more than they're using! Imagine the impact if every home in Arizona were able to install panels. We could energize California! Well, that may be a bit of an exageration, but you get the idea.

Refining bio-waste is terribly inefficient. Only the kernel can create much fuel. I would also like someone to prove that in producing Ethanol you can actually gain more energy than you put in.


----------



## snowhillbilly

I am happy once again to see the gas prices soaring, now maybe people will go out and buy cars they can afford to own. Also the demand for cheaper more reliable sources of transportation that requires a fuel will be marketed. Even though I do love my sports cars and speed and power (grr hrr hrr) (my tool man imitation), we still need to all become more practical. Vote yes on drilling in alaska and I guess the chinese are going to drill the rest of the gulf for us since we cant drill there anymore. BTW the gas here is 2.89G.
Bad subject for me, but my futures are so bright I got to wear these shads.


----------



## dennis

Yup, drill the unused frontier and lower EPA regulations on drilling and emissions; all to save .05-.10 a gallon. Who the hell cares if we lower standards, we'll be saving money (at least a couple dollars a week), and thats the bottom line, right!

(sarcasm)


----------



## Roy Deki

Has anyone seen Exxon's first quarter profit report? 8 Billion dollars for the first quarter...We don't need more oil. We need to get rid of the monopoliztion of a commodity.


----------



## shake

I have just read that Saudi Arabia has slashed the price of petrol there by 30%. It now cost 21 cents a litre (AUD). How come they can sell petrol so cheap?


----------



## BryceM

shake said:


> I have just read that Saudi Arabia has slashed the price of petrol there by 30%. It now cost 21 cents a litre (AUD). How come they can sell petrol so cheap?


For the same reason that corn is cheap in Iowa and Lobster is cheap in Maine. It's probably easier to find oil in Saudi Arabia than water.

Supply & Demand. This is the real reason that prices are up, not some global conspiracy.


----------



## Roy Deki

I think it's more like GREED...not supply and demand.


----------



## anthonysquire

Not trying to defend the oil companies, but if you take a look at their whole financial statement instead of just the bottom line you'll see that their profit margin hasn't changed a whole lot. The difference in their profit margins from past years is largely due to their efforts at becoming more efficient by minimizing their expenses. They have to pay more per barrel meaning they have to charge more to keep their profit margin the same. If you tried to point a finger at all the reasons why gas is as high as it is, you'd soon have to start using your toes.


----------



## anthonysquire

If you want to see a cool fuel efficient car check out this link.http://www.loremo.com/index_en.php
152 miles per gallon is pretty amazing.


----------



## taekwondodo

anthonysquire said:


> Not trying to defend the oil companies, but if you take a look at their whole financial statement instead of just the bottom line you'll see that their profit margin hasn't changed a whole lot. The difference in their profit margins from past years is largely due to their efforts at becoming more efficient by minimizing their expenses. They have to pay more per barrel meaning they have to charge more to keep their profit margin the same. If you tried to point a finger at all the reasons why gas is as high as it is, you'd soon have to start using your toes.


My point exactly (I had the margin math tutorial a few pages back...).

- Jeff


----------



## snowhillbilly

*cool car*



anthonysquire said:


> If you want to see a cool fuel efficient car check out this link.http://www.loremo.com/index_en.php
> 152 miles per gallon is pretty amazing.


 This is such a cool little car. It may be missing the grunting power of a Vette but what a design. I was about to fill out the order form till I seen the car wouldnt be out till 2009, or at least I wouldnt be able to receive one till then.
Oil farmers here in North Dakota are pretty upset with the fact that they cant get there oil to the refinery via the pipe line because we gave Canada the rights to the incoming line. Thats a long story in itself, but another cause for higher gas prices. Still just under 3 dollars a gallon here. Cant wait till I see a 3 in front of the pump sign.
Anyone from Europe know if it is true that they had to retro fit all of your pumps because it has reached more then a Euro a liter? Of course another cost that will be passed on to the consumer.


----------



## Roy Deki

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/03/markets/oil_eia/index.htm?cnn=yes


----------

