Opinions, Why is gas so expensive!!

Been around a long time and have seen prices come and go. Understand inflation to some degree. What is your opinion for the reason gas has spiked in the past few months!!
It seems to me that the major driver in the current price surge is the dollar devaluation and the futures market. I know the major oil companies are making a killing (this is not news) along with the local distributors making out like bandits!! What do you think!!

Lets see.....GREED, GREED and lets not forget, GREED. The main reason prices are going up, futures market.

Greedy monopoly.

Poor leadership and the general greed of American citizenship (reliance on cheap imports so we can have more, more, more!) = poor economy. Poor economy = weak dollar. Too high of a reliance on foreign oil (almost 60% in 2007) combined with weak dollar = high gas prices.

It's really very simple; we're reaping what a majority of Americans have sown for 20+ years. The Wal-mart mentality (cheap is all that matters) has put us in a precarious position.

As it sells so many more papers to talk about the evil monopolies and greed, (and admitting there is an element of greed) it is often overlooked...the basic principles of supply and demand.

Over the years, our (the US) use of petroleum has risen steadfast. Often, instead of manufacturers trying to improve fuel efficiency, horsepower and torque were king. This of course contributes to high gas consumption relative to the technological advances we have made in engines, drivetrains etc. Now take into account the expanding global market, picking on a single entity, we can attribute much of increased demand to China alone (let alone other commodoties like concrete, it isn't just petroleum that has risen in price). Compounding our problem with the basic supply and demand curve is the weakening dollar. Foreign oil becomes more expensive as the value of the dollar goes down...this aspect happens without the benefit of any increased demand, this is attributed just to the exchange rate.

On a completely different level is the speculation which causes prices to increase. IF there is unrest in the middle east, prices go up. If "unplanned maintenance" happens at a refinery in Louisiana, nationally, crude oil prices go up. If Hugo Chavez says boo, prices go up. This is the aspect of the market that is probably more dirty than the others. Prices jump at boo, but are slow to come down. Why? The answer is why not? Why not get more per barrel based on speculation? Why not take your time in reeling the prices back in? Ever notice how there will be three or four gas stations (sometimes side by side) with different prices and yet even the most expensive place has cars in line? We have all noticed for sure when there are gas stations near eachother and ALL have the same price, we can guess there is some price-fixing going on, but how do you prove it? Unless and until we can create a market in which a company (or companies) is trying to find as many efficiencies in it's process as it can so that it can offer has at "Wal-Mart prices" and therefore make it's profit by volume, I'm afraid we are stuck with what we have. There is another option...decrease the demand, prices will follow.

This is not an easy fix, there are hard decisions to be made, there are infrastructure investments which may be required. We, the individual consumers, may need to choose carpooling and less horsepower and seek high gas economy cars. We may need the government to save us from ourselves (setting high fuel economy standards or taxing more to create a pool of money to invest in research towards alternatives). I'm sure there are many more alternatives, but this is a starting list off the cuff that I came up with.

Poor leadership and the general greed of American citizenship (reliance on cheap imports so we can have more, more, more!) = poor economy. Poor economy = weak dollar. Too high of a reliance on foreign oil (almost 60% in 2007) combined with weak dollar = high gas prices.

It's really very simple; we're reaping what a majority of Americans have sown for 20+ years. The Wal-mart mentality (cheap is all that matters) has put us in a precarious position.

Yep, that's it in a nutshell.

In 1975 we has the technology to get raw oil from oil shale for $40 a barrel, We chose to buy it for $13 a barrel. It will take 10 years and $40 billion to get where we can get all the oil we want for $50 a barrel, but our 2 party system is more interested in getting re-elected than fixing what is wrong.

Fixing thing will hurt for a while but we have a 450 year supply of oil shale at 2006 consumption rate. With better hybrid or hydrogen cars this could last for 1000's of years. But we don't want to do the execise that is needed. We are now fat and out of shape. And we have no engineers in congress, mostly lawyers and they do not understand economics. they mandated ethanol and now we have 2x the cost of milk and meats and bread because they did not comprehend that corn for cars and trucks means no corn for cows and pigs. Maybe they should sue opec.

Just like in the late 60's the space shuttle design was compromised to have Utah and Mississippi get a peace of the pie. The best design had it carried alof on the back of a specially modified dual 747 that had big oxygen tanks to take it to over 80,000 ft with the shuttle on its back. the shuttle fuel tank had pop out wings ( something like the F-111 ) and 2 jet engines and had a pilot on board to fly the empty tank back to Cape Kennedy ( the shuttle would have passed it 3 times before it got back home ), but congress vetoed that plan. We lost 2 shuttles and increased the rework time from 4 days to 40 days to get a shuttle ready for another use. Tiles would not have worked loose and ice would not been a problem with this design.

As George Carlin said " the opposite of progress is congress "

That's why I like honda/Acura, the only Automotive company that sells all vehicles with an engine no bigger than a 6 cylinder. Fuel Efficient and good all around power. Compare the civics and accords of the past, honda vehicles are actually larger today than the past and gets better fuel milage per gallon.
Help Honda develope a better fuel/power efficient engine from FCX fuel cell tech and bring it over to all cars and trucks of honda. Imagine, don't have to fill your truck with gas, but hydrogen gas, and you can pull hydrogen gas from the air and water, by a module set inside your garage when your truck is park at night. The FCX has a range of 270 miles in one tank of Hydrogen. Now develope something for the Ridgeline with the same range or better.:D

Now, if we can just move our fuel resources into ethanol, hydrogen, fuel cell engines, something away from fossil fuels, in my opinion, there would be a fast drop in gas price.

Why is it, that fuel companies like to do maintanance in the summer and not the winter? In the summer, alot of vacationers go out and drive and during the winter, less people drive, due to weather forcast? would it be logical to do maintainance during the winter than summer? let's shut down a few refinaries and bring the cost up and make a billion dollar profit margins.

Build more public transportation i.e. the bullet train, subways, or bring in the technologies of the future shown 10 years ago, train that run on magnets, mini reactor that safe to build inside cars...what ever...this will bring down the demand in gas...my 2cent rant :D

All of the above. Here's a few more.

Our demand has increased if only because that the numbers of cars on the road in America keeps increasing. We could all start replacing our large cars, trucks, and vans with econoboxes, and demand would still eventually keep increasing.

India and China are consuming oil at alarming rates. I saw somewhere that the new middle class in China are buying 1,000 new cars a day. Add to that the construction and manufacturing booms, and that's a lot of new demand.

Environmentalists and the reduction in tax incentives for new refineries have minimized the growth in supply stateside.

I'm not a fan of big government. I don't want to see the fuel industry regulated, or any artificial remedies, like tax holidays. I want to see the US government hold steady on the new CAFE requirements. No exceptions. If that means pain for the US auto industry, then it's their choice to put it on themselves. There is an incredible opportunity for the US auto industry to develop, produce, and sell vehicles with high gas mileage and potentially, to use alternative fuels. If they need a tax incentive to help, give it to them. If buyers need a tax incentive to get them to buy them, give it to them. Just get it done, and get it done fast.

That said, I am much more concerned about the price of home heating oil and diesel fuel affecting my budget than gasoline.

Because we as a society talk a good talk, but don't do the walk...

We are suckers and they know it because we are just a number. We bitch, at the same time go with it....

The start of this thread, the responses, and continued bitching is just the same old story... See the first sentence.......:eek:

Lately, maybe, but if you grew up in the 70's like I did and went through gas rationing, the US auto industry did react to it. They brought us gems like the Chevette, the Vega, the Pinto, and the Gremlin. They still produced the F100's and Chevelles, but the new econoboxes were brought on board for one reason...gas mileage. It can be done again. It will be done again. Just not those cars, please :D

The Honda FCX Clarity is a perfect example of a revolutionary first generation technology brought to a very limited market because of the lack of incentives to the manufacturers. GM could have done this. So could Chrysler and Ford. They didn't because the incentives weren't there. It took a visionary company with some b*lls like Honda to take a flyer on producing cars that they may never recoup the development costs for, on their own dime. That's what's wrong. The US government spends my money so foolishly it's sickening.

"Opinions, Why is gas so expensive!!"

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

Those two events put an irrational fear into the American people. That fear stifled development of realistic nuclear alternatives to fossil fuels.

If it weren't for those events we would probably be generating 80% or more of our electricity with clean, safe nuclear generators. I also believe that the technology would have been scaled down to the level that locomotives and long haul trucks would be running on nuclear power. An automotive application would not have been beyond reason.

Anyone mention the fact that oil production is peaking (Or has peaked)?

Anyone mention the fact that oil production is peaking (Or has peaked)?

Hey, what happened to HIPAA... oh, wait... never mind... :o

Hey, what happened to HIPAA... oh, wait... never mind... :o

:confused:

It can be done again. It will be done again.

It must be done again.

Anyone mention the fact that oil production is peaking (Or has peaked)?
Hopefully not, as that's simply a theory based on guesses. Anyone I've ever spoken with that works in the oil industry made the point that there are billions of barrels in untapped oil fields that are known. Who knows how many are unknown...

Gas prices up? All in your head, data says | U.S. | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1428112620080514)

Nobody mentioned Iran? A large percent of the increase in oil futures is due to nervousness in the market due to uncertainty related to the US's intentions towards Iran. The administrations continued sabre rattling increases the uncertainty and nervousness. I think that one thing is certain. If there is an attack on Iran we're going to be wishing gas was only $4.00 a gallon, not to mention fondly remembering what a comparative walk in the park Iraq was. :(

One of the biggest problems is the use of petroleum in emerging countries. This is why we haven't seen any real steps taken on the part of gas prices. What OPEC and other nations are producing, i.e. crude oil, is meeting demand. If they pump out 20 % more oil, the price will fall slightly, and China and India will request more, pushing the price back up. Our dependence on oil is a part of our problem. The futures marketers are not helping us, they are mostly helping themselves, by driving up the price based on speculation from futures purchasing on crude oil. Add on top of that the reduction in the value of the dollar, and we have today’s prices. With the US dollar about
30 % devalued from 3 years ago, that represents a 30 % inflation of oil prices, since all oil prices are tied to the US dollar rate.
The tar sands project in Canada is being expanded, but if they get to full production, and we want oil at $70 a barrel, then China offers, $100, do you think they will sell to us at lower prices just to feed our excesses? I doubt it. There is talk about using some of Japans extra refining capacity to help produce more gasoline, but again, only if they agree to sell to us at a cheaper rate would it be of much benefit. If we start pumping and keep it all to ourselves, we could reduce the price considerably, but at the expense of a reduction in exports, which would cause say, an orange to be $3.00. So, you could save a little money on gas, but the inflation would counteract this savings. It is a very complex situation with no easy solution; the only real solution is MUCH smaller cars, different technologies, less driving, and a wholesale change in how Americans live.

Unless the US is the one doing the attacking, seizing, pumping, and shipping. :D

Hopefully not, as that's simply a theory based on guesses. Anyone I've ever spoken with that works in the oil industry made the point that there are billions of barrels in untapped oil fields that are known. Who knows how many are unknown...

If you want to drill in excess of ~7,000 feet of salt water or tap into the Denali National Park, or drill in the Gulf of Mexico there still oil to be had. Problem is, the volume will not offset the cost to the environment or the cost to develop the methods that will be accepted as environmentally safe.

FACT:
The US used to produce most of the worlds oil. As our production peaked in the '70's, we moved to importing most of our oil to meet the needs. Now the middle east production will very soon (Or has already) peak. No new major oil deposites have been found in the last 20 years (Keep in mind they are looking and looking very hard).

Why is it that the Federal government can regulate everything that has a significant impact on the us, but won't do anything about regulating gas prices while evey major oil company posts record profits? George and company (or insert any other name here) regulates everything from:

homeland security
agriculture
banks and banking
foreign trade
commercial practices
the stock market
customs and duties ( yes, I said duty)
employee benefits
food
drugs
Indians
OUR MONEY! (IRS)
alchohol
tobacco
guns
education (HA!)
parks
patents
pensions
Postal service
shipping
telecomunications
etc...Yet, In 2007, the oil industry recorded revenues of approximately $1.9 trillion, of which 78% was accounted for by the five major integrated oil companies. Profits for the industry totaled over $155 billion, 75% of which were earned by the five major oil companies, with the largest, ExxonMobil, earning over 25% of the total profit.

Exxon / Mobil posts 40.6 BILLION DOLLARS in profits for 2007
Shell posts 27.5 BILLION DOLLARS in profits for 2007
Chevron posts 18.7 BILLION DOLLARS in profits for 2007
BP / Amoco posts 17.2 BILLION DOLLARS in profits for 2007
Conoco / Phillips posts 11.9 BILLION DOLLARS in profits for 2007Don't take my word for this info, here is the link to the fed gov't revue "where the profit bubbles are" or "who's doin what to who?" http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/103679.pdf

I have no problem with capitalism...I own a business, but when record profits and greed are literally destroying the US economy, putting companies out of business, and making it impossible for some familes to survive...something has got to be done. So I ask the question again? WHY WON'T BUSH AND COMPANY DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?

ExxonMobil is always being poked by the liberals as the big bad voodoo daddy of greed. It's an easy target.

ExxonMobil made $40B in profit, true. That was an 11% profit margin on their product. Is that greedy? Is that excessive? Who is anyone to say? What is the profit margin on anyone's products, and how much is too much?

Fixating on regulating oil company profits is a BAD idea and totally misses the point.

weak u.s. dollar, no new drilling in Alaska, no drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, no new drilling in the Pacific, no new drilling in the Atlantic, no new refineries, OPEC, Chavez, modernization of India,and China. The list is endless.

ExxonMobil is always being poked by the liberals as the big bad voodoo daddy of greed. It's an easy target.

ExxonMobil made $40B in profit, true. That was an 11% profit margin on their product. Is that greedy? Is that excessive? Who is anyone to say? What is the profit margin on anyone's products, and how much is too much?

Fixating on regulating oil company profits is a BAD idea and totally misses the point. First of all, I am not a liberal, or mentioning only Exxon/Mobil. That list shows the top 5 companies. Are they Greedy...not sure, but the average retail distributor in the US posts a 3.2% profit after tax. The average wholesaler posts a 2.6% profit.These are national statistics. That being said, the US consumption for gasoline was 141,839,000,000 gallons (or 20,687,000 gallons per day). I guess it's safe to say that if the oil companies weren't gouging, it would have reduced oil company profits down $109,909,090,909 (Based on the average of 3.2%...and not even going down to 2.6%). That would reduce the overall price per gallon almost 78 cents. I'm not sure about you, but I can see some good coming from that. Besides...E/M would still be able to brag about a 13.4 billion dollar profit if they were regulated to the national average?!?!? Keeping in mind that these number ONLY represent the profits of the top 5 oil companies.

I didn't call you a liberal, and I don't give a rat's ass about ExxonMobil other than I hope their stock continues to add value to my portfolio so that I can retire asap and get out of this crazy business.

So, is 11% profit too much profit? Let's say, theoretically, that if their profit was 10%, that gas would cost 15 cents/gallon less. Just for example. Should the US government regulate their profits so that you can get gas cheaper? Is that what you really want?

If the average retailer is posting a 3.2% profit after tax, that number must be heavily skewed by major retailers like Wal-Mart, the supermarkets, etc. Applying this number to ExxonMobil is misleading because ExxonMobil is a manufacturer as well as a retailer. They have development and acquisition costs that must be recouped.

hhmmmmm....

I thought the average retail profit was around 7% not 2.6% to 3.2%:confused:

The oild companies had been reported in many recent news stories (Various channels) as making an average of between 7% and 9% profit. Doesn't matter really. The consumption of oil in the USA far exceeds our production rates. Not only that, the oil companies have not updated any of the refineries in Texas or Lousiana (Not sure about other states) to be more efficient. Not only that, there haven't been any new refinery plants built within the last 10 years (I may be incorrect on this one since Katrina).

Why not let the gov regulate oil companies. While you are at it, they should regulate food prices too. And millionaires make too much money, they should regulate that. They could control everything... everyone the same. No super rich no poor.... the perfect utopia of civilization.... just ask Russia how well it works.



HT

ExxonMobil is always being poked by the liberals as the big bad voodoo daddy of greed. It's an easy target.

ExxonMobil made $40B in profit, true. That was an 11% profit margin on their product. Is that greedy? Is that excessive? Who is anyone to say? What is the profit margin on anyone's products, and how much is too much?

Fixating on regulating oil company profits is a BAD idea and totally misses the point.

I didn't call you a liberal, and I don't give a rat's ass about ExxonMobil other than I hope their stock continues to add value to my portfolio so that I can retire asap and get out of this crazy business.

So, is 11% profit too much profit? Let's say, theoretically, that if their profit was 10%, that gas would cost 15 cents/gallon less. Just for example. Should the US government regulate their profits so that you can get gas cheaper? Is that what you really want?
Now I understand...your portfolio. If you read anything I wrote, I am not against profit. But when the profits from the top 5 oil companies are choking the living Sh*t out of the US economy, somethings got to be done. It's not just about your money, or the other stockholders. We have to start thinking bigger than that...thinking of others besides ourselves. The escalation of gas and oil prices is raising the cost of every product we can buy. If it costs more to get it to the store, it will cost us more. This is only the beggining...

And for what it's worth - and this is a non sarcastic response... I believe oil is near peak, if not already past it. Look at the history of civilization. At the increase in oil production and usage since the dawn of the industrial revolution. How long do you think we can continue consuming at that rate? Oil is finite, and we don't have to run out for there to be problems... just demand more than there is a supply for.

Prices may ease a bit after this summer... but I don't believe any of us will be filling up for under $3/gallon ever again. This summer it will peak at maybe 4.25... next summer 4.75... then maybe 5... it will continue to go up and up and up. The time to find a long term workable, affordable alternative is now.

If we fail to do so, I fear there are difficult times ahead.

I also agree that the weak dollar has significant impact. It is not the cause but certainly a contributing factor.


HT

Why not let the gov regulate oil companies. While you are at it, they should regulate food prices too. And millionaires make too much money, they should regulate that. They could control everything... everyone the same. No super rich no poor.... the perfect utopia of civilization.... just ask Russia how well it works.



HT

I love it, great post.

Are you willing to answer my question?

If you want to drill in excess of ~7,000 feet of salt water or tap into the Denali National Park, or drill in the Gulf of Mexico there still oil to be had. Problem is, the volume will not offset the cost to the environment or the cost to develop the methods that will be accepted as environmentally safe.

FACT:
The US used to produce most of the worlds oil. As our production peaked in the '70's, we moved to importing most of our oil to meet the needs. Now the middle east production will very soon (Or has already) peak. No new major oil deposites have been found in the last 20 years (Keep in mind they are looking and looking very hard).
We've been drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for years and there's a relatively new oil field (estimated between 3 and 15 billion bbls) waiting to be tapped.

Peak oil is a scare tactic the oil companies invented to justify increased oil costs. The fact is they ARE looking quite hard, but finding oil is not a simple process and time and again they've found oil where they previously thought there was none...

We've been drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for years and there's a relatively new oil field (estimated between 3 and 15 billion bbls) waiting to be tapped.

Peak oil is a scare tactic the oil companies invented to justify increased oil costs. The fact is they ARE looking quite hard, but finding oil is not a simple process and time and again they've found oil where they previously thought there was none...

Yes we've been drilling (Shallow water) in the Gulf since before WWII. However, the large oil deposit you are refering to resides under 7000 feet of saltwater. Florida has refused to allow any additional drilling in their waters and there are no plans to tap the deep drill site as the environmental laws make it too expensive and risky. And as the CEO of Exxon recently stated to congressional members, there have been no major oil deposit finds in the last twenty years. The large oil deposit that is too deep to drill at this time was found around 1975 by a Mexican oil company.

Peak oil is a scare tactic the oil companies invented to justify increased oil costs. The fact is they ARE looking quite hard, but finding oil is not a simple process and time and again they've found oil where they previously thought there was none...

Peak oil may be a scare tactic - most likely the brainchild of extreme leftist environmentalists... however it does hold some truth. If demand continues to increase like it has been... we will need to find HUGE amounts of oil. Not like a few billion barrels here and a few there. (You have to take into account the cost associated with actually getting the oil out of the ground and the infrastructure required to get it to your tank) To meet demand, we would basically have to just "find" another middle east.

Drilling for oil in new places does not fix anything. It's the equal to bailing water out of a leaking boat. You have to fix the problem. As the hole gets bigger you take on more water... you can bail faster but you are only delaying the inevitable.

At what point should we say "Yes, we need oil, but lets not drill there"

Already there is massive pressure to drill ANWR.

It's funny to me that the area is known as ANWR now - because saying it like that is more acceptable than saying 'wildlife preserve'

What if there were a huge oil deposit under Mt. Rushmore? Should we destroy it to get to the oil? What if there were oil under Yellowstone? Drill there? Or what if it were found that there was 100 yrs of oil under Manhattan. Evict the entire island to feed our oil habit?

These are unrealistic scenarios but the point remains the same. The problem is not the greedy oil companies. The problem is the greedy consumer. You and me, and the Chinese and Indian versions of us too. Civilization is consuming oil with out slowing. When the price becomes too much of a burden... consumption will slow.

I'll coin a word right now that will become mainstream in the coming decades.... Reurbanization. The biggest and most obvious thing people can do to reduce their oil usage is move closer to where they work.
Suburban sprawl will reduce itself in time and people will move closer to large cities, that's my belief.


HT

honda tech,

Interesting idea about reurbanization, I tend to hold the opposite view. As technology gets more advanced more and more people will be able to work from home, so proximity to a job may not matter anymore.

I know I will never move back into the suburbs/city of Chicago, and be stacked on top of, or right next to neighbors. The crime, congestion, etc, are not a draw.

hhmmmmm....

I thought the average retail profit was around 7% not 2.6% to 3.2%:confused:

7% is pre-tax profit.

Why not let the gov regulate oil companies. While you are at it, they should regulate food prices too. And millionaires make too much money, they should regulate that. They could control everything... everyone the same. No super rich no poor.... the perfect utopia of civilization.... just ask Russia how well it works.
HT
Wow...how far can you blow this out of proportion?

Are you willing to answer my question? Who and what question?

The trends are that people are doing both. After driving up to 73 miles each way to work and back for years, I count myself lucky to be able to work 9.8 miles from home, a mile from a bus line (my backup plan).

This one.

So, is 11% profit too much profit? Let's say, theoretically, that if their profit was 10%, that gas would cost 15 cents/gallon less. Just for example. Should the US government regulate their profits so that you can get gas cheaper? Is that what you really want?

I think it's important to the argument you are making.

The trends are that people are doing both. After driving up to 73 miles each way to work and back for years, I count myself lucky to be able to work 9.8 miles from home, a mile from a bus line (my backup plan).

I can see that as well, in my business most of our work is in Chicago, where they are tearing down old buildings, and we are putting up new $250,000 - $500,000 condo's and townhomes on those sites in some of the formerly worst neighborhoods in the city.

Out where I live there is no public transportation option yet, although the feds gave a grant recently to investigate train service to Chicago(back in the day there was daily trains to Chicago, but that stopped decades ago), and local bus service.

This one.

I think it's important to the argument you are making.
I guess I am looking at this as a crisis, rather than a philosophy. Go back to my original question; If the government regulates everything that is critical to the success or failure of us as a country, why do they stop at gas? I don't want the government regulating anything else because they usually Eff it up, but this is the beggining of the ripple effect. It is doing much more than making it "difficult" to drive to work. In the mean time, how can the oil companies justify celebrating with record profits when it is crippling our country?

When gas was 30 cents a gallon everyone carpooled to work. I did not know a single family that had 2 cars. No "0" kids drove a car to high school.

Today, no one carpools and the HOV lanes are empty. Every family has 2 or more cars. The local high school parking lot cannot hold all the cars that kids drive to school. School buses are making their routes nearly empty. Mommies start lining up 30/45 minutes before school is out to pick up the kiddies.

Go figure!! We have become a spoiled society totally dependant on the automobile.

Why did all the larger cities get rid of their street cars and trackless trolleys? Bet they wish they had them back!!

Yes, it's quite a bit of supply and demand.

But, it used to be, gas prices went up in the summer, to cover increased demand, then decrease in the winter. Somewhere along the line, the gas companies realized that the demand will remain relatively the same even if they don't reduce the price. So now you see the prices rapidly rise during the summer, but now they don't go down very much at all come winter.

So, IMO, it's more constant demand coupled with greed.

I guess I am looking at this as a crisis, rather than a philosophy. Go back to my original question; If the government regulates everything that is critical to the success or failure of us as a country, why do they stop at gas? I don't want the government regulating anything else because they usually Eff it up, but this is the beggining of the ripple effect. It is doing much more than making it "difficult" to drive to work. In the mean time, how can the oil companies justify celebrating with record profits when it is crippling our country?

So you're answering my question with a question? Sorry, but that's just what liberals do.

Record profits from record demand. Very simple economics 101.

Well, I'll throw in my $0.02 into this! That and another $1.98 will get you a cup of coffee (that may be out of date by the time you read this due to inflation!). As in many events, the dramatic increase in gas prices is due to a number of factors, including the weak US dollar, the increasing consumption in China and India, consumer demand worldwide, EPA regulations on the addtitives (or lack thereof) in fuel, government restrictions on domestic oil production, over dependence on oil from the Middle East, etc.

But, in my opinion, the major factor in play driving the dramatic price increases over the last 5 or so years is the rapidly weakening US dollar. This was illustrated by the gas station owner in Oregon that was recently (within the last two months) in the news (sorry, I don't have a link at the moment). This guy offered gas for a quarter a gallon. But there was a catch: the quarter had to be a silver quarter minted in the year 1964 or earlier! It's interesting that gas basically cost 25 to 30 cents a gallon in the '60's. That 1964 silver quarter is now worth over $3.00, which is quite close to the price of a gallon of gas today. So, in terms of silver, the value of a gallon of gas today is almost the same as it was in the '60's. Well, slightly higher, and that difference may be accounted for by the other factors mentioned above.

Now this raises the question: why is the dollar constantly devaluing? And the simple answer is that its value is no longer backed by gold or silver or any other commodity. Its value is totally based on whatever the Federal Reserve decides it is going to be. And that is the real problem behind high gas prices, high food prices and high commodity prices. The major culprit here is our Federal Reserve banking system that forces us to use a crappy currency that loses its buying power over time.

Like I said, that and $1.98 might get you a cup of coffee!

Be of good cheer,
Wolverine

The major culprit here is our Federal Reserve banking system that forces us to use a crappy currency that loses its buying power over time.

This makes no sense at all...are you suggesting that if we went back to a gold/silver reserve system, the buying power of the dollar would recover?

If that is the case, you have no idea how much benefit we (as a nation) received when we decoupled from a concept of having a dollar amount in reserve to back the dollar.

So you're answering my question with a question? Sorry, but that's just what liberals do.

Record profits from record demand. Very simple economics 101.
Not answering a question with a question...just reverting back to my original question that none of you have answered yet...:rolleyes:

And by the way, it's pretty ridiculous that you advocate the government regulating the auto industry (as you stated in your previous post), but refuse to have them look at the oil industry. I think your quote said "I'm not a fan of big government. I don't want to see the fuel industry regulated, or any artificial remedies, like tax holidays. I want to see the US government hold steady on the new CAFE requirements. No exceptions. If that means pain for the US auto industry, then it's their choice to put it on themselves."

At $1,000 an ounce, I'd love to have my dollars backed up by gold :D Seriously, I see what both of you are saying. Both points make sense.

A quick tangent. I carry a Silver Certificate in my wallet for good luck (I'm very superstitious). I got it as change back many years ago. I have no idea what it's worth.

Please remember that this thread is about individual's opinions on "why". Please don't bash people for opinions that are skewed from yours

OK, that's fair. You must mean this one.

Why is it that the Federal government can regulate everything that has a significant impact on the us, but won't do anything about regulating gas prices while evey major oil company posts record profits? George and company (or insert any other name here) regulates everything from:

homeland security
agriculture
banks and banking
foreign trade
commercial practices
the stock market
customs and duties ( yes, I said duty)
employee benefits
food
drugs
Indians
OUR MONEY! (IRS)
alchohol
tobacco
guns
education (HA!)
parks
patents
pensions
Postal service
shipping
telecomunications
etc...Yet, In 2007, the oil industry recorded revenues of approximately $1.9 trillion, of which 78% was accounted for by the five major integrated oil companies. Profits for the industry totaled over $155 billion, 75% of which were earned by the five major oil companies, with the largest, ExxonMobil, earning over 25% of the total profit.

Exxon / Mobil posts 40.6 BILLION DOLLARS in profits for 2007
Shell posts 27.5 BILLION DOLLARS in profits for 2007
Chevron posts 18.7 BILLION DOLLARS in profits for 2007
BP / Amoco posts 17.2 BILLION DOLLARS in profits for 2007
Conoco / Phillips posts 11.9 BILLION DOLLARS in profits for 2007Don't take my word for this info, here is the link to the fed gov't revue "where the profit bubbles are" or "who's doin what to who?" http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/103679.pdf

I have no problem with capitalism...I own a business, but when record profits and greed are literally destroying the US economy, putting companies out of business, and making it impossible for some familes to survive...something has got to be done. So I ask the question again? WHY WON'T BUSH AND COMPANY DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?

You are talking about government regulation, but are you saying that the US government directly regulates the profits of the industries listed above? As far as I know, they don't. Not directly. Indirectly, maybe, as in taxes, regulations that affect the bottom line, etc.

Now will you answer my question?

K, I am doing my best to avoid that. Seriously.

K, I am doing my best to avoid that. Seriously.That was directed to all..... feeling guilty, are ya? :p :D

It the government get into regulating profits, It will not lower the prices, It will increase the amount of taxes they collect as all they ever do in raise or lower taxes to fix problems or they will fine them billions of dollars.
You and I will never see any good out of regulation.

Eyeglasses cost over $100 now because of regulation. They cost about 14 to make. If the government regulates gas and diesel it will cost about $50 a gallon when they get done.

No thanks to that Idea

The major culprit here is our Federal Reserve banking system that forces us to use a crappy currency that loses its buying power over time.


This is truly your answer if you dare to fully investigate this avenue.

This is truly your answer if you dare to fully investigate this avenue.

I have noticed that when the Fed Chairman says something the least bit negative my IRA goes to hell in a hand basket!!:eek:

The future of gas prices looks even bleaker after yesterdays news about the Polar Bears getting listed. Those offshore leases will never get into production now. and I bet I missed my chance for a nice rug in the den.:(

That was directed to all..... feeling guilty, are ya? :p :D

Having been in your doghouse before, yes. :D

This makes no sense at all...are you suggesting that if we went back to a gold/silver reserve system, the buying power of the dollar would recover?

No, what I am saying is that scarce-commodity based money (and that commodity doesn't necessarily have to be gold or silver, but could be anything whose total available amount does not increase dramatically year by year) generally holds its buying power better than money that is based on nothing, at least over the spectrum of commodities most people need and want.

Heres's another illlustration: in 1969 my parents bought a brand new Ford Galaxy full size sedan for $3000. Today a Mercury Grand Marquis (the roughly corresponding car of today, the Ford Crown Vic, is only sold to fleets now) costs roughly $20,000 today, according to Edmunds. Gold cost approx. $42 an ounce in 1969, so the Galaxy would have cost about 72 ounces of gold. 72 ounces of gold at $900 per ounce is more than $64000 today! One could buy three Grand Marquis cars today for the price of one Galaxy in 1969, and still have change left over for some gas.

If you took that $3000 back in '69 and put it in a mattress and then tried to buy a brand new car today, could you? You can hardly buy a decent used car today for that! But if you converted that $3000 to gold in '69 and then converted it to dollars today, you could just about buy 3 nice Ridges today (at the current going prices). Now that's buying power!

This is a discussion on economics, which is unavoidable because that is what it is! I'd be glad to give a list of references on economics that explain what real money is better than I can do on a forum like this, but I can't do so from where I am right now! When I get home, I could do so if this thread is still active!

Cheerio,
Wolverine

Having been in your doghouse before, yes. :Dhhaha... really? must not have been anything as I don't recall. Old age is setting in or too much beer consumed. ;)




(I think that is the first reference to beer in this gas thread :D )

This is truly your answer if you dare to fully investigate this avenue.

Bingo, the basis of our society, pay you back tomorrow with cheaper dollars.
Didn't the cartoon character Whimpy invent this monetary concept?
"I'll gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today"

Old age is setting in or too much beer consumed. ;)Didn't the cartoon character Whimpy invent this monetary concept?
"I'll gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today"Beer & burgers... this thread is really going someplace now.

(I think that is the first reference to beer in this gas thread :D )

Don't be hard on "beer"!! To my knowledge "beer" is the only consumer product that has not kept pace with or exceeded the inflation rate!!:) The moral of this story is "drink more beer" and save money!!:cool:

If the average retailer is posting a 3.2% profit after tax, that number must be heavily skewed by major retailers like Wal-Mart, the supermarkets, etc. Applying this number to ExxonMobil is misleading because ExxonMobil is a manufacturer as well as a retailer. They have development and acquisition costs that must be recouped.

I think that "profit" by definition, means costs are taken care of. So that's not a valid excuse.

What NJRTX is pointing out is that you have a company (actually several) reaping in profits far above those in other industries (and mind you these are being expressed as percentages, so "well they profited more because they had more revenue!" isn't a valid argument either), for what is essentially an oligopoly on something essential to our economy and way of life. Read: we have NO choice.

Since you have a few companies controlling the manufacture and distribution of a product that affects everything we do, and every aspect of our economy, I'd say you MIGHT want to think about limiting their control when there are no alternatives. It's not just about "I want to pay less for gas at the pump" ... that's a very short sighted view of the situation.

"So, is 11% profit too much profit? Let's say, theoretically, that if their profit was 10%, that gas would cost 15 cents/gallon less. Just for example. Should the US government regulate their profits so that you can get gas cheaper? Is that what you really want?"
That's a loaded question. If it is a simple case of black and white "should the government regulate private (or public) business", the answer is no. But if you can look beyond black and white then there is room for conversation on this. What if all of the food stores decided they were going to triple the prices on food? The key is, that all of the major food stores do it. For arguments sake, no one can afford to feed their families. Should the government step in?

All of the arguments put forth here so far have been at the extremes, mine included. There has to be a happy medium somewhere between "this is America" and "regulate the piss out of these greedy b@stards".

I personally don't see 11% profit on any item, no matter how much we need it, as excessive or greedy. And it is our choice whether we need it or not. Our whole economy has been running on oil for a century or so. Great things have come from that. Not just for America, but for the whole world.

We have had plenty of time to develop alternatives. Oil is a finite resource. We have the brainpower to do this. It just has to become a priority for the USA. The sooner we reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the better off our economy will be. Plain and simple. And I don't believe the way to do that is to cripple an industry that pays it's fair share of taxes.

Now comes the argument that the oil companies get outrageous tax breaks. :)

[I]What if all of the food stores decided they were going to triple the prices on food? The key is, that all of the major food stores do it. For arguments sake, no one can afford to feed their families. Should the government step in? [/COLOR]

They already do. It's called Welfare, WIC, and AFDC, and they're some of the most abused systems ever created.

What if all of the food stores decided they were going to triple the prices on food? The key is, that all of the major food stores do it. For arguments sake, no one can afford to feed their families. Should the government step in?
That's collusion and the government would step in in that case.

I'm not convinced there's no collusion among the major oil manufacturers (yes, I know that's a double-negative).

I think that "profit" by definition, means costs are taken care of. So that's not a valid excuse.

What NJRTX is pointing out is that you have a company (actually several) reaping in profits far above those in other industries (and mind you these are being expressed as percentages, so "well they profited more because they had more revenue!" isn't a valid argument either), for what is essentially an oligopoly on something essential to our economy and way of life. Read: we have NO choice.

Since you have a few companies controlling the manufacture and distribution of a product that affects everything we do, and every aspect of our economy, I'd say you MIGHT want to think about limiting their control when there are no alternatives. It's not just about "I want to pay less for gas at the pump" ... that's a very short sighted view of the situation.
Rogue...you are the man. Finally...someone gets it.

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with your solution.

No matter what, the debate over this, and there should be debate over this, will divide this country.

Don't be hard on "beer"!! To my knowledge "beer" is the only consumer product that has not kept pace with or exceeded the inflation rate!!:) The moral of this story is "drink more beer" and save money!!:cool:

Hey 25YHO, I'm retiring NEXT FRIDAY, so expect me to be at your doorstep some time Saturday morning to save money! :D

(It takes a few hours to get to Tennessee from here ;))

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with your solution.

No matter what, the debate over this, and there should be debate over this, will divide this country.
Wow...you mean more than it is already?

Ah yes. The EvilDoer.

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with your solution.

No matter what, the debate over this, and there should be debate over this, will divide this country.

Yeah, and I'm not really saying full regulation is a solution cause I'm not even sure WHAT I personally think should be done. The concept of government intervention is one I normally try to stay away from. If a private organization is good at what it does and it's doing things right and being rewarded for it, so be it.

It's just that unfortunately in this situation, it's happening through the distribution of an essential good. The lack of choice is what bothers me. It's a shame that we let the oil companies gain so much control over us through their distribution of something we can't live without, but it happened.

It isn't the type of industry where we can just go buy from someone else or switch to something different with the flip of a switch.

What we should do is use the LITTLE power that we DO have, without the government, and that is changing our habits. I know it's hard, but using less would drive down the price of a gallon through affecting the supply vs. demand component of it. This might in turn drive away some of the price inflation due to speculative non-consumptive demand from investors.

Personally, I walk to work. I pay a premium for living in a very expensive area, and I use one tank of gas per month. I ride my bike a lot, too. I know not everyone can do this, but I think at some point it will get so expensive people will HAVE to stop using gas like there's an endless supply. Oil company profits are just one part of the problem. We really need to stop guzzling the stuff, especially with China and India booming the way they are.

Regulation would help out prices at the pump a bit, but it would do NOTHING to solve the problem of excessive consumption and in fact might hinder those efforts through encouraging more use if prices are capped. However, in the short term and I guess even the long term, I still think it's a good idea to try and eliminate the "greed" factor and still try to limit their control, even if just a little bit, if for no other reason than as a precaution so that we don't get screwed even more in the future. And then, only because it's not just the pump, but the fact that it drives the price of EVERYTHING up because pretty much everything has to be transported.

That was a long rant...sorry...

My take...

Don't be hard on "beer"!! To my knowledge "beer" is the only consumer product that has not kept pace with or exceeded the inflation rate!!:) The moral of this story is "drink more beer" and save money!!:cool:

I brew on occasion...even the ingredients of beer have not escaped the grasp of inflation...damn ethanol. It is certainly much more now.

Hey 25YHO, I'm retiring NEXT FRIDAY, so expect me to be at your doorstep some time Saturday morning to save money! :D

(It takes a few hours to get to Tennessee from here ;))

Why don't you wait a few days so we can take in "Bonnaroo"?:rolleyes:

Ok - so lets say I own an oil company.... and I'm making record profits. Here comes the US government and they say.... You can't make that much money!!! Then they restrict my profit margin. Now I am making less money. What would I do? I would expand my business in areas (countries) that allow me to profit freely.

You have to allow businesses to profit to encourage them to stay where they are. The second a business can make more money doing business elsewhere they will go. Regardless of if it is patriotic, or nationalistic or not.

It's all about money. The oil companies will continue to get richer, and we as gas loving consumers will fund it. That is the system we built. We have to live with it now.

Until real alternatives (nuclear, fuel cell, CNG, solar, wind, hydro) become real and usable... nothing will change. I cannot blame the oil companies. The role of a company is to make money. That's it an that's all.
If it's a burden on the economy... well, that's too bad. Worrying about the economy and national interests are counter-productive to making money.

Your options are this:

Complain....

Use less....

Everything else is pretty much beyond our control.


HT

Ok. Have fun moving those refineries overseas or transporting refined gasoline to another country! Would they build another pipeline?? I'm not sure the profit cut-back in this government intervention scenario would be bad enough to offset all THOSE costs. You think so?

You think a company would rather shut down refineries or stop selling refined gasoline here if profit drops to 5% from 11%? Really? Throw away ALL their investment over the past decades and decades because they can't profit 11% and have to settle for 5%?

See why this situation is a little different from, say, a retail store or most other businesses where there are CHOICES? Oil companies don't NEED encouragement to stay. They know their product is needed and they have everyone by the balls. It's unfortunate. I highly doubt anyone in the oil&gas industry would close up shop if they could only profit 5% and not 11%.

These companies are worldwide companies. They sell their product here because we buy it. If artificial price controls are placed on their product, they will be happy to sell it somewhere else where there are no price controls, like India and China.

Then where will you get your gas from?

The fact is that refinery capacity, not availability of crude oil, is the main limiting factor. And why increase production capacity when that would "negatively" affect supply and demand?

Big oil believes that if they keep chanting that the problem is availability of crude (raw material), they'll get those big "freebie" federal oil leases in the West and Alaska. (Federal on-shore and off-shore leases typically are let for pennies on the dollar compared to private leases. Federal leases should be equal to the rate companies pay private mineral owners.)

Ok. Have fun moving those refineries overseas or transporting refined gasoline to another country! Would they build another pipeline?? I'm not sure the profit cut-back in this government intervention scenario would be bad enough to offset all THOSE costs. You think so?

You think a company would rather shut down refineries or stop selling refined gasoline here if profit drops to 5% from 11%? Really? Throw away ALL their investment over the past decades and decades because they can't profit 11% and have to settle for 5%?

See why this situation is a little different from, say, a retail store or most other businesses where there are CHOICES? Oil companies don't NEED encouragement to stay. They know their product is needed and they have everyone by the balls. It's unfortunate. I highly doubt anyone in the oil&gas industry would close up shop if they could only profit 5% and not 11%.Not close up shop, but If I was running the biggest companies and we are running at 85% (or whatever I have heard they are), I would increase production to near 100% and then ship more than my recent increase of production overseas, where they want my business, i.e where I can have uninterrupted profit. Buy stock in my company and you'll be happy investors. For my employees, I would give them (say) 700 gallons of free gas per year as a bonus for working for me.

Of course the US would be crying more than they are now, as prices would increase as supply would decrease, but my profits would go skyward and I would have very happy employees.

I should apply for a CEO position as I'm a genius. :D

I'm not saying government regulation is the answer. After all, when was the last time our government stuck their nose into anything and actually made it better???

However, to say they'd stop selling gas here if there were price caps is ludicrous. They would probably invest less here in implementing new pipelines, etc, but they'd continue selling as long as there was money in it. There are price regulations on many industries (natural gas, insurance, etc), and they're still kicking.

I should apply for a CEO position as I'm a genius. :D

You'd be a shoe in.... you've even got the ability to make someone else's idea seem like your own. Perfect CEO!!!


I kid, I kid.....


HT

You'd be a shoe in....
I kid, I kid.....HT


Oh no he di'int :eek:

Ok. Have fun moving those refineries overseas or transporting refined gasoline to another country! Would they build another pipeline?? I'm not sure the profit cut-back in this government intervention scenario would be bad enough to offset all THOSE costs. You think so?

You think a company would rather shut down refineries or stop selling refined gasoline here if profit drops to 5% from 11%? Really? Throw away ALL their investment over the past decades and decades because they can't profit 11% and have to settle for 5%?

See why this situation is a little different from, say, a retail store or most other businesses where there are CHOICES? Oil companies don't NEED encouragement to stay. They know their product is needed and they have everyone by the balls. It's unfortunate. I highly doubt anyone in the oil&gas industry would close up shop if they could only profit 5% and not 11%.

The refineries are a pit-stop, the oil is sent there to be turned into gas. This isn't so much about moving refineries rather than removing our need for the oil which is transported to the refineries.

5%, 11%, what is too much profit? Corporations that issue stock are valued either because they kick out regular dividends or the value of the stock goes up or a mix of the two. People who choose to invest in a company want a return on investment. If the return on investment becomes too small, they pull their money out and put it into something else. The oil and gas industry could certainly close up shop if the return on investment became too small for investors and they put their money someplace else.

The refineries are a pit-stop, the oil is sent there to be turned into gas. This isn't so much about moving refineries rather than removing our need for the oil which is transported to the refineries.

5%, 11%, what is too much profit? Corporations that issue stock are valued either because they kick out regular dividends or the value of the stock goes up or a mix of the two. People who choose to invest in a company want a return on investment. If the return on investment becomes too small, they pull their money out and put it into something else. The oil and gas industry could certainly close up shop if the return on investment became too small for investors and they put their money someplace else.

Maybe you're right. Maybe they're NOT making any more than other industries. After all, why would they, they have little competition, a guaranteed demand for their product, and direct ownership of the infrastructure required to do it. Of course they're not abusing that! Just like AT&T or Verizon would never abuse their situations on POTS (and their demand isn't even guaranteed as much as oil is) - good thing they're not regulated either. Wait...

I wonder how there exist loads and loads of publicly traded companies with lower profits. Who DON'T have a guaranteed revenue stream and have plenty of competition. You'd think all those investors would pull out and go invest in oil...or anything else that's higher.

I have oil&gas investments myself and even used to work in the field. I still can't deny that they're not profiting excessively. Maybe the government shouldn't step in, maybe they should. But you can hardly argue that big oil isn't greedy to the point that it's hurting the majority of the country. Sure, it's OK to be greedy, and it's not necessarily illegal to be greedy, but at what point do you put a stop to it? You can't argue that 11% is "too much" any more than you can argue that 50% is "too much" or that 5% is "too little."

You'd be a shoe in.... you've even got the ability to make someone else's idea seem like your own. Perfect CEO!!!
I kid, I kid.....
HTjust like the shipping commercial, the boss added his own hand gesture, so the idea became his and co-workers liked it better.... so did I, you just weren't paying attention. :D

Very interesting thread. I'll bet I could go down the list of contributors and nail within 85% accuracy who is liberal and who is conservative.

Liberals always seem to wake up every morning and say "I exist therefore society owes me a free living". while on the other hand conservatives wake up and say "If I want to eat tomorrow I best get to work today".

One reason not mentioned for seemingly high prices is that compared to other parts of the world we have been enjoying next to free gas for decades. Now that it is getting close to where it should have been years and years ago it hurts. In many countries driving is a perk for those that can afford it not a right as most in the U.S. believe. Perhaps had we been paying $3-4/gal 30 years ago we would not be such gluttons now. Now every 16 year old with their own sports car ... 5-6 vehicles in each driveway...good grief.

I am a third generation ConocoPhillips employee. 60 years ago my grandfather(born 1897) walked his 1.5 miles to the Conoco refinery every day and back. Now people drive 1.5 miles to the gym for exercise... How dumb... why don't they just walk to the gym then walk back and save the price of gym membership.

Yes I own a Ridgeline that at BEST is a 21MPG vehicle on the average.
I could just as easily ride the 9 miles to the now ConocoPhillips refinery on a motorized bicycle at maybe 100-150MPG. So I am just to blame as everybody else for our waste.

We placed ourselves in this situation through our lazy, I deserve it, it feels good, therefore I should have it attitudes. Attitudes which are getting more and more pronounced with each liberal hedonistic professor on staff at our universities.

That's all

Ps I'm a conservative if you had not already guessed

Hi everyone the bottom line is (GREED) and more (GREED)

Please attempt to keep political discussions away from the forum. Appreciate it. :)

They nedd to regualte gas just like they do the natural gas and electricity. If they want a rate increase ask for it.

Also oil is not a fossil fuel. Oil comes from beneath the earth in places where no fossils exist. That is a myth.

I am all for conservation and we need to conserve. It is true that the oil companies make no more margin than other large companies it just seems like it because they are so large.

Comes down to greed like others have said--we can put a man on the moon and cannot build a car with 50+ mpg or some other means of energy. Crazy.

Very interesting thread. I'll bet I could go down the list of contributors and nail within 85% accuracy who is liberal and who is conservative.

Liberals always seem to wake up every morning and say "I exist therefore society owes me a free living". while on the other hand conservatives wake up and say "If I want to eat tomorrow I best get to work today".

One reason not mentioned for seemingly high prices is that compared to other parts of the world we have been enjoying next to free gas for decades. Now that it is getting close to where it should have been years and years ago it hurts. In many countries driving is a perk for those that can afford it not a right as most in the U.S. believe. Perhaps had we been paying $3-4/gal 30 years ago we would not be such gluttons now. Now every 16 year old with their own sports car ... 5-6 vehicles in each driveway...good grief.

I am a third generation ConocoPhillips employee. 60 years ago my grandfather(born 1897) walked his 1.5 miles to the Conoco refinery every day and back. Now people drive 1.5 miles to the gym for exercise... How dumb... why don't they just walk to the gym then walk back and save the price of gym membership.

Yes I own a Ridgeline that at BEST is a 21MPG vehicle on the average.
I could just as easily ride the 9 miles to the now ConocoPhillips refinery on a motorized bicycle at maybe 100-150MPG. So I am just to blame as everybody else for our waste.

We placed ourselves in this situation through our lazy, I deserve it, it feels good, therefore I should have it attitudes. Attitudes which are getting more and more pronounced with each liberal hedonistic professor on staff at our universities.

That's all

Ps I'm a conservative if you had not already guessed Hit and run...no chance to debate...don't want to loose...typical conservative.
Sorry K, two rights just make it wrong. :D

Were paying for the war. Freedom sure is a bit#!

Very interesting thread. I'll bet I could go down the list of contributors and nail within 85% accuracy who is liberal and who is conservative.

Liberals always seem to wake up every morning and say "I exist therefore society owes me a free living". while on the other hand conservatives wake up and say "If I want to eat tomorrow I best get to work today".

One reason not mentioned for seemingly high prices is that compared to other parts of the world we have been enjoying next to free gas for decades. Now that it is getting close to where it should have been years and years ago it hurts. In many countries driving is a perk for those that can afford it not a right as most in the U.S. believe. Perhaps had we been paying $3-4/gal 30 years ago we would not be such gluttons now. Now every 16 year old with their own sports car ... 5-6 vehicles in each driveway...good grief.

I am a third generation ConocoPhillips employee. 60 years ago my grandfather(born 1897) walked his 1.5 miles to the Conoco refinery every day and back. Now people drive 1.5 miles to the gym for exercise... How dumb... why don't they just walk to the gym then walk back and save the price of gym membership.

Yes I own a Ridgeline that at BEST is a 21MPG vehicle on the average.
I could just as easily ride the 9 miles to the now ConocoPhillips refinery on a motorized bicycle at maybe 100-150MPG. So I am just to blame as everybody else for our waste.

We placed ourselves in this situation through our lazy, I deserve it, it feels good, therefore I should have it attitudes. Attitudes which are getting more and more pronounced with each liberal hedonistic professor on staff at our universities.

That's all

Ps I'm a conservative if you had not already guessed

From a fellow conservative I appreciate your post!! I had a cousin that worked for Phillips in Bartlesville many years ago when I never thought gas would ever cost over 30 cents a gallon. We need to change our way of life, high dollar fuel is here to stay!!!

Here are the reported profit margins of some companies you may have heard of and a few you haven't.

Gazprom OGZPY 28.77%

Petrochina PTR 19.93

Encana Corp. ECA 18.22

Exxon Mobil XOM 10.37

Chevron CVX 8.49

Total TOT 8.03

BP BP 7.85

Petrobras Energia PZE 6.78

ConocoPhillips COP 5.86

Canon CAJ 11.25%
Ikonics Corp. IKNX 7.79%
FujiFilm Holdings FUJI 3.50%
Ballantyne of Omaha BTN 0.10%
X-Rite Inc. XRIT 0.02%
Eastman Kodak EK -1.99%
Concord Camera Corp. LENS -14.90%
IMAX Corp. IMAX -21.40%
ARTISTdirect ARTD 47.65%
BGI Inc. BGII 28.65%
Luxottica LUX 10.21%
Midas Inc. MDS 7.39%
FTD Group FTD 5.93%
Petsmart PETM 5.50%
Staples Inc. SPLS 5.14%
Indigo Books IDGBF 4.95%
Canadian Tire CDNAF 4.84%
Medfast Inc. MED 4.58%
Universal Travel Group UTVG 17.87%
Western Union Co. WU 17.50%
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service JTX 17.17%
Weight Watchers Int'l WTW 14.60%
Pre-Paid Legal Services PPD 11.64%
VCA Antech Inc. WOOF 10.39%
Greenfield Online Inc. SRVY 9.91%
Steiner Leisure Ltd. STNR 9.08%
H&R Block Inc. HRB 8.96%
China Transinfo CTFO 40.60%
Bowl America BWL.A 12.54%
Royal Caribb. RCL 10.55%
Int'l Speedway ISCA 10.51%
Life Time Fitness LTM 10.37%
ETP Inc. ETPI 6.86%
Speedway Motor. TRK 6.84%
Dover Motorsports DVD 3.60%
Town Sports Int'l CLUB 2.89%
Littlefield LTFD 2.24%

I'll honor Keith's wish and not get into liberal and conservative anymore. Everyone should know where I stand.

I remember walking two miles each way to school. You couldn't get a bus unless you lived farther away than that. That was back before kids got abducted by their own neighbors. I understand why buses are run closer to school nowadays, but it's just another symptom of how our dependence on oil has increased.

Our way of life is based on individual freedom and mobility. We have to figure out how to do that without using much oil.

Some of those investments are looking pretty good.

No, what I am saying is that scarce-commodity based money (and that commodity doesn't necessarily have to be gold or silver, but could be anything whose total available amount does not increase dramatically year by year) generally holds its buying power better than money that is based on nothing, at least over the spectrum of commodities most people need and want.

Heres's another illlustration: in 1969 my parents bought a brand new Ford Galaxy full size sedan for $3000. Today a Mercury Grand Marquis (the roughly corresponding car of today, the Ford Crown Vic, is only sold to fleets now) costs roughly $20,000 today, according to Edmunds. Gold cost approx. $42 an ounce in 1969, so the Galaxy would have cost about 72 ounces of gold. 72 ounces of gold at $900 per ounce is more than $64000 today! One could buy three Grand Marquis cars today for the price of one Galaxy in 1969, and still have change left over for some gas.

If you took that $3000 back in '69 and put it in a mattress and then tried to buy a brand new car today, could you? You can hardly buy a decent used car today for that! But if you converted that $3000 to gold in '69 and then converted it to dollars today, you could just about buy 3 nice Ridges today (at the current going prices). Now that's buying power!

This is a discussion on economics, which is unavoidable because that is what it is! I'd be glad to give a list of references on economics that explain what real money is better than I can do on a forum like this, but I can't do so from where I am right now! When I get home, I could do so if this thread is still active!

Cheerio,
Wolverine


While I understand your believe that monetary value should be tied to a scarce commodity, I will say that I do not agree with it. This is not meant to encourage an in-depth debate on the economic principles on base valuations, as there are well respected economists that can be found with both points of view.

I would point out that your gold example is a little flawed. The gold price is $880 per ounce as of today, however that price is largely a result of the economic situation. The gold price has been artificially inflated by a number of recent issues, most of which has to do with the weakening economy. If you study any economic history, you will see that every time the economy sees slow downs, weakens, and/or heads into a recession, gold and silver prices spike up. There are many reasons for this that we could discuss if desired.

More importantly for comparison, one should look at gold prices in the period prior to heading into the weak economy. At the beginning of 2006, gold prices were hovering at $500 per ounce - 72 ounces would be worth $36,000. Going back to the period between 1998 through 2003, gold prices ranged between $250 to $350 per ounce ($18,000 to $25,200 for 72 ounces). Between 2003 to July, 2005, the price per ounce ranged between $350 to $450 per ounce ($25,200 to $32,400 for 72 ounces). In July, 2005, the gold price began a very sharp and abnormal price increase trend up to it's high of just over $1,000 around March, 17, 2008.

One can safely see that the gold price had been pretty stable throughout the boom years of the late 90's, and the dot.com bust of the early 2000's. The key is that economy as a whole did not suffer through these years, only segments were affected. In the recent period from July, 2005, through today it can also safely be said that the economy has been struggling while we moved through a small recession. While most people did not see the beginning of the recession in the middle of 2005, it was there. I heard it explained recently that it often takes the economists 12 to 18 months after the beginning of the recession to have the data to show that it has begun, and about 12 months after it has ended to show that the recession is over.

The main point is that you cannot use this artificially high price of gold in the middle of a weak economy, that is a result of the weak economy, as an example of why gold is a better measure of monetary value since it is worth more. The only reason gold is worth what it is today is because of the weakened economy.

I love this. Keep it up.
In my country I'm a red Tory and in yours I'm probably going to be called a democrat but the basic fact is that North America (all three major soveriegn states in it) have to get used to the fact that the USA is going to have to compete in the global market place and that means what oil is going to cost is increasingly beyond the control of the major oil companies.
Go Penguins.

In my country
Go Penguins.

Now thats funny! :D

Red / Blue
Conservative / Liberal
You {insert ideological label-of-the-moment here} are always generalizing.

Why not take the time to learn who your friends are?

Liberalism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States)

Conservatism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Conservatism)

And as it was probably those liberal elitist interweb users that wrote the definitions, feel free to connect up to an internet tube and change any label that doesn't fit the current Fox News definition.

</sarcasm>

I am all for conservation and we need to conserve.I disagree.... I say you are not as you drive a vehicle that gets a best of 22 mpg but likely 18 mpg. ;) If you had purchased a used Geo Metro and rebuilt it from the junkyard parts (recycled parts), then I would agree. Anyone living in a modern society is guilty of waste. (I am a fellow waster)
Comes down to greed like others have said--we can put a man on the moon and cannot build a car with 50+ mpg or some other means of energy. Crazy.There are lots of cars with 50+ mpg, we (the USA), choose not to buy them. I think times are quickly changing. :)

~~ ONE EXAMPLE ~~
YouTube - MSN Cars test drive of the Volkswagen Polo Blue Motion 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpeEtHFqwqQ) - claim 74 mpg

YouTube - Fifth Gear - VW Polo Bluemotion 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4y02l2AW3o) - claims 71 mpg, but ONLY got 47 mpg in a real world tank of fuel (SLACKERS!)

One of the most reasonable explanations I have found about the current high costs is the oil and other commodities prices have been driven up by a weak stock market. Money from the NASDAQ and other stock based markets has moved into the commodities markets that have produced an effect like the Internet bubble. Sooner or later “tulip time” arrives and the bubble will burst. I remember paying $1.50 a gallon for Amoco Unleaded in 1981 soon after the time when people were paying $10,000 over list price to purchase a Volkswagen Rabbit Diesel – or you could get on the list along with 200 other people and pay about $1,200 over list when your number came up. Not long afterward, gas was back down to 79 cents a gallon and gas wars were back in full swing. The last time the gas bubble burst, towns like Oklahoma City and Fort Worth Texas were seeing new apartment and condo complexes grown over with weeds, as there were no people to rent all the unoccupied space. House prices were cut in ½ as a result of the market bust. Don’t think it can’t happen again.

... Your options are this:

Complain....

Use less....

Everything else is pretty much beyond our control.


HT

Sounds about right. Probably "use less" is more effective than "Complain". Just a guess, but I think the prices keep going up because no one is cutting back on the use. Streets are still full at 10am, 2pm, and 7pm. Nearly every car with one passenger. These are not people on their way to/from work.

The drivers that are out seem to have little concern for conserving. When the the traffic signal ahead turns yellow, I take my foot off the gas, and three cars pass me to get to the red light. Last weekend, I took a trip of 300 miles. Because of poor planning I did a crappy job of tying down my cargo, which started to flop around any time I got above 60. So, I drove the whole trip at 55-60. I passed 3 cars. I was naturally passed by hundreds, all about speed limit+5 or higher. My gas mileage went from ~18 (measured on previous trips) to over 23.

It is a global economy, so just because we cut back does not guarantee that the prices will go down, but if we dont cut back,... Think of it this way, if you are making and selling a product, and there is a continuous steady stream of customers waiting to buy all you can produce, at that price, why would you lower your prices?

a steady stream, imagine, if that steady stream runs out. then companies are forced to bring out new tech to compensate for the empty hole they made.

By they way, the complaining is not likely to get us much sympathy. Check some prices here-- $8/gal.!!?! Gasoline usage and pricing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_usage_and_pricing) Of course some of those places dont have the sprawling society that we enjoy in the US, but still, the line "I had a big house in the country, and now I cant drive to work" is not likely to cause an outpouring of compassion.

Lyrics from a song that are pretty powerful...

Risk something, take back what's yours
Say something that you know they might attack you for

Cause I'm sick of being treated like I have before
Like it's stupid standing for what I'm standing for

Like this war's really just a different brand of war
Like it doesn't cater the rich and abandon poor

Like they understand you in the back of the jet
When you can't put gas in your tank

These ****ers are laughing their way to the bank and cashing the cheque
Asking you to have compassion and have some respect

For a leader so nervous in an obvious way
Stuttering and mumbling for nightly news to replay

And the rest of the world watching at the end of the day
In their living room laughing like "what did he say?"

By they way, the complaining is not likely to get us much sympathy. Check some prices here-- $8/gal.!!?! Gasoline usage and pricing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_usage_and_pricing) Of course some of those places dont have the sprawling society that we enjoy in the US, but still, the line "I had a big house in the country, and now I cant drive to work" is not likely to cause an outpouring of compassion.

What is amazing is how cheap gas in the main crude oil producing countries - Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.

If anything, I think this demonstrates the main issue - those that have the oil control the price. This means that those countries have a natural resource, their natural resource has large demand, they can sell it to whomever they want, and they can set whatever price they want. It is obvious that they are not selling the oil to people in their own country at the same price they are charging others outside the country. This means that they are either making an extreme profit on their oil when selling it to outsiders, or we are subsidizing the oil they sell in their own countries. Given the lavish lifestyle that many have in those countries, I would venture to say that they are making an extreme profit.

With that said, this comes back to supply and demand. When you can control the supply of a product that is in demand, then you can set whatever price you want as competition has been eliminated. We should not blame the oil companies that produce gasoline, rather it is on the oil providers.

We are not likely to be able to regulate the economic policies of these countries as it is simply not practical. If people want to fix this, the only way is to reduce demand. As others have said, conservation is not likely to reduce the demand enough to make a difference. As such, the only real solution is to find ways to eliminate the dependence on oil and find alternative energy sources.

FWIW: A Seattle area news station report that local refineries purposefully reduce production and schedule annual maintenance in spring as demand ramps up, to drive the price higher.

Video (http://www.kirotv.com/video/16273633/index.html)

Why not let the gov regulate oil companies. While you are at it, they should regulate food prices too. And millionaires make too much money, they should regulate that. They could control everything... everyone the same. No super rich no poor.... the perfect utopia of civilization.... just ask Russia how well it works.



HT

Perfect response HT!!!! Regulating is not the answer.

We are a free market society. If Exxon could turn a 40% profit, I would applaud them. You as the consumer are not forced to buy fuel from Exxon, or anyone else for that matter.

Someone stated earlier that Exxon has an 11% profit margin. In my business we are closer to 23%. Look at the cosmetic companies, over 30% in many cases. Don't pay attention to the amount of profits, look at the margin because it is the true measure of how a company is doing. Sure Exxon has posted record profits. They have also posted record costs because of the increase to them for the product they sell.

Bottom line is that supply and demand in a free market society is what makes America the best country ever.

If you don't like the fuel prices, don't drive (or how about get a vehicle that does better than 18MPG average). As a part of the demand portion of the supply and demand equation, you are part of the problem (or solution depending on how you look at it).

Hi everyone the bottom line is (GREED) and more (GREED)

GEEZ! What does it take to make people understand supply and demand?

It's much more cathartic to bash the president and cook up conspiracy theories.

It's much more cathartic to bash the president and cook up conspiracy theories.
That's true because we all know what a great job he's been doing :rolleyes:

Why is gas so expensive?

Easy, its because of all us truck and suv owners, or at least thats what the Al Gore's(riding around in private jets heating and cooling 10,000 sq/ft homes) of the world would have us all think. :rolleyes:

After digesting 12 pages of this garble, I'm amazed that not one single person on here has it right... The reasons for high gas prices is simple....


Spygate!!! :cool:

John Tomase is the antichrist.

John Tomase is the antichrist.negatory... if you ask any Chicago Cubs fan.....Steve Bartman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bartman)

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/baseball/mlb/10/01/bp.collapses/t1_bartman.jpg

negatory... if you ask any Chicago Cubs fan.....Steve Bartman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bartman)

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/baseball/mlb/10/01/bp.collapses/t1_bartman.jpg

or a goat, or Gatorade on Leon Durhams glove, or too many day games, or the sky being blue, or......

there is always an excuse, or a demon to blame, how about just fessing up to choking, or sucking for 100 years. :D

Poor leadership and the general greed of American citizenship (reliance on cheap imports so we can have more, more, more!) = poor economy. Poor economy = weak dollar. Too high of a reliance on foreign oil (almost 60% in 2007) combined with weak dollar = high gas prices.

It's really very simple; we're reaping what a majority of Americans have sown for 20+ years. The Wal-mart mentality (cheap is all that matters) has put us in a precarious position.

What?

We are paying for outsourcing and importing cheap products from China. Because the economies have grown in India and China, that has increased the oil demands beyond what the oil industry can produce. This has been a long time coming about 10 years now. Gas prices started going up in about 1998 and have not stopped. There is not a shortage of oil, however, its investors buying oil on the long term market that are effecting the current crude oil prices. If they would open up the ANWR province to oil drilling even though it would take a few years to actually get oil, it would have an immediate effect on the current price of crude by adding relief to the futures market. The only way we can get away from our foreign oil dependence is to come up with alternative fuels and drill more at home. No matter where we drill, it will be somebody's favorite place. As long as it is done in an environmentally friendly way as possible, I don't have a problem with it.

GEEZ! What does it take to make people understand supply and demand?

With the mortgage meltdown and resulting credit crunch, investors are looking for other investment vehicles to put their cash into. Petroleum is a commodity and investors are buying futures contracts in oil. It is a case of supply and demand.

Too much cash chasing after too little supply.:mad:

If they would open up the ANWR province to oil drilling even though it would take a few years to actually get oil, it would have an immediate effect on the current price of crude by adding relief to the futures market.
ANWR is such a drop in the bucket. The US oil consumption in 2006 was 20,687,000 barrels per day. ANWR is estimated to have between 590 million barrels and 9.2 billion barrels of reserves depending on who you listen to. If you take the high number, that will give the US 445 days if all imports were stopped. If you were to factor ANWR into some long term strategy for balancing imports with domestic production, it would be such a small percentage that it would make no difference other that some temporary "feel-good" blip on Wall Street.

What?
What part don't you understand?

Do you really think global demand has increased enough in the last few years (five years ago we were paying $1.50/gallon) to drive the price up over 130%?

No, the dollar has fallen drastically due to our lifestyle choices, period. Most Americans now have a negative net worth as it's all about immediate gratification, which requires shopping by price above all else.

It's very simple, really.

Multiple Factors:

Greed - I've got mine, the heck with yours. My son and his wife have 2 big suv's, 1 motorcycle, a 21 foot boat and 2 skidoos.

Devalued dollar - Growing world economies (not so much ours).

Lack of public transportation - even though I live within the city limits,no bus transportation. I grew up in Oklahoma City and they had an extensive and well used streetcar network. It even had a line to Norman Oklahoma, about 15-20 miles away from OKC. I remember well when they started pullng up/paving over the rails.

Refinery shortages- Tree huggers are great but there comes a time that "No refineries in my back yard" just won't work any more.

Driving habits - (this one area you actually have some measure of control over)I live 5 blocks from the school. My neighbor loads up her SUV with her 1 kid and drives to school and drives by and drops her kid off. I walk my kid to school, takes about 20 min. round trip.When I pick her up, there are approx. 35 SUV's and trucks waiting in the drive through pick up line. They spend 15 min. or so with their engines running. Multiple times a day I see people jack-rabbit off lights and stop signs and race down the street, only to sit at the next light, racing their engines. Just because the speed limit says 65 or 75, dosen't mean you have to drive that speed (or faster). try driving 55, see how your mpg improves. I love my 2006 Ridgeline, but it only has 7,600 miles on it. Our other car is a 2005 Prius with 55,000 miles on it. I only drive my RL when I need to tow something or haul someting that won't fit in the Prius.

There is no simple, easy , single solution. It will take inovation, peservation, dedication, and most of all, a change in the mind set of the american people before we can begin to see a light at the end of this tunnel.

"‘Perhaps 60% of today’s oil price is pure speculation’" by F. William Engdahl. FSO Editorial 05/02/2008 (http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2008/0502.html)

Perhaps 60% of oil prices today pure speculation


Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley today are the two leading energy trading firms in the United States. Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase are major players and fund numerous hedge funds as well who speculate.
In June 2006, oil traded in futures markets at some $60 a barrel and the Senate investigation estimated that some $25 of that was due to pure financial speculation. One analyst estimated in August 2005 that US oil inventory levels suggested WTI crude prices should be around $25 a barrel, and not $60.


That would mean today that at least $50 to $60 or more of today’s $115 a barrel price is due to pure hedge fund and financial institution speculation. However, given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months amid the explosive rise in oil futures prices traded on Nymex and ICE exchanges in New York and London it is more likely that as much as 60% of the today oil price is pure speculation. No one knows officially except the tiny handful of energy trading banks in New York and London and they certainly aren’t talking.
By purchasing large numbers of futures contracts, and thereby pushing up futures prices to even higher levels than current prices, speculators have provided a financial incentive for oil companies to buy even more oil and place it in storage. A refiner will purchase extra oil today, even if it costs $115 per barrel, if the futures price is even higher.
As a result, over the past two years crude oil inventories have been steadily growing, resulting in US crude oil inventories that are now higher than at any time in the previous eight years. The large influx of speculative investment into oil futures has led to a situation where we have both high supplies of crude oil and high crude oil prices.
Compelling evidence also suggests that the oft-cited geopolitical, economic, and natural factors do not explain the recent rise in energy prices can be seen in the actual data on crude oil supply and demand. Although demand has significantly increased over the past few years, so have supplies.
Over the past couple of years global crude oil production has increased along with the increases in demand; in fact, during this period global supplies have exceeded demand, according to the US Department of Energy. The US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently forecast that in the next few years global surplus production capacity will continue to grow to between 3 and 5 million barrels per day by 2010, thereby “substantially thickening the surplus capacity cushion.”

Multiple Factors:
Greed...
Devalued dollar...
Lack of public transportation...
Refinery shortages...
Driving habits...

There is no simple, easy , single solution. It will take inovation, peservation, dedication, and most of all, a change in the mind set of the american people before we can begin to see a light at the end of this tunnel.

Oh, Great.
A sensible and logical post. What's up with that?!?!? :p ;) :D :cool:

GEEZ! What does it take to make people understand supply and demand?

*Sigh* .... the old "it's basic supply and demand!" thing...As people have already pointed out, it's much more complicated than that. The world's demand is indeed increasing, but do you REALLY believe it's enough to more than double prices in five years? Really?

Non-consumptive demand is indeed a big factor. All of those commodities investors don't ACTUALLY want tens of thousands of barrels of oil delivered to their door steps, do they? They just buy and sell to make money, and in the process jack up the price through an ILLUSION of demand.

Kind of what like happened with housing. Investors buying up left and right jacked up prices due to the illusion of demand (the subprime mess contributed to this as well). Guess what happens when people come to their senses and realize there's NOT a shortage of housing? Prices plummet, as they are now.

It's NOT just simple supply and demand. Open your eyes. Price run-ups are being caused by a number of other factors as well.

It's NOT just simple supply and demand. Open your eyes. Price run-ups are being caused by a number of other factors as well.

Oil companies are running up prices because they can. Maybe it's financial market speculation, maybe it's this, maybe it's that. But what it is doing, rapidly, is moving us toward a period of unprecedented social instability.

Other utilities -- and all argument aside, petroleum is a utility that people need to get to work & feed the economy -- have to have rate increases approved by the government. Why is petroleum not viewed as a necessity in the same way that electricity, water, or sewerage is viewed?

It doesn't help when 85% of the offshore oil in this country is off limits by OUR OWN CHOOSING.

From a recent commentary by Cal Thomas, In Defense of Big Oil (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2008/05/13/in_defense_of_big_oil):
"Eighty-five percent of offshore oil is off-limits." Responding to objections to offshore drilling by environmentalists and their allies in Congress, Robertson noted that some of the strongest pro-environment nations in Europe - he mentions Denmark, Norway, the United Kingdom - lease offshore locations for oil exploration. The technology has become so good, he said, that during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, "one thousand offshore wells were destroyed (in the Gulf of Mexico), but not one leaked." Australia, he said, has allowed offshore drilling for 40 years without any environmental damage.

In addition to the sinking value of the dollar, here is the main problem: According to the Department of Energy, U.S. oil production has fallen approximately 40 percent since 1985, while the consumption of oil has grown by more than 30 percent.

According to government estimates, there is enough oil in areas accessible to America - 112 billion barrels - to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years. The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Had President Clinton not vetoed exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in 1995, when oil was $19 a barrel, America would currently be receiving more than 1 million barrels a day domestically, all of it taken by better technology than existed more than 30 years ago. That was when the Alaskan pipeline was built despite protests from environmentalists who claimed it would destroy the caribou. It didn't, but the environmentalists are back with the same discredited arguments. Because most of the oil remains "off-limits," we are becoming more dependent on foreign oil.

Most of our energy and gas "problems" are of our own creation by caving to eco-hysteria.

It doesn't help when 85% of the offshore oil in this country is off limits by OUR OWN CHOOSING.

From a recent commentary by Cal Thomas, In Defense of Big Oil (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2008/05/13/in_defense_of_big_oil):

Most of our energy and gas "problems" are of our own creation by caving to eco-hysteria.If that is true or partially true, at some point society needs will change eco-protection.

It will be even harder to drill for oil in ANWR, make that impossible, now that they just put the polar bear on the threatened list. Saw a Smart car today in this area. Dont see why I could'nt drive my Yamaha Rhino on the road after seeing that.:D

I've seen a Honda Kei truck (van or whatever it is) on the street here. Most of 'em are deer camp trucks & probably none are technically street legal. But it's not hard to get an inspection sticker in these parts ;)

Saw a Smart car today in this area. Dont see why I could'nt drive my Yamaha Rhino on the road after seeing that.:D

excessive tire wear



...but I like the way you think ;)

If that is true or partially true, at some point society needs will change eco-protection.

The "truth" hasn't mattered in this country for quite some time....all that matters nowadays is being "politically correct." :rolleyes:

excessive tire wear



...but I like the way you think ;)

I can get street tires for it.:D

It doesn't help when 85% of the offshore oil in this country is off limits by OUR OWN CHOOSING.

From a recent commentary by Cal Thomas, In Defense of Big Oil (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2008/05/13/in_defense_of_big_oil):


Most of our energy and gas "problems" are of our own creation by caving to eco-hysteria.
If those reserve numbers are correct, it gives the US 15 years of supply. Then what?

Talk about gloom & doom! :eek:

'Squawk Box' Guest Warns of $12-15-a-Gallon Gas (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080521145247.aspx)

According to our local "Troubleshooter-Tom Martino" the elevated gas prices are mostly due to speculators. They are running up the price of oil, just betting that it will go up, with no intention of buying oil. They stand to make money on the rise. To limit this situation there should be new rules on speculation and make it more expensive to make speculative bids on oil or whatever.

He also said, that the oil company profits are outrageous because the cost of drilling has not risen astronomically like the price of oil.

Finally, he says there is NO shortage of oil at the present time.
troubleshooter.com :: INTERNET HOME OF CONSUMER ADVOCATE TOM MARTINO (http://www.troubleshooter.com/)

FYI....... Is Honda ahead of the ballgame at the right time??

Honda hybrids may be nightmare for Detroit
Honda hybrids may be nightmare for Detroit - Autos - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24763128/)

:)

So, we all buy Hybrids. Where is all the extra electricity going to come from. Already been having problems during the summer in places not having enough.

Wow an intelligent discussion on economics, oil companies, government and the price of gas. That is unheard of in a internet forum.

But I should have realized - Ridgeline owners are just smarter all around. :D

So, we all buy Hybrids. Where is all the extra electricity going to come from. Already been having problems during the summer in places not having enough.
A hybrid doesn't need to be plugged in to charge so no extra electricity is required. They are self-sufficient, apart from needing gasoline. There are available mods to some hybrids, like the Prius, to make them "plug-in" and less dependent on the gas engine, but the manufacturers don't seem to be going that route.

PHEV's will charge overnight when demand is way down. Even at today's electric rates the cost per mile is impressive. For short drives they make a heck of a lot of sense.

There are available mods to some hybrids, like the Prius, to make them "plug-in" and less dependent on the gas engine, but the manufacturers don't seem to be going that route.

Check out the Chevy Volt. The new Prius is also rumoured to be a PHEV.

There are simple mods available to the Honda Insight that can increase their gas mileage to close to 80mpg. That with first generation technology.

Check out the Chevy Volt. The new Prius is also rumoured to be a PHEV.

There are simple mods available to the Honda Insight that can increase their gas mileage to close to 80mpg. That with first generation technology.
I think that battery technology still has to advance a lot before vehicles like the Volt will be common place, but it's a step in the right direction.

Those that support government regulation - what exactly do you propose?

Windfall profits tax? That will probably raise the cost of gasoline because any increase in corporate taxes will quickly be passed on to consumers. Any increase in the cost of doing business reaches the consumer.

Fix prices? Disallow price increases without permission? What if the raw material spikes 10%, above the profit margin? Will the oil companies continue to produce gasoline but loose money? How fast could the government get its sh*t together to review prices?

I think 10% is a fair profit. Pharmaceuticals and software companies regularly make far more profit than that. Should the government cap that too?

The shock to the US economy is not over - but it will settle down when we adjust. Lots of pain going around - but this may be exactly what needed to happen so we would better appreciate the importance and cost of energy.

Yes we need to drill in Anwr, yes we need to drill more in the gulf of Mexico, yes we need to drill where there is oil, the hell with enviromentalist, if they don't like the fact we need to drill in this country, they can start paying for my gas. If we do end up drilling in this country all the oil that we pump from the ground needs to stay in this country not be sold for profits to foreign countries like Japan (Alaskan Pipeline) or China or India.

Those that support government regulation - what exactly do you propose?

Windfall profits tax? That will probably raise the cost of gasoline because any increase in corporate taxes will quickly be passed on to consumers. Any increase in the cost of doing business reaches the consumer.

Fix prices? Disallow price increases without permission? What if the raw material spikes 10%, above the profit margin? Will the oil companies continue to produce gasoline but loose money? How fast could the government get its sh*t together to review prices?

I think 10% is a fair profit. Pharmaceuticals and software companies regularly make far more profit than that. Should the government cap that too?

The shock to the US economy is not over - but it will settle down when we adjust. Lots of pain going around - but this may be exactly what needed to happen so we would better appreciate the importance and cost of energy. When a Monopoly controls something that can destroy the entire economy of our country, something should be done. While no one of the top 5 is a "monopoly" by themselves, the 5 combined are. Do you really think one doesn't follow the other? The top five make up over 75% of the market.

When a Monopoly controls something that can destroy the entire economy of our country, something should be done. While no one of the top 5 is a "monopoly" by themselves, the 5 combined are. Do you really think one doesn't follow the other? The top five make up over 75% of the market.

See Hofffam's post #146 above. What are you proposing?

Well, I'm not necessarily for regulation, but when the oil companies are posting record profits, I think it's time we get rid of the federal taxes that underwrite the oil companies (appx $0.2/gallon off the top). That alone would account for $200M/day in tax relief to US citizens, and while I'm not hurting right now, I know tons of people that are...

Well, I'm not necessarily for regulation, but when the oil companies are posting record profits, I think it's time we get rid of the federal taxes that underwrite the oil companies (appx $0.2/gallon off the top). That alone would account for $200M/day in tax relief to US citizens, and while I'm not hurting right now, I know tons of people that are...

What federal tax are you referring to, and how does it underwrite the oil companies?

What federal tax are you referring to, and how does it underwrite the oil companies?

I think he is talking about this.

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aMb8UYrFihcI&refer=home)

What federal tax are you referring to, and how does it underwrite the oil companies?
Sorry, yah. It's a tax the feds give to oil companies to offset energy exploration - something completely unnecessary when the oil companies are generating record profits...

Well that sure sounds like a $16.6B no-brainer. I'm all for it.

Put the savings generated into road repairs.

When a Monopoly controls something that can destroy the entire economy of our country, something should be done. While no one of the top 5 is a "monopoly" by themselves, the 5 combined are. Do you really think one doesn't follow the other? The top five make up over 75% of the market.

You keep saying "somthing must be done."

What???

I blame butterflies, chicken wings, the Boston Red Sox and people who throw rice at weddings.





... just as logical as reality

I blame butterflies, chicken wings, the Boston Red Sox and people who throw rice at weddings.

Yanks in last place. Boo hoo.

:D

I blame butterflies, chicken wings, the Boston Red Sox and people who throw rice at weddings.
... just as logical as reality

I think I'll blame my wife :eek: She always blames me for everything else so this one is her's............:eek: :rolleyes: :D

I think I'll blame my wife She always blames me for everything else so this one is her's............

Aw man. Good luck with that. I'll send flowers to your hospital room. :eek: ;) :p

The typical oil company has a 8-10 cents profit margin per gallon. The federal govt taxes gas is 16 cents per gallon. State taxes add to the tax we pay. IN New York 60 cents per gallon is a tax.

The liberal media would have you blame "big oil". I blame "big goverment."

One of the articles that makes some sense to me.

Is $130 oil a bubble? - May. 23, 2008 (http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/23/news/economy/oil_bubble/index.htm?cnn=yes)

You keep saying "somthing must be done."

What???Oh, I don't know...try reading one of the other posts.

The Energy Non-Crisis (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147&hl=en) I think this guy is right.

Here is a chart that shows the futures for the past year through last Friday.

Crude Oil Futures Prices - NYMEX (http://www.wtrg.com/daily/crudeoilprice.html)

CNN/Money: Global gas prices (http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/)

Regulations will bring us one nasty thing I remember from the seventies.


GAS LINES

Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.:(

One of the articles that makes some sense to me.

Is $130 oil a bubble? - May. 23, 2008 (http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/23/news/economy/oil_bubble/index.htm?cnn=yes)

Interesting read. Quote:

"Big investment funds are putting money into oil futures as if Saudi Arabia's spigots will run dry tomorrow."

Anyone wanna guess what happens when investors think it's no longer that desirable an investment? Hint: look at the housing market in some areas. Oil can't go up forever. What's gonna happen when it stops increasing and all these investors pull out? Keep in mind non-consumptive demand for oil is at an all-time high.

People who think demand has increased enough in the past few years to make the price skyrocket are fools. As I said before, there's more to it than simple supply and demand. I'm not saying it shouldn't go up, but it's definitely overpriced.

Psst - Did you hear the rumor that oil will be $200 a barrel by August?
{Hmmm - I got me some I just paid $130 for} $200 eh? Do I have a bargain for you? As much as you want for only $150
Done.
{Yes, you have been} Pleasure doing business with you.
Psst - Did you hear that oil will be $250 a barrel by September? I have some I can sell to you for the bargain price of $170. Interested?

Supply and Demand is not a factor, it's Market Forces gone bad.

I heard last night that ETF's that hold commodities are another factor. I hadn't thought of that one. So that speculator could be you, your friend, or even your ROC buddies.

Psst - Did you hear the rumor that oil will be $200 a barrel by August?
{Hmmm - I got me some I just paid $130 for} $200 eh? Do I have a bargain for you? As much as you want for only $150
Done.
{Yes, you have been} Pleasure doing business with you.
Psst - Did you hear that oil will be $250 a barrel by September? I have some I can sell to you for the bargain price of $170. Interested?

Supply and Demand is not a factor, it's Market Forces gone bad.

Wish it were as simple as market manipulation, but upon further study, it's becoming more and more apparent that it's much simpler supply/demand. China is using 6X as much fuel as they did a decade ago, and India is not far behind. Between those two countries, you have close to half the world's population. All it takes is for those people to give up their bicycles for cars/motorcycles and the demand is an order of magnitude greater.

IOW, gas prices aren't coming back down - the days of $3/gal gas are gone forever. I'm no doom-n-gloomer, but we should understand that as the world-wide demand increases, the refineries are running at 100%, and the value of the dollar is low, we're going to continue to pay more and more...

Here is an interesting link: U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html)

Gas prices lagged behind inflation for many years. Since 2003 or in that neighborhood the spikes seemed to be more abrupt!! Thus the 200% jump in the past 5 years ($2.00 to $4.00). Todays prices may just be realality!!:(

I read on CNN that some of the Middle East oil producers are wondering why we are paying so much. hahaha... now that's funny.

Here is an interesting link: U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html)

Gas prices lagged behind inflation for many years. Since 2003 or in that neighborhood the spikes seemed to be more abrupt!! Thus the 200% jump in the past 5 years ($2.00 to $4.00). Todays prices may just be realality!!:(
Inflation adjusted Gasoline Price Chart (http://www.inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm)

Inflation adjusted Gasoline Price Chart (http://www.inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm)

Interesting, I assume these prices do not show taxes!!

Interesting, I assume these prices do not show taxes!!
I imagine they do - the nominal gas price of $3.22/gal was the national average in March of 2008...

Psst - Did you hear the rumor that oil will be $200 a barrel by August?
{Hmmm - I got me some I just paid $130 for} $200 eh? Do I have a bargain for you? As much as you want for only $150
Done.
{Yes, you have been} Pleasure doing business with you.
Psst - Did you hear that oil will be $250 a barrel by September? I have some I can sell to you for the bargain price of $170. Interested?

Supply and Demand is not a factor, it's Market Forces gone bad.


I started thinking about this last night. Anyone ever read John Kenneth Galbraith's 'A Short History of Financial Euphoria'? Excellent book on exactly what's happening right now. Tulips. North Sea Crude. Tech Stocks. This is nothing new.

IMHO, the smart money started getting in on this in the last year or so. Now, for the last few months, dumb money is piling in, driving prices like crazy. It's about time for the smart money to bank their profits and stick the dumb money with all the losses. Remember tech stocks? All the guys that got in right at the end while the smart money ran for the hills? I think the same thing will happen and it's probably not too far off. I read in interesting study after the tech stock collapse that showed that when the media / common man interest was at it's highest was was the market collapsed.

I think you're right on the money, ScottIN, except that the product whose prices are going to collapse is based on a real thing, not vaporware (.com bomb) and is also in increasing demand. That will cushion the fall somewhat. I figure things will drop back to $3.50 and potentially stay there for a while if US consumption continues to drop at the current rate.

I think you're right on the money, ScottIN, except that the product whose prices are going to collapse is based on a real thing, not vaporware (.com bomb) and is also in increasing demand. That will cushion the fall somewhat. I figure things will drop back to $3.50 and potentially stay there for a while if US consumption continues to drop at the current rate.

I suspect that shovelhd's right about prices dropping back to $3.50 or so. Big Oil knows now that Americans will tolerate $3.00-plus gas & won't drop below "what the market will bear."

In my mind, fuel is a utility. Why gasoline companies do not have to petition a state-level government agency for rate increases as do electric & natural gas utilities is beyond me. Well, it's not beyond me: Big Oil spends Big Bucks to keep itself from being classified as a utility. (The argument that a lot of Americans can choose to driv doesn't ring true, because it follows that those same Americans must choose not to work as well & our country -- for one reason or another -- has chosen over the past half century to neglect public transportation.)

So we return to the classic party pick-up line from "Revenge of the Nerds": Would you rather live in the ascendancy of a civilization or in its decline?

heres my theory
this is a links to a chart on gas prices:
Gasoline Components History (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gaspump.html)
Current Gas Prices and Price History (http://zfacts.com/p/35.html)

[NOTE: political content removed by moderator.]

From looking at the chart in Rakapur's post link, I remember the drop in gas prices around Haloween in 2006.

A friend of mine used that Haloween price drop to unload his fairly new Ford King Ranch 4x4.

We may get a gas "trick-or-treat" again this Haloween. It may give some big-iron owners another window to make a jump.

Here's an interesting read and comments in the Motor Trend article listed below.

A 77-cents oil price break, and a "natural floor" for SUVs | Car News Blog at Motor Trend (http://blogs.motortrend.com/6258408/editorial/a-77-cents-oil-price-break-and-a-natural-floor-for-suvs/index.html)

That's a good short article that explains the basics. Thanks for posting.

From looking at the chart in Rakapur's post link, I remember the drop in gas prices around Haloween in 2006.

A friend of mine used that Haloween price drop to unload his fairly new Ford King Ranch 4x4.

We may get a gas "trick-or-treat" again this Haloween. It may give some big-iron owners another window to make a jump.

Here's an interesting read and comments in the Motor Trend article listed below.

A 77-cents oil price break, and a "natural floor" for SUVs | Car News Blog at Motor Trend (http://blogs.motortrend.com/6258408/editorial/a-77-cents-oil-price-break-and-a-natural-floor-for-suvs/index.html)

wasnt that hurricane Katrina?? i remember i was so mad it cost me $50 to fill up, lol now its costing me almost $50 for half a tank

wasnt that hurricane Katrina?? i remember i was so mad it cost me $50 to fill up, lol now its costing me almost $50 for half a tank

Since politics and religion are taboo subjects on here, I'm not about to touch any of it with a 10 foot pole. So I though it might have had to do with seasonality.
However, I did find the following article that seems to give a good explanation. Maybe, just maybe, we could have something like this happen again this fall and some people can unload some big-iron vehicles again.

Check out the following link.
HowStuffWorks "Why did U.S. gas prices drop in the fall of 2006?" (http://money.howstuffworks.com/gas-price-decline.htm)

Gotta love it. All the people that were buying in at $145 a barrel have been crushed in the last few days. Idiots.

So we've seen about a 15% drop in 4 trading days, anyone want to guess how low we're going? Could probably look at a chart and see where the support / bail point is, but my guess is we'll be at $105 or so within two weeks.

Now, the trick is to keep lowering usage to keep the price weak. The speculators have been burned, now it's time to prove to the producers that we don't need them as much as they need us.

I'm spending about 25% less on gas this year than same time last year just by combining trips, being a little easier on the pedal and slowing down a few MPH on long drives.

I predicted $3.50/gallon before the end of the summer, and at the time, prices were still going up.

Remember this is a fragile market. One big hurricane can ruin everything.

I predicted $3.50/gallon before the end of the summer, and at the time, prices were still going up.

Remember this is a fragile market. One big hurricane can ruin everything.

Or one bombing run over Iran.
Still, I like the direction oil seems to be heading.
It will be intersting to see how everyone lines up with T Boone Pickens and his plan.

19 pages, discussions like this, a by-product of high gas prices, is the first step in answering the question of "What can we do about it?" That's encouraging.

Personally, I believe that in spite of all the challenges, this country has the will, freedom, resources, and motivation to bring this thing into balance. We have done it before and will do it again.

It's interesting that conservation hasn't been a priority over the years, but that attitude is now changing. People are being forced to drive less and plan better. Conservation is becoming more of a way of life in this country. That seems to be a good thing, unless you're of the thought that consumerism keeps this country's economy going. Conservation decreases the amount we consume, therefore straining our economy. Our priority has been to achieve the highest possible growth in our economy, not to restrict it. But balance is needed.

My hope is for moderation and balance at all levels. Moderation and balance are keys to many things in life, IMO. The challenge is finding balance through new technologies, innovation, imagination, discussion, good ol' American can-do spirit. We need someone who will say, as Reagan did, that these are going to be hard times and we all need to sacrifice some to right this ship. That seemed to work in the early 80's. That, and letting the financial system free wheel toward self-implosion. Oh wait, that's where we are again today. But I digress.

The challenge is finding balance through new technologies, innovation, imagination, discussion, good ol' American can-do spirit.

Here is a good example from today's news (and Honda is mentioned):

Pickens sees $300 oil unless U.S. cuts crude imports: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance (http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080722/pickens_oil.html)

Highlights:

"Some 8 million vehicles in the world run on natural gas, with only about 140,000 in the United States, said Pickens, who owns a Honda car that runs on natural gas."
----------------------
"Growth in U.S. wind power has been dramatic. Preliminary figures show the United States in July may have surpassed Germany as the world's largest generator of wind power, AWEA said."

"Wind could generate 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030, only slightly less than natural gas currently fires, the Department of Energy said in a report."

"The federal government and private investors would build a massive wind farm system in the middle of the country from Mexico to Canada to provide electricity."
-----------------------

And statements like this leave me wondering, "So, what's your point?":

"Chris Kostas, analyst at Energy Security Analysis Inc in Boston, said growing oil demand from developing countries like China and India could keep crude prices rising even if the United States succeeded in cutting oil imports."

And what if we sell our wind and other alternative technologies to China and India?

We were in Marathon, Greece, last year where we walked across a marble dam built by a US company. Why can't we build nuclear plants and wind farms for other countries instead of letting them enrich their own Uranium? Why can't we help other countries with this global energy crisis, not just worrying about ourselves? Sounds like some great opportunities.

I'm skeptical about plans for a wind farm from Mexico to Canada. Sounds nice, but there's this law of electricity called "Ohm's Law" that introduces a phenomenon called "transmission line loss". Power must be locally generated to be efficient. I know that here in the Northeast we have high tension lines that come in from Canada, but they are lossy. We have to get over the NIMBY lobby by mandating access at the Federal level.

OK. It's good to be skeptical and ask questions. My wife loves to play the devil's advocate. It bugs me sometimes because it sounds like she's shooting ideas down without a chance. But that's just what it sounds like to me.

Anyway, I'm sure those energy people will consider the laws of electricity. This article just talks about an "eminent domain" challenge (and costs) to get the power to the coasts. I'm sure there are many other challenges to consider.

Let me make prediction. Gas is going to go back down to $3.25 by Christmas and half the folks who sold their SUV for a Prius will be back at the dealership to buy back that very same SUV by New Years. :rolleyes:

I hope I'm wrong. :(

I wonder how many people will add solar panels to their house to charge their electric vehicles someday? That might drive up the price of solar panels and installation, or it might drive the price down as costs fall due to mass production. But wouldn't that be something!

(Somebody in a previous post asked where all the additional electricity would come from. Here are just 2 options, sun and wind, one of which can be on your own property.)

I'll be honest, I didn't read the article. I'll go back and read it.

I'm all for wind power. You may not know that a company wants to tap the wind power off the Cape Cod islands. The wind blows steadily there 24x7x365. The mainland in this area is starved for power. The major transmission lines get overloaded and cause blackouts. The Cape Wind project is a great alternative energy project that would be privately funded, not costing the taxpayers a dime. But our dear liberal Uber Senator Kennedy is steadfastly against it. He has too many friends, campaign contributors, and influential people as neighbors down there who couldn't bear to see the tiny white specks of a windmill 10 miles off the coast that they claim to own.

I'll be honest, I didn't read the article. I'll go back and read it.

I'm all for wind power. You may not know that a company wants to tap the wind power off the Cape Cod islands. The wind blows steadily there 24x7x365. The mainland in this area is starved for power. The major transmission lines get overloaded and cause blackouts. The Cape Wind project is a great alternative energy project that would be privately funded, not costing the taxpayers a dime. But our dear liberal Uber Senator Kennedy is steadfastly against it. He has too many friends, campaign contributors, and influential people as neighbors down there who couldn't bear to see the tiny white specks of a windmill 10 miles off the coast that they claim to own.

These are probaly the same yo-yo's that nixed the turbines in the Gulf Stream!! Agree, wind power is the future!!

These are probaly the same yo-yo's that nixed the turbines in the Gulf Stream!! Agree, wind power is the future!!

Both wind and solar are great, as soon as we invent a way to store the electricity they generate otherwise we still have to have a back up system for windless and cloudy days.
Plug in electric cars and solar would be great except most people work during the day when the sun is out and I'm not sure about moon solar panels yet. :rolleyes:
Lots of opportunities for inventors right now.

Both wind and solar are great, as soon as we invent a way to store the electricity they generates otherwise we still have to have a back up system for windless and cloudy days.

I don't believe anyone has ever suggested scrapping our current power plants and relying exclusively on wind or sun or any other form of energy. So your concern is moot.

As noted in the article, about 20% of US power could come from wind sources, which is a little less than we currently get from Natural Gas, as just one form of energy we use.

"Wind could generate 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030, only slightly less than natural gas currently fires, the Department of Energy said in a report."

Plug in electric cars and solar would be great except most people work during the day when the sun is out and I'm not sure about moon solar panels yet. :rolleyes:
Lots of opportunities for inventors right now.

My friend has solar panels on his house. I believe he's generating electricity all day, which goes back into the grid and earns him "credits" for any energy he uses, day or night. So, effectively, he's creating enough electricity to use whenever he needs it. I'm not sure about all the details, though.

I think we all need to be better educated on these issues, something our government hasn't done effectively yet. We put a lot of energy into promoting the internet in the 90's. We need to do more to promote conservation and alternative energy now! Only since gas prices have shot up has the US public got all upset and instantly interested in alternatives to the extent we're beginning to see.

My friend has solar panels on his house. I believe he's generating electricity all day, which goes back into the grid and earns him "credits" for any energy he uses, day or night. So, effectively, he's creating enough electricity to use whenever he needs it. I'm not sure about all the details, though.Getting multiple units to feed the grid sounds pretty nice. Have the power companies pay you and while you use all the electricity you want. You'd need that check to buy hundreds of light bulbs :) Imagine the christmas light display!!!!

Imagine the christmas light display!!!!

Warner Home Video - National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (http://www.warnervideo.com/christmasvacation/vacation_clip_play.html?id=vac_house_lights)

One of my favorite movies of all time.

Warner Home Video - National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (http://www.warnervideo.com/christmasvacation/vacation_clip_play.html?id=vac_house_lights)

One of my favorite movies of all time.

Mine too....it's a family tradition at Christmas......:cool:

Sorry, I guess I dont share the enthusiasm as the rest for wind power. Wind is great...when it is blowing. The backup systems (which would be powered by the traditional methods) would need to be always running anyway in case of an outage. You just dont have them sitting there idle, waiting, then when an outage occurs turn on the backup system and use up some oil. So my point is the similar amount of enegy would still be wasted to backup the wind power generated systems. So I do not think this point is moot at all.

Some things have changed with regards to oil. One - the global demand for oil has increased. I dont think this will change, only increase. Two - The oil futures market or oil speculators have almost have as much influence in spikes in price as the demand does. Three - Change in the balance of powers in the middleast (and I dont think it is complete yet).

If we want immediate relief (within a couple of years) bring online some NEW refinery's (which would require removing some laws). Second approach is to fix the dropping value of the dollar. It takes more of a dollar to buy a gallon of gas then it did even 2 years ago. If we go back to the Gold Standard that we moved away from in the early 70's, then the value of our dollar would not "float" as it does currently. Now the Euro has outpaced the value of the dollar...and bam...next thing you know a Belgium beer company can suddenly afford to be an American beer company because it doesnt take as many US dollars to buy it out as it did before. Sorry, I got off topic. Thirdly, continue to allow drilling for new discoveries of oil deposits within our own borders. Somehow, refine that oil and have it get reinvested back into the American market, not the global oil market. This would require working with the oil companies and give them some incentitives to sell oil back into American market to curb our demand first, then the rest can get pumped into the global oil market. Still have to keep the share holders happy for the oil companies :). And lastly, at least for the Illinois area, remove the ethanol standard that is added to our gas. Some of my in-laws are farmers and grows corn and he has seen the market price spike since this ethanol craze began. Then it costs more to feed cows, then it the cost of beef goes up, then the price of my hamburger at McDee's is going up (now I am mad! :)) He would perfer helping the farmers out more and open up corn or agriculture trade to Cuba.

Long term (10 years plus) I am all up for alternative ways to power. It is expensive to R&D it and at times even more expensive to get the infrastructure in place to handle it, so we will still going to pay higher rates in the beginning. Even hybrid cars are still more expensive than regular cars.

Oil is still plentiful. Technolgy to find and drill oil is better than ever. The infrastructure is in place. So is the answer to mandate the car companies to make more effieicent cars by some timeline like 2012? This new development will cost money and they are already hurting, so some of that costs will get passed down into the price of the car.

The one thing that am extremely happy about is, for the second time at least in my life...the conversation for oil or alternate fuels is occuring. The first time being during the oil embargo in the 70's. I am for oil and increasing our dependancy on "domestic oil".

Just some of my thoughts on the subject...sorry so long winded.

Keith

Sorry, I guess I dont share the enthusiasm as the rest for wind power. Wind is great...when it is blowing. The backup systems (which would be powered by the traditional methods) would need to be always running anyway in case of an outage. You just dont have them sitting there idle, waiting, then when an outage occurs turn on the backup system and use up some oil. So my point is the similar amount of enegy would still be wasted to backup the wind power generated systems. So I do not think this point is moot at all.

I don't think that's how it works. Energy is bought and sold and moved around all the time from one place to another, from one source to another, supposedly as needed, except while Enron was raping California by diverting it's sources into other states then claiming there wasn't enough being generated for CA.

I repeat, wind is only one source of energy which contributes to the system as a whole. Why not take advantage of it? (Also, where they build wind farms, the wind usually does blow all the time. That's why they build them there. And if it's not blowing one place, it will be another. These are moot points and arguments for those oil people who are resisting new technology.)

I am no expert on this subject, nor am I involved in the industry in any way. Just pointing out that there are solutions available today. We seem to have gone from a society with a solution to every problem to a society with a problem to every solution. What's that about?

I don't believe anyone has ever suggested scrapping our current power plants and relying exclusively on wind or sun or any other form of energy. So your concern is moot.

As noted in the article, about 20% of US power could come from wind sources, which is a little less than we currently get from Natural Gas, as just one form of energy we use.

"Wind could generate 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030, only slightly less than natural gas currently fires, the Department of Energy said in a report."



My friend has solar panels on his house. I believe he's generating electricity all day, which goes back into the grid and earns him "credits" for any energy he uses, day or night. So, effectively, he's creating enough electricity to use whenever he needs it. I'm not sure about all the details, though.

I think we all need to be better educated on these issues, something our government hasn't done effectively yet. We put a lot of energy into promoting the internet in the 90's. We need to do more to promote conservation and alternative energy now! Only since gas prices have shot up has the US public got all upset and instantly interested in alternatives to the extent we're beginning to see.

RO3,
It is all about knowing the details and not just jumping blindly on the current "hot bandwagon". We have all seen how the ethanol deal worked out.
Your friend may be offsetting some of his electric usage but I don't believe he can offset his total usage, not with just a panel on his roof and at what cost over what time period? If it made economic sense or cents, the line to have them installed would be endless, don't you think?
I'm a consumer and I need to see a payback on an investment, at some point in time at least. I'm not interested in wearing a "Green" T shirt just to be part of a feel good group. CA has enough of that to go around.
You got the better education part correct, we all need to understand all the implications before taking the chance on wasting additional taxpayers money because this country is running out of cash fast. Just my thoughts.

I looked into solar panels this spring.

When they are generating more electricity than you are using, the meter does indeed run backwards, and you are credited with the cost at the billing rate at the time (peak, off-peak). There are Federal tax incentives, and potentially state tax incentives, for installation. However, the cost for a reasonably sized installation on my roof would cost about $10K even after the tax incentives. That's a lot of electricity and a lot of time to pay back. I figured it to be about 8 years at a minimum, probably longer as the kids leave the house. I know I have no current plans to retire in my house so I doubt I'll ever see the return on the investment.

This is where the OP is right on the money. We can subsidize electric production and electrical "highways" like we did in the 50's for the Federal Interstate Highway System, or we can subsidize these "femto-generators" at the individual level. The same goes for personal transportation. Why have all of the hybrid car tax incentives gone away, unless you want to buy a domestic? The tax break is offset by a repair bill. No thanks.

Give an American a good ROI position, and everybody wins. The consumer, the electric producers, the manufacturers, the installers, and the economy.

If I could have a solar panel system installed and get an ROI within 3 years I'd do it tomorrow, and so would a huge number of American homeowners.

you don't want to join all those greenies from Cali outfitter? ;)

Out where I lvie we have 2 large windfarms in operation, and 3 nuclear power plants within 50 miles. I prefer the nuke plants, however the widfarms allow acerage to be kept & used for farmland.

however the widfarms allow acerage to be kept & used for farmland.

hmmm. That's a good point, Jim.

keeping farmland is good out here in the corn belt.

In addition to the windfarms, and nuke plants nearby we have 2 biodiesel plants, one in operation, and one being built.

If I could have a solar panel system installed and get an ROI within 3 years I'd do it tomorrow, and so would a huge number of American homeowners.

I agree completely. This is common sense. That's why I also decided not to have solar installed right now, even though we do plan on keeping our house forever. It's only the 2 of us and we don't use much electricity. Our bill is only about $30-$50/mo. or less. I think we spend more on natural gas than electricity. So, my friend's $40,000 solar panels don't make sense for us. And we're not using gobs of power. We're not even home most of the time. (He paid $40,000 a few years ago. The cost may be less now as technology and economies of scale have improved.)

But...if we had a couple electric vehicles 10 years down the road when we retire and are home, and the cost of electricity goes up enough, and tax incentives (govt. subsidies!) remain, who knows. At least it's available, and oh yeah, the lines are getting longer for it right now and manufacturing costs are decreasing.

you don't want to join all those greenies from Cali outfitter? ;)

Out where I lvie we have 2 large windfarms in operation, and 3 nuclear power plants within 50 miles. I prefer the nuke plants, however the widfarms allow acerage to be kept & used for farmland.

Dang it Jim, there I go again. Didn't mean to step on anybodies toes. Now you know why my wife says I might not be a good role model for today's youth.:o
My apologies to the class.

Dang it Jim, there I go again. Didn't mean to step on anybodies toes. Now you know why my wife says I might not be a good role model for today's youth.:o
My apologies to the class.

you are too funny,

to be honest alot of todays youth & their ideas frightens me., and Im not even that old yet. :D

It is all about knowing the details and not just jumping blindly on the current "hot bandwagon". We have all seen how the ethanol deal worked out.

Agreed. Nor should we just dismiss things for lack of knowledge.

Who was the biggest promoter for ethanol? What a mess that's turned out to be. Using food for fuel. I guess it is "renewable." Maybe they couldn't get past that part. But at least we did try something. Failure is the first step to success.

I'm not interested in wearing a "Green" T shirt just to be part of a feel good group. CA has enough of that to go around

And you know this from your Texas living room? People can bash the progressive state of CA all they want. We all know it starts here (in CA) long before the rest of the country catches on. It's only a matter of time. So go ahead and "Bring it on!"

BTW, nobody's requiring you to do anything. In fact, the more nothing that you do is just fine with us. Don't come crying when your wells dry up, or when you can't afford to fill your Ridgeline.

I agree completely. This is common sense. That's why I also decided not to have solar installed right now, even though we do plan on keeping our house forever. It's only the 2 of us and we don't use much electricity. Our bill is only about $30-$50/mo. or less. I think we spend more on natural gas than electricity. So, my friend's $40,000 solar panels don't make sense for us. And we're not using gobs of power. We're not even home most of the time. (He paid $40,000 a few years ago. The cost may be less now as technology and economies of scale have improved.)

But...if we had a couple electric vehicles 10 years down the road when we retire and are home, and the cost of electricity goes up enough, and tax incentives (govt. subsidies!) remain, who knows. At least it's available, and oh yeah, the lines are getting longer for it right now and manufacturing costs are decreasing.

RO3, I need to move to wherever you are at if thats your electric bill during the summer. You either have a lot cheaper electric rates or you got a lot more effecient A/C units than I have.
Please continue to use lots of natural gas as that will help a bunch of us Texicans living on top of the Barnet Shale gas fields.:D

I don't think that's how it works. Energy is bought and sold and moved around all the time from one place to another, from one source to another, supposedly as needed, except while Enron was raping California by diverting it's sources into other states then claiming there wasn't enough being generated for CA.

I repeat, wind is only one source of energy which contributes to the system as a whole. Why not take advantage of it? (Also, where they build wind farms, the wind usually does blow all the time. That's why they build them there. And if it's not blowing one place, it will be another. These are moot points and arguments for those oil people who are resisting new technology.)

I am no expert on this subject, nor am I involved in the industry in any way. Just pointing out that there are solutions available today. We seem to have gone from a society with a solution to every problem to a society with a problem to every solution. What's that about?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what is a moot point and what is not. I am postive as with all things, it is all in the setup. Not every power company wants to purchase power. Please understand, I think wind power might have its place or niche. But I am not convinced this national plan that this billionaire is proposing is the answer (he is doing radio ads here in STL).

Yes, energy is bought and sold all the time. I am not educated enough to tell you how those sold watts get moved from the wind farm to the power plant that pushes the power out to the masses. But I bet it is not in barrels :)

RO3, I need to move to wherever you are at if thats your electric bill during the summer. You either have a lot cheaper electric rates or you got a lot more effecient A/C units than I have.
Please continue to use lots of natural gas as that will help a bunch of us Texicans living on top of the Barnet Shale gas fields.:D

Mild climate, don't use the A/C much at all, maybe just a few days this year so far.

I am not convinced this national plan that this billionaire is proposing is the answer (he is doing radio ads here in STL).

This article yesterday was the first I've heard of this guy and his plan. Don't know anything else about it. You are probably much more informed and sensitive about it since it would be running through your "backyard."

I just think it's encouraging that this issue (additional energy sources) has come to the forefront, again. We need to do something now. We can't wait another 30 years. There is no silver bullet. But there are lots of ideas out there now, lots of entrepreneurial, investment, and research opportunities. That's encouraging.

And I'd rather think about all the possibilities rather than all the problems we're in right now. It just makes my day better.

RidgeOwner3 -

I am all for the positive attitude on life! It improves on the quality of my day. work life and family. Totally get where you are coming from.

I am leaving work now and off to the homestead. Thank you for the good intelligent dialog. Have a great evening all.

Keith

RidgeOwner3 -

I am all for the positive attitude on life! It improves on the quality of my day. work life and family. Totally get where you are coming from.

I am leaving work now and off to the homestead. Thank you for the good intelligent dialog. Have a great evening all.

Keith

Thanks. You, too.

And you know this from your Texas living room? People can bash the progressive state of CA all they want. We all know it starts here (in CA) long before the rest of the country catches on. It's only a matter of time. So go ahead and "Bring it on!"

Woah there, pardner. Cali doesn't have a monopoly on engineering talent. There's plenty of that out here, too. In fact, if you compare Cali to the Northeast from Maine to Virginia, I'd say we probably have more.

Woah there, pardner. Cali doesn't have a monopoly on engineering talent. There's plenty of that out here, too. In fact, if you compare Cali to the Northeast from Maine to Virginia, I'd say we probably have more.

I know. I thought about that after posting. There are plenty of other states trying to do the right thing, too. And with MIT in your backyard, you should be one of them! (BTW, my boss graduated from MIT with a Masters in physics and is very well respected in his field.)

Sounds like Jim's neighborhood by Chicago has lots of stuff going on, too. Windfarms, nuclear plants, and biodiesel plants, wow!

I need to vent some steam.

Before I go off, I fully realize: a) businesses exist and deserve, in our great nation, to make a profit b) our local gas stations are at the mercy of the distributors and oil companies and c) that wholesale purchasers of goods at high prices want to continue selling those goods at prices that reflect what they paid for them. I understand all that.

BUT! Light sweet closed today at $124.44. Eight trading days ago on July 11 it closed at $147.27, the record high. Today's close is 84% of that price.

For most of July, I've paid $4.25 to $4.29 per gallon of gasoline. 84% of $4.29 is $3.60. But our local prices have today just reached the $4.00 mark.

Someone (the local stations, the suppliers, the oil companies, maybe all three) raises the prices very quickly when there's a hint of anything negative. They don't hold the price low and say "well, that's what I paid when I filled my tanks. I'll raise my prices when I buy my next inventory." They don't do that.

I know this has all been discussed before, but with such a dramatic fall in crude prices, the lag at the pump is more dramatic than ever. And I don't like it.

Thanks for listening.

I don't have a problem with the small stations doing this. I mean small, rural stations that get maybe one or two drops a month. They're just pricing to what they paid for it, and they'll adjust pricing after the next drop.

It's the big stations that get two, three or four drops a day. They are the ones making the coin. Them, their distributors, and if they are company owned stations, the manufacturer.

I don't see anything wrong with it. That's the way a free trade society works.

I don't have a problem with the small stations doing this. I mean small, rural stations that get maybe one or two drops a month. They're just pricing to what they paid for it, and they'll adjust pricing after the next drop.

It's the big stations that get two, three or four drops a day. They are the ones making the coin. Them, their distributors, and if they are company owned stations, the manufacturer.

I don't see anything wrong with it. That's the way a free trade society works.

The distributors that own the pumps and the tanks at the convenience markets are making out like bandits. Even when there is a drive off or bad check the convenience store owner takes the hit!!:(

Sorry, I guess I dont share the enthusiasm as the rest for wind power. Wind is great...when it is blowing. The backup systems (which would be powered by the traditional methods) would need to be always running anyway in case of an outage. You just dont have them sitting there idle, waiting, then when an outage occurs turn on the backup system and use up some oil. So my point is the similar amount of enegy would still be wasted to backup the wind power generated systems. So I do not think this point is moot at all.

Some things have changed with regards to oil. One - the global demand for oil has increased. I dont think this will change, only increase. Two - The oil futures market or oil speculators have almost have as much influence in spikes in price as the demand does. Three - Change in the balance of powers in the middleast (and I dont think it is complete yet).

If we want immediate relief (within a couple of years) bring online some NEW refinery's (which would require removing some laws). Second approach is to fix the dropping value of the dollar. It takes more of a dollar to buy a gallon of gas then it did even 2 years ago. If we go back to the Gold Standard that we moved away from in the early 70's, then the value of our dollar would not "float" as it does currently. Now the Euro has outpaced the value of the dollar...and bam...next thing you know a Belgium beer company can suddenly afford to be an American beer company because it doesnt take as many US dollars to buy it out as it did before. Sorry, I got off topic. Thirdly, continue to allow drilling for new discoveries of oil deposits within our own borders. Somehow, refine that oil and have it get reinvested back into the American market, not the global oil market. This would require working with the oil companies and give them some incentitives to sell oil back into American market to curb our demand first, then the rest can get pumped into the global oil market. Still have to keep the share holders happy for the oil companies :). And lastly, at least for the Illinois area, remove the ethanol standard that is added to our gas. Some of my in-laws are farmers and grows corn and he has seen the market price spike since this ethanol craze began. Then it costs more to feed cows, then it the cost of beef goes up, then the price of my hamburger at McDee's is going up (now I am mad! :)) He would perfer helping the farmers out more and open up corn or agriculture trade to Cuba.

Long term (10 years plus) I am all up for alternative ways to power. It is expensive to R&D it and at times even more expensive to get the infrastructure in place to handle it, so we will still going to pay higher rates in the beginning. Even hybrid cars are still more expensive than regular cars.

Oil is still plentiful. Technolgy to find and drill oil is better than ever. The infrastructure is in place. So is the answer to mandate the car companies to make more effieicent cars by some timeline like 2012? This new development will cost money and they are already hurting, so some of that costs will get passed down into the price of the car.

The one thing that am extremely happy about is, for the second time at least in my life...the conversation for oil or alternate fuels is occuring. The first time being during the oil embargo in the 70's. I am for oil and increasing our dependancy on "domestic oil".

Just some of my thoughts on the subject...sorry so long winded.

Keith

2 things...

Thing 1

It would be pretty much impossible and impractical for us to go back on the gold standard. Being on the gold standard makes the money supply in the country totally inflexible. We would only have a finite amount of money in this country while other countries would be free to print whatever money they need for their supply at that time.(No country on the planet currently uses the gold standard.)

The only way we could print more money is if we discovered and mined more gold. Once we spent that money, it would be in essence gone. The only thing we would have acheive would be to gold plate all of the cars in Saudi Arabia.


Thing 2

The prices at McDonalds are for the most part going up because of shipping and labor costs, not because of spike in the price of beef. There is higher than normal supply of beef right now that has actually held prices relatively stable. We haven't seen the real spike in beef yet. Where is this higher than normal supply coming from?

More farmers than usual are slaughtering their herds early because they can't afford to feed their herds because of the price of feed. You will see the real spike when too many cattle are slaughtered off and there is a shortage of beef cows. That will be about 12 months down the road.

Stay tuned.....

If you were pissed off about a $4 gallon of gas, just wait til you have to pay $4 for a Big Mac :eek:

I don't blame the major oil companies and much as I am disgusted with the speculators continuing to drive the futures. I hope they all lose there ass!! When you tie the dollar devaluation into the speculation then we, the consumer, are screwed!! Economics 101!!:eek:

There is higher than normla supply of beef right now that has actually held prices relatively stable. We haven't seen the real spike in beef yet. Where is this higher than normal supply coming from?

More farmers than usual are slaughtering their herds early because they can't afford to feed their herds because of the price of feed. You will see the real spike when too many cattle are slaughtered off and there is a shortage of beef cows. That will be about 12 months down the road.

That sounds perfectly reasonable. I couldn't figure out why the cost of feed has doubled but beef costs have stayed stable. Thanks!

I don't blame the major oil companies and much as I am disgusted with the speculators continuing to drive the futures. I hope they all lose there ass!! When you tie the dollar devaluation into the speculation then we, the consumer, are screwed!! Economics 101!!:eek:


The problem with speculator is that they don't understand the little guy who is out there flippin' the burgers or the guy who makes $8 an hour because they all have $400k + salaries. They simply don't have a point of reference.

They really don't care how many folks they push out of a line at Macys and into a line at WalMart because it doesn't affect them.

There won't be a major shift in thinking until the bottom wrung of the economy collapses when more folks realize that it is easier to stay at home and collect a check from the government than it is to try to go out and make a living.

$11/hr jobs at WalMart don't replace $30/hr jobs at FoMoco. They are just a path to the middle class fading into oblivion.

I could get up on a soap box and rant for hours on this subject but I digress.

End rant.

I wouldn't worry about the price of oil much longer. I just converted my home from oil heat to gas so I expect oil to take a major plunge any day now

I wouldn't worry about the price of oil much longer. I just converted my home from oil heat to gas so I expect oil to take a major plunge any day now

Yeah, that's quite the Taj Mahal you've got there. :)

That sounds perfectly reasonable. I couldn't figure out why the cost of feed has doubled but beef costs have stayed stable. Thanks!

shovelhd,
It has more than doubled in the past year. Last July a 50# bag of feed corn was $3.99-$4.25 and today it is running $10.00- $10.25. Many of the ranchers have sold off a lot of their cattle so they don't have to deal with the increased feed costs especially if they have had their cattle income replaced by oil and natural gas royalties. At the ranch we hunt, there are 4 new gas wells going in right now on the 2000 acres and they are re-opening 3 old wells. We are complaining about oil prices but natural gas is going up fast also. My gas bill rate for June was up 20% over Mays. Just wait till this winter when home heating (Oil or NG) gets added into the equation for many Americans.The screaming will get louder.

And you know this from your Texas living room? People can bash the progressive state of CA all they want. We all know it starts here (in CA) long before the rest of the country catches on. It's only a matter of time. So go ahead and "Bring it on!"

BTW, nobody's requiring you to do anything. In fact, the more nothing that you do is just fine with us. Don't come crying when your wells dry up, or when you can't afford to fill your Ridgeline.

RO3,
I do get ABC, NBC and CBS and maybe another station or 2 if I get the aluminum foil just right on my TV's rabbit ears antenna in my living room.:D

The last time I checked our gas prices were a bit lower and most of the crying seems to be coming from the west coast. We are still drilling here to help the situation while we look for alternatives and that billionaire guy you just heard about is not talking about a wind farm in St Louis's "back yard", but rather in the pan handle of Texas.
Not trying to "Bring it on" to anyone in CA, just looking for sensible solutions to the countries needs.:)

At the ranch we hunt, there are 4 new gas wells going in right now on the 2000 acres and they are re-opening 3 old wells.

Re-opening wells in Texas instead of drilling in ANWR? NO!

... most of the crying seems to be coming from the west coast.

To your ears and in your mind, maybe.

We are still drilling here to help the situation while we look for alternatives and that billionaire guy you just heard about is not talking about a wind farm in St Louis's "back yard", but rather in the pan handle of Texas.

Like I said, I don't know anything more about that project than I read in that article, which said "from Mexico to Canada." And Keith from St. Louis said the guy was advertising in his area. Why would that be?

Not trying to "Bring it on" to anyone in CA, just looking for sensible solutions to the countries needs.:)

Right. Then why the smartass generalized comment about "wearing a "Green" T shirt just to be part of a feel good group. CA has enough of that to go around?"

It gets old when people have to demonize a group or idea they don't necessarily understand or agree with by generalizing, assigning a name, and tearing it down with insults (such as Greenies, whacko environmentalists, liberals, etc.), especially following that with "just looking for sensible solutions to the countries needs." So what you're saying is that you know what's sensible and everyone else can go to hell. Because that's what it sounds like.

Don't want to cause a conflict with you personally. Just sayin....

To your ears and in your mind, maybe.



Like I said, I don't know anything more about that project than I read in that article, which said "from Mexico to Canada." And Keith from St. Louis said the guy was advertising in his area. Why would that be?



Right. Then why the smartass generalized comment about "wearing a "Green" T shirt just to be part of a feel good group. CA has enough of that to go around?"

It gets old when people have to demonize a group or idea they don't necessarily understand or agree with by generalizing, assigning a name, and tearing it down with insults (such as Greenies, whacko environmentalists, liberals, etc.), especially following that with "just looking for sensible solutions to the countries needs." So what you're saying is that you know what's sensible and everyone else can go to hell. Because that's what it sounds like.

Don't want to cause a conflict with you personally. Just sayin....

RO3,

sorry about my comment about "greenies", I was just joking.

With that said, I tend to think the whole "green" movement is kind of a fad, and the buzzword for 2008.

It gets old when people have to demonize a group or idea they don't necessarily understand or agree with by generalizing, assigning a name, and tearing it down with insults (such as Greenies, whacko environmentalists, liberals, etc.), especially following that with "just looking for sensible solutions to the countries needs." Unfortunately, that is what happens to most groups with a cause. 99.99% of the people who believe in the causes are looking to do the right thing, but it's the 0.01% that make the news and are doing weird/wild/crazy stuff. The general public only know what is fed to them by the news as "the news" is a reputable source that provides facts, right? :rolleyes:

RO3,

sorry about my comment about "greenies", I was just joking.

With that said, I tend to think the whole "green" movement is kind of a fad, and the buzzword for 2008.

I know you a little bit, Jim, so I wasn't offended. You're a good guy. And Outfitter is as well, along with most Ridgeline owners I've met here. No hard feelings.

I think we should all hope that the green movement, however that's defined, becomes second nature to balance the heavy consumption we have in this country, all of us included. We should be conscientious of our actions and conscious of improvements we can make, whether each one of us decides to act or not. We need to practice what we preach about self respect and responsibility and instill that in our future generations. I think we can all agree on that much.

I know you a little bit, Jim, so I wasn't offended. You're a good guy. And Outfitter is as well, along with most Ridgeline owners I've met here. No hard feelings.

I think we should all hope that the green movement, however that's defined, becomes second nature to balance the heavy consumption we have in this country, all of us included. We should be conscientious of our actions and conscious of improvements we can make, whether each one of us decides to act or not. We need to practice what we preach about self respect and responsibility and instill that in our future generations. I think we can all agree on that much.

very well put.

Unfortunately, that is what happens to most groups with a cause. 99.99% of the people who believe in the causes are looking to do the right thing, but it's the 0.01% that make the news and are doing weird/wild/crazy stuff. The general public only know what is fed to them by the news as "the news" is a reputable source that provides facts, right? :rolleyes:

True, people regurgitate what they see on TV or hear on the radio. And you're right that the extremes of society have become newsworthy and ratings are built on the evoked emotions. Personally, I think shock jocks with millions of listeners are more responsible for disseminating questionable "facts" across the country daily than any one news service.

But here we go again, telling people not to watch the news (except Fox News, of course) or read the papers. I won't even get into the demonization of college professors. Seems like a sure way to control the masses is by demonizing free media and education. Keep 'em ignorant and they will have to follow you. Give them knowledge and they will overcome you.

Thanks!

To your ears and in your mind, maybe.



Like I said, I don't know anything more about that project than I read in that article, which said "from Mexico to Canada." And Keith from St. Louis said the guy was advertising in his area. Why would that be?



Right. Then why the smartass generalized comment about "wearing a "Green" T shirt just to be part of a feel good group. CA has enough of that to go around?"

It gets old when people have to demonize a group or idea they don't necessarily understand or agree with by generalizing, assigning a name, and tearing it down with insults (such as Greenies, whacko environmentalists, liberals, etc.), especially following that with "just looking for sensible solutions to the countries needs." So what you're saying is that you know what's sensible and everyone else can go to hell. Because that's what it sounds like.

Don't want to cause a conflict with you personally. Just sayin....

RO3,
No intent on my part to start a conflict either.
My concern has more to do with and agreeing with what Keith said about the .01% of a "Cause" that can be pretty effective in todays society instilling their ideas and of controling the majority through the use of the courts.
I also never claimed to have the answer to our countries needs. I do agree with many that unless we explore every option to become energy independent then we are going to be in a world of hurt and unless we can overcome the many special interest groups (better?) and get going, then we will continue to fund both sides of the armed conflicts overseas.
PS, you drive a Ridgeline so that makes you a stand up fellow in my book.:D

And, T Boone Pickens is a businesman, 1st and foremost. He had his ducks in a row before he ran the first TV ad and if he can "sell" his ideas nationally he stands to add to his already impressive wealth.

My concern has more to do with and agreeing with what Keith said about the .01% of a "Cause" that can be pretty effective in todays society instilling their ideas and of controling the majority through the use of the courts.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the demonization of our judicial system and all those "activist judges." LOL, Crack me up! If you're not with us, your against us. LOL. Whatever!

BS floats and eventually rises to the top. I have confidence in the way our country is supposed to work. Maybe I'm overly optimistic.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the demonization of our judicial system and all those "activist judges." LOL, Crack me up! If you're not with us, your against us. LOL. Whatever!

BS floats and eventually rises to the top. I have confidence in the way our country is supposed to work. Maybe I'm overly optimistic.

Naw, just naive.

I do agree with many that unless we explore every option to become energy independent then we are going to be in a world of hurt and unless we can overcome the many special interest groups (better?) and get going, then we will continue to fund both sides of the armed conflicts overseas..

Your oil and gas royalties are protected by a "special interest group." Let's not forget to demonize them as well, while we're at it.

And, T Boone Pickens is a businesman, 1st and foremost. He had his ducks in a row before he ran the first TV ad and if he can "sell" his ideas nationally he stands to add to his already impressive wealth.

So now we are against the free market system and building wealth in America through entrepreneurship? I'm confused.

Naw, just naive.

I'm naive for having confidence in the way our country is supposed to work?

Let's keep going with this, patriot.

I'm naive for having confidence in the way our country is supposed to work?

Let's keep going with this, patriot.

I'm done, save the politics for another forum. How's your gas mileage,BTW?

And I love all the briefings about why oil is up today. It's becasue of weak demand! Golly gee...few weeks ago it was up becasue of too much demand. Now it's up becasue of too little demand.

I'm done, save the politics for another forum. How's your gas mileage,BTW?

I know you're done.

If it's politics you want, instead of a discussion on issues in this country, then I'll tell you that things won't change until we get your special interest group out of the White House. Oil is controlling your life and you're letting it.

Personally, I think shock jocks with millions of listeners are more responsible for disseminating questionable "facts" across the country daily than any one news service.

The Internet dwarfs the shock jocks by a large margin. Look how many Internet rumours get blown up every day?

I know you're done.

If it's politics you want, instead of a discussion on issues in this country, then I'll tell you that things won't change until we get your special interest group out of the White House. Oil is controlling your life and you're letting it.

My special interest group in the White House? And here I thought it was the CA gal controlling the house.
I won my case when you started with the personal attacks. I never put a shot across your bow.
Oil is controlling my life and I'm letting it? What rock have you been living under the last few weeks? It is what this thread is all about and what has got the usa and the rest of the world concerned.
Take a chill pill fellow.

My special interest group in the White House?

Oil men! Or have you been hiding under a rock?

And here I thought it was the CA gal controlling the house.

So, I guess Miss Pelozi is actually the most powerful person in the world and not the President? Hmmmm. Good case for that, I suppose.

I won my case when you started with the personal attacks.

Show me where I "started with the personal attacks."

Oil is controlling my life and I'm letting it?

Yes, since you voted your special interest into office.

Oil men! Or have you been hiding under a rock?



So, I guess Miss Pelozi is actually the most powerful person in the world and not the President? Hmmmm. Good case for that, I suppose.



Show me where I "started with the personal attacks."



Yes, since you voted your special interest into office.


:D I'll let GW know your on to us when he stops by for a beer this weekend.:p :rolleyes:

Yes, since you voted your special interest into office.

That's crap. George Bush is as responsible as Nancy PeloSi for this energy policy. In fact, the last time we had a coherent energy policy was when Richard Nixon was in office.

Can we please leave the petty political sniping out of this thread please?

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/keith_757_2/sayno-politics.png