The Ever Increasing Price of Crude Oil

[Sanslines]

3-7-08 Moneycentral Report:

"The market was led by gains for energy and materials and metals stocks as commodity prices soared today. Crude oil closed at a record $104.52 after the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries decided not to boost output and the Energy Department reported a surprising drop in domestic oil supplies.
OPEC rebuffed its top consumer, The New York Times noted, arguing that the world was well supplied with oil and blaming financial speculators and mismanagement of the United States economy for the current high prices.
Energy stocks moved higher on the price jump. Chevron (CVX (http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?Symbol=CVX), news (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/rcnews.asp?Symbol=CVX), msgs (http://moneycentral.msn.com/community/message/board.asp?Symbol=CVX)) was the top performer among the 30 Dow stocks with a 2.4% gain to $88.79. ExxonMobil (XOM (http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?Symbol=XOM), news (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/rcnews.asp?Symbol=XOM), msgs (http://moneycentral.msn.com/community/message/board.asp?Symbol=XOM)) added 0.7% to $87.19. Anadarko Petroleum (APC (http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?Symbol=APC), news (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/rcnews.asp?Symbol=APC), msgs (http://moneycentral.msn.com/community/message/board.asp?Symbol=APC)) jumped 2.9% to $66.04. The Amex Oil Index ($XOI.X (http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?Symbol=$XOI.X)) was up 2% to 1,432.
Oil services shares also moved higher, in part because ExxonMobil said it will spend between $25 billion and $30 billion on capital and exploration projects this year, up from about $21 billion in 2007. Schlumberger (SLB (http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?Symbol=SLB), news (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/rcnews.asp?Symbol=SLB), msgs (http://moneycentral.msn.com/community/message/board.asp?Symbol=SLB)) moved up 3.9% to $87.85. Offshore drilling company Transocean (RIG (http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?Symbol=RIG), news (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/rcnews.asp?Symbol=RIG), msgs (http://moneycentral.msn.com/community/message/board.asp?Symbol=RIG)) added 3.2% to $141.16."

[Sanslines]

3-8-08 Market Dispatch Report:

Crude oil in New York closed at a new record $105.47, up 95 cents from Wednesday's close of $104.52. Oil jumped on news of a surprising decline in inventories and word that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries decided against boosting output at its meeting in Vienna, Austria.

[Sanslines]

3-9-08 Market Dispatch Report:

Light, sweet crude slipped 32 cents to close at $105.15 per barrel on New York Mercantile Exchange, but only after briefly surpassing $106.

[nudeM]

The prices of oil continue to rise, yet we are restricted to explore for oil in our own backyard, i.e., Anwar. Special thanks to the environmentalists.

[Sanslines]

The price of oil contiunes to be driven higher and higher due to pure speculation concerning events that might or might not happen. Speculators will say anything as a justification to drive the price higher and higher and they know that Americans will keep on paying whatever the price is without complaint.

[Qikdraw]

The prices of oil continue to rise, yet we are restricted to explore for oil in our own backyard, i.e., Anwar. Special thanks to the environmentalists.

Not just environmentalists...

Public Sends Mixed Signals on Energy Policy (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=400)

For me regulation of oil companies and the research of alternative, renewable energy is important.

Qikdraw

[l2ltlarry]

Last Sunday, March 2nd, T. Boone Pickens -- as I recall, an oilman, among other high-finance things -- said we could solve our energy problems with coal in a very short period of time. The United States reportedly has a 400-hundred-year energy supply in its coal deposits.

It PO's me that the environmental extremists won't agree to our using it. There was a period of 30 to 40 years when oil was $3.75 per barrel and it never varied by more than a few cents. Then OPEC decided to power-grab the US-developed oil fields and put a choke-hold on the Great Satan.

I wonder how many hundreds of dollars per barrel oil will have to rise to before environmentalists will consider solving our energy problems with our most plentiful resource.

Former Chrysler chairman Lee Iacoca once said, "The problem with the long term is, you have to survive the short term to get there." It seems to me that environmentalists are so focused on the long term that our short term survival hardly interests them at all.

[Qikdraw]

At what cost to the long term? A short term fix doen't help if the long term is worse.

Qikdraw

[OZJames]

I think there are more important issues to be considered than just the effect of the price of fuel on our "hip pocket" and personal standard of living.

1. Oil IS RUNNING OUT regardless of what environmentalists say or do. If a higher price forces us to buy smaller cars or forces car makers to make low fuel consumption and/or hybrid or totally electric cars than that is surely good.

2. All products we use or eat have a very high fuel cost built into the price we pay. If that fuel cost rises then the price of the goods rises and "inflation" increases. That will cause buyer resistance and demand will fall slowing the economy pushing economies towards recession.
I am not an economist so this is all too hard for me too work out an answer. Perhaps someone else can help.

3. From an environmental point of view it is good that the price of fuel is rising (see 1. above). I think we must all recognise that what we do now effects the lives of our grandchildren. However it is the balance of price (too high or too low) that I have no idea how to manage. Extremes either way will be a problem

4. If the price is higher then the oil producing countries all get more revenue and they then invest that back into other countries, USA, Australia , China etc. It has been in the press that Arab money has saved some of the big financial institutions suffering from the subprime problem - e.g. Citicorp. Would you rather they didn't have enough money to do that ?

[Sanslines]

I think there are more important issues to be considered than just the effect of the price of fuel on our "hip pocket" and personal standard of living.

1. Oil IS RUNNING OUT regardless of what environmentalists say or do. If a higher price forces us to buy smaller cars or forces car makers to make low fuel consumption and/or hybrid or totally electric cars than that is surely good.

Around here, many people continue to refuse to drive vehicles that get better mileage. The majority of people drive huge pick up trucks that get lousy gas mileage. The trucks are empty and there is only one occupant - the driver. In addition, even if more people wanted to drive more fuel efficient vehicles, very few models are availible. People should demand higher mileage vehicles but the major problem with this is that the Detroit Big Three will then start screaming again that they can not provide such vehicles and the Japanese vehicles makers would subsequently put them out of business. Hence, we cater to the big three by not requiring ever increasing mileage standards.

2. All products we use or eat have a very high fuel cost built into the price we pay. If that fuel cost rises then the price of the goods rises and "inflation" increases. That will cause buyer resistance and demand will fall slowing the economy pushing economies towards recession.
I am not an economist so this is all too hard for me too work out an answer. Perhaps someone else can help.

If demand falls far enough, then prices will fall. Oil speculators are presently pushing up the price of oil based upon pure specualtion. There are no real reasons as to why the price of oil should be as high as it is. Sadly, we appear to be in a mild recession in many parts of the country and conditions are not improving. Even if we are driven into a severe recession, unless the price of oil drops substantially, the prices of consumer goods will not fall appreciably as transportation costs do play a major roll in the price of consumer goods.

3. From an environmental point of view it is good that the price of fuel is rising (see 1. above). I think we must all recognise that what we do now effects the lives of our grandchildren. However it is the balance of price (too high or too low) that I have no idea how to manage. Extremes either way will be a problem

As China's standard of living continues to increase, so will their consumption of oil products increase. Bill Clinton understood this when he wrestled with allowing more major USA companies to set up shop in China and to export USA technology to China. Back in the 90's, it was clearly understood that if China's standard of living was raised to that of the USA, the result would be catastrophic environmental degredation. Unfortunately, the only decisions availible were to either delay or prevent the transfer and expansion of USA companies to China or expand. If the USA delayed or prevented expansion of USA companiies to China, then the fear was that the EU countries would take over and reap the profits from China. In the end, it is all about the money!

4. If the price is higher then the oil producing countries all get more revenue and they then invest that back into other countries, USA, Australia , China etc. It has been in the press that Arab money has saved some of the big financial institutions suffering from the subprime problem - e.g. Citicorp. Would you rather they didn't have enough money to do that ?

Another major problem that is affecting the USA right now (overall and not just with the price of oil) is that the USA dollar continues to decline in value. Since oil is prices in USA dollars, oil will become cheaper for countries with strong currencies relative to the USA dollar (this now includes the vast majority of countries) and oil will become more expensive for the USA. Sadly, no one in our government from either party appears willing to stand up and do whatever is necessary to keep the dollar from falling any further. The dollar has fallen too low and for too long and so the damage is done. Any remedy now, with all of the other economic problems that face the USA, will only increase the pain and pressure upon the USA economy.

In the end, the chickens have come home to roost. The USA economy is a very unhealthy mess with many coupled and severe problems that can not be easily solved by simplistic economic stimulus packages (such as sending a few hundred dollars to taxpayers) or rasing or lowering interest rates.

[usmc1]

Last Sunday, March 2nd, T. Boone Pickens -- as I recall, an oilman, among other high-finance things -- said we could solve our energy problems with coal in a very short period of time. The United States reportedly has a 400-hundred-year energy supply in its coal deposits.

It PO's me that the environmental extremists won't agree to our using it. There was a period of 30 to 40 years when oil was $3.75 per barrel and it never varied by more than a few cents. Then OPEC decided to power-grab the US-developed oil fields and put a choke-hold on the Great Satan.

I wonder how many hundreds of dollars per barrel oil will have to rise to before environmentalists will consider solving our energy problems with our most plentiful resource.

Former Chrysler chairman Lee Iacoca once said, "The problem with the long term is, you have to survive the short term to get there." It seems to me that environmentalists are so focused on the long term that our short term survival hardly interests them at all.

Larry, I believe if you were to look at the issue a bit closer and with an open mind you would find that most "environmentalists" are striving to see that humanity actually has a long term!

Coal as fuel for power generation is a very costly (in many different ways) option designed to perpetuate our reliance on energy consumption. I would suggest that we must figure out a way to reduce that rather than dithering around trying to find painless ways of perpetuating it.

The element that is missing is the honest, unencumbered leadership that says, in effect: drive less, cool and heat less, and stir with a spurtle rather than an electric beater.

But, you know what? Looking for demons and engaging in denial is not going to solve this problem, and sure as hell will do nothing to insure that we humans do have a long-term future.

[Qikdraw]

The other element is large corporations like the oil industry, coal industry, etc... will resist change. Slow things down, take things to court, all so they can continue to keep their monopoly. Wil the massive profits the oil industry has had over the last coupel decades they should have been putting massive amounts of money into alternative energy. Then when oil runs out they are the ones with the research, but they haven't done that. Which is short sited of them.



Qikdraw

[GeorgiaNudist]

Although retired now, having majored in economics and spent a good bit of my professional life analyzing economic issues, I have to think of the fundamental issues involved in the price of crude oil. The United States is now a debtor nation as opposed to China that has three trillion dollars in cash (yes trillion). China and India (both with over a billion persons) are increasing their demand for oil very rapidly and will continue to due so in the future as their citizens purchase cars and expand their industrial capacity (those factories that we keep hearing are being shipped to them).

This leaves only one long term solution for the United States; reduce and eventually eliminate our need for massive amounts of oil. The oil in Alaska (if drilled for) would make up a tiny fraction of our annual demand. We have the intelligence, capacity and ability to make all the changes necessary to make this happen in our life time, including hydrogen powered fuel cells for home, industry and automobiles and numerous changes in production and consumption patterns in our economy, which if done intelligently, will provide substantal improvements in our economy while providing high paying jobs for our children and grandchildren.

A sad point to keep in mind is that some economists suggest that as the price of gas pushes up towards $4.00 a gallon (some thing our current president was supprised to hear about in a recent news conference) the tax credit that is to be issued in May or June of this year will, for the average family, cover the increased cost of running their automobiles.

[MoonShadow]

Good discussion going on here.

But I have a question. What are we, as individuals, doing to ward off the high cost of gasoline, food price increases, and increases in other goods and services?

[Sanslines]

Good discussion going on here.

But I have a question. What are we, as individuals, doing to ward off the high cost of gasoline, food price increases, and increases in other goods and services?

I can't speak for others but......

1) Driving high mpg car and motorcycle

2) Cutting firewood to avoid using heating fuels

3) Growing food in a garden in Spring, Summer, and Fall

4) Refusing to buy goods made in China

5) Rebelling against the consumer way of life. The simple life is the better life!

[Qikdraw]

A sad point to keep in mind is that some economists suggest that as the price of gas pushes up towards $4.00 a gallon (some thing our current president was supprised to hear about in a recent news conference) the tax credit that is to be issued in May or June of this year will, for the average family, cover the increased cost of running their automobiles.

Well the tax credit in my home will go towards paying off a credit card, so not helping the economy at all. Which is exactly the way the majority of this 'tax credit' will go towards around the nation.

The high gas prices will continue to drain our economy.

Qikdraw

[Naturist Mark]

You might just want to put that 'rebate' in the bank. If it is like the last one they did 6 years ago, at tax time next year you'll discover it was just an advance on your refund.

[Naturist Mark]

By James K. Boyce
The Daily Hampshire Gazette

Tuesday 04 March 2008

On Feb. 28, the Gazette ran an AP story headlined "House OKs $18B in new taxes on big oil companies." Buried in paragraph 10, the careful reader learned that a bill passed the previous day by the U.S. House of Representatives seeks to "roll back two lucrative tax breaks for the five largest U.S. oil companies."

Excuse me? Since when is rolling back tax breaks the same thing as "new taxes"?

One of these tax breaks "helps manufacturers compete against foreign companies." Huh? Since when do oil companies "manufacture" anything besides super-profits?

The other "gives a tax credit related to oil and gas extraction outside the country." Outside the country? Whose brilliant idea was this?

It's time for some common sense on Big Oil. Here is the story in plain English: While American families pay their taxes, Big Oil pays lobbyists and lawmakers to give them tax breaks. These not only deprive our government of money to pay for everything from education and bridges to health care and veterans' benefits. They also deepen a root cause of our country's economic and foreign-policy woes: our abject dependence on oil, most of which doesn't happen to be buried under our soil.

Revoking the two tax breaks is projected to cost the five largest U.S. oil companies $1.8 billion per year over the next 10 years. To put this number in perspective, these companies hauled in $123 billion in profits last year. Common sense includes simple arithmetic: ending the tax breaks will trim Big Oil's profits by a mere 1.5 percent.

read the rest (http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/030508EB.shtml)

[KirkOntario]

Why are you against oil companies making profits, Mark? Dividends are paid to hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans whose pension funds invest in oil companies? You don't want those people to have money for retirement? Further, oil companies pay billions of dollars in taxes, billions that Hiillary or Obama are going to need to bloat the size of government with inefficient ineffective bureaucratic 'univeral healthcare.' Don't you want money for those social programmes?

[Naturist Mark]

Why are you against oil companies making profits, Mark? ... Further, oil companies pay billions of dollars in taxes,

Didn't read the article eh? Seems that unlike most of the rest of us, the oil companies are NOT paying their fair share of taxes.

America has just spent 3 trillion dollars and spent the lives and futures of thousands of our soldiers in order to ensure record profits for the oil industry. In return it only seems fair that they pay their share in taxes rather than get special deals.

But tell you what. Give us back the lives and health of our soldiers, and I'll let the oil companies keep all the profit. Fair enough?

-Mark

[KirkOntario]

For those who want the real deal on oil company profits....just skip the leftwing demagoguery....

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/RobertMurphy/2008/03/08/on_those_oil_profits

"Raising taxes on the production of oil will reduce its supply, causing oil and gasoline prices to rise even further. They sometimes call it a “windfall” tax, but in truth crude oil doesn’t grow on trees. It can take over a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars of investment to find and prepare an oil field for large-scale production.

Oil companies are already paying exorbitant tax bills. In 2006, the industry paid $81 billion in income taxes, and almost certainly paid more in 2007 as profits were higher"

[Naturist Mark]

Raising taxes on the production of oil will reduce its supply, causing oil and gasoline prices to rise even further.

Wrongo Bongo

They seem to be operating under the illusion that the oil market operates under a free market and is directly subject to the law of supply and demand. That is clearly not the case. The current high price of oil has occurred even though inventories are high, there are no real shortages of supply, and demand is falling.

'Oil's recent surge has defied weakening demand and rising supply and is a clear illustration of the new strength and value of commodities as a valued asset class,' said Alaron analyst Phil Flynn.
OPEC this week has continued to insist that it is not responsible for higher prices, that the fundamentals do not support record levels and there is no need to pump more crude.
'Speculation in futures market is determining prices,' Saudi Arabian oil minister Ali al-Naimi told Asharq al-Awast newspaper in Morocco. 'Today there is no link between oil (market) fundamentals and prices.'
'The duty of oil exporters is to make sure that fundamentals are healthy,' said Naimi. 'If these fundamentals were stable and fulfil market needs, then there is no need to raise or decrease production,' he added.
CNNMoney (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-23610017.htm)

-Mark

[nacktman]

Didn't read the article eh? Seems that unlike most of the rest of us, the oil companies are NOT paying their fair share of taxes.

America has just spent 3 trillion dollars and spent the lives and futures of thousands of our soldiers in order to ensure record profits for the oil industry. In return it only seems fair that they pay their share in taxes rather than get special deals.

But tell you what. Give us back the lives and health of our soldiers, and I'll let the oil companies keep all the profit. Fair enough?

-Mark

:applause:

Oh, and I like that phrase Wrongo Bongo!

[Emphasis added to citation]

[usmc1]

Why are you against oil companies making profits, Mark? Dividends are paid to hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans whose pension funds invest in oil companies? You don't want those people to have money for retirement? Further, oil companies pay billions of dollars in taxes, billions that Hiillary or Obama are going to need to bloat the size of government with inefficient ineffective bureaucratic 'univeral healthcare.' Don't you want money for those social programmes?

The let's nationalize the oil companies and put those outrageous profits into the health, education and welfare of the people.

[KirkOntario]

The let's nationalize the oil companies and put those outrageous profits into the health, education and welfare of the people.

And watch the economy go the way of Venezuela's.

[usmc1]

And watch the economy go the way of Venezuela's.

DUH! Oh that's right, the American economy is wonderful. GWB said so. He said it, you believe it, that ends it, right?

[KirkOntario]

Where would you prefer to live: America or Venezuela?

[usmc1]

Where would you prefer to live: America or Venezuela?

The south of France actually...:laugh:

[Baron Lake]

Right you are Mark. Recent NPR story noted the petroleum spec market went from around 8 billion two years ago to over 200 billion today.

Let's see, what happened when the Dot Com speculation bubble burst....?

OH Boy!, thirty dollar a barrel crude. Too bad cheap oil ain't all that great for the environment.

b.l.

[MoonShadow]

The USA is a good country, overall, but if I had to choose another location to live, think it would be Italy with Greece a fast second.

Have also heard the South of France is quite nice!

Sorry, this is off-topic

[BinCo]

I heard that one of the things GWB did when he first went into office was to repeal a regulation that kept oil profits low. I have not been able to find any info on this, but have heard it from a variety of sources. Does anyone (Mark) know anything about this? This is why I heard that oil company profits have skyrocketed since 2000.

On another note. We in Colorado have a Public Utility Commision that every other part of the energy sector has to go thru to raise prices. These are private companies, but to raise rates they have to show what the money will be used for and then get approval. I think they get approval 100% of the time, but the rate increases are usually justifiable. Why isn't fuel covered by this? It is the largest expense for a wide variety of companies and is a very large part of the recession costs for individuals. I have no problem with companies making profits, that's my goal with my company. But, with that said, I would love to be the only game in town and have so little cost regulation that I can charge whatever I want. Even better would be to have the laws built around my company so that anyone who created a competitive product would be regulated out of existence. Woo Hoo! So, does anyone know of a single cost regulation on oil companies?

KirkOntario: Sure oil companies pay Billions in taxes. They also get Billions in tax cuts and incentives. ( That I hope get repealed ) As far as investments for people retirements, that attitude has a great deal to do with the ecomonic situation we are in now. GREED! People used to invest for the long haul. It provided a means for a company to grow and employ more people (ie: Americans) Now, it's all about turning as much money as fast as possible to pay dividends. Investment companies and funds do not give a rats butt about the worker. They have the power to push companies to move production out of the country to maximize the profits. They have ZERO interest in the welfare of the people or community that the company comes from. There are hundreds of communities that have collapsed because of offshoring. I understand that some products are obsoleted so the company goes out of business. Far too many in the last 25 years have left to make their widgets offshore. It's only about their own greed. It is sickening and is what is really wrong with this country. People should stay the hell out of investing unless they are in it for the long haul. What really drove the mortgage business into the ground? Greed. Greed and speed. It's all about today and not about tomorrow and will be lead to the destruction of the world ecomony. That level of speedy greed can not be maintained. So, in answer to your question about the worker who is retiring? I say, good luck. Hope you have enough in your own bank as the pension you have could very well be worth zero tomorrow. It happens all the time and is always tied to speedy greed.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by BinCo:
I heard that one of the things GWB did when he first went into office was to repeal a regulation that kept oil profits low. I have not been able to find any info on this, but have heard it from a variety of sources. ... This is why I heard that oil company profits have skyrocketed since 2000.

:doh:

You can find the info (at least you are supposed to be able to) in the records of the Library of Congress by looking for the listing of governmental enactments - which are public record so we can keep track of what our government is doing ... now, with the current cabal, who knows.

And to the others ... The Alban Highlands is the place to be.

[OZJames]

OIL BARREL price now over USD$108 11th March, 2008 with new comment that some people are saying it may go to USD$120. OPEC members don't meet again until September to again consider increasing production.

I notice that a lot of people are pointing out that oil companies hoard profits. I think that would make the share prices rise substantially. Oil company shares values don't seem to do that.

Some years ago , in view of world wide disasters, insurance premiums started rising at rates much much higher than inflation rate. I guessed that the insurance companies were setting themselves up for greater profits so I bought some QBE shares. Their value has gone from about $7 to over $25 paying me back for all premium rises that I have incurred. Anybody who thinks oil companies are on the get rich quick path should buy some shares.

[Sanslines]

USA Today - March 10, 2008

"Petroleum traders and speculators, jumpy about the poor health of the US economy and the falling value of the dollar, are poised to bid up the price of oil closer to $110 per barrel this week, from a closing price of $105.15 last Friday. Signs of a strong dollar or strengethening economy could prompt selling that brings down the price."


With silence from both major political parties concerning the continued increase in oil prices, speculators and traders feel unchallenged and will continue to bid up the price of oil. By this Summer, oil could hit $150 per barrel. The respose will be continued silence from both the White House and Congress.

[Naturist Mark]

We in Colorado have a Public Utility Commision that every other part of the energy sector has to go thru to raise prices. These are private companies, but to raise rates they have to show what the money will be used for and then get approval.

Public Utility Commissions only regulate the prices charged by public utilities ... That means industries like Electricity, Natural Gas and even phone service or Cable TV. That is because these are 'natural monopolies' who normally do not have competition (or in the past did not) because it was considered impractical for competing companies to build duplicate distribution infrastructures. You wouldn't have competing gas companies each running their separate gas lines to each home so the homeowner could choose between competitors. These natural monopolies also each needed government cooperation to run their utilities over public land rights of ways, and in many cases needed to receive a concession from local government to offer their services to their residents, part of the deal is price regulation to compensate for the lack of a free market. The 2000-2001 debacle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis) in California demonstrates what mischief can occur when natural monopolies go unregulated.

Oil and gasoline sellers are not public utilities, in theory they are highly competitive and consumers have free choices. In fact they are oligarchical and highly susceptible to collusion. As a practical matter the public utility approach would only affect the local retail outlets - who are responsible for approximately none of the market price manipulation.

-Mark

[usmc1]

Public Utility Commissions only regulate the prices charged by public utilities ... That means industries like Electricity, Natural Gas and even phone service or Cable TV. That is because these are 'natural monopolies' who normally do not have competition (or in the past did not) because it was considered impractical for competing companies to build duplicate distribution infrastructures. You wouldn't have competing gas companies each running their separate gas lines to each home so the homeowner could choose between competitors. These natural monopolies also each needed government cooperation to run their utilities over public land rights of ways, and in many cases needed to receive a concession from local government to offer their services to their residents, part of the deal is price regulation to compensate for the lack of a free market. The 2000-2001 debacle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis) in California demonstrates what mischief can occur when natural monopolies go unregulated.

Oil and gasoline sellers are not public utilities, in theory they are highly competitive and consumers have free choices. In fact they are oligarchical and highly susceptible to collusion. As a practical matter the public utility approach would only affect the local retail outlets - who are responsible for approximately none of the market price manipulation.

-Mark

Another issue with PUCs is that the people who staff them are, for the most part, from the very industries being "regulated". The argument is, that's where the expertise lies. Lay persons just wouldn't understand the "complexities". They hardly are consumer watch-dogs. The are the executives, scientists, lawyers and lobbyists of the industry.

As regards the pass-through of increased oil costs. Well, that is more of a "wave-through" and in most, if not all, states structured so that hearings are not required for immediate implementation. Sometimes, several years, later--and long after the fact, we hear of an investigation into some rate change, or pass along that was improperly initiated and rarely we get a few dollars rebates on a couple of months bills. Then it's back to business as usual.

I know I sound like a one-trick pony about this, but, our only recourse is to set down that can of beer, get up off the sofa, slip on some threads and get out and get involved with citizen-based, grassroots, action groups and put the pressure on our local, county, and state house representatives who shill for the greedy peckerheads who are raping our wallets.

Remember Common Cause? I do. We need a resurgence of that sort of thing. I do remember when we activists were fighting to get PUCs in our states, and how initially they were to be consumer watch-dogs formed to regulate the utilities and protect the public interest. We dozed, and along with complicit legislatures, they were handed over to very utilities they were to oversee.

[nakedjohn]

We have not seen the end of it. Now China is open, they will need lots of oil.

[Sanslines]

We have not seen the end of it. Now China is open, they will need lots of oil.

China is an excuse to keep raising oil prices. The amount of pure speculation built into a barrel of oil is mindboggling. Sure China uses oil and will continue to use more of it, but we (the USA) helped and continue to help create that monster by exporting our jobs to China and buying just about all of our products from China. It is so sad that we can build the Chinese economy and build up their middle class by buying their products and yet we allow our middle class to die.

[Sanslines]

I know I sound like a one-trick pony about this, but, our only recourse is to set down that can of beer, get up off the sofa, slip on some threads and get out and get involved with citizen-based, grassroots, action groups and put the pressure on our local, county, and state house representatives who shill for the greedy peckerheads who are raping our wallets.


This is very true but will never happen in this 'age of apathy'. This is not the 1960's, people will not take to the streets en masse to protest anything. What they will do is continue to go to the gas pumps like sheep and keep paying whatever the price is. Why even Pete Seeger and Joan Baez are not leading change through their music.

[MoonShadow]

How true, Sanslines and usmc.

I don't know which is worse: ignorance or apathy

[Skinview]

What a bunch of whiney pinkos! The price of oil, adjusted for inflation, hasn't gone up in a quarter of a century. We fill our monster SUVs with the cheap gas the oil companies have brought to us from around the world, and you heat up the air with CO2 and jealous rants about how much money others are making as they serve people's pressing need to commute to work in a truck. Boo Hoo.

In fact they are oligarchical and highly susceptible to collusion.Except that there must be half a dozen different gas companies for me to choose from between where I live and where I work, and they are a small fraction of the number in the country. I have never heard of an instance of collusion in the oil industry outside of OPEC, and I doubt that you have either. There is too much competition, and gas prices have been so low that any fantisized attempt at collusion has obviously failed.
Just wait until the exploding demand outstrips the supply of cheap oil. Prices are going to skyrocket someday, and people will start screaming "conspiracy!"

[Sanslines]

In fact they are oligarchical and highly susceptible to collusion. As a practical matter the public utility approach would only affect the local retail outlets - who are responsible for approximately none of the market price manipulation.

-Mark

There are already plenty of factual examples of collusion going on.

[Skinview]

With silence from both major political parties concerning the continued increase in oil prices, speculators and traders feel unchallenged and will continue to bid up the price of oil. By this Summer, oil could hit $150 per barrel. The respose will be continued silence from both the White House and Congress.As it should be. Speculators are people who are willing to bet their money that the natural price is going to rise. Since its their money they are betting when they buy, you can expect its an informed bet. This raises the price. This communicates information to the producers to raise production. Wells that were unprofitable at the lower price are opened up. More money is invested in exploration. Increased supply then meets the anticipated rise in demand, preventing a huge price spike. The free market works. Some of you should stop cooking schemes to prevent other people making money (like our 401k retirement investments in oil companies), and read Adam Smith. Nationalize oil companies??? The Soviet Union crashed, but the socialist delusion lives on. Fidel Castro reduced his nation to poverty, but he succeeded in his all important goal of preventing someone from getting richer than someone else.

[Skinview]

There are already plenty of factual examples of collusion going on.Then tell us all! I'm sure the FTC would like to hear about it too.

[usmc1]

What a bunch of whiney pinkos! The price of oil, adjusted for inflation, hasn't gone up in a quarter of a century. We fill our monster SUVs with the cheap gas the oil companies have brought to us from around the world, and you heat up the air with CO2 and jealous rants about how much money others are making as they serve people's pressing need to commute to work in a truck. Boo Hoo.

Except that there must be half a dozen different gas companies for me to choose from between where I live and where I work, and they are a small fraction of the number in the country. I have never heard of an instance of collusion in the oil industry outside of OPEC, and I doubt that you have either. There is too much competition, and gas prices have been so low that any fantisized attempt at collusion has obviously failed.
Just wait until the exploding demand outstrips the supply of cheap oil. Prices are going to skyrocket someday, and people will start screaming "conspiracy!"

Well so much for bagging the name-calling and raising the level of discourse, I guess I'll need to return my puerile name-calling generator.

As to OPEC being the only entity in the "oil industry" capable of collusion, (wrongo-bongo) one wonder just how much non-OPEC oil available in Mass. As to brands, I don't know about other areas, but the gasoline delivery trucks around here are all unbranded and go from station-to-station (Fina to Chevron to Shamrock to Texaco) to fill their tanks.

STRIKE A BLOW FOR FREEDOM--BUY CITGO.....That's my pinko whine of the day!

[Sanslines]

As it should be. Speculators are people who are willing to bet their money that the natural price is going to rise. Since its their money they are betting when they buy, you can expect its an informed bet. This raises the price. This communicates information to the producers to raise production. Wells that were unprofitable at the lower price are opened up. More money is invested in exploration. Increased supply then meets the anticipated rise in demand, preventing a huge price spike. The free market works. Some of you should stop cooking schemes to prevent other people making money (like our 401k retirement investments in oil companies), and read Adam Smith. Nationalize oil companies??? The Soviet Union crashed, but the socialist delusion lives on. Fidel Castro reduced his nation to poverty, but he succeeded in his all important goal of preventing someone from getting richer than someone else.

The problem with speculators is that they are abusing the system to make enormous amounts of money at the expense of the ordinary citizen who is clearly suffering. Case in point - the many elderly who are living on fixed incomes and have no chance to go out and find work to cover the huge increases in the food, medicine, and now energy prices. Then again, who cares about the elderly, homeless, those without medical care, or hunger so long as the free market works. Who cares if a small group of individuals make billions while others do without heat. Since the government remains silent and does not challenge the speculators, they know very well that they have a free hand to charge whatever they wish and they certainly do not give a damn about those who suffer for those excessively high prices. Energy is what fueled the Industrial Revolution in the USA. More or less stable food and energy prices were a given in the USA and were part of the basis of a stable society. Now we have forces at work that are creating a small, super wealthy class at the expense of an ever growing number of individuals who have no chance to keep up with the price increases.

Case after case points out that the so called 'free market' absolutely needs oversight to prevent the abuses and excesses that are presently occuring. Without any oversight, the robber barrons have a free hand to set whatever price that they want, regardless of the harm that they inflict upon society.

[MoonShadow]

Jeez, Skinview, are you for real?

[Sanslines]

Then tell us all! I'm sure the FTC would like to hear about it too.

A simple example is to take a drive from upstate NY south into Pennsylvania. Gas prices right at the border in PA are just as high as the prices across the border in NY. As one travels further south into PA, the gas prices drop. I have researched as to why the gas prices are so much higher in PA along the border as compared to the prices further south and the answer is that the oil companies dictate to the gas stations what they will charge.

[Sanslines]

MSN Market Dispatch: 3-11-08

Oil continues to soar

Light, sweet crude rose $1.08 to $108.98 at midday after topping $109 a barrel earlier in the session.


"The two driving forces behind the current commodity price surge" are "the weaker dollar and the massive fund flows going into the sector, largely as a response to the lack of viable investment alternatives," said Edward Meir, energy analyst at MF Global, to MarketWatch.com.

Oil prices have jumped 80% over the past year.

"The perception in the financial community is that the oil market is the one safe harbor,'' said Rick Mueller, director of oil practice at Energy Security Analysis, to Bloomberg News. "The speculation that's moving oil higher will eventually undercut some of the safety they seek. As prices rise, the economy will weaken and eventually hit demand."

So, it appears that the speculators are driving the USA economy into deeper recession. All so they can make their untold billions at the expense of the USA. How patriotic!

[Skinview]

The problem with speculators is that they are abusing the system to make enormous amounts of money at the expense of the ordinary citizen who is clearly suffering. Case in point - the many elderly who are living on fixed incomes and have no chance to go out and find work to cover the huge increases in the food, medicine, and now energy prices. Then again, who cares about the elderly, homeless, those without medical care, or hunger so long as the free market works.If there are people that need money, then give them money. If you go around controlling prices to the level where the poorest people can live well on two dollars a day, than the whole economy would collapse into ruin like Tanzania, and we would all starve.

Who cares if a small group of individuals make billions while others do without heat.The politics of envy. You are as concerned that someone else is getting rich as you are that someone is poor. Help the poor and leave the rich alone. Their money is not our buisness.

Since the government remains silent and does not challenge the speculators, they know very well that they have a free hand to charge whatever they wish and they certainly do not give a damn about those who suffer for those excessively high prices.Except that the prices are low. Lets hear your robber baron theory why fuel prices were at record lows for the last 25 years.

Case after case points out that the so called 'free market' absolutely needs oversight to prevent the abuses and excesses that are presently occuring. Without any oversight, the robber barrons have a free hand to set whatever price that they want, regardless of the harm that they inflict upon society.I have yet to see you present a "case". Oil companies can't set whatever price they want. If they set their price too high, people will buy their gas from someone else. Its called competition.

[Skinview]

A simple example is to take a drive from upstate NY south into Pennsylvania. Gas prices right at the border in PA are just as high as the prices across the border in NY. As one travels further south into PA, the gas prices drop. I have researched as to why the gas prices are so much higher in PA along the border as compared to the prices further south and the answer is that the oil companies dictate to the gas stations what they will charge.Of course they do. They own or franchise the gas stations!!! That is their retail outlet.
It is natural that prices are higher the farther you are from ports, like Philidelphia. Transportation costs money. The population density drops off by the border (depending where you are talking about), so that is going to affect the amount of competition. There may be other reasons. Saying that gas companies set prices higher in one place than another because gas companies set the prices explains nothing, and there is nothing nefarious about it.

[KirkOntario]

Skinview. Same old. Same old. Anger at the 'rich'--we always see it in democracies-- though most of those angry don't realize that their 401K money is probably invested in a oil company and that if they penalize profits they penalize themselves and hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans.

As the ex-president of Exxon said to Congress a few years back 'Where were you people when oil was $10 a barrel?"

[BinCo]

Skinview: Collusion is simple in the Denver area. We have a refinery that produces most of the gas for the Denver market. There is another in Cheyenne. That's it. Some Shell gas comes from out of state, otherwise these 2 refineries dictate everyone's price. And the big one. They used to both be owned by Conoco! Now the Denver one is Suncor and I am not sure about the Cheyenne facility. So when you spout about competition in the gas and oil business, at the customer level it does not apply to us.

There is a finite number of refineries and the execs all know each other. So I would believe that there is a lot more communication between these guys than not.

Keep in mind that oil companies have not lost money for a long time, if ever.

Even the price hikes after Katrina are in the prices, but the losses would be on the balance sheets so that the profits would be less. The numbers do not add up and there is no other game in town.

My prediction: Gas will get to a certain cost level and then there will be regulations on mileage for individuals. All individual tansportation must be electric. Gas gets more expensive and a real end is sighted. Now governments start to dictate that only certain individuals and companies can use it. Gas gets more expensive and rare. Now only transit, airlines and military use. Economies worldwide decline. Gas gets more expensive. Now we go to war to take it (again). Individual flying restrictions. Gas gets harder to get. Airlines and Military only. Gas gets more expensive and harder to find. Military only and full economic world collapse.

[KirkOntario]

There is a finite number of refineries and the execs all know each other.

You can thank environmentalists for this. When was the last oil refinery built in the USA? They simply haven't been able to build additional refineries.

[usmc1]

Blame Bernanke. He's the one lowering interest rates allowing oil speculators to borrow, virtually risk free, the big bucks to invest in futures. It is this process which contributes to the inflationary spriral and increased oil prices.

The amazing thing, though, is that the price of oil (for want of better terminology) has grown steadily over the last seven-and-a-half years after holding relatively steady for a couple of decades.

Hhhmmmmm? What's happened during those seven-and-a-half years that was different than the preceding twenty or so? Hhhmmmm?

Of course, I was one of the smart ones. I invested heavily in plywood futures when Bush was elected. Now, when I drive around town, and look at all those stores and small businesses that were thriving and employing people in the nineties, that are now closed, and have their windows plywooded shut...I think, oh my goodness, I may enough now to buy me a little ranch down in Paraguay. I'll jsut cash out my plywood futures and shift that money into the ahl bidness.

Then, I'll be really rich, join the conservatives, and tell all the blue collar workers, the unemployed, the single moms, the underpaid, the disabled, the aged, and all the rest of society's vermin that it's their own damned fault. They should have reached down and pulled themselves up by their boot straps like I done. Who cares about them anyway, and all the pinkos trying to make things better.

The new conservative mantra: You can have my hate, when you pry it from my cold, dead, wizened black heart!

[nacktman]

Jeez, Skinview, are you for real?

That same thought has crossed the mind of many.:rolleyes:


What people do not realize is that the price of a barrel could be $1000.00 and it still not affect the profit margin or lead to an increase in gas prices.
$20,000.00 a barrel - that is the net profit the oil companies make on a barrel without considering the waste by-product of refining the oil to make that 20K ... and what is this waste by-product you ask - why it is none other than our most favorite thing in the whole wide world - Gasoline.

The price of gas is driven by pure greed and always has been, not by any "market conditions".
The greed is just so over the top and rampant since the shrub legalized the rape of the world seven years ago that everyone is beginning to open their eyes.
Having it shoved up the whazoo tends to do that.

[Sanslines]

Of course they do. They own or franchise the gas stations!!! That is their retail outlet.
It is natural that prices are higher the farther you are from ports, like Philidelphia. Transportation costs money. The population density drops off by the border (depending where you are talking about), so that is going to affect the amount of competition. There may be other reasons. Saying that gas companies set prices higher in one place than another because gas companies set the prices explains nothing, and there is nothing nefarious about it.

The distance from the ports is not relevant in this example. What is relevant is that those gas stations in Pennsylvania close to the New York State border set their prices to closely match those in New York. Since the gas tax is higher in New York, the price match in PA is based upon taking advantage of a situation to make more money. What's wrong with that? Well, why shouldn't the gas companies charge $50 per gallon of gas (or more) if they can get away with it. I mean who really cares about those who have a necessity for gas or heating fuels but can't afford it. After all, they can just stay home and freeze to death and big business won't even shed one tear.

[Naturist Mark]

I have never heard of an instance of collusion in the oil industry outside of OPEC, and I doubt that you have either.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/pr/?postId=5110

[Skinview]

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/pr/?postId=5110
I was unable to open the actual memos, but the summaries made no mention of collusion. It makes perfect sense that refineries would be shut down in the 90's. If I remember, the price of gas was very low then. Less than now, for sure. When the price of widgets drops, producers make fewer widgets. When the price goes up, they make more. Its the way it always has been, and its the way it always will be. I would be curious to know if any of those refineries have been reopened since then, or if they fell into disrepair.

[Boreas]

The price of gas is driven by pure greed and always has been, not by any "market conditions".

But there is competition isn't there????? I thought that those wonderful "free market" forces would dictate a competitive and reasonable pricing!! :surprised: Oh my. Is that not the case??? shocked

What is relevant is that those gas stations in Pennsylvania close to the New York State border set their prices to closely match those in New York. Since the gas tax is higher in New York, the price match in PA is based upon taking advantage of a situation to make more money.

Again, not competition???? Who knew???? It seems the same thing happens in Canada. In fact I live in "Texas north", Canada's oil and gas country. We pay about the highest amount for gas in the whole country right now. What is with that? We do have more than one gas station, so theoretically there is competition.....:confused:

Oh my, what am I to do???? Guess I'll keep my fuel efficient vehicle and my tree-hugging pinko ways. :sneaky:

[Boreas]

When the price of widgets drops, producers make fewer widgets. When the price goes up, they make more. Its the way it always has been, and its the way it always will be.

And I am sure you are going to say that those big wise companies would NEVER manipulate the markets or amounts of "widgets" in order to create and shape demand........

Care to buy a bridge?

[Skinview]

Skinview: Collusion is simple in the Denver area. We have a refinery that produces most of the gas for the Denver market. There is another in Cheyenne. That's it. Some Shell gas comes from out of state, otherwise these 2 refineries dictate everyone's price. And the big one. They used to both be owned by Conoco! Now the Denver one is Suncor and I am not sure about the Cheyenne facility. So when you spout about competition in the gas and oil business, at the customer level it does not apply to us.That refinery will allow buyers from it to have larger margins, but they can't raise the price above what it costs to truck (or pipe too?) gas in from more distant refineries. The higher the price rises, the more intense the competition.

There is a finite number of refineries and the execs all know each other. So I would believe that there is a lot more communication between these guys than not.Two local refineries could collude and raise the price a little. The higher the price the more distant another refinery can be and become competative. At a high enough price, they would have to collude with every refinery in North America to fix the price. When Katrina hit, we imported refined gas from overseas.

Keep in mind that oil companies have not lost money for a long time, if ever.
I would be stunned if an oil company lost money in my lifetime.

My prediction: Gas will get to a certain cost level and then there will be regulations on mileage for individuals. All individual tansportation must be electric. Gas gets more expensive and a real end is sighted. Now governments start to dictate that only certain individuals and companies can use it. Gas gets more expensive and rare. Now only transit, airlines and military use. Economies worldwide decline. Gas gets more expensive. Now we go to war to take it (again). Individual flying restrictions. Gas gets harder to get. Airlines and Military only. Gas gets more expensive and harder to find. Military only and full economic world collapse.My prediction: If the government does absolutely nothing (and it shouldn't do anything), the price of gas will rise steadily until at some point it becomes economically viable to use other forms of energy. Gas made from coal, or hydrogen from nuclear power, or wind or whatever. They will be developed by the private sector because it will be profitable, whereas it is not as yet. We will be poorer, because right now oil costs less than any of these, but there will always be another gallon of gas for whoever is willing to pay the high cost. There will never be a need for government rationing. The price will allocate where it is needed most. Of course leftists can take power and prohibit someone from buying gas so they can subsidize something consumers value less.

[Sanslines]

My prediction: If the government does absolutely nothing (and it shouldn't), the price of gas will rise steadily until at some point it becomes economically viable to use other forms of energy. Gas made from coal, or hydrogen from nuclear power, or wind or whatever. They will be developed by the private sector because it will be profitable, whereas it is not as yet. We will be poorer, because right now oil costs less than any of these, but there will always be another gallon of gas for whoever is willing to pay the high cost. There will never be a need for government rationing. The price will allocate where it is needed most. Of course leftists can take power and prohibit someone from buying it so they can subsidize something consumers value less.

What about all of those people who can not afford to heat their homes? People such as the elderly who lived on fixed income? Do we allow those people to freeze in Winter while we wait for the 'free market' to correct itself?

[KirkOntario]

The reason Americans pay so much for oil? Democrats restricting imports from Canada. Looks like the Democrats with their love of Lefto-regulation are the ones 'manipulating' the price of oil. Meanwhile, the US continues to fund extremism in the Middle East by buying over there.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=290041104121506

"Energy Policy: Quick — what country has the world's largest oil reserves? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Nigeria? Venezuela? Wrong on all counts. The answer is Canada. And our neighbor to the north is worried we don't want it.

Canada has an estimated 1.6 trillion barrels of oil on its territory, much of it locked in tough-to-excavate tar sands in the province of Alberta. By comparison, oil-rich Saudi Arabia has an estimated 270 billion barrels left. It isn't even close.

Yet, according to the Financial Times of London, Canada's government recently sent U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates a letter of warning that it might not be able to sell the U.S. any of its oil, which the Pentagon desperately needs for national defense.

For that, you can thank the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, passed with great gusto and self-righteousness by the Democratic Congress."

[Skinview]

The distance from the ports is not relevant in this example. What is relevant is that those gas stations in Pennsylvania close to the New York State border set their prices to closely match those in New York. Since the gas tax is higher in New York, the price match in PA is based upon taking advantage of a situation to make more money. What's wrong with that? Well, why shouldn't the gas companies charge $50 per gallon of gas (or more) if they can get away with it. I mean who really cares about those who have a necessity for gas or heating fuels but can't afford it. After all, they can just stay home and freeze to death and big business won't even shed one tear.

ROTFLMAO!!! The GOVERNMENT of New York has artificially raised the price of gas in the area through taxes, and you blame the oil companies??!!!! Government is the problem, not the solution.

[Skinview]

What about all of those people who can not afford to heat their homes? People such as the elderly who lived on fixed income? Do we allow those people to freeze in Winter while we wait for the 'free market' to correct itself?I wrote this before - give poor people MONEY. If it costs $10 to extract a gallon of oil out of Alberta tar sands, the government can't wave a magic wand and make it cost less. We may all be heating our homes with coal again. The easy to pump oil is disappearing. The poor folk in Pennsylvania will have one advantage: they are in the heart of coal country.

[nacktman]

Originally Posted by Skinview
When the price of widgets drops, producers make fewer widgets. When the price goes up, they make more. Its the way it always has been, and its the way it always will be.

OMG! Now I know why they're always bass ackward.
They do not even get the "Law of supply and demand" correct.

Boreas, you were right! They can't be real.

Having been in and around the Oil Business all my life (Dad is a 'big wig' - as they say - with one of the 'Big Oils' and has been for the past fifty years) I find the ignorance shown here and in other places about just how it works and who is doing what in the industry is astounding.
Particularly the fount of outright lies some are spouting.
Check my earlier post to see the 'bottom line' as it were on the matter.

[Skinview]

And I am sure you are going to say that those big wise companies would NEVER manipulate the markets or amounts of "widgets" in order to create and shape demand........Some may dream, but there are always other widget makers eager to undercut the price of widgets made by other widget makers.

[BinCo]

Skinview: Let me clarify what my prediction means.

One day in the near future fuel will be seen as a true finite resource that has a very high price. When the scarcity of it gets to a level that people can't afford to go to work it will be rationed. No right or left wing person can deny it. The government will ration who can and can't get it. Since cars will (hopefully) be all electric by then the individual might not need it. Trucks can't be economic if they are all electric, neither can trains, ir ships. Planes have no alternative to fuel. Might not ever have it until someone figures out how to make an economic rocket engine. So the government will dictate who gets it in order to keep the economy going. When it gets too low they will start to fight over it. I mean wars that will make WW2 pale. Maybe Nuke? Maybe not. The US and China will be destroying everything that stands in the way of using fuel to defend ourselves. Why do you think we have an oil reserve? When push comes to shove the military will be the last consumers of fuel on the planet. It's easy to take a country that has no fuel for it's army and air force. Ships can't do much without fuel, so that should be pretty quick to a collapse of trade. I still say that the last tanker of oil will be used for someone's military.

Will this happen in my lifetime? I hope not, but it will happen within the next 200 years. Even with all the oil in the shale and tar sands the cost will be so high that the average person will not be able to afford it. I notice, with much dismay, that you didn't mention any 'green' heating solutions. Like geothermal. Maybe the reason it is not promoted is the same reason solar has not really taken off. No company can make residuals on the sales. In the packaging industry some companies will GIVE you a $45,000 bagger if you contract to buy enough bags. HELLO, it's all about selling after the sale. That's where the money is. Why do you think car dealers have service bays? Why do you think car companies are not moving straight to electric? NO long term profit since there are almost no moving parts and service is essentially gone.

As far as technology, you must be kidding to make statements about needs and private research. What company do you know that can invest the Billions it will take to bring a new fuel economy online and will be able to convice shareholders to do it? OH! The oil companies might do it, when they figure out oil can't be found anymore. Then again they probably squash a lot of new tech that interferes with their current economic model. This is why shrub is pushing for a new hydrogen economy. The number one source for hydrogen is natural gas processing, so we get to stay on the hook. If he had a single brain cell he would pushing for solar on every new home, geothermal in every home and building and all electric cars that plug into the solar grid. Of course this means companies would have to give up the long term sales model and realize that they can't control the world. The sun is free..... for now.

[Naturist Mark]

I was unable to open the actual memos, but the summaries made no mention of collusion. It makes perfect sense that refineries would be shut down in the 90's. If I remember, the price of gas was very low then. Less than now, for sure. When the price of widgets drops, producers make fewer widgets. When the price goes up, they make more. Its the way it always has been, and its the way it always will be. I would be curious to know if any of those refineries have been reopened since then, or if they fell into disrepair.

Try downloading the PDF files rather than opening them as links. I am able to read them this way.

There have been no new refineries built in the US in over 30 years (but there is 1 under construction by an independent company - Arizona Clean Fuels).

A few refineries (nearly every one in fact) have been shut down temporarily for repair, maintenance and upgrades, but I can find no example of a mothballed refinery that has later been re-opened.

[BinCo]

Mark, you are correct in saying that no NEW refineries have been built. Many have been expanded. One in Port Arthur Texas is getting really big. The one in Denver has expanded drastically. This is one of the right wing yapping points to push back on the enviromentalists. It all depends on what you consider "new". If you mean it to be a clean slate of ground that has a golden shovel dig into to build a new refinery where nothing is now, than the right wing is correct. If you mean that no new capacity has been added and no refineries have been expanded than you would be wrong. They love to throw this back into our faces as to why they need to do whatever the hell they want and the enviroment be damned.

Here is a little article on the recent expansion at Port Arthur.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/121107dnbusrefinery.2894c91.html


I got an idea. Let's use food for fuel! Then we can get less calories out of the fuel than it took to get it. Oh, and let's not use anything that can't be eaten so we can raise the prices of the food. Oh, now lets make the seeds sterile so the farmers HAVE to buy our seed annually and we can hold the worlds food supply in the palm of our hand!!! Buhahahaha Oh wait. Monsanto is already doing that. Nevermind.:lipsrsealed2:

[Sanslines]

ROTFLMAO!!! The GOVERNMENT of New York has artificially raised the price of gas in the area through taxes, and you blame the oil companies??!!!! Government is the problem, not the solution.

It seems that you DID NOT read what I posted and chose to reply to something entirely different. What I said was that the oil companies in PA took advantage of a situation and raised the price of gasoline to match the higher price of gasoline in NY. You might be implying, though, that the state of NY raised the price of gasoline through taxes and if the government of NY did not raise gas taxes, then the price of gas would be lower in NY and hence lower in PA. You did NOT mention that the price of gasoline in PA could and should be lower in PA based upon PA taxes, which are lower in PA then in NY. As it stands now, the artificially higher price of gas in PA is NOT due to taxes in PA. It is solely due to the oil companies making additional profit. This much is very clear.

[Sanslines]

The reason Americans pay so much for oil? Democrats restricting imports from Canada. Looks like the Democrats with their love of Lefto-regulation are the ones 'manipulating' the price of oil. Meanwhile, the US continues to fund extremism in the Middle East by buying over there.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=290041104121506

"Energy Policy: Quick — what country has the world's largest oil reserves? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Nigeria? Venezuela? Wrong on all counts. The answer is Canada. And our neighbor to the north is worried we don't want it.

Canada has an estimated 1.6 trillion barrels of oil on its territory, much of it locked in tough-to-excavate tar sands in the province of Alberta. By comparison, oil-rich Saudi Arabia has an estimated 270 billion barrels left. It isn't even close.

Yet, according to the Financial Times of London, Canada's government recently sent U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates a letter of warning that it might not be able to sell the U.S. any of its oil, which the Pentagon desperately needs for national defense.

For that, you can thank the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, passed with great gusto and self-righteousness by the Democratic Congress."

Are you at all familiar with the process of extracting oil from tar sands? The process requires enormous amounts of natural gas and creates enormous pools of toxic waste water. This process is creating an environmental nightmare in Canada. The USA is NOT entitled to destroy parts of the province of Alberta Canada in order to satisfy it's quest for petroleum products. You are also blaming the Democratic Congress for struggling with environmental issues. First of all, both parties have passed environmental legislation ie the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Secondly, both parties should take an interest in protecting the environment. It is obvious, though, that the democratic party (overall) has a stronger environmental record then the republican party. It is wasn't for environmental legislation, we would be drowning in toxic waste and ever increasing numbers of people would be dying from black lung disease, asbestos related lung diseases, etc.

I have taken several steps to lower as much as possible my consumption of gasoline and other petroleum based products. Has anyone else taken any steps?

[Sanslines]

I wrote this before - give poor people MONEY. If it costs $10 to extract a gallon of oil out of Alberta tar sands, the government can't wave a magic wand and make it cost less. We may all be heating our homes with coal again. The easy to pump oil is disappearing. The poor folk in Pennsylvania will have one advantage: they are in the heart of coal country.

If you investigate a map of the USA which shows the variances of acid rainfall, you will see that the northeast in general and PA and upstate NY in particular have the HIGHEST concentrations of acid rainfall in the entire USA. This acid rainfall, to a very large extent, is due to the enormous consumption of coal in midwest power plants. Until those emissions are cleaned up, coal is NOT the answer. I have personally seen the tremedous damage that acid rainfall has wrecked upon the local environment. Lakes that are dying or devoid of life. Woods that are devoid of new tree growth. All of this is unecessary and wrong, must be stopped, and can be stopped. However, the current Republican administration seems to have NO sincere interest in addressing and correcting this problem.

[Skinview]

Skinview: Let me clarify what my prediction means.

One day in the near future fuel will be seen as a true finite resource that has a very high price. When the scarcity of it gets to a level that people can't afford to go to work it will be rationed. No right or left wing person can deny it.I deny it, all libertarians will deny it, and most Republicans and even Democrats will deny it. Rationing makes the problem worse. If you suppress demand, you will suppress supply. The most oil will be produced by letting the price rise. There will always be more oil. It will just become so expensive that many consumers will turn to alternatives, or conserve more, and demand will drop. Our lives will undoubtedly change, but rationing is not something we want to do.

The government will ration who can and can't get it. Since cars will (hopefully) be all electric by then the individual might not need it. Trucks can't be economic if they are all electric, neither can trains, ir ships. Ships can't do much without fuel, so that should be pretty quick to a collapse of trade. I still say that the last tanker of oil will be used for someone's military. Planes have no alternative to fuel. I think cars and trucks will be hydrogen powered, trains may be electric powered, ships will be nuclear powered (or maybe wind again!) Airliners may become a thing of the past, but I agree that the military will continue to use hydrocarbon fuels for performance reasons. It will probably be made from coal, as the Germans did in WWII. You can also make it from plants.

So the government will dictate who gets it in order to keep the economy going.The economy will keep going without the government dictating anything. There is nothing constructive that the government can do that helps the economy, besides building infrastructure (roads, bridges, rail lines) and enforcing contracts. We will not be as wealthy when this bonanza of cheap oil runs out, but there will be an economy that will be different, and it will take care of itself. Food may be grown more locally. Land in the east may be cleared again for agriculture, and suburbs will decline as people move to more urban environments so they can walk or bike to work.

When it gets too low they will start to fight over it. I mean wars that will make WW2 pale. Maybe Nuke? Maybe not. The US and China will be destroying everything that stands in the way of using fuel to defend ourselves. Why do you think we have an oil reserve? When push comes to shove the military will be the last consumers of fuel on the planet. It's easy to take a country that has no fuel for it's army and air force. I still say that the last tanker of oil will be used for someone's military.This may happen. It need not, because putting something in your territory doesn't really change much, unless you want to blackmail some other country by embargo. Japan went on a program of conquest in WWII to control natural resources it didn't have, but it is doing fine today by just buying raw materials from the world market. But it is true that we would not be fighting in Iraq now if Saddam wasn't threatening all of that oil in the area.

I notice, with much dismay, that you didn't mention any 'green' heating solutions. Like geothermal. Maybe the reason it is not promoted is the same reason solar has not really taken off.Geothermal is fine, but its a localized resource. Its great for Iceland, and if you live in Yellowstone there is lots to be had, but here in the Northeast its not viable. Solar sucks because the power density is so low, and it quits every night, and any time a cold front blows through, but it helps for home heating. It might have some use for power generation in the southwest. Wind and tides can also produce power. The market will figure out what will be the best mix for the circumstances.

Why do you think car companies are not moving straight to electric? NO long term profit since there are almost no moving parts and service is essentially gone.Because gas is cheap, electricity is expensive, and my 1993 Ford Taurus wagon with a full load will outperform any electric go cart. Nobody wants an electric car now.

As far as technology, you must be kidding to make statements about needs and private research. What company do you know that can invest the Billions it will take to bring a new fuel economy online and will be able to convice shareholders to do it? OH!Oh gosh, there is tons of money out there to develop all kinds of stuff. It will happen when there is a buck to be made. Lots of different companies will develop different things. As soon as oil costs more than hydrogen, there will be hydrogen cars all over the cities. Detroit will develop the cars, maybe BOC gases will start building hydrogen plants, who knows. One great thing about the free market: nobody has to come up with a grand plan, other than the guy with some capital who wants to make more.
...shrub is pushing for a new hydrogen economy.... If he had a single brain cell he would pushing for solar on every new home, geothermal in every home and building and all electric cars that plug into the solar grid.Shrub should stop pushing for anything besides road construction and repair. The government isn't smart enough to know what direction to push (no one individual does either), or invest my tax money in development for stuff that some company is not going to use in decades, and the company could better develop itself when the time comes. All the "investment" in new technologies that Washington does is either for show, or pandering to special interests who want my tax dollars, or the politicians are just being foolish. No doubt all three. If you want to bash big buisness, go after Archer Daniels Midland and the ilk who get all kinds of money from the government to protect "farmers".

[Skinview]

If you investigate a map of the USA which shows the variances of acid rainfall, you will see that the northeast in general and PA and upstate NY in particular have the HIGHEST concentrations of acid rainfall in the entire USA. This acid rainfall, to a very large extent, is due to the enormous consumption of coal in midwest power plants. Until those emissions are cleaned up, coal is NOT the answer.

Yeah, coal is dirty. I think things can be done to remove the sulfer. Global warming is a problem too. Coal is cheap, but it may be better to generate electricity with nuclear power, which is not really expensive. But coal is probably the best raw material to make jet fuel or gasoline when oil is very expensive.

The USA is NOT entitled to destroy parts of the province of Alberta Canada in order to satisfy it's quest for petroleum products.Oh yeah, its always OUR fault. If CANADA wants to sell us tar sand oil, then CANADA will have to put up or clean up the mess that CANADA makes.

[Skinview]

What I said was that the oil companies in PA took advantage of a situation and raised the price of gasoline to match the higher price of gasoline in NY. You might be implying, though, that the state of NY raised the price of gasoline through taxes and if the government of NY did not raise gas taxes, then the price of gas would be lower in NY and hence lower in PA.Actually, I was just going along with what you wrote. The higher price in New York should not affect the price in PA very many miles away. Two stations right near each other on either side of the border would be competing across the line, but PA stations are mainly competing with PA stations. I still think most of the difference is transportation cost. But if you want to blame the State of New York, go right ahead!

As it stands now, the artificially higher price of gas in PA is NOT due to taxes in PA. It is solely due to the oil companies making additional profit. This much is very clear.Good for them. May they live long and prosper. And make my 401k grow.

[Squirrel]

It's not just the price of oil. Gold is at 970, Silver just broke 21, copper, wheat, rice etc. As the dollar goes into the toilet things will get more and more expensive. I would systematically start storing up food for anyone who is concerned. There is no way of stopping this and most people don't have a clue cause the media won't talk about it.

sb

[Skinview]

I would systematically start storing up food for anyone who is concerned.Just like a Squirrel!

[BinCo]

Skinview: How does your gas tax work back east? Here in Colorado it is a set 22 cents per gallon with no sales tax. So the taxes generated, that you seem so set against, is FIXED. It does not matter if gas goes to $10 a gallon, the state will still only collect 22 cents. Yet we have die hard anti-tax crusaders who want to reduce gas taxes to help the problem. We could get rid of all the gas tax and it would still be close to $3 a gallon and the oil companies would still be making record profits.

I would request that unless your state tax on gas is a percentage of the dollar sale that you shut up about taxes and start looking at who is making the real money on gas.:mad:

I would put the new Tesla against your Taurus every day of the week. Matter of fact I'll put anything you might have ever owned.

And remember, these companies that you are defending are the same ones who are still fighting about paying the proper money for the Exxon Valdez spill 18 years ago. They have no interest in enviromental protections and unless they are forced to do it thru legislation they would leave every oil field a disaster as it has no profit to clean it up.

[MoonShadow]

Have been reading this thread and have only one thing to say.

If people resent the current costs of gaoline, then do something about it. The government isn't going to do anything. For sure the oil companies won't so it is up to us, the people. We are the ones who will have to do something about it and there are many and various ways to do it. If enough of us did, (and globally) we would see a different situation.

[Skinview]

Skinview: How does your gas tax work back east?I don't know. We will have to google that.

I would request that unless your state tax on gas is a percentage of the dollar sale that you shut up about taxes and start looking at who is making the real money on gas.:mad:Hey, I never said gas taxes are bad. Sanslines is the one crying about poor old people not being able to afford heat and fuel. If I had my way, I'd rip out every toll booth in the country and raise the gas tax.

I would put the new Tesla against your Taurus every day of the week. Matter of fact I'll put anything you might have ever owned.Do you have performance figures? Acceleration, top speed, range?

[Qikdraw]

Do you have performance figures? Acceleration, top speed, range?

http://www.teslamotors.com/

0-60 - under 4 seconds
125 mph top speed
220 miles per charge
3.5 hours to fully charge

This is a really cool car. My desktop background is one of these. I want one. :D

Qikdraw

[Boreas]

I got an idea. Let's use food for fuel! Then we can get less calories out of the fuel than it took to get it. Oh, and let's not use anything that can't be eaten so we can raise the prices of the food. Oh, now lets make the seeds sterile so the farmers HAVE to buy our seed annually and we can hold the worlds food supply in the palm of our hand!!! Buhahahaha Oh wait. Monsanto is already doing that. Nevermind.:lipsrsealed2:

We are already using food for fuel. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/vehiclefuels/ethanol/M92_257_2003.cfm

Now we are seeing that food production is being affected because farmers will get paid more for their grains when they sell for ethanol rather than food. I am sure Monsanto will have some answers.<!-- / message --><!-- attachments -->

[BinCo]

ROTFLMAO!!! The GOVERNMENT of New York has artificially raised the price of gas in the area through taxes, and you blame the oil companies??!!!! Government is the problem, not the solution.

I'm sorry. It sure looked to me like you were complaining about taxes. New York includes sales tax, so it could be an adder per dollar, Penn does not.

FYI. Here is a little list I found online.

After crude oil costs, taxes are the second largest contributor to the price paid at the pump. Together Federal and State excise taxes on fuel account for an average cost of approximately 62 cents per gallon.
State Gasoline(¢/g) Diesel (¢/g) Comment
Alabama 18.0 19.0 2 cent inspection fee. Tax rates do not include local option taxes. In AL, 1 - 3 cents.
Alaska 8 8
Arizona 18.0 18.0 Carriers pay an additional surcharge equal to AZ-8 cents.
Arkansas 21.5 22.5
California 18.0 18.0 Sales tax applicable.
Colorado 22.0 20.5
Connecticut 25.0 26.0
Delaware 23.0 22.0 Plus 0.5% GRT. Portion of the rate is adjustable based on maintenance costs, sales volume, or inflation.
Dist. of Columbia 20 20
Florida 15.3 28.4 Sales tax added to excise. Local taxes for gasoline and gasohol vary from 10.2 cents to 18.2 cents. Plus a 2.07 cent per gallon pollution tax.
Georgia 15.2 16.3 Sales tax added to excise.
Hawaii 16.0 16.0 Sales tax applicable. Tax rates do not include local option taxes. In HI, 8.8 to 18.0 cent.
Idaho 25 25
Illinois 20.1 22.6 Sales tax add., env. & LUST fee. Carriers pay an additional surcharge equal to IL-6.3 cents (g) 6.0 cents (d). Tax rates do not include local option taxes. In IL, 5 cents in Chicago and 6 cents in Cook county (gasoline only)
Indiana 18 16 Sales tax applicable. Carriers pay an additional surcharge equal to IN-11 cents.
Iowa 21 22.5
Kansas 24 26
Kentucky 19.7 16.7 Environmental fee. Tax rate is based on the average wholesale price and is adjusted quarterly. The actual rates are: KY, 9%. Carriers pay an additional surcharge equal to KY-2% (g) 4.7% (d).
Louisiana 20 20
Maine 23.5 24.25 Portion of the rate is adjustable based on maintenance costs, sales volume, or inflation.
Maryland 23.5 24.3
Massachusetts 21.0 21.0
Michigan 19.0 15.0 Sales tax applicable.
Minnesota 20.0 20.0
Mississippi 18.4 18.4 Environmental fee.
Missouri 17.55 17.55 Inspection fee
Montana 27.0 27.75
Nebraska 28 27.4 Petroleum fee. Portion of the rate is adjustable based on maintenance costs, sales volume, or inflation.
Nevada 25.805 27.75 Inspection & cleanup fee. Tax rates do not include local option taxes NV, 4.0 to 9.0 cents.
New Hampshire 20.6 20.6 Oil discharge cleanup fee
New Jersey 14.50 17.50 Petroleum fee.
New Mexico 18.875 22.875 Petroleum loading fee
New York 24.6 22.85 Sales tax applicable, Petrol Tax.
North Carolina 30.15 30.15 Tax rate is based on the average wholesale price and is adjusted quarterly. The actual rates are: NC, 17.5¢ + 7%. Inspection tax
North Dakota 23.0 23.0
Ohio 28 28 Plus 3 cents commerical
Oklahoma 17.0 14.0 Environmental fee.
Oregon 24.0 24.0 Tax rates do not include local option taxes. In OR, 1 to 3 cents.
Pennsylvania 31.2 38.1 Oil franchise tax.
Rhode Island 31.0 31.0 LUST tax
South Carolina 16.0 16.0
South Dakota 22 22 Tax rates do not include local option taxes. In SD one cent.
Tennessee 21.4 18.4 Petroleum Tax & Envir Fee. Tax rates do not include local option taxes. In TN, one cent.
Texas 20 20
Utah 24.5 24.5
Vermont 20 26 Petroleum cleanup fee.
Virginia 17.5 16.0 Large trucks pay an additional 3.5 cents. Tax rates do not include local option taxes. In VA 2%.
Washington 34 34 Tax rate scheduled to increase to 36 cents on July 1, 2007.
West Virginia 31.5 31.5 Sales tax added to excise
Wisconsin 32.9 32.9 Portion of the rate is adjustable based on maintenance costs, sales volume, or inflation. Petroleum Inspection fee
Wyoming 14 14 License tax.
Please note the above rates are meant as only guidelines of pump taxes and may not represent the full tax amount at the pump.
Source: Compiled by GasBuddy Organization from various sources.
* UST = Underground Storage Tank

[BinCo]

We are already using food for fuel. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/vehiclefuels/ethanol/M92_257_2003.cfm

Now we are seeing that food production is being affected because farmers will get paid more for their grains when they sell for ethanol rather than food. I am sure Monsanto will have some answers.<!-- / message --><!-- attachments -->

:laugh: I'm sure they will step right up to "help" us out. But that is another subject for another post.

[Sanslines]

Actually, I was just going along with what you wrote. The higher price in New York should not affect the price in PA very many miles away. Two stations right near each other on either side of the border would be competing across the line, but PA stations are mainly competing with PA stations. I still think most of the difference is transportation cost. But if you want to blame the State of New York, go right ahead!

I am not blaming New York State. If anything I am blaming the oil companies for charging NY prices in PA.

Good for them. May they live long and prosper. And make my 401k grow.

What one hand givith, the other hand taketh away. In other words, what you gain in your 401k will only be spent on the ever increasing gas prices.

[Sanslines]

Hey, I never said gas taxes are bad. Sanslines is the one crying about poor old people not being able to afford heat and fuel. If I had my way, I'd rip out every toll booth in the country and raise the gas tax.


Yes Sanslines is crying about poor old people who cannot afford heat and fuel. Sanslines believes that the USA can do better then to allow a situation where the prices of basic necessities of life rise so high so fast as to be affordable only to the wealthy and the rest of society be damned.

[Sanslines]

I'm sorry. It sure looked to me like you were complaining about taxes. New York includes sales tax, so it could be an adder per dollar, Penn does not.

FYI. Here is a little list I found online.

Binco,

Some time ago, I posted a comparison concerning gasoline taxes. Your chart does not tell the entire story behind the tax situation in New York State. There are many hidden taxes and fees that are part of the overall cost of gasoline in New York State.

[OZJames]

Yes Sanslines is crying about poor old people who cannot afford heat and fuel. Sanslines believes that the USA can do better then to allow a situation where the prices of basic necessities of life rise so high so fast as to be affordable only to the wealthy and the rest of society be damned.

The (hopefully) incoming Democratic Government may recognize this problem and increase pension (social services) payments to low income people so that they are not disadvantaged by rapidly increasing cost of "necessities. NOW is the time to start lobbying the Democrats.

Governments MUST realize that fuel prices will not fall, they must start to put in place economic measures to help the economy manage the inevitable rising fuel prices caused by China and India's rising demand AND the inevitable running out of oil supply. They MUST also start to cause industry, transport and the population at large to move away from oil dependence.

[Sanslines]

MSN Market Dispatch: 3-12-08

Oil and gas soar

Volatile energy prices added to the market's anxiety. Oil prices initially fell after the Energy Department said crude and gasoline supplies rose by unexpectedly large amounts last week, but then they returned on their record-setting streak to surpass $110 a barrel. If oil keeps hitting record levels, inflation pressures could rise and limit the Federal Reserve's ability to reduce interest rates further and boost lending efforts to spur the economy.


Today light, sweet crude oil rose $1.17 to $109.92 a barrel after trading above $110 for the first time.

Still some analysts are cautious about rising oil prices.
"If the Fed can continue along this new line, the continuous rise in commodities prices may have reached an end," Cameron Hanover oil analyst Peter Beutel wrote in a note to clients this morning. "We may be seeing a major change under way" in all of the markets, Beutel wrote.
Meanwhile prices at the pump also reached record highs Tuesday, according to AAA's Fuel Gauge Report. The national average for a gallon of regular unleaded gas was $3.227, more than 68 cents above gas prices this time last year.

Certainly drivers in Gorda, Calif. are feeling the pressure at the pump. There, the price of a gallon of regular gasoline is $5.20, The New York Times reported.

James Willman, who pumps gas in Gorda, told the newspaper, "That's the reason I walk to work."

[Naturist Mark]

We are already using food for fuel. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/vehiclefuels/ethanol/M92_257_2003.cfm

Now we are seeing that food production is being affected because farmers will get paid more for their grains when they sell for ethanol rather than food. I am sure Monsanto will have some answers.<!-- / message --><!-- attachments -->

Currently most ethanol in North America is made from corn (in Brazil it is made from Sugar Cane). You might think that reduces the amount of corn available for human consumption, but it doesn't really. Most corn production is for animal feed, not sweet corn for human consumption.

When field corn is used to make ethanol, the small quantity of sugar, and a larger portion of the simple starches are converted to alcohol, the leftover 'waste' product contains much higher levels of protein and complex carbohydrates (cellulose) than the feed corn normally fed to livestock, and is in fact a better animal feed than regular corn.

Corn is used to make ethanol not because it is the best source, but because it is easy. Since we already have a massive corn production infrastructure, and it is relatively easy to make alcohol from corn it is the low hanging fruit in ethanol technology. But it is not the most efficient. Ethanol skeptics will falsely tell you that it requires more energy to make ethanol than it provides (that hasn't been true for a decade or more), but ethanol production technologies promise great improvements in efficiency - the biggest improvement now under development is the conversion from corn to cellulosic ethanol production. When we start building large production facilities that make ethanol from indigestable cellulose - we will be making ethanol from crop and yard waste, grass clippings, leaves, and very fast growing 'weed' cultivation like switchgrass (but not hemp, at least not south of the Canadian border).

The skeptics are probably correct when they say we could never grow enough corn to fuel all of our vehicles. But we can certainly grow enough cellulose to do the job - and when we do we will be traveling our highways on solar energy.

-Mark

[Qikdraw]

Army to Turn Trash Into Power in Iraq (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5FdowoXtaRhdYAEkdDg4uR8SiAAD8VBOTLO0)

Qikdraw

[Boreas]

Mark, here are some alternate views:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23336840-11949,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3500954.ece
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10252015
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=18173&a=
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070518/food_prices_070518?s_name=&no_ads=

[OZJames]

......... You might think that reduces the amount of corn available for human consumption, but it doesn't really.
Most corn production is for animal feed, not sweet corn for human consumption. -Mark

Mark, in Australia , a very dry place, we are flat out finding enough water to grow what we currently grow - FOOD - and also most if not all suitable paddock are used up for that purpose. I would think the USA is similar in this regard. Therefore If farmers grow corn for ethanol surely there will be less food grown.

......... - the biggest improvement now under development is the conversion from corn to cellulosic ethanol production. When we start building large production facilities that make ethanol from indigestable cellulose - we will be making ethanol from crop and yard waste, grass clippings, leaves, and very fast growing 'weed' cultivation like sawgrass (but not hemp, at least not south of the Canadian border). .......... But we can certainly grow enough cellulose to do the job - and when we do we will be traveling our highways on solar energy. -Mark

Now we are talking - that is fantastic and may well keep the transport system going :D:D:D

[usmc1]

When you read this, remember what I wrote a few days ago about blaming Bernanke? When the interest rates are lowered as they are now, the oil speculators have "cheap" money to risk in investing oil futures, which in turn nudges the price up, almost guaranteeing them a decent return. Plus, in the process, contributing to inflation as the increased oil prices add to the costs of food, merchandise, transportation, energy and services.

Who gets rich off $3 gas - who doesn't

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Motorists may fume when forking over $3 a gallon at the local service station, but as it turns out, your local filling spot makes chump change from a gallon of gas.

So exactly who is getting rich?

Oil traders: Often blamed for pushing up prices, traders don't necessarily benefit from the high price of crude or gasoline, they profit from how much the price changes. Traders can get rich - as long as they bet correctly on whether prices will rise or fall.

An investment bank makes money when oil prices go from $95 to $100 a barrel if it bet the price will rise - or $100 to $95 if it bet the price will fall - not on the difference between production cost and trading price.
"If you wanna keep your job, you gotta be more right than wrong," said John Kilduff, an energy analyst at the trading firm MF Global in New York, explaining how traders make their money.

Gas stations: A surprisingly small amount goes to the guy who runs the station.

Most service stations are independently owned and operated and take in between 7 and 10 cents for every gallon they sell, according to the Energy Information Administration.

That 7 to 10 cents going to the gas station isn't even profit. Out of that, station owners still have to pay leases, workers, and other expenses - leaving them with a profit of just a few cents. For the service stations, most profit comes from selling coffee, cigarettes, food and other amenities.

These calculations are based off of EIA's most recent numbers, when gas was $3.04 a gallon. Gasoline hit another record nationwide average of $3.27 a gallon Thursday.

Taxes: The government takes about 40 cents right off the top, with about 18 cents going to the feds. State taxes vary widely, but the national average is about 22 cents a gallon. Most of this money is used to build and maintain roads.

Transportation: Getting the gas from refineries to service stations via trucks or pipelines - and the cost of storing it in large tanks - eats up another 23 to 26 cents per gallon.

Refining: About 24 cents a gallon goes to refining companies like Valero (VLO (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=VLO&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/snapshots/1521.html?source=story_f500_link)), Sunoco (SUN (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=SUN&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/snapshots/1294.html?source=story_f500_link)) or Frontier (FTO (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=FTO&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/snapshots/1789.html?source=story_f500_link)) that specialize in turning crude oil into gas. Some companies like ExxonMobil (XOM (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=XOM&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/snapshots/496.html?source=story_f500_link)), Chevron (CVX (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=CVX&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/snapshots/290.html?source=story_f500_link)) and ConocoPhillips (COP (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=COP&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/snapshots/1050.html?source=story_f500_link)) produce and refine crude oil.

Profits for refiners have been squeezed lately because the price they pay for oil has risen so much faster than the price they can sell the gas for. This helps explain why Big Oil companies -like Exxon, which actually buys more crude oil than it produces - haven't seen their profits rise as much as the price of oil.

Crude oil: This is the most expensive part of a gallon of gas. $2.07 from every gallon of gas goes to producers of crude like Chevron (CVX (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=CVX&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/snapshots/290.html?source=story_f500_link)), BP (BP (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=BP&source=story_quote_link)), and smaller outfits like Anadarko (APC (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=APC&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/snapshots/1777.html?source=story_f500_link)) and Marathon (MRO (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=MRO&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/snapshots/1518.html?source=story_f500_link)), or national oil companies controlled by countries like Saudi Arabia, Mexico or Venezuela.

Crude currently trades around $110 a barrel, but breaking down the money in that barrel of oil is tough. Exploration and production costs, royalty payments - all a big part of $110 a barrel oil - vary widely country by country and project by project.

"It's difficult to generalize, there's a whole spectrum of costs," said Ron Planting, an economist with the American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade group.

They can range from $1 a barrel to produce crude in Saudi Arabia to over $70 a barrel to find, develop and pump oil in the deep water Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of Algeria, said Ann-Louise Hittle, an oil analyst with the energy consultants Wood Mackenzie.

EIA estimates it costs U.S. oil companies an average of about $24 a barrel to find, develop and produce oil worldwide, but that doesn't include costs like transportation, administration, or income taxes - which can be substantial. While Exxon made over $40 billion in 2007, a 60% increase from 2004, it paid over $100 billion in taxes and royalties.

Nonetheless, $40 billion - or any of the record profits seen by most oil companies over the last few years - is certainly a lot of money, and it has put Big Oil in lawmaker's cross hairs.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., has called the chief executives of the five biggest oil companies to testify on the industry's record profits on April 1st. Markey's office swears it's no April fool's joke

[BinCo]

Geothermal is fine, but its a localized resource. Its great for Iceland, and if you live in Yellowstone there is lots to be had, but here in the Northeast its not viable. Solar sucks because the power density is so low, and it quits every night, and any time a cold front blows through, but it helps for home heating. It might have some use for power generation in the southwest. Wind and tides can also produce power. The market will figure out what will be the best mix for the circumstances.


Perhaps you need to look into geothermal heating and cooling before you speak.
http://geoexchange.us/index.htm
http://www.cogeneration.net/Geothermal_Heating_And_Cooling.htm

No matter where you live it works. Perhaps you don't understand that. It is not using steam from the earth, like Yellowstone or Greenland.

Solar would be used to reduce the amount of power generated by electric companies during the days when consumption is highest. To alleviate the need for a lot of batteries at the home it is a live use system that puts excess power back into the grid and runs your meter backward. This would eliminate brown and black outs from an overloaded system.

The market will never go this way without some government push, as companies do not get that after the sale sales that I spoke of before. This is why power companies push against putting solar on new development to suppliment the grid. Only legislation will stop this. You might hate the government but it is the only way some things get done. Good things, like removing lead from paint and fuel, safety features on cars, safe foods, etc. Without some regulation companies will only do what is good for them in the long run. They will only do what will make shareholders the most money. The enviroment and safety be damned, we need to make more profits.:greed:

[Qikdraw]

Some interesting articles. Its a four part series, and only the first two are out.

THE SHAPE OF US POPULISM, Part 1 (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JC12Dj04.html)

THE SHAPE OF US POPULISM, Part 2 (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JC14Dj03.html)

The author of the articles Henry C K Liu is really good. Be in for some deep reading.

The site Asia Times Online (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page.html) is very good. Some excellent writers, and they're not written at a grade 4 level like US articles are.

Qikdraw

[Naturist Mark]

Mark, in Australia , a very dry place, we are flat out finding enough water to grow what we currently grow - FOOD - and also most if not all suitable paddock are used up for that purpose. I would think the USA is similar in this regard. Therefore If farmers grow corn for ethanol surely there will be less food grown.

I can't imagine a more irresponsible choice than to grow crops for ethanol production in places where water supplies are scarce and needed for food production.

The neat thing about cellulosic ethanol production is that it can be done with crops (and non crops - weeds, kudzu) that thrive under conditions unsuitable for food crops. Not to mention that it can also use food crop waste (stalks, cobs, straw), and the leftover residue after ethanol production can be put back into the soil - the leftover mash is essentially a well decomposed mulch.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

Geothermal is fine, but its a localized resource. Its great for Iceland, and if you live in Yellowstone there is lots to be had, but here in the Northeast its not viable.

Wrongo Bongo

Residential geothermal heating and cooling (http://reddawn.com/featart11-98.html) is becoming big in the midwest, even though we have no hot springs, geothermal vents, or active volcanism. The application of geothermal heating/cooling, also known as ground source heat pumps, has been named "the most energy-efficient and environmentally sensitive of all space conditioning systems", by the Environmental Protection Agency. The system's basic concept takes advantage of the earth's constant temperature, approximately 55 degrees, to heat and cool a building. By tapping this steady flow of heat from the earth in the winter, and displacing heat in the earth in the summer, a geothermal heat pump can save homeowners 40 to 70 percent in heating costs and 30 to 50 percent in cooling costs compared to conventional systems.

[Skinview]

Perhaps you need to look into geothermal heating and cooling before you speak. No matter where you live it works. Perhaps you don't understand that. It is not using steam from the earth, like Yellowstone or Greenland. [You mean Iceland?]
Wrongo BongoNaaah, Righto Brighto!
There may be a bit of confusion here. I was writing about power generation, you wrote something about geothermal heating, and then I was still on power generation. Geothermal heat pumps don't generate power. They are fine for lowering energy use, but they still consume some power. It also helps a lot to build the whole house underground. Solar heat can save heating costs too. The house I am in right now partially heats its water from solar energy collected on the roof. The walls are super insulated too.

You might hate the governmentNope. I hate when its misused.
but it is the only way some things get done.True enough.

[Skinview]

Sanslines believes that the USA can do better then to allow a situation where the prices of basic necessities of life rise so high so fast as to be affordable only to the wealthy and the rest of society be damned.Sanslines would create an economic catastrophy if he had his way and the government fixed the price of gas and heating oil at what it was two years ago. Very soon there would be none available, and the poor old people and the rich people would all freeze because there would be no oil sold in the US anymore at all. Oil companies would be selling all of their oil to Japan, Europe, Canada, and Mexico, where they could make a profit. But then usmc1 wants to do the full Soviet and nationalize the oil companies. More of that thinking, and soon Americans will be swimming the Rio Grande into Mexico. Mexicans will be complaining about the damn gringo wetbacks...
Or you could help the poor people and just GIVE THEM MONEY, like I keep saying, and leave the free market to work.

[Ken Palmer]

Hello sanslines. Good point you made. But as far as Americans paying the higher gas prices without complaint, I don't think we have much of a choice. The way I look at it is this way. We have a choice here; we either pay the prices at the pumps and drive our cars, or we don't pay and we don't drive our cars. Whether we like it or not, they've got us!

Ken Palmer





The price of oil contiunes to be driven higher and higher due to pure speculation concerning events that might or might not happen. Speculators will say anything as a justification to drive the price higher and higher and they know that Americans will keep on paying whatever the price is without complaint.

[NakedGary]

Forget any alternative fossil fuel, or organic way to produce Twelve million barrels per day the U.S. uses.

Corn or Bio-plant produced methanol is like a needle in a hay stack compared to world needs, and it take more energy to produce than worth the 10 -15% cleaner burning, and 10-15% worse Mile per gallons used.

Take all the wind power, solar, ocean, and water power put together and its a drop in the bucket compared to fossil fuel demand and use.

The dirtiest fuel known, and the worst pollution ever including nuclear radiation fall out, heavy metals, lead, acids, and contamination is from coal fueled and natural gas powered electric generation plants. Each plant produces tens of thousands of tons of contaminants and CO2 we all breath in & contribute to greenhouse gases and global warming.

If the U.S. want to be self providing and not import crude oil, they must have an emergency development of clean, low cost, nuclear power generation that produces NO POLLUTION, is cheap, safe and clean compared to using crude, coal or natural gas. The U.S. designed safe and efficient nuclear power generation and has over a hundred plants that have been running safely for half a century. France and many European, and Asian countries generate 70=80% of their power needs from nuclear, and during off peak periods can generate hydrogen to power combustion as well as fuel cell powered buses, trucks, and automobiles.

Year by year the demands for crude oil by developing nations such as China, India, and Asian nations who are producing automobiles increasing the demand for fossil fuel, and resultant increases of crude prices, world pollution, and rates global warming increase.

The United States hasn't built new refineries or nuclear power generation plants for the past 25-35 years, and yet the demand increases, and they continue to produce new worst polluting fossil fuel power plants known.

Diesel in Northern California just topped $4.00 per gallon, and $3.60 per gallon for gasoline, with crude at all time record highs of almost $110.00 per barrel, with no end in site.

The price of crude affects everything we do, buy, order, use, eat, consume or travel.

A crash program on new nuclear power generation plants for increased power needs and to reduce CO2, pollution, and replace the dirtiest ever know way of generating power with coal burning plants, will decrease or make the U.S. completely independent of the necessity of importing foreign crude oil, and do its part in reducing the rate of natural global warming.

The rest of the world is laughing at the U.S. seeing many countries take off using technology they developed and become energy efficient cleanly, safely at low cost using nuclear power generation for decades.

In the mean time the U.S. is spending 12 Billion monthly, 3 Billion weekly, or 428 million or approximately half a billion dollar a day on supporting the Iraq war, going broke, with a lame president, a terrible and expensive health care system, and a dollar worth less than many European countries.

Coal fired plants put out more nuclear radiation and tons of toxic material, more than a nuclear power plant or livining next door to one. You get more nuclear natural background radiation by flying at 37,000 feet in an airliner or living at high altudes such as Denver CO.

Read this article:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

and

www.pushback.com (http://www.pushback.com)

[Naturist Mark]

There may be a bit of confusion here. I was writing about power generation, you wrote something about geothermal heating, and then I was still on power generation. Geothermal heat pumps don't generate power. They are fine for lowering energy use, but they still consume some power..

And the difference between generating power and lowering power consumption is what?

Nada.

[Sanslines]

Or you could help the poor people and just GIVE THEM MONEY, like I keep saying, and leave the free market to work.

Or, better yet, the government could stop playing games with the working poor and those on fixed incomes, and just lower their taxes so that they have more money in their pockets to pay for the ever increasing cost of living.

The present administration and government (yes BOTH the White House and Congress) continue to remain silent about the energy CRISIS. ( For those old enough to remember the 1970's, the phrase used back then was ENERGY CRISIS and the government launched a conservation campaign with such catch phrases as "Don't be fuelish!" etc). The responsibility of the government is to look out for the interests of this country and all of it's citizens. Instead of the President using his office as a 'bully pulpit' to lead people to conservation and to denounce all of the wild and baseless speculation, the President instead choses to remain silent. The speculators and oil traders know fully well that no matter how high they speculate the price of oil, there will be no response from either the politicians or from enough people. They have a free hand to charge whatever they wish and they know it.

[Skinview]

And the difference between generating power and lowering power consumption is what?

Nada.We are going to need a huge power source to replace fossil fuel plants and the gas we use to fuel our cars. Even if you eliminate all energy consumption for heating, there will still be a huge demand for power. Try splitting water into hydrogen with a heat pump. Get back to us when you have a tank of H2. Go on now...

[Sanslines]

Hello sanslines. Good point you made. But as far as Americans paying the higher gas prices without complaint, I don't think we have much of a choice. The way I look at it is this way. We have a choice here; we either pay the prices at the pumps and drive our cars, or we don't pay and we don't drive our cars. Whether we like it or not, they've got us!

Ken Palmer

Hi Ken,

We have another choice here. We so badly need leadership from our politicians to unite people and bring people together for the good of this country. For too many years, this country has promoted self centered and selfish interests that have finally caught up with us. People need to stop driving gas guzzling SUV's and replace them with high mileage cars. Unfortunately those cars tend to be foreign made as the American Auto Makers are still living in the past by promoting gas guzzlers. As it stands now, I see so many low mileage and full sized pick up trucks with only the driver crusing the roads around here that I can just imagine how much gas would be saved if those same drivers (usually men with an image to uphold by driving such vehicles) did the right thing and drove higher mileage vehicles.

[Sanslines]

In the mean time the U.S. is spending 12 Billion monthly, 3 Billion weekly, or 428 million or approximately half a billion dollar a day on supporting the Iraq war, going broke, with a lame president, a terrible and expensive health care system, and a dollar worth less than many European countries.


Yes we are. We are paying people in Iraq to rebuild their own infrastructure and country with our money while at the same time we neglect our own infrastructure. We have so many serious problems and so badly need a president who lead and unite people for the good of this country. We are in this mess because far too many of us (the people) are too damn ignorant or lazy or self centered or selfish to put forth any effort to improve our situation. We are reaping what we have sown.

[KNude]

After the reports out earlier this week we need to eliminate CO2 emissions. This means no hydrocarbon fuels, including alcohol. We need to fund research and the building of plants for hydrogen, solar power (heat and photoelectric), geothermal, electrical storage and nuclear. This is not just the US but the world. The longer we focus on oil, the more this is delayed.

[BinCo]

We are going to need a huge power source to replace fossil fuel plants and the gas we use to fuel our cars. Even if you eliminate all energy consumption for heating, there will still be a huge demand for power. Try splitting water into hydrogen with a heat pump. Get back to us when you have a tank of H2. Go on now...

OK you two, stop it. The difference is simple. Using geothermal steam to run an electrical generation station that then sends the power down the line to the masses is clearly what Skinview was thinking of. This is why I clarified what I meant. That is a different solution than someone saving electricity by using less of it. The first is a large scale solution and the latter an individual decision.

I still see that there needs to be government regulation to stop any munincipality or HOA from making rules against solar power systems. They should then encourage more use of it, or better yet mandate use of it, on new subdivisions and buildings to suppliment the power used. This is not a perfect solution, but it could allow expansion without the grid being stressed. We need to start somewhere, and it isn't with the free market being in control of the decisions.

[Boreas]

We are going to need a huge power source to replace fossil fuel plants and the gas we use to fuel our cars. Even if you eliminate all energy consumption for heating, there will still be a huge demand for power. Try splitting water into hydrogen with a heat pump. Get back to us when you have a tank of H2. Go on now...

I would have thought that a libertarian would promote the idea of each home having its own power source. Independence and all. Geothermal and solar can at least make homeowners more self-suffient and less reliant on the power grid. That will be an improvement. Perhaps not a final solution, though a good start towards an end goal.

People need to stop driving gas guzzling SUV's and replace them with high mileage cars. Unfortunately those cars tend to be foreign made as the American Auto Makers are still living in the past by promoting gas guzzlers. As it stands now, I see so many low mileage and full sized pick up trucks with only the driver crusing the roads around here that I can just imagine how much gas would be saved if those same drivers (usually men with an image to uphold by driving such vehicles) did the right thing and drove higher mileage vehicles.

I live in an area where there are many pick ups because of the nature of the work in this area, which is oil and gas, and agriculture. Even though trucks have their place, they do not need to be used so extensively. We were seeing many Hummers come in to the community. Then the gas prices spiked. I got some evil enjoyment thinking of the pain some of those folks would be experiencing at the gas pumps. :sneaky: Anyway, in the past couple of years we have seen more Toyotas and other small cars in town.

I personally drive a small, fuel efficient Subaru. It is tempting to go larger some days when I see the size of the moose and deer and other wildlife on the roads........a bigger vehicle would not be a lot safer against those critters, so I stay small.

[Sanslines]

I would have thought that a libertarian would promote the idea of each home having its own power source. Independence and all. Geothermal and solar can at least make homeowners more self-suffient and less reliant on the power grid. That will be an improvement. Perhaps not a final solution, though a good start towards an end goal.



I live in an area where there are many pick ups because of the nature of the work in this area, which is oil and gas, and agriculture. Even though trucks have their place, they do not need to be used so extensively. We were seeing many Hummers come in to the community. Then the gas prices spiked. I got some evil enjoyment thinking of the pain some of those folks would be experiencing at the gas pumps. :sneaky: Anyway, in the past couple of years we have seen more Toyotas and other small cars in town.

I personally drive a small, fuel efficient Subaru. It is tempting to go larger some days when I see the size of the moose and deer and other wildlife on the roads........a bigger vehicle would not be a lot safer against those critters, so I stay small.

Yes, there are legitimate needs for pickup trucks. However, the type of drivers that I am referring to are those around me who drive up and down the road in 3/4 ton pickups with the pickup bed always empty and the pickup cab containing only the driver. Ther drivers are 99 percent of the time men who will not drive small, gas efficient vehicles for they consider such vehicles to be sissy vehicles. We all know that REAL men drive pickups as most men have some sort of image to uphold, ya know!

[Boreas]

Yes, there are legitimate needs for pickup trucks. However, the type of drivers that I am referring to are those around me who drive up and down the road in 3/4 ton pickups with the pickup bed always empty and the pickup cab containing only the driver. Ther drivers are 99 percent of the time men who will not drive small, gas efficient vehicles for they consider such vehicles to be sissy vehicles. We all know that REAL men drive pickups as most men have some sort of image to uphold, ya know!

Yes, we have many of those guys in this area. This is sort of Texas north with the oil and gas. Of course we also have many cowboys. My friend who grew up in Nashville calls this "The Land of Bubba"......it is where men are men!:eek: (or so they think) :sneaky:

[BinCo]

Yes, there are legitimate needs for pickup trucks. However, the type of drivers that I am referring to are those around me who drive up and down the road in 3/4 ton pickups with the pickup bed always empty and the pickup cab containing only the driver. Ther drivers are 99 percent of the time men who will not drive small, gas efficient vehicles for they consider such vehicles to be sissy vehicles. We all know that REAL men drive pickups as most men have some sort of image to uphold, ya know!

:driving:
They drive me nuts too, and I am a F150 4x2 owner. I ordered mine with the smaller V8 for the better mileage. 2 other guys I worked with ordered new F150 4x4s at the same time, both with the bigger V8. It gave them 15 extra horses and something like 25 extra ft-lbs of torque. :rolleyes: Mine is a MY 2000 and after 192,000 miles, I still get 18-19 mpg. They were lucky to get 14 mpg. Of course my bed looks like someone dumped a bunch of rocks in it. That would be me, and I've probably moved over 100 tons of gravel, mulch, sand, bags of cement, etc in it. So I actually use my truck. It can still pull a 4000# travel trailer at 70mph on the interstate without breaking a sweat, and stay in overdrive the whole time. I can go up the worst mountain passes pulling this trailer and only drop to 55-60mph. So what do people really need that extra power for? I want to get a new civic, but we have to get SWMBO a new car first. It bums us out that we can't get a new sedan that gets much better mileage than our 97 Dodge Intrepid (23/26). :( We were looking into an Acura TL, but it doesn't do much better. We kinda figured that we would be over 30mpg by now. Add a third car to the insurance and it all gets really expensive, really fast.

[Sanslines]

For those who drive diesel vehicles or trucks, the price to drive such a vehicle has become much more expensive in the past two weeks. Diesel prices (along with kerosene) have risen at least 50 cents per gallon. The cheapest that I have seen diesel is $4.09 per gallon and the most expensive is $4.59. Higher food prices (along with everything else).......here we come again!

[usmc1]

This is an outstanding two-page anlaysis. It also has several good links to track prices.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23662031/

But, if you're relly looking for someone to blame, blame the Texas Railroad Commission...they started it all.

[OZJames]

Boreas - QUOTE - "I personally drive a small, fuel efficient Subaru. It is tempting to go larger some days when I see the size of the moose and deer and other wildlife on the roads........a bigger vehicle would not be a lot safer against those critters, so I stay small."

Research has shown that large 4WDs, pickups and vans etc are LESS SAFE than smaller cars and SUVs like a Subaroo Forrester. The smaller vehicles have good crumple zones and air bags etc . Large 4WDs , pickups etc may seem solid therefore safer but when they hit something the passenger's body keeps moving and their very solidness causes damage to passengers.

[Naturist Mark]

After the reports out earlier this week we need to eliminate CO2 emissions. This means no hydrocarbon fuels, including alcohol.

Biofuels, such as ethanol or biodiesel, even though they do produce co2 when burned, do NOT produce a net increase in atmospheric co2 because the same quantities of co2 are pulled out of the atmosphere during the growth of the biomass feedstocks. Biofuels are really just a storage medium for solar energy.

Current ethanol production techniques do produce an increase in greenhouse gasses due to fossil fuels used in the process (but a smaller amount than simply using fossil fuels do). Cellulosic ethanol production will close the loop by using the unconverted portion of the biomass to fuel the process. (The two thirds of cellulosic biomass comprised of cellulose and hemicellulose is converted to sugars and then ethanol, the lignin that makes up the bulk of the remainder is used as a fuel to power the process.)

The Battelle Memorial Institute's recent study "Near Term U.S. Biomass Potential" concluded that biomass production that consists of a combination of 40 to 50% crop waste and the rest in energy crops such as switchgrass could produce 50 billion gallons of ethanol per year without substantially adverse competition with food crops or the cost of cropland. A study by the Natural Resource Defense Council suggests a level of production 2 to 3 times higher are possible with appropriate technology development and agricultural co-production methods. These production levels could displace transportation fossil fuel use if coupled with increased mileage and efficiency standards - or agricultural land could be increased through the use of energy crops that tolerate conditions on what is currently considered marginal or unsuitable land.

-Mark

[Qikdraw]

Why Exxon won't produce more oil (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/WhyExxonWontProduceMore.aspx?page=1)

Reports of slackening demand sent oil down another 2.5% on Thursday to $101.84 per barrel. Crude prices have declined 7.6% since the beginning of the week. Not long ago, that would have been an astonishing plunge that shook the trading establishment. These days? Nah, that's just the ho-hum volatility in the oil market. But how is it that crude can still trade above $100 a barrel, three times what it sold for at the start of the decade, despite a very wobbly economy?

If you want to understand that, it helps to listen in to ExxonMobil's (XOM, news, msgs) presentation to analysts in New York City in early March. Halfway through the three-hour meeting, Exxon management flashed a chart that showed the company's worldwide oil production staying flat through 2012.

Ponder that for a minute. Exxon is the largest publicly traded company in the energy business. In fact, it's the most profitable company in the history of capitalism, earning a record $40.6 billion last year on sales of $404 billion. Yet even with crude oil prices near all-time highs, Exxon isn't planning on producing any more oil four years from now than it did last year.

That means the company's oil output won't even keep pace with its own projections of worldwide oil demand growth of 1.3% a year.

Qikdraw