Gas Prices!

[eolesen]

You tell US ALL, why "the lil' TURD is giving OIL companies Massive $$$$ TAX BREAKS, while we keep "taking it in the ***" while the prices keep going up.

I wasn't aware that you could give tax breaks by Executive Order. Oh wait, yes, that's still a power of Congress...

Tax breaks make sense to me if it encourages domestic exploration and production for oil and natural gas, and building of refineries. That, in turn, creates decent paying jobs for Americans, both in the construction trades and in the jobs created at those facilities.

Right now, the current tax structure encourages Exxon, Texaco, etc. to source and refine their product offshore, with all those jobs going just about anywhere except the U.S.

Personally, I'd rather see the jobs associated with that stay here, and to expand our domestic refining infrastructure. Obviously, you disagree.

It doesn't do much good to have a strategic reserve of crude oil if you can't turn it into usable product. Remember that the biggest impact from Katrina wasn't the availability of crude. It was the loss of refinery capacity.

 

[Garfield1966]

FM,

I am trying to figure out why you and so many talking heads especially on the right side of the aisle are so hell bent on having more refineries and domestic exploration of oil.

As far as the refineries are concerned, it would take at least 10 years to build one at a cost of who knows who many billions and no one wants one in their back yard. Can we put one in Manhattan, or how about on the coast of Pacific Palisades? Nah, we will just stick it where we always do. By the way, why would oil companies want more refineries. The price of oil is high because as you stated we do not have the refining capacity to process the oil and yet they had the highest profits in recorded history. Now they want more refineries so that they can process more oil and have the prices come down while they are spending , OH I’m sorry, I meant to say while we the TAX PAYER are spending several billions of dollars to build the oil company the refinery so that they can loose more money. That just does not make a heck of a lot of sense to me.

Exploration? Why? Why do we have to destroy even more land exploring for a resource that we should be trying to get as far away as possible from? Could it be that people are making a butt load of money at the expense of we the public and mother nature. You want to go out exploring for more resources and yet you make no mention of conservation, public transportation and the like.

I have been reading your comments for quite some time and usually they are well thought out and look at both sides of the issue. What happened?

We need less oil not more. We need smaller cars not larger and faster ones. I would like a Z06 as much as the next guy but we cannot always have what we want. Back in the 70’s when we had the first energy crunch, we had a ‘plan’ to start weaning our selves from fossil fuels. Alas, fuel prices went down and that ‘plan’ when out the window. We went from gas guzzlers to small cars and now we are back to gas guzzlers. GM, Ford and Dodge have hitched their horse to the SUV/Truck craze and now they can hardly give them away. I laugh my ass off every time I hear some moron b!tching at the pump about the cost of fuel. I always want to ask the dumb a$$ how many times a year he actually uses his truck as a ‘truck’.

We have the technology to have every house running on solar power. My folks in CA were set to have it installed but the company got bought out and the deal was squashed. We are being screwed by the likes of Cheney & Co., Frist, DeLay … who are all getting rich at the expense of our environment, our health, and our pocketbook.

 

[Mach85ER]

Garfield,

Any country that runs off by itself to use other energy sources while ignoring oil will just be committing economic suicide.

Other alternatives to oil will only be developed and successful (partly at best) if the current/future reserves of oil become more expensive than the alternatives. The reason is at the moment, even at $75-100 barrel, oil is the cheapest, most efficient source of energy per pound than any of the alternatives by a huge margin. I've heard oil produces something like 100 times the energy needed to drill and refine it. Every other source barely breaks even.

You mentioned Solar power. Clean, non-polluting, quiet, etc, right? Unfortunately at the moment it takes alot of energy to produce electric producing panels. The panels also degrade over time, and you need wiring, batteries, electronics to regulate it. All of these take huge amounts of energy and natural resources (lead/copper) to mine and manufacture. I've heard at the moment Solar systems actually use more energy to produce the hardware than the system will ever produce (may be wrong, not by far though). It is like working your arse off to put $1000 in the bank and withdrawing cash periodically by an ATM. You wouldn't think each time you take $100 out that you are getting free money, right now, that is what a solar system basically is.

The other problem is that other countries will still use the cheapest source of energy. If the USA went to all aternative fuels, China/India will gladly become even more relative low cost producers due to cheaper energy costs. In the end, we would die economically. You couldn't afford to make or have anything to put hydrogen/soybean/ethanol into in just a few years.

Nothing would make me happier than sending millions of religous psychos back to riding camels or having Hugo Chavez having to become a Polar beer salesman, but right now it's not in the cards.

 

[Oneflyer]

Exploration? Why? Why do we have to destroy even more land exploring for a resource that we should be trying to get as far away as possible from? Could it be that people are making a butt load of money at the expense of we the public and mother nature.

The whole destroying nature argument is really where the environmentalists derail. I've lived in Texas all my life and see oil rigs on a regular basis, I've hunted on ranches that have natural gas wells on them. Nature isn't destroyed, have been to East Texas lately? Literally, thousands of wells have been dug there and hundreds are still pumping out oil, its certainly not the wasteland that environmentalist would have you believe.

 

[MCI transplant]

Check out this 100 mile on 4 ounces WATER car...

Hydrogen Technologies

<_< ------ I think this guy is on to something! Added to gas would get you a 50% gain in fuel burn! That's a 50% lose in profits for the big oil people! They'll squash him like a bug! Or buy him out, and bury the technology! I hope I'm wrong! Must be getting cynical in my old age! But then again, I've worked for aa for a little over five years now! 😉

 

[Garfield1966]

Mach85ER

I agree with you for the most part. Right now oil is the cheapest source of energy. My guess is that it will not remain that way. When that happens, it is too late to start looking for alternatives. The time to do it is now when our current source of energy is still relatively affordable.

To me the key of your argument relies on the phrase "at the moment". Yes, right now the cost per a solar panel, or the cost to generate hydro, wind power is more then the savings of the power obtained. How ever, 20 years ago a home computer was a luxury, now $200 will get you a bare bones system. The way I see it, the more we invest in R&D now, the cheaper it will become in the future. My belief is that is we start to develop the technology now, when the rest of the world is paying $150-$200 a barrel or more, we will be able to thumb our noses at it and fall back on our alternate fuels. I find it hard to believe that we cannot develop a solar system with a service life of well over 20 years. My hunch is that the oil Mafia here in the US and abroad has a vested interest in keeping such technology under wraps until they have milked all the cash they can out of oil. Them along with the elected criminals in DC will make sure that any technology that reaches the consumers will be outrageously expensive and very limited in availability.

This is what I mean when I say the US is short sighted and greedy. We seem to want it all now and not give a damn about what the future will hold. I am not advocating that we just turn off the oil switch. It will take time, but the time to start was 20 years ago not 20 years from now.

This is also part of the reason I would rather see fuel prices artificially increased now than to take it in the shorts when we have no choice in the matter.

The whole destroying nature argument is really where the environmentalists derail. I've lived in Texas all my life and see oil rigs on a regular basis, I've hunted on ranches that have natural gas wells on them. Nature isn't destroyed, have been to East Texas lately? Literally, thousands of wells have been dug there and hundreds are still pumping out oil, its certainly not the wasteland that environmentalist would have you believe.

One does not need a oil spill or a fire to destroy nature. As you so astutely indicated, there are thousands of oil wells out in east Texas. I don’t know about you but when I go on vacation, I am not interested in seeing a stand of oil wells, whether it be in East Teaxs or in Alaska. As I have said before, instead of looking for more oil, why not look for an alternate to oil. Why do we have to litter a beautiful lush wilderness with oil wells all over the place?

 

[eolesen]

Solar is a great option, Garfield. But to think that it is environmentally friendly is kidding yourself.

I have solar installed on top of my RV, and it works great in the daytime. To use it 100%, I have to have a bank of four golf cart batteries, and that's just for 12V power. If I want to use 110V power, I probably need another two panels and another four batteries. To power a house, you need 12 to 24 batteries for about 8-12 hours of power. And you can forget about powering an air conditioner or forced air electric heater.

You complain about trashing the earth. What exactly do you think happens to all those lead acid batteries after three or four years?...

 

[limit]

Solar is a great option, Garfield. But to think that it is environmentally friendly is kidding yourself.

I have solar installed on top of my RV, and it works great in the daytime. To use it 100%, I have to have a bank of four golf cart batteries, and that's just for 12V power. If I want to use 110V power, I probably need another two panels and another four batteries. To power a house, you need 12 to 24 batteries for about 8-12 hours of power. And you can forget about powering an air conditioner or forced air electric heater.

You complain about trashing the earth. What exactly do you think happens to all those lead acid batteries after three or four years?...

http://www.geenergyfinancialservices.com/p...s_2006_0427.pdf

 

[eolesen]

http://www.geenergyfinancialservices.com/p...s_2006_0427.pdf

Again, concepts like solar farms are great, but at best, you only get 8-10 peak hours of power from them, and then you're done. What about the other 14-16 hours of the day, and days where cloud cover causes less than peak output?

You will still need to either store power in battery arrays or supplement with something else, such fossil fueled or nuclear generation.

 

[FWAAA]

Looks like oil will finally hit my target prediction of $100/bbl (which I predicted would have already happened); I now predict that will happen by the end of the month. In after-hour electronic trading today, oil futures surpassed $78/bbl:

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Stor...amp;siteid=yhoo

Looks like my cruising may be cut back to 3-4 days a week. 😀

Maybe $100/bbl oil will finally kill one or more of AA's weaker competitors.

 

[AMFAMAN]

Maybe $100/bbl oil will finally kill one or more of AA's weaker competitors.

Or bring salaries down to minimum wage so passengers can continue to travel on the airline employee subsidized travel program.

 

[1AA]

Gas prices are actually just about in line with inflation over the last forty or so years. When I pumped gas in the late sixties for a dollar an hour, an hour's work would buy me about 3.5 gallons of the product I sold. An hour's work at entry level wages will still buy about the same amount.

In the same period, a brand new Volkswagen ran about $1800, a new Camaro or Firebird close to $3500, and something really big and fancy, like an Impala with radio and AC, just under 4k. Multiply by ten and do the math today.

MK

Do not tell us about the rate of inflation and prices. My paycheck is not keeping up with the rate of inflation. It never did and never will. What I pay today is what affects me today not forty years ago.

 

[1AA]

Just a few things to keep in mind when bring over a car not designed or the US market. It is called a grey market import. It was very big in the mid-to late 80's due to the strength of the Dollar against the weak Deutch Mark. The cars are not made with the same safety and emissions equipment. The red tape involved in importing a car is heinous at best. Last time I checked you could not import a new car to the US. It must have at least 6,000 miles on the ODO. You will have to fine a company, licensed by the EPA and DOT who can convert the car. My car is a grey market and back in 89 when I brought it over, it cost an extra $6k to legalize it. Door reinforcements, safety buzzers, head lights, all the paper work .... blah blah blah. PIA that I will never do again.

A car manufacture will sell what ever they can make a profit off of. People in this country do not want to have smaller fuel efficient vehicles. They want their SUV's and trucks. They are used to driving all over the place instead of having viable public transportation as an alternative. In Berlin, you could not turn around with out seeing a Smart or some other such small vehicle. Add to which nearly ever car there is a diesel. Even the "big" cars such as the 7 series BMW and "S" class Mercedes were diesels.

Back in the 80's when the US manufactures put out diesels they screwed the market up. The converted gas engines for diesel use and gee wiz, the engines failed. Wonder why.

americans have this idea the diesels are loud smelly and slow. They are not loud (a few decibels higher at idle) they are not smelly or smoky at all any more) and the Mercedes diesel has more power and more torque than the gas engine in the same car. The fact remains that the american do not care about being dependent on a finite world resource that China wants now as well. We want what we want and damn the consequences. And americans wonder why we have the reputation that we do.

I AGREE!!

Diesel technology has advanced greatly over the years. We in the US are told that diesel is loud, smelly and so on.
Shame on the government and auto companies. I rented a Diesel car in Europe on my last vacation. It was a Renault Cleo. Four door hatchback bigger than a Honda civic and Nissan Sentra. When I started the engine I thought the car rental agent switched cars on me. It did not sound like a diesel. I reeved the engine and it sounded like a gasoline car. I had to open the fuel filler door and that is where it said "Diesel Fuel Only". This car was a non turbo with a 1.4 litre engine. I had plenty of power to spare on the open highway. I got 60 miles to the gallon highway and about 30 to 33 in the city. You can't get 30 to 33 highway here in the states on most cars. This car got it in the city. Diesel is cheaper in Europe and now they are starting to sell more than one grade of diesel due to it's popularity. Even though the europeans live a different lifestyle as far as commuting the fact remains that they have more vehicles that are fuel efficient regardless of price per gallon or liter. Diesel is cheaper than gas in Europe. Here it's the opposite. Another discouragemnt to buy diesel. I feel the influence from the government, oil companies and the auto manufactures are keeping us from educating ourselves about more fuel efficient and cleaner burning diesel cars. If I told you that I have a car comparable in size of a Honda, Nissan, Volkswagen etc..
that gets 30 miles to the gallon CITY and 60 miles to the gallon HIGHWAY would you buy it? Only a fool would say no.
It's funny how GM and Ford complain about poor sales and yet they sell fuel efficient vehicles overseas that are popular. Alfa Romeo has a model car that sells all over the world except here in the US. It is the Alfa Romeo 147 turbo diesel. It has a 1.9 liter twin cam turbo-diesel engine at 150 hp. It comes in a two or four door hatchback. It is rated at 60 highway and 30+ city. Many car manufactures in Europe compete heavily in the disel market. More and more new cars on the road in Europe are diesel. Can the Europeans be wrong? Do they know something that we do not?
Is there a big secret about diesel cars in Europe versus Gasoline Cars in the US? It's all about government regulation and education. OK I think I said enough.

😉 😉

 

[Oneflyer]

The answer is: ALL of the ABOVE!

Energy use is going to continue to grow. What we need is for the government to stop taking sides and support a comprehensive energy policy that includes more drilling, more refining capacity, large scale investment into alternative energy, and a conservation program. It is possible to do all four at the same time, but neither side seems willing to compromise because they're too worried about trying to screw the other party, leaving the American people the loser.

 

[AMFAMAN]

The following link is from ABC in Australia called Peak Oil. Pretty interesting stuff.

http://abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/200...efault_full.htm