Are you an EV owner who has received a shockingly high quote for repairs? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to [email protected] by Friday, May 26 for more details.

What If - Gasoline is $5 a gallon in 2010?



  • bigeauxbigeaux Member Posts: 46
    I would invite you, next time it comes around, to read the text of Mr. Greenspan's comments to Congress when he delivers them, or else watch it live on CSPAN or some such. Mull it over in your head, take notes, parse it, and figure out for yourself what you think he said.

    Then watch the news reports and read the articles about it after you've formed your own opinion.

    Truth is, Greenspan puts so many hedges and qualifications in what he says that I'm fairly sure you can claim he said whatever you'd like him to.

    There's only one thing that matters where he's concerned: interest rates. Movements talk, speeches walk. Some people get paid to guess what the Fed will do based on those speeches. I don't envy them.

    If there is a nugget of useful opinion in there, it's that he might agree with those who think the price bubble may be headed for a burst. I'm sure he didn't say that unequivocally, but that's what the first paragraph of the report you posted suggests to me.
  • brucejbrucej Member Posts: 105

    "we're not talking stock market crashes and disasters which can wipe out people's savings; we're talking about a commodity that is not going to disappear tomorrow or next year"

    When the stock market crashed in 1929 what commodity or thing disappeared? None. The sun came up that day the same as every day. Give or take a few the same number of birds filled the skies and trees. The same mean spirited people gave the same scowls to the same shoe shine boys on their way to their office.

    You don't have to run out of a single thing for a reversal of fortune to take place except confidence. Confidence is what keeps the whole ball spinning. We don't have to run out of gas tomorrow or the next day or 50 years from now for things to get real nutty in a hurry.

    We (myself included) have been acting in ways that remove the means for confidence to continue. We (individuals) are collectively carrying levels of debt that are frightening. We owe more and save less than any developed country on earth. I read recently that the entitlements promised Americans (examp. medicare(caid), social security, etc.) currently exceed SIXTY-THREE TRILLION dollars.

    In today's news its reported that bonds issued by General Motors have been categorized as "junk." Ford's bond status is under review and faces a similar fate. That means that GM will have to pay higher yields to get additional investors to finance future improvements. (Thereby exacerbating the likelihood of ever being able to turn things around)

    What I have been hearing and continue to hear on this post is nothing more than smugness. With very few exceptions I'm hearing people say, "Such and thus won't happen because its unpleasant and because I said so." If the fit hits the shan, "Cause I said so" ain't gonna cut it.
  • brucejbrucej Member Posts: 105

    I didn't use the term Chairman the person who wrote the article did. It was a quote. Moron? Hardly. Greenspan is a genius and on balance has been a tremendous Chairman of the Fed. But he is also a master at saying nothing. You have to remember his speech was given to the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. These are the guys that punch the holes in the ground for kerssake. They would have gotten more content out of a Daffy Duck cartoon.

    My problem wasn't with what I heard my problem was he didn't say anything.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Shale oil is different from oil sands. From the item you posted, it stated that by 2015, crude oil demand anticipated to rise to 28 mbbl/day, with oil SANDS contributing 14% of that amount.

    Of course, it then states that the remainder would be imported primarily from OPEC. What? No OTHER domestic crude oil production by 2015? ALL of our other crude oil sources would go dry?

    Besides, oil sands are simply another place from which CRUDE oil is taken. Shale oil is completely different (and is yet ANOTHER very large source for domestic oil which remains virtually untapped.
  • brucejbrucej Member Posts: 105
    Righto. Shale is much harder to extract energy.

    Below is partial article. Full article at:

    Shale is a sedimentary rock containing kerogen, which is then converted into synthetic oil by processing, according to the World Energy Council. Environmentalists argue that the process produces high greenhouse emissions.

    "U.S. companies have developed and patented new technologies to develop oil shale that are both economical and environmentally friendly," Lonnie said.

    The oil shale boom took Colorado by storm in the 1970s. "One of the things we learned from the oil shale prototype leasing in the 70s was that there were some technologies that could recover oil shale, but they just weren't economical," BLM's Edwards said.

    Unocal Corp. was one of the major energy companies that tried to drill oil shale, but pulled out and sold all its properties, spokesman Barry Lane said.
  • brucejbrucej Member Posts: 105
    Interesting article on Canadian oil sands at: /Canadian

    For centuries; the sticky bitumen of northern Alberta was good for little more than caulking Chipewyan Indian canoes - and leading entrepreneurs astray.

    The first attempt to exploit the oil sands came nearly a century ago, when oilmen tried drilling conventional wells in the area, convinced that the bitumen on the surface must be welling up from gigantic pools of crude deep in the Earth. Two dozen wells were drilled over 11 years, with zero success

    Small-scale operations producing asphalt popped up in the ensuing decades, but cheper sources of the product elsewhere in the world eventually bankrupted every one of those efforts.

    It was not until 1967 that the oil industry began to make a business out of bitumen, when the Great Canadian Oil Sands Project, which eventually became Suncor Energy Inc., began production.


    Mortgage Rates

    Compare national rates by lender: See Chart

    Sponsored by:

    Swings in oil prices, particularly the collapse of the mid-1980s, left the sector's viability in continual question. In part because of shrinking opportunities for conventional exploration, interest in the oil sands grew, with tens of billions of dollar sinvested in the 1990s.

    Despite a record of multibillion-dollar cost overruns, that investment has pushed production of bitumen and synthetic crude past one million barrels a day - with capital spending predicted to double that to two million barrels a day over the next five years, and perhaps to three million by the middle of the next decade.

    Even with that soaring growth, there are decades, and likely centuries, of production in the oil sands. The best official estimate of oil that can be profitably extracted is 175 billion barrels - second only to the reserves of Saudi Arabia.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    I'm quite aware that shale oil is harder to extract; perhaps that's why it hasn't been done successfully on a commercial level yet?

    The point being that at some price point it IS commercially viable. And when that price point is reached (AND investors are assured that oil prices won't fall below the profitable price point), this source WILL be tapped.

    The question then becomes two-fold:

    What IS the price point at which shale oil becomes profitable and how can investors be assured the price doesn't fall below that level? I've seen indications that price point is as low as $40-$50/bbl. Personally, I think the level is probably closer to $60/bbl.

    The problem that industry faces however is whether they can afford to spend the enormous up front investment to go into production only to have the price for crude fall back to $35-40/bbl.

    Forgotten in the mix is the fact that the current administration is expanding on (refilling) the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This ADDITIONAL demand on the global market is one of the factors driving up costs. However, from what I understand, this is scheduled to end before summer which should decrease demand for oil helping to send prices lower.
  • perry40perry40 Member Posts: 94
    Newfoundland (where I live) is also an oil producer, with 3 producing fields offshore and a 4th to come on line in the next couple of years ... yet we pay some of the highest gasoline prices in Canada ... $0.989CAD per litre (equivalent to $3.07USD per US Gal.) ... while Venezeula and Saudi Arabia (also oil producers) have some of the lowest gas prices in the world ... and I heard that our provincial Petroleum Pricing Commission (which reviews/adjusts prices every 2-4 weeks) has given the go ahead for Reg. Un-leaded (87 Octane) to go over $1.01 per litre on Thursday ... many here feel that both the Canadian and Provincial governments should freeze the tax level on gasoline at the countrywide average price ...
    Anyhoo I digress ... give up SUV's as prices climb? ... hell, I drive an Accent and it's starting to hurt.
    I think that it is in the interests of the very survival of our North American way of life to develope a viable alternative to petroleum as a fuel for vehicles and industry ... and soon ... this being held "hostage" by an expensive, non-renewable resource (most of which resides in the mostly hostile Mid. East) is gettin' on my nerves!
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Being an oil producer doesn't help; the oil just goes on the market. For (relatively) cheap prices, you've got to be close to the refineries. Any refineries close by?

    Prices 'fixed' by the government? Hmmmm, and that doesn't ensure you affordable gas? Who wudda thunk it......
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072

    "The vast extent of U.S. oil shale resources, amounting to more than 2 trillion barrels, has been known for a century."

    "It has been nearly two decades since meaningful federal oil shale policy initiatives were undertaken. In that time technology has advanced,..."

    And here's the More Info link which is much more detailed info. It states the good and the bad, and is relatively unbiased.
  • brucejbrucej Member Posts: 105
    Interesting article. One thing I noticed was they cited $25 oil as the viability point. Time for these guys to get started.
  • brucejbrucej Member Posts: 105
    Thanks gang. Time for me to move on. I've learned a lot hanging out here for a bit. I know that there were some early posters that were skeptical about a few topics that aren't quite as skeptical as they were. They did a little digging and low and behold their eyes opened a bit wider.

    I'll check back Oct. 1st to see if I'm paying or collecting on my bet with rorr. Good luck in all you do.
  • electrictroyelectrictroy Member Posts: 564
    I will not give up my car, no matter how high gas prices skyrocket. Even if I have to drive one of these:

    250 MPG Car

  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Leaving already? I predict a much less entertaining thread.....

    See you Oct. 1. Don't let the sky hit you on the way out. ;)
  • reddogsreddogs Member Posts: 353 none of his 'presentation' had any merit or substance just 'shock value' as in shooting of a gun in the air to get a herd of cattle to stampede. The bullet doesnt have to hit anything just make a loud report to startle the upsuspecting bovines..... :mad:
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    The markets seem to react quickly to any news, real or imagined to be real. How many times has crude jumped up because traders react to stories from some analyst painting a "what if" picture. The recent story about how oil COULD go to $105/bbl comes to mind.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    When the stock market crashed in 1929 what commodity or thing disappeared?

    What disappeared was the debt people had run up to buy stocks. My understanding is that the stock market as a whole back then was less than 10% funded. We have safeguards that don't allow that in the market. Most big changes are caused by electronic selling with the big funds. The worst actual loss of market value was when the Clinton administration attacked Microsoft. Microsoft stock lost 80 billion dollars of it's value in one day. That was worse than even the Enron loss for many Mutual funds.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,386
    my Shell stock has gone up 47 cents per share since I bought it, so keep panicking, people! :shades:
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Just trying to avoid drifting off into the non-automotive... although it WOULD make an interesting discussion.

    From an 11:23 AM news story today:

    Stocks Move Higher As an Improved Supply Outlook Sends Oil Prices Skidding

    Oil futures were down 64 cents at $55.40 on the New York Mercantile Exchange following the government's weekly fuel supply report, which showed a 2.4 million barrel build in crude.

    Didn't mean to report good news...heh

    Not a word about oil being below $56/bbl on the radio newcasts I'm hearing so far today. They certaily let me know everytime it broke through a dollar value on the way up.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    according to website, gas prices in Phoenix are "stable" as of today, a change for every day in the past month. Maybe we are at the peak for "this current spike."

    It has gone up 26 cents in the last 30 days in Phoenix, for my HCH a difference of $3.38 cents per fillup for me......or about $101 per year......
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Not a word about oil being below $56/bbl on the radio newcasts I'm hearing so far today.

    You noticed that also. I think the news media is only tuned in to the uptick of the oil prices. Bad new or no news is the way of the media.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    March 20, 1958 Premium in CA was .33 a gallon
    April 17, 1977 Regular in WA was .57 a gallon
    April 05, 2005 Regular in WA is 2.33 a gallon

    If your income has not quadrupled since 1977, the price of fuel is not the problem.

    $5 a gallon will be just fine. Today my 4,000 lb car with AOD gets 26 mpg. In 1977 my 4,000 lb car without AOD got 18 mpg.

    To keep up, invest in the petroleum industry which has always been good to their stockholders.
  • highenderhighender Member Posts: 1,358
    how many of you would support a partial opening of the Alaska Wildlife Refuge/National drilling ? I mean, there are a whole lot of land there....and the fauna and flora is very sparse...and can be maintained in half the area., while we drill for oil in the other half >

    would that not be good ? IT is not exactly a rainforest there...where each tree may harbor 1000 species of lifeforms....right ? Just move the few mammals off to the other side...and feed them out table scraps..heheh... ;)

    let the drilling begin...and watch gas prices fall ... :P
  • highenderhighender Member Posts: 1,358
    hmm..what was the median and average income for US in 1958 ? 1977 ? please advise....thanks..

    this will help us determine if prices are actually higher or lower , in relative terms..
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    If the people who LIVE there want it, we are silly to debate the point I guess...They know what little impact 2000 acres of drilling use has in a 19 million acre parcel....If it will increase our supply and lower OPEC demand, we need it !!!
  • highenderhighender Member Posts: 1,358
    I seem to agree with you....

    what is 20,000 acres if there are 19,000,000 acres for the other stuff...

    just do it the right way....drill and take precautions. Yes, some accidents will happen, but the effect should be negligible if they don't let Captain drunk get on the EXXON Valdez again ... ;)

    Any body against drilling in the Alaska (ANWR ) ? Why ?
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Well, to put it in perspective, the land area of ANWR is approximately the same as South Carolina.

    The 2000 acres to be drilled on equals a bit over 3 square miles.

    Yes, that's right. Three square miles out of an area the size of South Carolina.

    For a map of the ANWR area, where it is in Alaska, and the area to be developed (shown TO SCALE) visit here:
  • highenderhighender Member Posts: 1,358
    Hi rorr:

    thanks for the is very small area indeed.

    I was just wondering, what about the rest of Alaska ? it seems like there are 15 times more land compared to ANWR, in all of alaska...Yes, much of it is inaccessible...I flew over some of it and there are lots of mountain far as the eye could see , as I remember....

    maybe we can use some hightech gear to detect gas reserves and jsut drill there .......

    so far it seems like there are 3 people FOR drilling in Alaska....

    anyone else ?

    and how about all that land in Canada ? next to ANWR, there are tons of land, most probably like the Prudhoe Oil fields ? Can the canadians start drilling there also.... ?
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    I do object to drilling in ANWR.

    My objections are based on my understanding of the US Constitution and concepts of social contract between government and the governed. In my experience, debate on these lines tend to get shut down by the moderators.

    Without an ok from the moderators, I will just leave it that I object.
  • highenderhighender Member Posts: 1,358

    but drilling there , which does have good potential for oil reserves, and there is alot of land yet to be explored, may decrease oil prices , or stabilize them, and provide a nice source of gas for us, making us more independent from Middle East. that is good news , and is on topic...with respect to gas 2010.

    I think most Alaskans would agree ? They not only have no state income tax, but also get a dividend from the drilling of oil....kinda makes it nice to live there...and there is still no shortage of bears or wildlife....

    This debate would be helpful, if we keep in mind that it is for the oil that we all use, for the security of the US, and to encourage discussion in the Edmunds forum.... (let it NOT be said that edmunds is just a shopping place !! ;) )
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Every area of the Earth including the deepest, darkest dpeths of the ocean harbor life. I don't see any animal life as being more or less precious then the other, or any particular area of the Earth so pristine/sacred/holy as to be off-limits.

    I agree that the windfarm should go into Nantucket Sound if that is a good windy place, and if there is oil in the ANWR we drill there.

    Besides if anyone thinks that if oil runs out or low elsewhere, that the ANWR will not be drilled in, they are pretty naieve. It's not a matter of IF, but WHEN.
  • highenderhighender Member Posts: 1,358
    OK...;thats' 4 against 1....
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    To get back on topic:

    If gas hits $5/gallon, ANWR will be opened up for drilling/pumping. As a matter of fact, regardless of what the price of oil is today, 5 years from now, or even 50 years from now, ANWR will eventually be opened up for production. Thinking otherwise is simply unrealistic/naive, regardless of what the objections are based on.

    That being said, I've got my own (rather twisted) reasoning for not exploiting this time. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or Constitutional issues. So, even though I believe I am diametrically opposed to logic1's (unstated) rational for opposing the opening of ANWR, I'll have to come down on the side of those opposed to drilling.
  • highenderhighender Member Posts: 1,358
    well, this is the news and views forum, and topic is gas if you are opposed to drilling , which will affect gas prices, can you share with us why you are opposed ? Is it due to being politically correct ? some people in CA oppose it , due to it being politically incorrect NOT to oppose it....

    I am a practical environmentalist...and I am all for it, if there can be further measures that would attenuate usage....

    care to share ? :)
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Share? Sure.....

    Consider the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and it's purpose. Now think of ANWR as just a really, really BIG reserve for the long term.

    In other words: oil is a non-renewable strategic resource. In that sense, I would much rather have the option to BUY imported foreign oil now (even if the prices are moderately painful) rather than be forced to pay whatever OPEC demands at a later date. Remember, OPEC doesn't control ALL the oil; they have to compete on the global market with many other producers (the US included). But if we were to turn all our attention to domestic production now (reducing our demand on foreign oil), where does that put us 30,40, 50 years from now?

    You gotta think strategically. As long as they're willing to sell it, you want to use up the other guys stuff FIRST, keeping your own stuff as a fallback.

    I told you it was rather twisted.
  • bigeauxbigeaux Member Posts: 46
    I'm fine with drilling in ANWR, as well as eventual production and transportation (drilling and production are not the same thing).


    We should be realistic about the impact on prices that opening ANWR will have. Oil is traded as a commodity in a global market. The impact of added production from ANWR alone will probably be negligible. Global spare capacity right now, depending on who you ask, is somewhere between 1.5 - 2 million bbls/day. ANWR won't significantly add to that, and basides, whatever ANWR adds, OPEC can cut, easily.

    When it comes to new oilfields, unless we're talking about some combination of reserves and production capacity that can reduce OPEC's 40% market share by 25% or more, then it won't change anything.

    Go ahead and produce there. But don't expect much to change.
  • highenderhighender Member Posts: 1,358
    I see.... I was hoping that we would get a big production fields, somewhere down the line, where oil and gas would be significant....!!

    but I see your point.
  • highenderhighender Member Posts: 1,358
    Hi rorr:

    Consider the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and it's purpose. Now think of ANWR as just a really, really BIG reserve for the long term.

    I agree with your view point. The big picture is important.

    In other words: oil is a non-renewable strategic resource. In that sense, I would much rather have the option to BUY imported foreign oil now (even if the prices are moderately painful) rather than be forced to pay whatever OPEC demands at a later date.

    Hey...I agree totally. As a matter of fact, over at the SUV forum, one person mentioned this also... I think it was kernick or brightness....
    they mentioned they would rather buy others' resource NOW...since the buying is good...and save our own resource for later use.

    You gotta think strategically. As long as they're willing to sell it, you want to use up the other guys stuff FIRST, keeping your own stuff as a fallback.

    I told you it was rather twisted

    nope...I agree completely with you. It may sound twisted...but it is the reality and very practical now...and strategically very adroit for the future....!!!

  • perry40perry40 Member Posts: 94
    Here's a twisted idea also ... the natural resources of the world (of which crude oil is one ...) belong to all of the human race [i]equally[/i] ... these resources are naturally occuring and have existed for millenia, long before the advent of human beings ... or their invention of [i]artificial nation states[/i] ... so, just because a particular nation (or idividual for that matter) happens to have more purchasing power, it does not give them the right to use up more of a naturally occuring resource than someone with less purchasing power ...
    Now back to reality ... if we want to keep gasoline prices from going thru the roof, then we really have to adopt more fuel-efficient vehicles and ditch the guzzelers once and for all ... there is really no need of using a big SUV or 4x4 Truck as a "grocery getter" ... it's not responsible ...
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Before this gets out of hand and anyone says anythng they'll regret, I'm going to take down a couple of posts that are more like potshots at each other than healthy disagreement on a subject.

    Please refrain from commenting about other users, either specifically or generally, and things will run much smoother.

    Thanks for your cooperation and participation.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 18,449
    wasn't the whole idea of 'nafta' to get rid of the artificial economic borders between us na brothers and sisters?
    i've driven through ontario province many times(buffalo through windsor or sarnia) many times. i realize this a small portion of canada, but i don't see many drivers conserving gas.
    2020 Ford Explorer XLT, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • highenderhighender Member Posts: 1,358
    Hi perrry40:

    the natural resources of the world (of which crude oil is one ...) belong to all of the human race [i]equally[/i]

    that is nice and idealistic...too bad property rights and ownership is most of the law....and all agree that you own what is on your did say it was twisted... ;)

    if we want to keep gasoline prices from going thru the roof, then we really have to adopt more fuel-efficient vehicles and ditch the guzzelers once and for all .

    so you are saying it is only the vehicle ? how about the drivers who drive around a econobox for no reason ? just for cruising around ? just to show off...? or the student who can bike or take public transportation, but gets into a car instead...?

    It is the human population's artificial need for the car , that made gas scarce. Witness the explosion of car use in China.... ! Remember, the first privately owned car in China was bought in 1985 !

    Pointing fingers at SUVs...while ignoring the real crux of the problem, will not solve the problem , IMO. Likewise, getting rid of all SUVs, large sedans, and sports cars, will not cause a decrease in oil prices.............

    just like increasing CAFE may not...or drilling in ANWR...

    .. there is really no need of using a big SUV or 4x4 Truck as a "grocery getter" ... it's not responsible

    so let me ask you.... is driving to buy groceries in a Toyota Echo better, when all they had to do was walk ? ;) To me,,,it is just as irresponsible...just a difference in amount...but same irresponsiblility. Wasting is wasting...whether you do it in a SUV, sports car, or Prius...... ;)
  • highenderhighender Member Posts: 1,358
    thanks , pf flyer... :)
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    ANWR will eventually be opened up for production.

    That is exactly the way it works. If they started drilling and extending feeder lines from ANWR today, it would not be possible to get the oil in the main pipeline. The Pipeline is able to transport just so much oil. The current fields and those currently going into production will keep the line full for several more years. I think the current administration is looking to the future with opening ANWR for use. ANWR is no different than the whole North slope of Alaska. It is too bad that it is being used as a political tool.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 18,449
    i haven't been posting much lately, but you are one of the 'good guys'.
    2020 Ford Explorer XLT, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • mthexumamthexuma Member Posts: 43
    ANWR drilling will not do anything for gas prices. If anything it was make OPEC cut production making gas prices rise.

    The same effect as getting the little bit of oil in Alaska can be acheived by just raising the average vehicle by 1 mpg. So instead of the average of about 25 mpg we would just need 26. Imagine if we could have 10+ mpg added (hybrids, etc.) That is is the only way to put a dent into OPEC.

    SUV's aren't the problem, vehicles that get below 25 mpg are the problem.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You gotta think strategically. As long as they're willing to sell it, you want to use up the other guys stuff FIRST, keeping your own stuff as a fallback.

    I don't consider that twisted in the least. An example of that thinking is the NPR (National petroleum reserve) that is currently going into production. It was discovered by the Navy 60 years ago. It was held as a reserve and is now being developed. I have not seen the figures on it as they are not letting us know too much. I would think there is more oil there than the Prudhoe field that has been on line for close to 30 years. I would say with ANWR in reserve there is no less than 75 years of production at 1 million plus barrels per day.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Keep people from stomping each other:)

    I'm curious about something... how does one SEE people conserving gas?? LOL
    Back to the future of gasoline!

    As far as I know, we're well below the inflation adjusted max price we've ever seen. But I think I know a big part of what's driving us crazy about the prices. Not only are we hearing about it non-stop onthe news and noticing it when we fill up, but gasoline is pretty much the only thing we buy that has all those signs displaying the prices everywhere we go! We see grocery prices only when we go to the grocery store, but those gas prices get in our face on the way to get milk and bread as well. No wonder we have this angst!
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 18,449
    some of us have been through this before. oops, showing my age. :(
    the decisions you make like; how far do you live from work, or what time do you drive, can make a big difference.
    i have a magazine form 1982. on the back, is an advertisement that states that a used mazda glc has the best resale. 106% of the msrp! the manufacturers used to compete over who's used vehicles were worth more that the new ones! :confuse:

    pf... if i am driving 85 mph and so is everyone else, i don't see that as conserving.
    i admit i am not. luckily, the 'opp' has never pulled me over.
    2020 Ford Explorer XLT, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • iconoclasticonoclast Member Posts: 67
    Talk about showing your age? As a kid in the small town of Kingsville, Texas my Dad owned a gas station and I pumped gas as a 10 year old. Chrysler came through town with a vehicle that would run on everything from fingernail polish to kerosene...I saw it and witnessed it. The technology for not using gasoline has been around for a long time. But, we are not going to use it until the last drop of oil is gone...we want what gasoline powered cars have to offer. Will they drill in Alaska...of course. Will it make a Big money rules and we are not really going to have a say. If there is a profit to be made somewhere by someone it is going to happen...and the big oil companies and governments are all about money. We are going to pay more at the pump, not due to shortages, but due to greed. Yes, we need to think ahead...but the Alaska field is not going to do much to help anyone. But, it will be drilled more for a monetary gain than any hedging situation. I don't have any answers, but most people don't want to give up gasoline just quite yet so the games are going to continue to be played and we are going to pay at the pump. Will we pay $5 at the pump...probably! But we might think and plan our driving just a little more...or cut back on toothpaste so we can still have those things we love and give us independence to go and do what we want...automobiles and gasoline. Just thoughts.....
This discussion has been closed.