Standard Oil of Ohio is now BP Amoco the 2nd largest oil conglomerate. I agree with Brightness on this one. They should not have allowed all the mergers. I fought against the BP/ARCO buyout to my legislators. I think I should have sent money instead of words. It does make it easier for a good old boy network to flourish.
Friedman actually owns two cars. A mercedes S-class and a Lexus LX. I have seen him driving the LX.
Friedman is right, in fact his proposal for taxes is too soft. We should tax 5$/gallon for gas and bring the overall gas costs to 10$/gallon.
I hope someone in California is reading this forum. Californian activists will have to muscle in some of these changes, otherwise the rest of the americans will continue to suffer and cause reckless environmental endangerment.
Over the years in the Arctic oil fields I watched a steady stream of BP paid environmentalists come up to study everything from grass growing to whale watching. I will say BP is very cognizant of the environment. Down to every truck on the field wearing a diaper so no chance of a drop of oil leaking onto the ground. It was not like that 30 years ago. Many sites are being remediated because of sloppy practices in the early days of exploration and production. With $70 oil they can afford to be very careful.
It is British Petroleum. For years the production in Alaska was done by SOHIO. It has changed back and forth several times to satisfy political correctness. BP merged (took over) Amoco which was Standard Oil. Then during the 1990s period of consolidation BP bought Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) to gain their share of American oil and refinery resources.
SYMBOLIZING THE INCREASING INTEGRATION of the world economy, the first piece of the empire assembled by the U.S. oil baron John D. Rockefeller is now owned by a British company. But changing national ownership has not affected the social orientation of the former Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio), now owned by the oil giant British Petroleum (BP). BP has remained true to Rockefeller's ruthless legacy, placing its pursuit of profits above any human or environmental concerns. Sohio, however, is just one important part of a massive multinational corporation whose early growth was closely tied to British imperialistic expansion. BP benefited enormously from BritainÆs control of Iran Æs (then PersiaÆs) oil supply in the beginning of the twentieth century. Through its exploitation of Iranian resources, the company eventually developed into a powerful presence among the Seven Sisters oil companies. Today, BP is the largest company in the United Kingdom , the second-largest in Europe and the third- largest oil company in the world. BPÆs London division is a $59 billion entity. Internationally, BP has sought and gained a reputation as an aggressive force in 70 countries, spending $20 billion in the 1980s to swallow its competitor in the North Sea, Britoil, along with Sohio in the United States.
You can thank the last administration for it's role in allowing two giant oil mergers that squashed much of the competition in the US oil business. For his part in this historic merger Lee Raymond was given a dandy going away present.
Standard Oil of NY changed it's name to Mobil in 1954. So most of the oil companies in the US are all linked back to the Rockefeller family tree.
In 1998, Exxon and Mobil signed a definitive agreement to merge and form a new company called Exxon Mobil Corporation. "This merger will enhance our ability to be an effective global competitor in a volatile world economy and in an industry that is more and more competitive," said Lee Raymond and Lou Noto, chairmen and chief executive officers of Exxon and Mobil, respectively. After shareholder and regulatory approvals, the merger was completed November 30, 1999.
you: Let's say we no longer needed to use heating oil. Does this mean we could now produce more unleaded gas out of a barrel of oil?
me: You may be right; but I'm sure heating oil can be used in a diesel engine, which is preferable in efficiency to gasoline. I would hope we'd start switching to diesel for cars and not just 3/4 ton pickups and up.
you: I've posted several times that I consider profit to be one of the components.
me: sorry, I had only read your 1st post at the time of my reply, not your subsequent ones where you explained that, which I saw later.
you: Regardless, my point was that refinery costs plus their profits have remained fairly static and small over the past 20 years.
me: I haven't seen the breakdown, so I'll believe you. A few nights ago (believe it was the night Exxon reported quarterly profits) ABC News did a report on where this profit from the $70/bbl price was going. They stated that while Exxon made $8B, the "lion's share" of the money is going to the country where the oil is pumped from. Saudi Arabia was pulling in like $40B per quarter, for example.
you: Yes if refineries had extra capacity they could easily choose to flood the market with unleaded gas.
me: well if refineries had the extra capacity and the extra oil they would not produce so much, that supply was > demand such that they undercut each other's prices, and lost $/gal. This would only occur if 1 stronger company wanted to try and force another out of business, by being able to sustain losses while the other goes bankrupt.
But if as you state the refineries are not making tons of money, then their cutting the price to near their cost wouldn't have much effect on the retail price. The high price of gasoline is due to the high cost of oil coming out of the ground. Unless all the oil producing nations have colluded to set the supply and price, such as happened in the 70's, this means that oil producing nations are not keeping up with demand increases.
you: If a manufacturer has a very good idea of how much they need to produce what is the point of having excess capacity?
me: In the oil industry which is pretty steady-state that is true. But a manufacturer may have multiple production lines in their plant, so that if 1 part needs repair or maintenance, the whole facility isn't idled. Or when events like hurricanes damage other facilities, maintenance could be delayed, and the remaining refiners can produce more gasoline at increased profit margins.
So when an event like Katrina happens and gas prices do go up so demand stays in-line with supply, that extra profit to the refiners (oil companies that own them), could simply be looked at as repaying the oil companies' investments to have some spare capacity.
If you consider an oil company's profits compared to the amount of money they have tied up in equipment, it isn't outrageous. How many years have oil companies made little, until the last few years?
If you want to blame anyone for us not having enough refineries, or wind-farms, look no further than the people who believe that any development anywhere is bad.
I say bring it on, we are ready for high prices. Its time, we start paying what the europeans pay, in fact it should be more!
No problem. Anything to get a few cars off the road. It is still a zoo out on our highways any time of the day. Makes you wonder if anyone is at work. My license and insurance is more than I spend for gas in a year. With 5 vehicles I don't drive a total of 9k miles per year. I do have 2 on the market right now. I like to buy and sell cars.
I would hope we'd start switching to diesel for cars
Maybe that is why Europe has a surplus of gas to sell us. They are now over 50% diesel cars. They have cut their oil dependency while we fiddle with hybrids, ethanol and hydrogen and still use more oil than ever. If we can just quit going for the "Pie in the Sky" solutions, we could do some serious cutting of our oil usage and cut our Green house gas in the process. For some reason Americans don't like simple solutions. If it ain't complex it ain't American.
I say the 5$/gallon tax should go towards education and healthcare.
You sound like a prime candidate for moving to Canada. You can go take my two cousin's jobs up there. They got tired of the socialist programs and moved to the USA. They are now very proud to be US citizens.
Gas tax should maintain roads and bridges. CA is a prime example of wasting gas tax on everything but what it was intended for.
How can I find the link for sales reports generated by autonews.com. You helped a guy last month with this. I cannot find a link for monthly sales updates on autonews. Its protected. How did you do it?
I told you where to look I told you the exact document. It makes no since. after you have split an atom you can't put it back together. If nuclear were 100% recyclable then why are we still mineing orr.
We should have plenty of it. I work with the DOE and they may do some stupid stuff but there studies and finding have merit.
Gas tax should maintain roads and bridges. CA is a prime example of wasting gas tax on everything but what it was intended for.
If we get the Friedman/NY Times US gas tax it should cover maintenance and building of roads AND fund research by US universities in alternative energy possibilities.
After seeing, in person, Mt. St. Helens erupt - spewing ash and destroying the Toutle Valley, I no longer have been concerned about reckless environmental endangerment. If the atmosphere can handle that gigantic contribution of waste particles, controlling the emissions of vehicles seems of little value. "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Why should we, who have earned the privilege of driving, be penalized for being successful financially? Want $5 tax on gasoline, move to England or some other Euro location. :mad:
Here in the Washington DC Area, we have one of the most expensive subway / mass transit systems in the country, with a maximum one-way rail fare of up to $3.90(!) during rush hour.
However, with local gas prices at $3/gal and perhaps climbing even higher, some of us may have reached or even passed a "break even point" where it may cost less to transit rather than drive.
For simplicity of discussion, I'll only base this criteria on monetary cost and not other factors such as personal preference or time saved or wasted using transit versus driving, since that varies greatly by individual.
DC's transit authority, "Metro" would like to convince us they are cost effective to ride at their "cost of driving vs. riding transit page":
However, they use the GSA average rate of 44 cents per mile for calculating cost of driving, which includes gas, mileage depreciation, insurance, maintenance etc. I think a number more specific to one's particular car model should be used instead. After all, my gut intuition tells me a gas guzzling SUV will reach the aforementioned "break even point" much sooner than a close to 50 mpg hybrid. Also, this $0.44/mi number may need to be revised upward slightly if the $/gal continues to rise.
So how should one calculate this value for a particular model? Is it the same as the Edmunds "True Cost to Own" estimate? For my car, a 2005 Prius, it's $0.38 / mi
DC's transit authority, "Metro" would like to convince us they are cost effective to ride at their "cost of driving vs. riding transit page"
Another problem with these cost comparison analyses is that unless you get rid of your car altogether, the cost of car ownership doesn't disappear entirely, even if you do use mass transit, which further reduces the savings gained by using public transport.
Consider what happens if you have a car, but you keep it parked in favor of mass transit:
-You will use less fuel. The fuel that you didn't use may be your greatest source of savings.
-Your car will continue to depreciate, although not as quickly. Even if your car sits under a cover in a garage, it will likely lose value as it ages. Reducing the mileage put on the car will slow its depreciation, but the value will still decline.
-You will have still have car insurance costs. You may have slightly lower premiums by driving fewer miles, and by reducing the odds of having an accident or ticket that could raise your rates, but you will still have insurance costs.
-Maintenance costs will still be required. You may need less maintenance by driving less, but this cost probably won't go to zero.
So, if you are going to compare the financial cost of mass transit vs. driving, you have to remember that in addition to paying for the Metro ride, you are also having much of the depreciation, most of the insurance and a fair bit of the maintenance that you would have had, anyway. This makes the mass transit option even less attractive.
It's a shame, as I am actually a supporter of mass transit. Unfortunately, much of the US is not well suited for using it, with too much sprawl and not enough infrastructure to make it worthwhile for many of us, even with more costly fuel. The fares are going to have be reduced, and the schedules and services improved, before Americans are going to start seriously considering its use in most of the country.
But we are already being taxed. Are you advocating no taxes?
Why should we, who have earned the privilege of driving, be penalized for being successful financially?
Why should someone that has the willingness to work and make an income be penalized for that? Why should this person be penalized even more for having the ability and knowledge to become more financially successful than others? The fact is that a gas tax is a consumption tax. Your post has a somewhat conservative tone to it. Most people in this category would rather see a shift away from "progressive" taxes towards consumption taxes. I know that I'd far rather pay an extra $2,000 in gas taxes and $2,000 less in income taxes. Bottom line, a gas tax does not penalize you for being financially successful. That's what an income tax does. A gas tax only indirectly penalizes you for driving. It directly penalizes you for burning gas and putting CO2 in the atmposphere. It's intent is to reduce this behaviour. It has nothing to do with individual wealth.
:surprise: The entire Pentagon just turned it's collective head and eyeballed your nick. You just cut it's funding to zero in favor of better highways and transit.
You just cut it's funding to zero in favor of better highways and transit.
That's only if you stick with the premise that fuel taxes should be used solely for transportation purposes. I'm suggesting that they become like any other tax and get put into the general fund. This idea of them being earmarked for road building and maintenance was something the politicians came up with as a way to make it more palatable. I recently read an article that said states were starting to spend more on road maintenance after years of neglect. The article went on to say that for the past decade many states had been spending a good portion of the fuel tax revenue on things like schools and law enforcement. Whether or not this was right its the reality of things.
A small company ZAP (stock symbol ZP) is delivering the cars that the large companies are not. They are delivering the highly efficient smart cars and the only all electric cars. See them at www.zapworld.com Why doesn't Edmunds and other large car sites list them for consumers?
One thing to keep in mind though is that oil companies are already in effect tax-collecting branches of the government(s). How so? During the record-setting 4th quarter of 2005 when XOM made $10 billion net profit, it worked out to be about less than 8 cents profit for XOM shareholders for each gallon of gas (or equivalent) it sold during that time period, while collecting 45-50 cents or so road/sales/fuel-specific tax for various levels of government, another 60 cents or so per gallon in taxes and consessions to federal and foreign governments for the lease of "government-owned land and wells" and making any profit at all. In other words, for every 8 Cents the shareholder are getting (before their own income tax), the oil companies are contributing well over 1 Dollar to various governments, domestic and foreign, federal, state and local. Is there any wonder why governments allow oil companies to merge and form oligopolies? Oil companies are effectively tools of the governments to vacuum money out of your pockets.
Scarecity and the need for conservation was the intellecutal framework that enabled such rapacious pillaging to take place three decades ago. The rate of pillaging by the government is even more severe in places like UK and Norway, both subsequently become oil exporters and lost the reason to have exhorbitant tax for oil price stabilization. Yet the tax stayed because new constituencies were found with the money. Sheeples are really good at insisting on their ounce of flesh even if it means their neighbors and themselves have to be gouged a whole pound to get that ounce. CO2 tax was simply an intellectual framework cobbled together during the period of low oil price to justify the high level of taxation on fuel.
I'm familar with Zap. Their getting a lot of buzz right now but I don't really think that they offer a viable product for the mainstream. They have a little 2-seater that they import from somewhere, maybe Brazil. They get it street legal for the US, which is no small or cheap task. I don't think it passes CA emission standards. The final product is not much more fuel efficient than a Corolla or Civic and it costs more. It definitely does not have the utility of these cars and in all likelihood will not have the reliability. I think that there is a market for this type of vehicle but it needs to cost more like $10k and get 50 mpg. I don't think that their electric vehicle is legal on streets with limits above 35 mph. I'm a big believer in the future of EVs but Zap doesn't currently offer what I'm looking for. In the next few years Subaru and Mitsubishi may offer something of interest.
Oil companies are effectively tools of the governments to vacuum money out of your pockets.
You mentioned Norway. That Kingdom extracts $54 on each $70 barrel of oil they export. You have to wonder where those billions are going. They have less than 5 million people in the country. They are one of the highest taxed on gas in the EU. Does not look like having a surplus is that great for the little guy in Norway. Being oil independent is not a reason to be jumping for joy. We have untapped oil resources in several areas. It is probably best to use up everyone else's oil first.
ZAP (stock symbol ZP) is delivering the cars that the large companies are not.
Welcome to the Forum. Zap had a good idea. They ran head first into the EPA roadblock. By the time they get a vehicle on our roads they will be broke if they are not there already. The Twofor is a cool little car and gets great mileage in the diesel model. Canadian owners claim 70 MPG and better. With the diesel shot down by the EPA, ZAP went for a gas model. In tests it only got 35 MPG. Not good for a car that small. They have missed several dates for delivery. I doubt they ever sell any.
from ZAP!
With record gas prices hitting the U.S., officials at ZAP and SMART-Automobile are excited to be selling one of the most fuel-efficient cars on the planet. Reports indicate that SMART cars can achieve more than 60 miles per gallon in fuel economy, rivaling even hybrid gas-electric cars. SMART-Automobile president Thomas Heidemann says he believes the partnership with ZAP will allow them to jump-start U.S.-sales, with plans to distribute 15,000 units annually by 2005.
They have delivered some vehicles. Consumer Reports test drove one and they were less than impressed. Its not like they are terrible cars but when you take into consideration the cost there are just better choices even for the environmentally conscious.
The SMART car is all over the place here in Canada - sold through Mercedes dealers. Its not really a mainstream alternative for a lot of people. Useful only as an inner city commuter IMO. Very small - can carry one passenger and maybe a briefcase or two. Don't know the mileage it gets, but it is hardly bigger than a couple of motorbikes. Certainly no alternative for a family - other than second or third car.
Okay even if it's all true, isn't recycling 90% better than 0% ? That was my point, and if they are having problems coming up with the proper calculations to stop the atoms from splitting maybe they should hire snakeweasel to figure it out
"Okay even if it's all true, isn't recycling 90% better than 0%?"
Off topic, but....
Maybe yes, maybe no. From what I understand, the 'recycling' process itself (extracting the isotopes appropriate for nuclear fuel) generates an ADDITIONAL amount of radioactive waste which must be disposed of.
What I don't know is whether this additional waste is high or low-level waste or whether or not this waste is greater than or less than the waste derived from the original extraction process. The case for/against recycling of spent fuel rods in the U.S. may be a case of access to raw uranium ore vs. state of waste disposal. If we have access to plenty of raw ore and waste disposal is a problem, it MAY make more sense to not recycle the fuel rods.
It isn't necessarily a case of 'recycle always good; no recycle always bad'.
well said tpe. The gas tax is not because we are financially successful. It is a consumption tax. The more indiscriminately we consume the more tax we should pay.
After all if a guy thinks he has arrived and wants a hummer he should also have the b***s to pay the maximum tax. Otherwise how will we know he has "arrived" in his Yukon, Escalade or Hummer.
What a hypocrisy? Driving a gas hog makes him/her feel good but paying for gas causes multiple chest pains.
wants a hummer he should also have the b***s to pay the maximum tax
I believe he does by the fact that he is buying more gas per mile. If everyone buys a Prius or Civic hybrid who will pay the taxes to keep the roads up? Right now the hybrids are not paying their fair share.
You can work yourself into a frenzy over big SUVs and PU trucks, the truth is they are safer and most people realize that. The insurance on my 1/2 ton PU is $400 per year less than my Passat wagon. Both are 2005 models. They are both rated by the IIHS better than anything that Toyota or Honda have to offer.
By the way your passion for Mercedes is well founded. When MB brings the new GL with a diesel to the USA I will be in line to buy one. I also like the E320 CDI.
I, for one, believe Mass transit is the only serious alternative to lower the Fuel consumption. Most criticism on mass transit would be concentrated over 4 points : 1) Not existent 2) Expensive 3) Slow 4) inadequated with cars (i.e litte car parking space for combined transport)
The basic problem is the US economy has been built around values of self independance and cheap oil. large suburbs being built with car only in mind.
people need to really question their car-only lifestyle and dependency upon it. There won't be any political move if only a fraction of the population display concern for this key issue
personaly, When I consider buying a house or an apartment, public transportation proximity is a key factor. In Europe, the presence of a Railway station in the vicinity tend to increase the value of a property.
I spent some time in the LA area some years ago and was appalled by my dependence to cars for any single activity. This is an unhealthy way of life imho.
I love cars and will strive to keep driving being a pleasure, but I think the US reached the overdose and don't realise it.
Sometimes, using the public transport is not as pleasant as driving one's own car, but if we don't start good habits, the bad news will catch up very quickly
So I support high gas tax to make everyone realise this resource is not for granted. the accumulated tax would be used to finance public transport. Existing, fast and cheap.
sooner or later, the Gallon will reach 5 then 10 USD. do we need to wait until it's too late before starting to move?
The more we pollute, the more we must pay. If I drive an Escalade 4K miles a year, I will burn less gas than if I drive my Prius 40K. No reason the Prius driver would pay fewer taxes.
I think the reckless Truck and SUV drivers have done tremendous harm. Safety is in the driving and being alert on the road.
Not cell phones in one hand and I-pods in other and steering the vehicle using your chin and nose!
In 20 years when your house is flooded with water from melted ice and millions of people are floating dead, you will know the damage global warming has done.
Heavy SUVs and trucks create more waste and more landfills are needed. More metal usage leads to more wastage of energy to build them, recycle them and so on. More paint is needed for a bigger fatter vehicles, more plastics.
Fat SUV and Truck drivers driving around in massive hippos are consuming energy at a scorching pace and they are the real axis of evil.
1. require More metal 2. require More polluting plastic 3. require More polluting leather 3. require More energy to produce 4. Burn more coal 5. Create more pollution 6. Require more energy to recycle. 7. Are a greater threat to pedestrians 8. Are EVIL 9. Are anti-capitalistic 10. Are anti-humanity 11. Have done Colossal damage to environment. 12. Should be killed.
In 20 years when your house is flooded with water from melted ice and millions of people are floating dead, you will know the damage global warming has done.
Get real, that sounds like that ignorant Robert Kennedy Jr. You need to do some research my friend. Even the countries that have pushed the Kyoto agreement have not come close to attaining their goals. They are unrealistic. I am not saying that it is not an important issue. Just not being looked at in a realistic light. The changes are not over 20 years. I just retired after working 25 years in the Arctic. Last winter was the coldest on record. We set several record cold temperature days. This old world has gone through many changes. To think that man is that significant is arrogance at the least.
PS I have provided communications for many scientists in the Arctic over the last 25 years. To a one they will not commit that humans are causing the changes that are being witnessed.
Rocky I am liking the new Mercedes GL. When it is brought over with a diesel engine I may have to have one. A tahoe with a 6 cylinder diesel would be nice also. I can tell you I am having a difficult time getting into owning a little car. I just do not feel safe driving with all the big trucks & SUVs that CARB has forced us into. Cars anymore are just thin little tin cans asking to be crumpled. If you get hit by anything bigger you are TOAST.
Comments
And the main problem with the high gasoline prices is that the supply-demand principle of the free market is out of whack.
Demand is up... but supply is not increasing to match.
We should find out what constraint is preventing the normal functioning of the free market in this case... and then punish whoever caused it.
Whether it be congressmen, environmentalists, NIMBY'ers, or greedy oil barons. (or all four?)
:shades:
Friedman is right, in fact his proposal for taxes is too soft. We should tax 5$/gallon for gas and bring the overall gas costs to 10$/gallon.
I hope someone in California is reading this forum. Californian activists will have to muscle in some of these changes, otherwise the rest of the americans will continue to suffer and cause reckless environmental endangerment.
Nor is it related to price gouging, and certainly not the mergers.
In fact, I would say more mergers is better.
The issue is reckless consumption.
Did you hear what Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson said the other day:
"Use your energy wisely". This guy is right on the money. What a profound and wise statement.
Why not let the oil companies make some money? Why cry foul at their profits. its capitalism and its working!
I say bring it on, we are ready for high prices. Its time, we start paying what the europeans pay, in fact it should be more!
---
Lead the way, then.
For every gallon of gas you use, send me $10 in a 'Godzilla' Tax.
I'll be happy to take that tax money from you.
BP History
Amoco History
SYMBOLIZING THE INCREASING INTEGRATION of the world economy, the first piece of the empire assembled by the U.S. oil baron John D. Rockefeller is now owned by a British company. But changing national ownership has not affected the social orientation of the former Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio), now owned by the oil giant British Petroleum (BP). BP has remained true to Rockefeller's ruthless legacy, placing its pursuit of profits above any human or environmental concerns.
Sohio, however, is just one important part of a massive multinational corporation whose early growth was closely tied to British imperialistic expansion. BP benefited enormously from BritainÆs control of Iran Æs (then PersiaÆs) oil supply in the beginning of the twentieth century. Through its exploitation of Iranian resources, the company eventually developed into a powerful presence among the Seven Sisters oil companies. Today, BP is the largest company in the United Kingdom , the second-largest in Europe and the third- largest oil company in the world. BPÆs London division is a $59 billion entity. Internationally, BP has sought and gained a reputation as an aggressive force in 70 countries, spending $20 billion in the 1980s to swallow its competitor in the North Sea, Britoil, along with Sohio in the United States.
BP History as seen by outside sources
Standard Oil of NY changed it's name to Mobil in 1954. So most of the oil companies in the US are all linked back to the Rockefeller family tree.
In 1998, Exxon and Mobil signed a definitive agreement to merge and form a new company called Exxon Mobil Corporation. "This merger will enhance our ability to be an effective global competitor in a volatile world economy and in an industry that is more and more competitive," said Lee Raymond and Lou Noto, chairmen and chief executive officers of Exxon and Mobil, respectively. After shareholder and regulatory approvals, the merger was completed November 30, 1999.
me: You may be right; but I'm sure heating oil can be used in a diesel engine, which is preferable in efficiency to gasoline. I would hope we'd start switching to diesel for cars and not just 3/4 ton pickups and up.
me: sorry, I had only read your 1st post at the time of my reply, not your subsequent ones where you explained that, which I saw later.
you: Regardless, my point was that refinery costs plus their profits have remained fairly static and small over the past 20 years.
me: I haven't seen the breakdown, so I'll believe you. A few nights ago (believe it was the night Exxon reported quarterly profits) ABC News did a report on where this profit from the $70/bbl price was going. They stated that while Exxon made $8B, the "lion's share" of the money is going to the country where the oil is pumped from. Saudi Arabia was pulling in like $40B per quarter, for example.
you: Yes if refineries had extra capacity they could easily choose to flood the market with unleaded gas.
me: well if refineries had the extra capacity and the extra oil they would not produce so much, that supply was > demand such that they undercut each other's prices, and lost $/gal. This would only occur if 1 stronger company wanted to try and force another out of business, by being able to sustain losses while the other goes bankrupt.
But if as you state the refineries are not making tons of money, then their cutting the price to near their cost wouldn't have much effect on the retail price. The high price of gasoline is due to the high cost of oil coming out of the ground. Unless all the oil producing nations have colluded to set the supply and price, such as happened in the 70's, this means that oil producing nations are not keeping up with demand increases.
you: If a manufacturer has a very good idea of how much they need to produce what is the point of having excess capacity?
me: In the oil industry which is pretty steady-state that is true. But a manufacturer may have multiple production lines in their plant, so that if 1 part needs repair or maintenance, the whole facility isn't idled. Or when events like hurricanes damage other facilities, maintenance could be delayed, and the remaining refiners can produce more gasoline at increased profit margins.
So when an event like Katrina happens and gas prices do go up so demand stays in-line with supply, that extra profit to the refiners (oil companies that own them), could simply be looked at as repaying the oil companies' investments to have some spare capacity.
If you consider an oil company's profits compared to the amount of money they have tied up in equipment, it isn't outrageous. How many years have oil companies made little, until the last few years?
If you want to blame anyone for us not having enough refineries, or wind-farms, look no further than the people who believe that any development anywhere is bad.
No problem. Anything to get a few cars off the road. It is still a zoo out on our highways any time of the day. Makes you wonder if anyone is at work. My license and insurance is more than I spend for gas in a year. With 5 vehicles I don't drive a total of 9k miles per year. I do have 2 on the market right now. I like to buy and sell cars.
I say the 5$/gallon tax should go towards education and healthcare.
Maybe that is why Europe has a surplus of gas to sell us. They are now over 50% diesel cars. They have cut their oil dependency while we fiddle with hybrids, ethanol and hydrogen and still use more oil than ever. If we can just quit going for the "Pie in the Sky" solutions, we could do some serious cutting of our oil usage and cut our Green house gas in the process. For some reason Americans don't like simple solutions. If it ain't complex it ain't American.
Rocky
You sound like a prime candidate for moving to Canada. You can go take my two cousin's jobs up there. They got tired of the socialist programs and moved to the USA. They are now very proud to be US citizens.
Gas tax should maintain roads and bridges. CA is a prime example of wasting gas tax on everything but what it was intended for.
How can I find the link for sales reports generated by autonews.com. You helped a guy last month with this. I cannot find a link for monthly sales updates on autonews. Its protected. How did you do it?
J/K
Rocky
Classic example of a hypocrite.
:shades:
I told you the exact document. It makes no since. after you have split an atom you can't put it back together. If nuclear were 100% recyclable then why are we still mineing orr.
We should have plenty of it. I work with the DOE and they may do some stupid stuff but there studies and finding have merit.
If we get the Friedman/NY Times US gas tax it should cover maintenance and building of roads AND fund research by US universities in alternative energy possibilities.
There is a lot of difference between giving largesse to you
and paying it as taxes to the govt.
I support californians on CAFE lawsuit and I also preach 10$/gallon.
Want $5 tax on gasoline, move to England or some other Euro location. :mad:
Furthermore, if you don't want to pay $10/gallon in taxes to me, then write a check to the IRS for $10 per gallon of gasoline you buy.
There, it's all better, you can pay $10/gallon in additional monies to the government, just like you preach.
So, you'll be starting tomorrow, I take it?
What am I saying? Of course you won't. You want all the rest of America to pay your taxes, but heaven forbid that YOU do so.
However, with local gas prices at $3/gal and perhaps climbing even higher, some of us may have reached or even passed a "break even point" where it may cost less to transit rather than drive.
For simplicity of discussion, I'll only base this criteria on monetary cost and not other factors such as personal preference or time saved or wasted using transit versus driving, since that varies greatly by individual.
DC's transit authority, "Metro" would like to convince us they are cost effective to ride at their "cost of driving vs. riding transit page":
http://www.wmata.com/riding/cost_calculator.cfm
However, they use the GSA average rate of 44 cents per mile for calculating cost of driving, which includes gas, mileage depreciation, insurance, maintenance etc. I think a number more specific to one's particular car model should be used instead. After all, my gut intuition tells me a gas guzzling SUV will reach the aforementioned "break even point" much sooner than a close to 50 mpg hybrid.
Also, this $0.44/mi number may need to be revised upward slightly if the $/gal continues to rise.
So how should one calculate this value for a particular model? Is it the same as the Edmunds "True Cost to Own" estimate? For my car, a 2005 Prius, it's $0.38 / mi
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/toyota/prius/100454051/cto.html
It's not that much lower than the GSA average $0.44/mi despite the significantly better than average fuel economy.
:confuse:
Another problem with these cost comparison analyses is that unless you get rid of your car altogether, the cost of car ownership doesn't disappear entirely, even if you do use mass transit, which further reduces the savings gained by using public transport.
Consider what happens if you have a car, but you keep it parked in favor of mass transit:
-You will use less fuel. The fuel that you didn't use may be your greatest source of savings.
-Your car will continue to depreciate, although not as quickly. Even if your car sits under a cover in a garage, it will likely lose value as it ages. Reducing the mileage put on the car will slow its depreciation, but the value will still decline.
-You will have still have car insurance costs. You may have slightly lower premiums by driving fewer miles, and by reducing the odds of having an accident or ticket that could raise your rates, but you will still have insurance costs.
-Maintenance costs will still be required. You may need less maintenance by driving less, but this cost probably won't go to zero.
So, if you are going to compare the financial cost of mass transit vs. driving, you have to remember that in addition to paying for the Metro ride, you are also having much of the depreciation, most of the insurance and a fair bit of the maintenance that you would have had, anyway. This makes the mass transit option even less attractive.
It's a shame, as I am actually a supporter of mass transit. Unfortunately, much of the US is not well suited for using it, with too much sprawl and not enough infrastructure to make it worthwhile for many of us, even with more costly fuel. The fares are going to have be reduced, and the schedules and services improved, before Americans are going to start seriously considering its use in most of the country.
But we are already being taxed. Are you advocating no taxes?
Why should we, who have earned the privilege of driving, be penalized for being successful financially?
Why should someone that has the willingness to work and make an income be penalized for that? Why should this person be penalized even more for having the ability and knowledge to become more financially successful than others? The fact is that a gas tax is a consumption tax. Your post has a somewhat conservative tone to it. Most people in this category would rather see a shift away from "progressive" taxes towards consumption taxes. I know that I'd far rather pay an extra $2,000 in gas taxes and $2,000 less in income taxes. Bottom line, a gas tax does not penalize you for being financially successful. That's what an income tax does. A gas tax only indirectly penalizes you for driving. It directly penalizes you for burning gas and putting CO2 in the atmposphere. It's intent is to reduce this behaviour. It has nothing to do with individual wealth.
That's only if you stick with the premise that fuel taxes should be used solely for transportation purposes. I'm suggesting that they become like any other tax and get put into the general fund. This idea of them being earmarked for road building and maintenance was something the politicians came up with as a way to make it more palatable. I recently read an article that said states were starting to spend more on road maintenance after years of neglect. The article went on to say that for the past decade many states had been spending a good portion of the fuel tax revenue on things like schools and law enforcement. Whether or not this was right its the reality of things.
I just tried to access the data I was finding last month, for free.......and now I can't access ANY of their freakin' tables without a login.
Drat. :sick:
What's this country coming to when companies actually expect folks to PAY for their products? :surprise:
See them at www.zapworld.com Why doesn't Edmunds and other large car sites list them for consumers?
Scarecity and the need for conservation was the intellecutal framework that enabled such rapacious pillaging to take place three decades ago. The rate of pillaging by the government is even more severe in places like UK and Norway, both subsequently become oil exporters and lost the reason to have exhorbitant tax for oil price stabilization. Yet the tax stayed because new constituencies were found with the money. Sheeples are really good at insisting on their ounce of flesh even if it means their neighbors and themselves have to be gouged a whole pound to get that ounce. CO2 tax was simply an intellectual framework cobbled together during the period of low oil price to justify the high level of taxation on fuel.
You mentioned Norway. That Kingdom extracts $54 on each $70 barrel of oil they export. You have to wonder where those billions are going. They have less than 5 million people in the country. They are one of the highest taxed on gas in the EU. Does not look like having a surplus is that great for the little guy in Norway. Being oil independent is not a reason to be jumping for joy. We have untapped oil resources in several areas. It is probably best to use up everyone else's oil first.
Welcome to the Forum. Zap had a good idea. They ran head first into the EPA roadblock. By the time they get a vehicle on our roads they will be broke if they are not there already. The Twofor is a cool little car and gets great mileage in the diesel model. Canadian owners claim 70 MPG and better. With the diesel shot down by the EPA, ZAP went for a gas model. In tests it only got 35 MPG. Not good for a car that small. They have missed several dates for delivery. I doubt they ever sell any.
from ZAP!
With record gas prices hitting the U.S., officials at ZAP and SMART-Automobile are excited to be selling one of the most fuel-efficient cars on the planet. Reports indicate that SMART cars can achieve more than 60 miles per gallon in fuel economy, rivaling even hybrid gas-electric cars. SMART-Automobile president Thomas Heidemann says he believes the partnership with ZAP will allow them to jump-start U.S.-sales, with plans to distribute 15,000 units annually by 2005.
Has anyone seen them in the USA?
Rocky
Off topic, but....
Maybe yes, maybe no. From what I understand, the 'recycling' process itself (extracting the isotopes appropriate for nuclear fuel) generates an ADDITIONAL amount of radioactive waste which must be disposed of.
What I don't know is whether this additional waste is high or low-level waste or whether or not this waste is greater than or less than the waste derived from the original extraction process. The case for/against recycling of spent fuel rods in the U.S. may be a case of access to raw uranium ore vs. state of waste disposal. If we have access to plenty of raw ore and waste disposal is a problem, it MAY make more sense to not recycle the fuel rods.
It isn't necessarily a case of 'recycle always good; no recycle always bad'.
After all if a guy thinks he has arrived and wants a hummer he should also have the b***s to pay the maximum tax. Otherwise how will we know he has "arrived" in his Yukon, Escalade or Hummer.
What a hypocrisy? Driving a gas hog makes him/her feel good but paying for gas causes multiple chest pains.
I believe he does by the fact that he is buying more gas per mile. If everyone buys a Prius or Civic hybrid who will pay the taxes to keep the roads up? Right now the hybrids are not paying their fair share.
You can work yourself into a frenzy over big SUVs and PU trucks, the truth is they are safer and most people realize that. The insurance on my 1/2 ton PU is $400 per year less than my Passat wagon. Both are 2005 models. They are both rated by the IIHS better than anything that Toyota or Honda have to offer.
By the way your passion for Mercedes is well founded. When MB brings the new GL with a diesel to the USA I will be in line to buy one. I also like the E320 CDI.
Most criticism on mass transit would be concentrated over 4 points :
1) Not existent
2) Expensive
3) Slow
4) inadequated with cars (i.e litte car parking space for combined transport)
The basic problem is the US economy has been built around values of self independance and cheap oil. large suburbs being built with car only in mind.
people need to really question their car-only lifestyle and dependency upon it. There won't be any political move if only a fraction of the population display concern for this key issue
personaly, When I consider buying a house or an apartment, public transportation proximity is a key factor. In Europe, the presence of a Railway station in the vicinity tend to increase the value of a property.
I spent some time in the LA area some years ago and was appalled by my dependence to cars for any single activity. This is an unhealthy way of life imho.
I love cars and will strive to keep driving being a pleasure, but I think the US reached the overdose and don't realise it.
Sometimes, using the public transport is not as pleasant as driving one's own car, but if we don't start good habits, the bad news will catch up very quickly
So I support high gas tax to make everyone realise this resource is not for granted. the accumulated tax would be used to finance public transport. Existing, fast and cheap.
sooner or later, the Gallon will reach 5 then 10 USD. do we need to wait until it's too late before starting to move?
The more we pollute, the more we must pay.
If I drive an Escalade 4K miles a year, I will burn less gas than if I drive my Prius 40K. No reason the Prius driver would pay fewer taxes.
Not cell phones in one hand and I-pods in other and steering the vehicle using your chin and nose!
In 20 years when your house is flooded with water from melted ice and millions of people are floating dead, you will know the damage global warming has done.
Heavy SUVs and trucks create more waste and more landfills are needed. More metal usage leads to more wastage of energy to build them, recycle them and so on. More paint is needed for a bigger fatter vehicles, more plastics.
Fat SUV and Truck drivers driving around in massive hippos are consuming energy at a scorching pace and they are the real axis of evil.
1. require More metal
2. require More polluting plastic
3. require More polluting leather
3. require More energy to produce
4. Burn more coal
5. Create more pollution
6. Require more energy to recycle.
7. Are a greater threat to pedestrians
8. Are EVIL
9. Are anti-capitalistic
10. Are anti-humanity
11. Have done Colossal damage to environment.
12. Should be killed.
Steve, this article should get your goat then. :P
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=114980
Rocky
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060505/AUTO01/605050399/- 1148
Rocky
Get real, that sounds like that ignorant Robert Kennedy Jr. You need to do some research my friend. Even the countries that have pushed the Kyoto agreement have not come close to attaining their goals. They are unrealistic. I am not saying that it is not an important issue. Just not being looked at in a realistic light. The changes are not over 20 years. I just retired after working 25 years in the Arctic. Last winter was the coldest on record. We set several record cold temperature days. This old world has gone through many changes. To think that man is that significant is arrogance at the least.
PS
I have provided communications for many scientists in the Arctic over the last 25 years. To a one they will not commit that humans are causing the changes that are being witnessed.