By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Rocky
Rocky
I wouldn't be surprised. I don't think however that a conscious decision was made to import less from Norway. I would imagine that they've either cut back on exports due to production issues or the EU is giving them a better price.
I didn't mean they were number three or four on the countries that we import oil from.
The top three list for US oil Imports is always...
1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
Venezuela normaly comes in fourth but not always. After that things vary according to various market forces.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imp- orts/current/import.html
BTW - nice link; that's the exact same page I was looking at when I responded to rocky earlier...
They have pipelines to run the oil directly from Norway down south.
What surprises me is that Norway is not an EU country. I thought they were.
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky, Jordan can't even meet their OWN needs for oil. Jordan must import virtually all of the oil they consume.
Rocky
YES!!!!
Unfortunately, we don't have enough to satisfy our DESIRES.
And those desires include (but are certainly not limited to):
Big, heavy, powerful, thirsty vehicles (still hankerin' for a Caddy CTS-V? Or GMC Denali? Or Pontiac G8?)
Cheap, plentiful, clean-burning fuel.
No drilling off the coast of certain states or in ANWR.
etc. etc. etc.
I was stating that we do for real have enough oil in the U.S. to be oil independent.
Indiana, has a lot of oil but it is very deep. It might be worth it to get and I'd like to see the feds go after it.
Rocky
Why would you want the Feds to do anything along those lines? You know they would screw it up and cost us double what the private sector could do it for. It is true we have some sources that are yet untapped. Why not use up the enemies oil first and save ours for the future generations? I do question if we have enough at our current rate of consumption to ever be independent.
biodiesel is a good alternative, at least for me. IT comes from waste veggie oil, or from virgin soybean or corn or canola oil, and it is kinda good for the diesel engine...
I think it is great. I have been using this biodiesel, and adding a bit of waste veggie oil as a fuel extender.
Getting about 42 mpg in mixed driving, and 51 on freeway...
it may be a viable alternative for some...
If Chevron is willing to go 200 miles out into the Gulf and drill 20,000 feet down in order to get oil rather than drill in Indiana I suspect that Indiana's oil must be extremely deep. My understanding is that Chevron's "Jack 2" discovery in the Gulf will require oil prices above $50/barrel in order to be financially viable. How does this fit into your $2/gallon price cap scheme? I guess if the feds went after it we could pay for the extraction through non fuel related taxes. That way we could delude ourselves into thinking it was cheaper.
I know from personal experience that the feds do some things a lot cheaper than the private sector. The private sector's today are money hungary/sucking black holes. I feel the public has been brainwashed over the years about private vs. federal and the true costs. Sure there are certain circumstances where that is still true but with the private sector taking billions of revenue of tax payer money and fruading the tax payers. I think I have enough first hand knowledge and experience to comment on this subject.
Rocky
It is very deep pal. I guess the question is this. Is it worth it or not to avoid funding terrorism ?
Rocky
There are better ways. I know you commented favorably on the Chevy Volt concept car. IMO, its vehicle's like this that could have the single biggest impact in reducing oil consumption. We need to get these cars on the road and in numbers ASAP. How's the best way to do this? That's where we disagree. I strongly believe that all the current interest in bio-diesel, ethanol, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, EVs, etc. is a direct result of the high gas prices we've experienced the last couple years. Not only has it gotten the consumers interested but also the manufacturers. There is probably no more effective method to expedite this development then to use market forces. This could have been accomplished through higher fuel taxes and the benefit would have been the government would now have funds to mitigate any adverse economic effects.
You advocate government involvement. Well the government needs funds to do anything and these funds come from the taxpayer. Saying yes to government programs and no to taxes is not realistic. I personally say no to government programs and no to taxes. The fuel tax that I advocate would not be a new/additional tax but a shift in taxes from one form to another. Maybe a reduction in payroll taxes to offset the fuel tax and keep it revenue neutral. This is something the government could do that would involve no overhead or real hands-on administration. In other words, they couldn't screw it up.
I tend to agree with gagrice on the issue of government programs being inconsistent with efficiency. There are certain services that must be provided on the federal level. For instance defense. I don't see how the private sector could handle this. But these areas need to be kept to a minimum. For example, I know there is a lot of talk about universal health coverage. In principal I think it would be great for every citizen to have health insurance. However, I suspect if the feds try to implement something like this the costs will just explode and the care might actually deteriorate. I predict that some type of program will be put in place within the next few years. Initially it will be met with widespread approval. Fast forward a few more years and the government is now faced with the dilemma of paying for this program, which is growing much faster than GDP and tax revenue. The answer will be to increase co-pays. Fast forward a few more years and you, once again, have to increase co-pays. Eventually you will have this huge program and also a lot of people that can't afford the co-pays. You are back where you started except now you have this black-hole in the govt's budget that can't be gotten rid of. Cynical scenario? Absolutely, but that's the way our government operates.
Back to oil. If we are going to live in a open market society. Oil is just one of many commodities that are subject to market pressures. We have proven with Iraq and Iran that sanctions by US alone do little to stop the flow of oil. They will sell their oil. Just because we do not want to buy it for political reasons is irrelevant to the market. The sooner we use the oil from these terrorist run nations the sooner they will be forced out of power.
You seem so caught up with the cost of gasoline. Have you noticed the high price of electricity and water? Both as important to our well being. My electric bill in Hawaii averages $500 per month. That is without AC or heat. That is 5 times more than my gasoline bill. Water bills are atrocious also. And in your neck of the woods the property tax is out of control. What say ye to those RIP-OFFS?
I agree and have suggest the same thing before. For example, lets suppose per capita gasoline use is 500 gallons per year, put a $1 per gallon tax on it and offset this with a reduction of FICA payroll tax of 5 percentage points on the first $10,000 in income. The typical person will then pay $500 more for gas and $500 less on the payroll tax.
Oh lord, I was hoping that we wouldn't have to go there.....
First some will say they don't want to pay any more in taxes. I guess a lot of people don't grasp what revenue neutral means.
Then others will say that the government shouldn't get involved in social engineering, telling us what we should and shouldn't do. Then why do we have courts and jails if not to discourage certain behaviours. Does that represent social engineering? These same people don't seem to mind tax credits that encourage certain behaviours, albeit not as efficiently but still social engineering. If we collectively conclude that burning oil is contrary to our society's interest then the people should be able to ask the government to implement policies that discourage this. I'd like to see a national debate followed by a national referendum on this issue. I'm sure it would be very heated and probably fail but the dialogue would at least increase awareness.
Finally there are those that claim it is unfair to the poor and I am some elitist that only believes rich people should drive. Well market conditions that drive the price of gas above $3/gallon represent an equal hardship on the poor. I honestly believe that transitioning from an oil based economy will ultimately reduce transportation costs. Benefitting the poor more than any other group.
Then others will say that the government shouldn't get involved in social engineering
Okay then, lets take away the deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and children. Then let's move on to eliminating college tax credits, child tax credits,... Oh and don't forget to eliminate your employer's tax deduction for health insurance, too.
I always say if we, as a society, have decided that we want people to burn less gasoline, the most efficient way to accomplish this goal is to raise the price...such as by a hefty tax increase on it (offset by decreasing other taxes).
Another, I think less efficient, option would be to have a tax on new vehicles based on mpg.
The main problem that I have with that approach is it's one-time in nature. Once paid there is no disincentive to reduce consumption. Also, I suspect that there are actually a couple people that buy large trucks and only use them when they need the utility. Is a person that puts 5k miles per year on a 12 mpg truck a worse offender than the person that drives 20k miles in a 30 mpg vehicle? I personally don't think so but then you get into the situation of having to determine who really "needs" the truck. Probably impossible to do so it's best to stick with the simplest, fairest, and most effective approach; taxing the fuel.
In my 63 years in this great country, I have not witnessed the Feds doing anything efficiently except collecting taxes. My real point and rebuttal is that every time the government has tried to control the price of fuel, it has backfired and caused long lines or higher cost to the consumer. They can control it if it is confined to the US alone. Oil is too Global to have any real control over. Unless we were to take over all the big oil producing countries. Starting with Canada and Mexico. :shades:
Musta left it in my other pants this morning.....besides, I usually get WAY to wound up over this whole private industry vs. government 'efficiency' issue....
...but, by all means, you and rocky have at it. I'm sure it'll be entertaining.
How often do you see private industry hire government consultants to help streamline operations and maximize efficiency?
And how often is it the other way around?
That's one lopsided ratio, and for good reason. Done.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
No fair. Since when does logic enter in to it?
Watching gagrice and rocky go at it would have been MUCH more entertaining.....
Agree...only throw the tax the car (make that vehicle) option out as that would at least be a better alternative than the current CAFE regime. Mandates like CAFE let people think along the lines of: "if the Gov't would just make them do it, the car companies would produce a 5000 pound SUV that gets 50 mpg".
This approach has a lot to be said for it. I have a caveat, however. How likely do you think the gummint is to truly make it revenue neutral? I am sure that they would see it as a golden opportunity to increase revenue through the use of smoke screens and creative accounting. Yeah, they do that.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
The auto-manufacturers are very much onboard with the idea of higher fuel taxes. In this environment they could now develop and produce fuel efficient cars and their customers would want to buy them. Simply setting higher CAFE standards is telling the manufacturers to produce vehicles that their customers don't want. In addition, once these vehicles are on the road where is the incentive for the drivers to take any part in reducing fuel consumption? Driving a more fuel efficient car effectively lowers the price of gas, which actuall encourages more driving, offsetting some of the gain and adding to another problem, congestion. Fuel consumption is a product of fuel efficiency x miles driven. You need to attack both sides of the equation.
I've heard that argument before and I guess it would be a risk to take the govt. at it's word in this regard. However I suspect it would be a fairly simple matter to estimate how much revenue would be taken in and what kind of tax decrease would be required to offset this. After that it becomes a matter of monitoring the situation and holding your elected officials accountable for following through on a promise. With the wealth of information available on the web these days it would be somewhat difficult for the public to get duped w/o someone catching on.
In addition to the incentive this would create for alternatively fueled vehicles it would also represent a shift towards consumption taxation. Which, I personally, prefer.
Instead we'll get more cafe and corporate welfare aimed at assuring the populace that the government is "doing something" about gasoline consumption.
I certainly agree with that. This is despite the fact that those advocating higher fuel taxes have fairly impressive credentials and make up a broad cross-section of Dems, GOP, Liberals and Conservatives. The reason this won't happen illuminates a problem that transcends our need to conserve fuel. It has to do with our elected officials being afraid to alienate Joe Sixpack with his 400 hp hemi-truck. Afterall, in this country its hard to stay in office without appealing to this voting group. If you don't stay in office how are you going to peddle influence to the special interests? Pretty cynical attitude, isn't it?
Conservation HAS to start at the top. Not the bottom as many would like. I will give up my gas guzzler when Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Obama give up theirs. Not a minute sooner.
My hope is that the public pressure to pull out of Iraq will become so great that the decision makers must finally give in. The escalating and expanding chaos that will ensue is very predictable. If this can disrupt the flow of oil then market conditions will force gas prices up to the point where alternatives are pursued with the urgency that should have always existed. Let's say this happens, and I don't think it is far fetched. It will be just another example of our inability to take action until faced with a crisis.
Then why do we have courts and jails if not to discourage certain behaviours. Does that represent social engineering?
In case it is not obvious, people do not get tossed into jail for being in the 49% minority, or even 10% minority. The entire US prison population is 2 million, already the highest per centage in the world, yet only represent 0.6% of the US population. Penalizing people for driving and burning carbonaceous fuel makes about as much sense as penalizing people for being Christian, Catholic or Protestant. Sure, each religious insitution committed some sins at least once in a while, at least according to some wannabe social revolutionaries, but any policy of marginalizing huge swath of the population is bound to produce dictatorial powers that inevitably ending up putting the social revolutionaries themselves on the chopping block.
I honestly believe that transitioning from an oil based economy will ultimately reduce transportation costs.
I too believe that one day that too shall happen. However, curtailing economic activity through a carbon tax thereby retarding natural progress will only delay that day from becoming reality. Government-funded research? Since when is that an efficient way of doing research?
I agree that my courts and jails analogy was pretty weak. I'm not advocating that people be thrown in jail for burning gas. Here's a better analogy. Traffic tickets/fines for speeding, running red-lights, etc.. Doesn't this represent the government trying to discourage a behaviour through a financial penalty? Is this okay or not?
If you don't believe that our dependance on foreign oil is contrary to our society's best interest then I'd say you are in the minority. That's fine, everyone's entitled to their opinion. I personally think that drugs should be legalized but apparently society thinks that criminalizing this behaviour is in our best interest. We don't always agree with the majority. I rarely agree with Joe Sixpack so I'm typically unrepresented.
I'm pretty confident that our society will be faced with a crisis in the not too distant future as a result of our oil supply being disrupted. People will be clamoring to the government to do something. This is not the type of problem that can be solved in real time. I feel that we are driving towards a cliff and its best to stop before we get to the edge. You obviously don't think the cliff is there so no need to take any pre-emptive action.
Out of curiousity. What is your view on tax incentives. Like deductions for home mortgages, charitable contributions, having kids, etc.. A tax break is just the flip side of a tax penalty. Instead of punishing a behaviour you reward people for doing otherwise. And since you, hypothetically, still want to have a balanced budget these tax breaks should pay for themselves, i.e. be revenue neutral. So something has to give somewhere else. Either a reduction in a service or program or an increase in another tax.
Just in case you are, for some reason, onboard with the idea of tax credits/rewards I'm sure this tax penalty scheme could be modified to suit your tastes. How's this? Develop a way to track everyone's cumulative gas consumption throughout the year. At the end of the year issue a check to every citizen based upon their consumption. The less you consumed the bigger your check. Now that's a program that would have some expensive overhead, like most tax credits.
You and I do not necessarily have to agree with our society's thinking on this in order to state a preference for a course of action to accomplish the goal of reducing gasoline (or oil) consumption. I may think that the best thing would be for the government to do nothing, but even if this is so, I would also recognize that this is not likely to happen, no matter how much I think it would be the correct decision.
Assuming the premise that the US government is going to do something to discourage oil/gasoline consumption is true, what would you have the government do?
This way the net cost or benefit of a gas tax, to each person, is dependant on how much they use. If you use less than average you come out ahead, if you use more than average you come out behind.
That might be the key question from an engineering perspective but I believe there are other factors worth considering. Let's say that coal and gas fired powerplants are 40% efficient and solar panels are 15% efficient. Does that necessarily mean you should get your electricity from the powerplant? It depends on the cost of the solar panel. Hypothetically, what if the solar panel was free, obviously not the case. It would still be far less efficient than the powerplant but at that point who cares? Then you have to consider the harder to measure costs on the environment. What is the cost here in converting coal or gas to electricity compared to converting sunlight to electricity? Now there was some cost involved in manufacturing the panel and unless it can be recycled there will be some cost in disposing of it but otherwise there is no cost to the environment.
So basically I think that we need to come up with some way of quantifying the cost to the environment for the energy we use. Then add that to the actual dollars and cents cost of that energy. Now the key question will be, what is the cheapest energy?
Most ethanol comes from corn and corn needs lots of fertalizer to be grown. That fertalizer is primarily made from petroluem products.
Ethanol made the US way is a net energy loser. If we can make it the way brazil makes it we could do ok but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
As an enlightened Red-neck, conservative Republican, I won't allow my principles to be dictated by supposedly open minded liberal politicians. If it's the right thing to do, then I'll do it reguardless of what our top officials do. Don't blindly follow the blind.
I drive a Camry Hybrid now as my main transportation. 39mpg over 18,000 miles. Probably not making a difference, but....