Are gas prices fueling your pain?

1136137139141142197

Comments

  • hondamatic1hondamatic1 Member Posts: 26
    Better yet the Boston Red Sux?
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 20,803
    at the end of rt 73 take left onto rt 27 and another left onto western dr.
    sound familiar? ;)
    2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 20,803
    includes a driver and 2 adult passengers. using 'adult' when referring to my kid kind of scares me. :)
    a couple of other things, even though i used my credit card when filling up (starting with a $0 balance), at one station it shut me off @ $65. another time it shut off @ $75. i would have liked to really fill up at that point, since i had driven at least 6 miles with my DTE reading at zero. i could have put in another card to fill it the rest of the way, but decided i really didn't want to know. :surprise:
    2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,691
    One of my alma maters.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "Chinese growth...diesel refining costs...Hugo Chavez statements...It's a Friday..."

    Or the fact that the last refinery built in the US was in ... wait for it ... 1976 :surprise:
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Or the fact that the last refinery built in the US was in ... wait for it ... 1976

    It was about that time that the government under Jimmy Carter pledged to come up with an alternative to OIL. They built about a hundred ethanol stills to eliminate the Middle East strangle hold on OIL. Of course 90 of those stills are defunct piles of rust in the Midwest. We are NO less dependent on Middle east OIL. States like CA have blocked any new refineries since 1971 I believe. If not for expansion of existing refineries we would be in a pickle. All thanks to our progressive government.

    This is a cycle that keeps repeating itself. In the early 1920s we abandoned the Armenians to the Ottoman Turks to get the oil they had. The CONSENSUS then was America is running out of OIL. It is hard for me to believe what anyone in government tells me about OIL. The closer we get to running out there will be BILLIONS of folks that cannot afford what OIL is left.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    DRIVING Season. Holiday Driving Season. Vacation Driving Season. Am I missing any?

    The only thing you're missing is that the oil companies don't set the price. If they actually had this ability I can assure you that they wouldn't have been selling oil for $10/barrel in the late 90's.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    The point I was making is stated in the first paragraph. For those that would blame ExxonMobil for the rising prices I say it's not the companies fault if their customers demand the product and are willing to outbid each other for it.

    For every person excoriating Big Oil for sucking the lifeblood from family budgets I say that the real source of the problem ( if there is one ) is the buyers themselves who are willing to pay whatever the cost to obtain the product thereby encouraging the companies to continue raising prices.

    I put no blame on the companies. They are doing exactly as they should.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 20,803
    1 year down, 3(?) to go.
    2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Or the fact that the last refinery built in the US was in ... wait for it ... 1976

    Are you saying that if we built more refineries then gasoline would be cheaper? You have no idea what you are talking about. Refinery profit margins are extremely low right now. As a result they are operating at below capacity. Regardless, the number of refineries is irrelevant. All that matters is refining capacity, which, through expanding existing refineries, has increased tremendously since 1976. The current high price of gasoline is entirely due to the high price of oil. If anything not having enough refineries should put downward pressure on the price of oil.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    they wouldn't have been selling oil for $10/barrel in the late 90's.

    That seems to be a hard concept for many posters to understand. I just hope they saved a lot of money when gas was under priced. So now they have plenty when it is high priced. Remember the story of the ants and the grasshopper?
  • avalon02whavalon02wh Member Posts: 785
    "Or the fact that the last refinery built in the US was in ... wait for it ... 1976"

    You do realize that the number of refineries peaked in 1981, right. The ones that survived expanded.

    U.S. Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Count)
    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9
    1980's 320? 324 301 258 247 223 216 219 213 204
    1990's 205 202 199 187 179 175 NA 164 NA 159
    2000's 158 155 153 149 149 148 149 149
    http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/8_na_8o0_nus_ca.htm
    The 81 & 82 data is from another source. The EIA data covers 82 to 07.
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_ba- sics/refining_text.htm
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,691
    The solutions to our country's energy crisis include..., a bill that seeks to give consumers immediate relief at the pump. This legislation would severely penalize
    those who gouge or otherwise charge excessively high gas prices, allow the
    Attorney General to sue oil cartels like OPEC trying to manipulate the
    price of oil, rein in energy speculators, and temporarily suspend additions
    to our nation?s nearly full strategic petroleum reserve.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • avalon02whavalon02wh Member Posts: 785
    This may have been mentioned before but Yahoo just posted it:
    "Thousands of old-fashioned pumps can't register more than $3.99 on their spinning mechanical dials."
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080512/ap_on_bi_ge/old_gas_pumps_4;_ylt=AnnPwMHO4sC- JXCZwKPdyn8uAsnsA
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,592
    Don't believe everything you hear on yahoo news, they pick up a lot of stuff from parody news sources.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • vchiuvchiu Member Posts: 564
    mmm, wouldn't it an opportunity to go metric and count by liters, as most of the rest of the world does ? This would mean a bit more than 1 USD per liter (still less than half price than Europe.

    People complain that gas is expensive, but if one barrel makes 42 gallons, it means when prices shooted past 126 USD, that represents 3 USD/gallon.
    Adding up transport, tax, distribution, refining, more or less makes 1 USD more. I find it extremely competitive.

    OK, I understand that oil makes other sub products that are sold, from tar/ bitumen to plastics. However, price is still competitive in the US.
    Shall we rejoice ?
  • vchiuvchiu Member Posts: 564
    While I won't debate the quality of their news,
    I pretty much agree with this view
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080512/cm_csm/ecarbon_1

    High gasoline price although painful, are offering a new opportunity for US to become the leader in alternative energies. Of course, the road is long but the giant is displaying signs of waking up.

    Dear Admin , I also support changing the discussion title to $5. Changing to $6 won't be necessary for another year so what's the issue ?
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    The solutions to our country's energy crisis include..., a bill that seeks to give consumers immediate relief at the pump. This legislation would severely penalize
    those who gouge or otherwise charge excessively high gas prices, allow the
    Attorney General to sue oil cartels like OPEC trying to manipulate the
    price of oil, rein in energy speculators, and temporarily suspend additions
    to our nation?s nearly full strategic petroleum reserve.


    This entire paragraph is so basically wrong and against our entire way of life I was hoping for some reference from some off-the-wall socialist group that would have us all move back to Mother Earth eating twigs and dirt.

    Ours is a capitalistic society where the ones with the economic power ( buyers or sellers ) look to maximze their profits when they have the chance. There is nothing more basic in our system. If someone is excessively gouging...don't support that institution, company, site. Make them change. Denial of sales is the best reaction.

    Sue OPEC????? You'll have the ayatollahs and sheiks rolling in laughter at their ski slopes in the desert. It's their product they can sell it for whatever price they want to sell it. If it seems too high then don't buy it. You/We can't tell them what price to sell it at. How'd you like it if the Japanese government told GM/F/C that they all had to sell their vehicles for $40000 minimum in order to maximize the profits of T/H/N.

    How would you propose to rein-in 100,000+ speculators all over the world. If they want to pay more for a product ( oil ) than the last buyer did how in God's name can you stop them?

    What you are essentially saying is 'I want the Federal Government to protect me from the market ( free or not ) and impose price controls on fuel. In that way I can continue to use what I was using without much pain.' c.f. India, China and Venezuela.

    It won't work it, such controls increase usage. The Feds have data that you and I don't. They know that easy oil is finished and that it's likely to run out sooner than we expect. The best way to get us to use less is to let the market price rise to such levels that it hurts so that we change our ways, using less, thereby extending the availability somewhat.

    This is a very real possibility...
    15 yrs from now we will need 25% more fuel than we do today simply due to our population growth. Instead of 21 mm bpd we will need 26 mm bpd. If during that time we havent developed 5-10 mm bpd of alternate fuel options then we may just have to do without fuel.

    The best way to make us change our usage pattern is to make it hurt in the wallet, take it out of the family budget; c.f. Europe, it works very well.
  • future4ufuture4u Member Posts: 25
    You're sadly mistaken about that . John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan were arch enemies in the struggle for more and more power , but when it came to mutual benefit they would collaborate . They were two of the most ruthless humans to ever live .They are both were part of the of the establishment of the " ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT " that calls all of the shots .

    There is no oil shortage . http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

    Also do a google on Dr. Bill Deagle . Listen to the speach he gave in 2005 in
    Granada .

    There are solutions , but they won't ever be utilized as long as the populace maintain their present attitudes and refuses to educate themselves about the
    real world around them . TPTB know exactly how you'll react .

    It won't be long before we will be required to have chips implanted .
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Gasoline Price Gouging Laws Will Not Benefit Consumers

    Repealing the Law of Supply and Demand
    The market price of gasoline is the price at which supply and demand are balanced. Currently, that price is uncomfortably high, largely due to stubbornly high crude oil prices and barely-adequate refining capacity in the face of strong U.S. and global demand for gasoline. But high prices eventually lead to solutions because they give producers extra incentive to increase supplies and give consumers extra incentive to cut back on unnecessary driving. Over the long term, they can even create opportunities for alternative fuels. This is why oil and gas prices fluctuate over time, and no past increase has ever been permanent.

    But some are losing patience with this process and want to use price controls to force the price below market levels. That only means that demand would outstrip supply at the mandated price. This is why attempts to impose price controls in the 1970s led to shortages and gas lines.


    http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1469.cfm
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    Is the price of gasoline really out of line or is the aganst due to the sudden increase in the cost over years past.

    As an example when gas was .30, postage was .03. Tomorrow postage is .42 and gas is not far behind @ 4.20.

    Perhaps the price of fuel is too high because today we are spending $ for items we didn't buy, because they weren't available, 30 years ago. In other words, we spend too much on non essentials leaving less in the budget for buying gas.

    It is less painful for me to pay $4 today, than when it was .40 in years past.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    If someone is excessively gouging...don't support that institution, company, site. Make them change. Denial of sales is the best reaction.

    I'd like to see how long you can go without buying fuel. Sure you could stop driving and use mass-transit...oh, wait a second, that means you're paying the MTA to buy fuel. Well, I suppose you could walk to the grocery store...ooh, sorry, then you're still paying for goods, which have a built-in surcharge for the fuel for delivery. Guess it's a little harder to deny sales to them than you thought, hmm? One way or another, everyone ends up paying for fuel.

    NO ONE can simply stop buying fuel, period. It is 100% impossible unless people DO go the whole twigs route...which I don't advocate. Motor fuel suppliers have society by the you-know-whats and they know it. They can't have their sales denied, period, or our society would collapse.

    Now yes, I realize a company is around to make money and benefit it's stakeholders (that covers shareholders but also includes the company's communities, neighbors, etc). Still, a case can be made for fuel (specifically oil-based like gas and diesel) being a key part of our national infrastructure, therefore needing more regulation and oversight from the Department of Energy.
  • jimbresjimbres Member Posts: 2,025
    Good point. The cost of my cell phone bill - your typical 500 minutes for 2 lines plan - would keep 1 of our cars running for over a month.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Low car weight (or mass) is the most important requirement for improvement in fuel economy

    Vehicle mass's impact on fuel economy is the most evident in stop and go driving. With the newer batteries that posess higher power densities the next generation of hybrids and or EVs will be better able to recapture energy through regenerative braking. More mass means more energy to recapture. Smaller vehicles will still get better mileage but it will be less significant than it is today.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,691
    >The solutions to our country's energy crisis include..., a bill that seeks to give consumers immediate relief at the pump. This legislation would severely penalize
    those who gouge or otherwise charge excessively high gas prices, allow the
    Attorney General to sue oil cartels like OPEC trying to manipulate the
    price of oil, rein in energy speculators, and temporarily suspend additions
    to our nation?s nearly full strategic petroleum reserve. --so says Senator Sherrod Brown in an email in response to mine to his office 2 weeks ago.

    kdhspyder says: "This entire paragraph is so basically wrong and against our entire way of life I was hoping for some reference from some off-the-wall socialist group that would have us all move back to Mother Earth eating twigs and dirt. "

    I forgot to attribute the quote. I thought it would bring out a common sense reaction in folks here. No wonder our Congress isn't doing anything if this is the way most of them feel. Senator Voinovich did not respond to my email nor did Rep. Mike Turner. Senator Voiovich's office's response approx a year ago to a phone comment about gasoline prices was that I should buy stock in the oil companies.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,691
    One major factor in the lack of handling of problems re gasoline prices by government is the gasoline cost was removed from the cost of living index which measures inflation.

    Does anyone know what the real index for COL is including gas? Might it be about 8%?

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,051
    I think Cost of Living also excludes housing and food as well. So if you live in a house that's paid in full, grow your own food, and ride a bike everywhere, you probably see an inflation rate closer to what the gov't wants you to see.

    Similarly, if you live in a cardboard box, dumpster-dive for your food, and have to hoof it everywhere you go, you're in the same situation.

    But for most of the masses, I imagine that "COL" figure for inflation is a tad optimistic.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    I saw a later episode of "Leave It to Beaver" where Eddie Haskell quits school to work at a gas station. Eddie's boss must've paid well as Eddie was able to buy a two year-old 1961 Plymouth Sport Fury convertible. Too bad Eddie was such a knucklehead.

    Anyway, the principal of Eddie's school stops by for gas and tries to persuade Eddie to come back to school. Eddie fills the tank of the principal's 1962 Dodge, tops it off and spills at least 1/2 a gallon. "That'll be $2, sir!"

    Shoot, just what Eddie spilled on the ground would've been $2 today!
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Gary says, "It is hard for me to believe what anyone in government tells me about OIL."

    Well then don't. You don't have to listen to the guvmint about oil supply. There are lots of private entities which track it also. Listen to them instead.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Does the fact that a DC politician agrees with you validate or invalidate your position?

    First off there is no price gouging at the pumps. The wholesale price for unleaded is currently around $3.20. Add to that an average of 50 cents in taxes and 15 cents in transportation/distribution and marketing costs and you're up to $3.85/gallon. That's currently above the national average so the stations certainly aren't gouging anyone.

    The US prices are and have been exactly in line with Canada's prices over the past 5 years when you factor in for Canada's higher fuel taxes. I suspect that most European countries' prices have also followed ours if you price in dollars. So if you perceive some scheme by the oil companies it's being done on a global level.

    The US Attorney General cannot sue OPEC. The fact that this has been mentioned is another example of political grandstanding. OPEC is not bound by our anti-trust laws so that they collectively agree on production quotas is beyond our control. There are many people who feel that OPEC is not really limiting production right now but are pumping at near 100% capacity. If that's the case there's not much point in suing unless you believe 110% is doable. Regardless, Saudi Arabia accounts for a big enough share of the global supply that they essentially have the power to act unilaterally and still have the influence of a cartel. We cannot dictate to Saudi Arabia how much oil to produce.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Saudi Arabia accounts for a big enough share of the global supply that they essentially have the power to act unilaterally and still have the influence of a cartel. We cannot dictate to Saudi Arabia how much oil to produce.

    So we can basically sit here like good little capitalists and submit ourselves to a state-owned monopoly headed by a dictator, right? This is the position our government has placed us in.

    That's the part I keep remembering when people start screeching "free market! free market!"
  • jimbresjimbres Member Posts: 2,025
    One of these suggestions makes sense: suspending purchases for the strategic petroleum reserve. I'll go along with that. Supplies are tight. Why allow government to use our tax dollars to take more oil off the market & thus make supplies even tighter? The best time to top this thing off is when oil is cheap & abundant.

    (Then again, I've never understood how we benefit from having an SPR in the first place.)

    The rest of the suggestions, though, are familiar to anyone old enough to remember the fuel crunches of the 1970s. If we can just get rid of "speculators", "gougers" & "profiteers", prices will plunge & life will again be good. Senator Brown's press release reads like a 1975 letter to the editor.

    Jeez, but I miss the 70s. Excuse me while I paint my refrigerator orange.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,691
    >Does the fact that a DC politician agrees with you...

    Did I say I agreed with that position. Read carefully.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,691
    A news report said something on the order of that OPEC is pumping 8 million rather than 9 million they were pumping. Eleven million is within their ability. Eight million keeps the price high.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • ivan_99ivan_99 Member Posts: 1,681
    I would rather tap into the Canadian oil...have them become our sole supplier.

    I don't understand the logic in capitulating to the Saudi’s…Canadian & American relations are strained at times…but certainly more stable than the middle east.

    I would pay a higher amount to use the Canadian oil knowing the supply was guaranteed…then the stump speeches by Hugo wouldn’t drive up costs…or the odd Middle East skirmish wouldn’t bump up the prices.

    Although I suppose if a guaranteed price was set ($120…$150 a barrel) OPEC would boost production and drive prices down…then we’d look like chumps paying $150 a barrel when the ‘set’ price is $80.

    Personally I would pay the difference…just to give the big middle finger to OPEC…

    Of course I haven’t worked out the logistics of this plan ;)
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Just as the automakers are finally getting their acts together and building exciting cars again, I really fear the return such depressing things like 85 mph speedometers, anemic V-8s you have to floor to get up a hill. Ugh, imagine a retro Mustang ala the 1974 Mustang II!
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Adjusted for inflation, $2.00/gal in 2004 calculates to $2.26/Gal. considering overall inflation rate...the other $2.00 is market adjusted!

    Regards,
    OW
  • smithedsmithed Member Posts: 444
    I can understand why oil companies do what they do: if they can make the most money by supplying just the right amount of fuel (not too little, and not too much), then economics state that is the right thing for them to do. (See: law of diminishing returns.)

    After all, they are in business to make money, not supply us with fuel. Supplying fuel is just how they make money.

    Sure, I want it cheap as possible, just like everything else: soap, food, etc.

    :shades:
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    So we can basically sit here like good little capitalists and submit ourselves to a state-owned monopoly headed by a dictator, right?

    What are the options? As far as the oil company being state owned that is not unique to Saudi Arabia or dictatorships. Weren't you suggesting in a previous post that the US government take more control over our oil industry?
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    "Then again, I've never understood how we benefit from having an SPR in the first place"

    It was a knee-jerk reaction to the fuel shortages of the 70s, I believe.

    If OPEC turned off the spigots for any significant amount of time today, our SPR wouldn't be enough to do us any good. The saving grace is that oil is so tied in to the global economy that OPEC producers would only hurt themselves if they were to do that now.

    Oil production from sources like those in Canada and tar shale here in the U.S. is extremely dirty, polluting, and destructive of the environment. I sure hope that type of production never reaches economic viability, and I will certainly pay an extra couple of bucks a gallon if they will leave those oil sources in the ground.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    One of these suggestions makes sense: suspending purchases for the strategic petroleum reserve.

    The amount being pumped into the SPR is 70,000 barrels per day. Roughly one-third of one percent of our daily consumption. I've read estimates that this is adding maybe 4 cents to the price of a gallon of gas. As far as waiting for gas to be cheap and abundant that might require being able to go back in time.

    We benefit from the SPR the same way a person benefits from insurance coverage. Hopefully you won't need it but in the case that you do it is very nice to have.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Weren't you suggesting in a previous post that the US government take more control over our oil industry?

    I was suggesting that it is a valid argument, given how critical petroleum-based fuels are to our national infrastructure. I'm not sure yet whether I agree with the argument or not but I can see the logic of it. It's not like TVs or MP3 players that we can live without...EVERYONE uses gasoline in one form or another, whether it's direct or not. No gasoline, and no goods move across the country...this includes food, medical supplies, people, the millitary, etc.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I always thought the National Petroleum Reserve (and the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve) made more sense for long term storage of crude reserves. It'd take a year or more to get that oil to market and the quantities may not be proven, but it seems like better insurance for future generations than pumping unrefined crude into a salt dome.

    The stuff in the salt domes is handy for short term supply disruptions, but you'd think that the oil or refinery companies would be more logical owners and operators for short term supply issues than the feds.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    My bad...in that case, I agree with your point.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    ...the military would have first dibs on it.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    Speedometers were limited to 85 mph by a government regulation that was repealed (thankfully) during the Reagan Administration. V-8s were anemic from early hamhanded attempts to meet tightened emissions standards as much as the need for fuel economy.

    As for the Mustang II - if Ford had used the European Capri as the starting point for the Mustang II, as opposed to the Pinto, I think we would have fond memories of that car. Those Capris (and Opel Mantas and Toyota Celicas) were light, fun and relatively fuel efficient.

    I like the new Mustang, but find it to be a bit...porky. Remember that the original Mustang was considered a SMALL car for its day. And it was NOT initially sold as a muscle car. It was sold as an affordable, relatively light coupe that offered style and pizzaz to buyers on a budget. Most went out the door with the straight six or mild 260/289 V-8.

    A downsized Mustang with the original "sexy European" as its inspiration would not be a bad thing (as the original Mustang served as the inspiration for the Capri, which was basically a rebodied Cortina).

    Mullaly wants Ford of North America and Ford of Europe to share more models, and I keep hearing rumors of a rebirth of the European Ford Capri...I'm sensing an opportunity here. The bottom line is that the Mustang can't survive if it relies on sixes and V-8s. I see nothing wrong with shrinking the Mustang and relying on fours and maybe a strong six. Ford needs to emphasize handling and braking more, anyway, with this car.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    I thought your original concern was this, from an earlier post:

    So we can basically sit here like good little capitalists and submit ourselves to a state-owned monopoly headed by a dictator, right? This is the position our government has placed us in.

    Regardless of whether the government or private corporations are in charge of our oil industry, both will have to submit to dictators that run a state-owned monopoly (to buy Saudi Arabian oil).

    Changing which entity controls the oil industry over here does NOTHING to change which foreign entity actually owns the supply of oil.

    And, for the record, we only get about 13-15 percent of our oil from the Middle East.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,051
    I think I remember that episode. Didn't Eddie drive around in the car, trying to show it off, and Wally hollers something like "You'd better get that customer's car back to the garage before they realize it's missing!"
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    A news report said something on the order of that OPEC is pumping 8 million rather than 9 million

    By OPEC I'm assuming you mean Saudi Arabia. Could you provide a link to that article? Everything that I've read said they produced 9.2 million barrels a day in April. They claim to have the potential to pump 11 million barrels a day. Maybe they do but it's my understanding that depleting an oil field too fast will reduce it's total output. The Saudi Monarchy has also recently stated that they would like to limit oil production so that future generations of Saudis can benefit from this resource. Kuwait has echoed this sentiment. How dare they think of their own people. Don't they realize their obligation to provide Americans with cheap oil? The US can only produce a fraction of the oil it consumes and we have the audacity to blame those that are filling the gap for not doing a good enough job. When it comes to oil this American sense of entitlement is really kind of pathetic.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,691
    >Could you provide a link to that article?

    Go search for it yourself. It was on a news show, possibly one of the national news, maybe cable. If you want to question my point, do your own search.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

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.