If you factor in the cost to the environment, the "protection" that the military provides, and eliminate the subsidies then you see a price that reflects what it's true cost is.
I don't see a compelling reason to single-out the oil or gasoline industry, anymore than any other industry including farming. The military provides protection for all of our business to operate globally. The environment is fully capable of healing itself given a few decades, and the temporary change to the environment of burning a little gasoline or heating oil is not that different then if I burn 10 pounds of coal or 20Lb of wood.
If you think we should pay for our products, I hope you also support that we get a corresponding reduction in our taxes. But that would favor the wealthy then right, since they pay most of the taxes, and thus do the most subsidizing.
Higher gas prices will hopefully get us closer to cleaner more fuel efficient alternatives.
The fuel isn't the issue, as we know that electric and H2 are clean; the problem is the clean "energy" to make the clean fuels.
I hear flowery commercials by Chevron and Shell about how they "care" and are part of the "solution", but their actions don't seem very sincere to me.
You think solving our long-term energy issue is Chevron and Shell's responsibility? No. Their responsibility is to provide their current products to the market, and make a decent rate-of-return for the shareholders. They will invest in alternative energies if and when they make financial sense. Any $ they give to universities for researc, or special projects is basically a community service or charity. I work for a corporation and we give some $ to the community, but we certainly aren't giving more than a fraction of our profit. While my company would certainly like to feed all the poor and needy, the stockholders are 1st in-line. If you want someone to solve the long-term energy issues of the U.S. and world we have a DOE, the Congress, the President, and the U.N. which certainly have more power and money then the oil companies. But they don't because most people don't care or think about long-term, and thus don't demand it.
So until more people care or are affected, other then crying "I want mine", don't expect much to happen.
If I could make this happen , yes - we would launch a Manhattan-type-Project to make the 1st fusion reactor in 20 years.
When people start feeling taken advantage of at the pump, they should check the price of gas our brothers and sisters in Canada are paying. And they are an oil exporter. We could have it a LOT worse than 4 bucks a gallon.
Yeah, I paid $5.41/usgal the other day - but that was for premium. The price in different provinces vary but you would be hard pressed to get regular gas these days for under $1.20/litre ($4.50/gal). This is in CDN $ but still close these days to US $. I just look at prices across the pond and not so bad.
But not too worry, we still pay lots more for new cars and have higher taxes - so all is okay
Google 'big subsidies on oil" and you will see an endless stream of articles on the subject. Have they got it wrong?
I believe someone posted the subsidies paid to different businesses. Oil and natural gas received about $2 billion last year. Alternative energy about $8 billion. Farmers just got $60 billion per year over the next 5 years. Something is wrong with that picture. While I do believe much of the incentive to having our military presence in the Middle East is based on keeping the oil channels open. I do not think it plays a big part in the price. As long as there are people willing to risk their dollars on oil futures the price will be determined in that manner. It brings back to memory a few months ago when a trader paid over $100 per barrel for oil to say he was the first. Then sold the lot at a loss. Buying oil futures, pork bellies or OJ concentrate is a gamble. You can make big bucks and you can lose big bucks. I have friends that seem to love losing money that way. I am much too conservative.
environment is fully capable of healing itself given a few decades
The scars may be remediated or whatever, but you never get back what you lose.
Chevron and Shell are removing a natural resource that they don't really own. They just own the rights to drill and get the crude to market. The lease rights set out what they can do, and what they have to pay in "rent" for their right to drill. The mineral rights came from the crown or the state or the feds so "we the people" really own the resource.
It's not too much of a stretch then to require the extraction company do go beyond payment of royalty shares or remediation bonds and require them to invest x amount of money in alternative resource creation or other research. The results of that research hopefully would lead to discoveries of materials or processes that would replace the resource extracted and used up.
All we need to do is rework the woefully antiquated General Mining Act of 1872 and renegotiate the leases.
"The mineral rights came from the crown or the state or the feds. " Only on federal or state lands in the U.S. Unlike all other countries, idividuals own the mineral rights to their lands, unless they sell them. Internationally, you're correct, the countries own the minerals.
I think the issue might be changing the royalty after the lease is let. Kind of like you leasing an apartment then getting a raise and the landlord wants more money. Alaska has played those games in the Arctic. It is all a gamble.
I sure do not like the under handed way the environmentalist are trying to stop oil exploration in the Arctic. Making the Polar Bear and endangered species is lame. Drilling in the Arctic HAS NO impact on Polar Bears or the climate change.
aspesisteve: If you factor in the cost to the environment, the "protection" that the military provides, and eliminate the subsidies then you see a price that reflects what it's true cost is.
There are several problems with this approach.
One, fossil fuels encompass more than oil. The term also includes natural gas and coal, which produce emissions when burned, too.
Second, not all fossil fuels are used for transportation. For that matter, not all oil is used for transportation.
Third, we HAVE made those who benefit from the use of fossil fuels mitigate their cost to the environment through the use of pollution control devices, which were mandated by the federal Clean Air Act. This act covers motor vehicles, power plants and other sources of pollutants generated by the burning of fossil fuels. The producers bore the cost of initially developing and implemeting these pollution control measures, and they passed them on to paying customers.
The idea that drivers are getting some sort of free ride in this regard is nonsense. What has happened is that, over time, we have been able to absorb the initial cost of meeting the regulations. The air today is cleaner in the U.S. than it has been since the Industrial Revolution accelerated in the wake of the Civil War.
Incidentally, the idea that pollution started with the widespread adaption of automobiles is inaccurate. Wood- and coal-burning stoves and locomotives were filthy, and the horses used as the primary source of transportation prior to the advent of the automobile produced their own emissions, which were pounded into dust and attracted disease-carrying insects (not to mention those emissions smelled really bad). Horses and mules died regularly, and the disposal of their carcasses was a serious sanitation issue. It was said that the horse manure in New York City could be smelled from miles away in the summer months.
If anything, you should be THANKING the petroleum industry, for giving us a cleaner source of fuel, that could be regulated and properly cleaned up (think we can put a catalytic converter on a horse?). We live longer, healthier lives than ever before, and we are richer than ever before, and the advent of the automobile, made possible by relatively inexpensive petroleum, has played a big part in bringing that about.
Fourth, most of our military resources aimed at ensuring a reliable supply of oil are concentrated in the Middle East...oops, we only get about 10-13 percent of our oil from the Middle East.
If U.S. military spending is subsidizing any oil users, it is those who live in European and Asian nations that purchase Middle Eastern oil and benefit from stability in that region.
In the case of a national crisis (or just some change in people's thinking about sacrosanct property rights), the feds could grab the mineral rights. Just like eminent domain, all it would take is a bit of money to make the former mineral rights owners whole. The feds change the rules all the time.
And you'd make a lot of people happy when they get to chase the land men off their surface property when they find out a gas well is going to be drilled in their living room (or their backyard mountain is going to be scraped off).
I know you've heard me say this before, but no one really owns any land in this country, when you come down to it. You may "own" property in the sense that the government lets you live there - as long as you continue to pay them (property taxes). Stop paying the government, and in a short while you'll find the government taking it and physically evicting you.
Owning something means it can not legally be taken away, and you don't have to pay anymore money for it. Owning property in this country is nothing more than leasing or renting it from the government.
I also can't relate to your stating that using oil is a "loss". If blueberries are growing in my backyard, I shouldn't pick them, and eat them, because then they are gone, and my digestion creates waste?
Oil and gas are wonderful resources that we are using to give us a great lifestyle. The world would be an awful place without them - imagine what life is like if there is no automation to grow or transport food. Or you have to ride a horse everywhere. And you need to cut (no chainsaw) and chop wood to heat your house.
Surely we need to move to some other energy someday, and that will have negatives too - all physical processes require materials and produce wastes.
I also can't relate to your stating that using oil is a "loss". If blueberries are growing in my backyard, I shouldn't pick them, and eat them, because then they are gone, and my digestion creates waste?
Blueberries replenish themselves within 365 days. Oil takes a bit longer to replenish...like 365 times several million. :shades: When you use up something faster than it replenishes, it's a net loss.
If U.S. military spending is subsidizing any oil users, it is those who live in European and Asian nations that purchase Middle Eastern oil and benefit from stability in that region.
I don't know if I agree with that. Yes Europe may get a greater percentage of their oil from the Middle East but that doesn't necessarily mean they are more exposed to a disruption in this supply. Take away Middle East oil and Europe will start bidding against us for our supplies. The net result is that we will all be affected equally. So the US has just as much at stake in protecting these supplies as anyone else. Actually the US has more at stake since we use the most oil. Probably the only reason we get a relatively small amount of our oil from the Middle East is due to transportation costs.
Just a reminder to all of you who are wondering what to do when gas reaches $4/gal, this is National Bike to Work Week. Specifically, tomorrow (Friday) is National Bike to Work Day, for anyone who cannot ride each day. Bikes with gas or electric motors do not count.
Aside from some major fitness changes, here's how riding to work has had an impact on my visits to the gas pump. During much of the winter and periods of severe rain I'll drive to work more often. If I drive all the time I have to fill up maybe every 5 days (around 6 times per month). When I ride to work the majority of the time that drops my gas station visits to around 2 times per month. I'm suddenly using only about 1/3 of the gas I had been. Cool beans, eh?
Okay, back to the "what in the world are we going to do as gas prices keep going up" discussions. There are choices between the two extremes of driving or getting out the Nikes. Think outside the box.
as long as you continue to pay them (property taxes). Stop paying the government, and in a short while you'll find the government taking it and physically evicting you.
I agree. I recognize the government's need to fund itself but property taxes have always been my least favorite method, which is an understatement.
Surely we need to move to some other energy someday, and that will have negatives too - all physical processes require materials and produce wastes.
I don't agree. We are incapable of either producing or destroying energy. We merely convert it from one form into a more usable form. There's no law of physics that states this conversion process must be damaging or disruptive. Look at plants. They convert solar energy into stored energy and the process is actually beneficial to us; turning CO2 into Oxygen.
bp: Oil takes a bit longer to replenish...like 365 times several million.
me: the only difference is the time-frame to do it naturally. Give me a fusion reactor and we'll make all the oil you want. The chemical reaction of burning oil/gasoline can be reversed, can be reversed today, but it is uneconomical. Have cheap energy and you can put the C, O, and H back together - anyone know where you can get some H2O and CO2.
tpe: I don't agree. We are incapable of either producing or destroying energy.
me: where did I say man creates or destroys energy? I said we'd need to use a new energy source.
tpe: Look at plants. They convert solar energy into stored energy.
The energy is produced at the sun, and what the plant receives is from the sun. The Sun has used some of its materials and converted them. In the nuclear fusion there the products of each reaction are leading to elements that are "waste" - by waste in this case - meaning not fuseable any further. The Sun has a finite supply of fuel, and one day will not produce any substantial energy. All processes in the universe increase entropy - see 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
I better check my mail, I'm still waiting for the first PENNY. :mad:
Usually, when those big buck statistics about farm subsidies are thrown about they are talking about tax breaks given to big multi-nationals like Cargill. Even those farmers who get "paid" not to grow crops only get an average of $49 per acre. Only huge growers get any substantial money.
90% of all subsidies go to the top 10% of farms by size.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
"...here's how riding to work has had an impact..."
My ride to work is 11 miles one way. There are no sidewalks or bike paths. Most of my journey is on the interstate where biking is illegal. In the winter it is below zero and there is two feet of snow.
If I biked to work it would eliminate all need for gas...I would be dead before I got there.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Again I disagree. The energy is converted at the sun. The sun will eventually burn out. We don't have much control over that. In the meantime the sun is sending us enough of it's energy that we shouldn't have any worries if we were smart enough about harnessing it.
Owning something means it can not legally be taken away
Eminent domain would be the most obvious exception to prove your rule.
I also can't relate to your stating that using oil is a "loss".
You said something to the effect that the environment heals itself. I was pointing out that you can remediate the "scars on the land" but even so, it'll never be the same again.
Back on topic, my self puller gave up the ghost today. So I'm going to be saving gas (for a few days anyway).
If I biked to work it would eliminate all need for gas...I would be dead before I got there.
Sounds like where I live in So. MD. Not only are there no bike paths but there is no public transportation. There might even be a law against carpooling, but I'm not sure about that.
When I retired from my job in the Arctic gas in our villages we served was over $7 per gallon. I watched over 25 years the villagers went from snow machines to 3 & 4 wheelers to 4X4 PU trucks and full sized SUVs. I do not remember a time that they did not pay $4 or more for gas. Of course there were not many miles of road in those villages. Most people jumped into the truck and drove to the airport or store and back. Maybe it was a mile or a little over. Most of the gas is barged into the villages in the short time that the ice is open in the late Summer. They heat with oil almost exclusively. That has to be killing them with the price of diesel. So add Alaska villages to that list of folks that we have it better than.
Alaska Journal of Commerce A handful of Alaska villages have run out of heating oil, and are either having to bundle up for the winter or pay more than double the going price to restock.
Meanwhile, some data indicates families by the dozens are leaving their homes and moving to the cities.
The communities of Ambler in Northwest Alaska; Nikolski and Perryville, in the Aleutians; Kodiak Island's Karluk; and St. George and St. Paul in the Bering Sea all had to have fuel oil shipments flown in during the past few weeks.
Flying heating oil into villages pushes the price from the average of $4.25 a gallon to as much as $11 a gallon, said Delise Calcote, office manager with Alaska Inter-Tribal Council.
Increased fuel prices and long, cold winters, as well as a reduction in the number of shippers, have left these villages with no choice but to fly in fuel.
Looks like we may shoot past $5 without a whimper. The new GW bill will add $1.50 per gallon to the already high prices. That ought to put a few more people on the bus.
Worried about gas prices hitting $4 a gallon and beyond? Imagine if they were $6, $7 or even $8 a gallon. Those levels are a certain possibility should Congress pass cap-and-trade legislation, which could face a vote in early June.
Oil is trading at record levels, in excess of $120 a barrel. Leading Republican Sens. James Inhofe (Okla.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) both told the Business & Media Institute (BMI) energy prices would drastically increase if the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) is signed into law.
“The studies show it would be directly affected, would be a $1.50 a gallon, in addition to what it is today,” Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said to (BMI).
“The Democrats are the reason we have high prices at the pumps, and we’re not going to be able to alleviate that until we start producing again in America,” Inhofe added. “And I knew this was happening way back, well 10 years ago, when President Clinton vetoed the bill that would have allowed us to drill in ANWR. I said on the Senate floor that day 10 years ago that in 10 years we would regret this. It’s now 10 years later.”
"The Democrats are the reason we have high prices at the pumps, and we’re not going to be able to alleviate that until we start producing again in America,” Inhofe added."
Inhofe is delusional if he thinks the oil in ANWR is going to make a substantial difference in prices. He is in the same category as people that pray for rain or lower gasoline prices. We have a real world out there that needs understanding. His knowledge of science or anything related to the earth is about as close to zero as you can get. His attitude is drill anywhere, anyhow. He is big on beliefs but short on facts.
"There are 'subsidies' for just about every industry out there, and every industry has 'a powerful lobby shaping tax laws'. Given that is how our government works, I'd fire any company's managers that didn't make use of this process. "
so if everyone does it, then it's ok?
you don't care that's how it works? Don't think we need change?
Washington's has you and alot of voters just where they want you.
This is about what you are going to do as gas prices hit $4 - we do have an off-topic chatter discussion that's more suitable for the full blown political and election commentary.
Inhofe is delusional if he thinks the oil in ANWR is going to make a substantial difference in prices.
How much time have you spent in ANWR? The oil in ANWR could replace any one of our top 4 importers for a conservative 30 years. Having spent the last 25 years of my employment in and around ANWR I am very familiar with the area. Where ANWR borders with Canada they are drilling and producing oil. Are they directional drilling into our oil pool. Who knows? I do know that it is a good source of oil that would give US some breathing room on finding alternatives that are not coming forth very quickly. Those that are against drilling in ANWR have very little knowledge of the area. It is no different than the rest of the Arctic. The Caribou and polar bears have increased over the years of oil production in the Arctic. All the worries about oil spills are really unfounded. The Navy found the original NPR because it was laying in pools. The oil producers are more conscientious than most industries in the lower 48.
Personally it makes little difference to me if folks like paying $4-$5-$6 or $10 per gallon. The impact on my life is negligible. And you know what? It is the young people that are voting in all these nut cases to tell them how to live and squeeze them for every cent they make. People are going to get what they deserve.
Remember Ms Pelosi said if we put the Democrats in charge of Congress your gas prices will go down. They were under $2.50 per gallon when she made that promise.
He did enough damage signing the 2005 & 07 Energy bills. There is plenty of blame to go around. It is no secret, it is out of the bag. We gonna pay more and more for fuel.
GM had an electric car a decade ago. They called it the EV-1, marketed it at Saturn dealers, and it never caught on.
It was a great concept, but it only went 80 miles on a charge, which limited it to around-town use, which meant you had to own another car for any interstate travel. Kind of negated the purpose of the car in the first place.
Plus, as you all fondly remember, gasoline cost $1 per gallon back then. Who would sacrifice the comfort and convenience of an SUV just to save $15 per week on gas? So the EV-1 died. And conspiracy theories abound about who killed it.
I'm certain that oil and auto industry lobbyists played a part in its demise. However, the consumer bears the blame, because we all knew about it, thought it was kinda neato, then went to the Ford dealer to buy an Explorer.
Now that gas prices have quadrupled, many of us want to blame car makers, oil producers, the government, or all of the above. Certainly, they do whatever makes them the most money, even if they have to break the law to do it. But they are only a few million, while we consumers are a few hundred million. We complain a lot, but then we go to the station and buy gasoline. So, again, we bear the blame.
Bottom line: we all had a chance to do something 10 years ago, but we didn't. And not just the EV-1, but we could have bought the first generation Prius, or a few years later the Honda Insight. Instead, consumers not only rejected those cars, but riduculed anyone who bought them. That mockery continued until last year, as I, a hybrid owner, can testify.
Ain't nobody mocking me now.
But consumers are 4,000 days late and $4 a gallon short. So whenever any of us complains too loudly about gas prices, remember that we had a chance to prevent this, and we blew it. .
Thank you for the kind thought. I am 1500 miles south east from the epicenter and I did not feel it at all, being in Hainan island. This will be a painful reminder (maybe 40 thousand deaths) that buildings in China should also be designed to withstand sismic activity. I asked this question when I bought my appartment in Shenzhen in 2005 and people found this question weird. One year later, Shenzhen was struck by a small (level 3 richter) one....
That was really my point - both parties are screwing up on the oil front. They screw up on loads of fronts because it is a game to them. They are all far past the point where the price of gas means anything to them.
Since the US has become a net importer of oil we've had presidents and Congresses of both parties in all combination and have yet to come up with a coherent plan to drastically reduce our oil consumption. As long as this remains so we will have fluctuations and a steadily rising cost.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Well, Mother Nature isn't cooperating in Philly today as it is heavily raining. Yesterday would've been an excellent "bike-to-work" day.
Four dollar gas has already arrived as of this morning. Ultra 93 is $4.01 at the Sunoco on Rising Sun Avenue. Good thing I topped-off the Caddy with cheap $3.97 Ultra after work yesterday!
Four dollar gas has already arrived as of this morning. Ultra 93 is $4.01 at the Sunoco on Rising Sun Avenue. Good thing I topped-off the Caddy with cheap $3.97 Ultra after work yesterday!
For all intents and purposes, it's here, too. I topped off the 5th Ave last nite at the Shell station next to the liquor store. 93 was something like $3.999 per gallon. There's a BP nearby that was up to $4.099! I still had a fairly full tank and this was just a top-off, so I just put in some $3.769 87 octane. Total bill came out to $23.76, for a week's worth of driving. Not too bad, considering a week's worth of beer came out to about $59-60! :surprise:
As for fuel economy, well last Thursday when I topped off, I'm almost positive that the pump shut off early, because there's no way that beast would get 15 mpg in mostly local driving, even if I was taking it easy on it. Sure enough, on this last fillup, I went 64.3 miles and it took 6.304 gallons. That comes out to a dismal 10.2 mpg! However, since it most likely wasn't full the last time, when I add up the total miles driven, and the total gallons from yesterday and last Thursday, it comes out to 12.5 mpg. Which is still nothing to crow about, but reasonable, I guess, for a 360-2bbl from the disco era that has to lug around nearly two tons in mostly local, short-trip driving.
I tried looking up the EPA estimates for my '79 5th Ave, but I think that year they only published the city MPG estimate, which was 14. In 1978 they published city and highway figures, but the R-body wasn't in production yet. The closest thing I could find, size/weight/engine-wise, was a 1978 Fury/Monaco/Magnum/Cordoba with the 360-2bbl, and it was rated at 14/22. A 1978 Newport, which was still a big mastodon that year, was actually rated an optimistic 13/20 with the 360-2, but I imagine it would take an act of God to get that kind of economy out of one of those beasts.
Still, considering how they changed the calculations in 1985 and again in 2007 to yield lower EPA estimates, I wouldn't be surprised if 12.5 mpg is about what my car would've tested out at using 1985 procedures, and probably way better than what 2007 numbers would yield.
What about the income-tax rebate-checks that are being sent out? I bet almost everyone is going to cash their's right? So yes if the laws are written such that everyone gets a rebate or subsidy, that's really not unfair. I agree with you that the tax code should be simple, and there should be no subsidies to any econiomic group or corporation, and there should be no foreign aid (especially when we're running a deficit!). Until people wake up and vote for some politicians, or realize that an Independent is not a Communist, [non-permissible content removed] or freak, we have the current system.
If you don't like subsidies, wait until this coming year when congressmen from the northeast start asking for extra billions of $ over the regular subsidy, to subsidize people's heating oil bills.
Oh and with increased use of public transportation, it'll be interesting to see if the subsidies to that go up, or will the increased ridership fill the trains and buses and actually make them closer to breaking-even?
Review of Bike to Work day from SW New Hampshire: didn't see a single person on a bike on my 4 mile commute. 2 people I work with don't own a car though, and bike regularly, so I'll see them later.
It's no one's fault. GM and the others are following the market.
Listen, in 1982, only the big companies had main frame computers and hardly any desktops. The cars were garbage as a reaction to EPA/gas mileage (shrunken DeVille comes to mind in mid-'80's). MS who?
The point is the past matters little. I expect 4 electric motors driving my wheels with 100HP equivalent each and charge lasting 300 miles... and not take 20 years to make it mass market.
Get the heck going and get us 50 MPG or straight electric fast. No complaints, no excuses. Period.
Personally, I would rather save the ANWR a few more decades. It will eventually get drilled, but why not wait. The oil will continue to get more valuable. The oil extraction technology will also get better as time goes on.
"All the worries about oil spills are really unfounded."
The high gasoline prices are being driven by people consuming more and more gasoline. It is a world wide issue. I just read somewhere that car sales in China were up 18% from a year ago.
Even if we were getting oil from ANWR now it is likely that KSA would have slowed expansion of their oil production. We would still have the same price because the OPEC countries are hooked on $100+ barrel of oil.
The high price of gasoline has actually made me feel better. The prices are forcing people to think about driving and what type of car they buy. Maybe some people will make long term decisions. One can only hope.
The oil will not last forever. We need time to transition to other energy sources.
I honestly do not believe that the Feds or the states want US to use less oil. They are worried that raising taxes will lose them votes. So nothing gets done that is positive. We are in the same boat as the rest of the World. Only countries that think they can subsidize gas to avoid inflation are selling below market price. Here is an example of lame legislation out of the current Congress. Also, as Bush prepared to leave Washington, Senate Democrats introduced a resolution that would block $1.4 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia unless Riyadh agrees to increase its oil production by 1 million barrels per day. The Democrats said they introduced the measure to coincide with Bush's trip to send a message to Saudi Arabia that it should pump more oil to reduce the cost of gas for Americans.
So we cut off one of the few exports we have left. Just pandering for votes....
Wow, $23 for driving isn't bad, especially considering the fuel prices. Two weeks ago, I filled my girlfriend's LaCrosse from 1/4 tank and it cost $40. Last Saturday it took $42.25. Wonder what it'll be this week? I think Sunoco Regular was $3.75 this morning. Nuts!
What are the revised figures for the 1989 Cadillac Brougham w / 5.0 V-8?
Comments
Regards,
OW
I don't see a compelling reason to single-out the oil or gasoline industry, anymore than any other industry including farming. The military provides protection for all of our business to operate globally. The environment is fully capable of healing itself given a few decades, and the temporary change to the environment of burning a little gasoline or heating oil is not that different then if I burn 10 pounds of coal or 20Lb of wood.
If you think we should pay for our products, I hope you also support that we get a corresponding reduction in our taxes. But that would favor the wealthy then right, since they pay most of the taxes, and thus do the most subsidizing.
Higher gas prices will hopefully get us closer to cleaner more fuel efficient alternatives.
The fuel isn't the issue, as we know that electric and H2 are clean; the problem is the clean "energy" to make the clean fuels.
I hear flowery commercials by Chevron and Shell about how they "care" and are part of the "solution", but their actions don't seem very sincere to me.
You think solving our long-term energy issue is Chevron and Shell's responsibility? No. Their responsibility is to provide their current products to the market, and make a decent rate-of-return for the shareholders. They will invest in alternative energies if and when they make financial sense. Any $ they give to universities for researc, or special projects is basically a community service or charity.
I work for a corporation and we give some $ to the community, but we certainly aren't giving more than a fraction of our profit. While my company would certainly like to feed all the poor and needy, the stockholders are 1st in-line.
If you want someone to solve the long-term energy issues of the U.S. and world we have a DOE, the Congress, the President, and the U.N. which certainly have more power and money then the oil companies. But they don't because most people don't care or think about long-term, and thus don't demand it.
So until more people care or are affected, other then crying "I want mine", don't expect much to happen.
If I could make this happen , yes - we would launch a Manhattan-type-Project to make the 1st fusion reactor in 20 years.
Yeah, I paid $5.41/usgal the other day - but that was for premium. The price in different provinces vary but you would be hard pressed to get regular gas these days for under $1.20/litre ($4.50/gal). This is in CDN $ but still close these days to US $. I just look at prices across the pond and not so bad.
But not too worry, we still pay lots more for new cars and have higher taxes - so all is okay
I believe someone posted the subsidies paid to different businesses. Oil and natural gas received about $2 billion last year. Alternative energy about $8 billion. Farmers just got $60 billion per year over the next 5 years. Something is wrong with that picture. While I do believe much of the incentive to having our military presence in the Middle East is based on keeping the oil channels open. I do not think it plays a big part in the price. As long as there are people willing to risk their dollars on oil futures the price will be determined in that manner. It brings back to memory a few months ago when a trader paid over $100 per barrel for oil to say he was the first. Then sold the lot at a loss. Buying oil futures, pork bellies or OJ concentrate is a gamble. You can make big bucks and you can lose big bucks. I have friends that seem to love losing money that way. I am much too conservative.
The scars may be remediated or whatever, but you never get back what you lose.
Chevron and Shell are removing a natural resource that they don't really own. They just own the rights to drill and get the crude to market. The lease rights set out what they can do, and what they have to pay in "rent" for their right to drill. The mineral rights came from the crown or the state or the feds so "we the people" really own the resource.
It's not too much of a stretch then to require the extraction company do go beyond payment of royalty shares or remediation bonds and require them to invest x amount of money in alternative resource creation or other research. The results of that research hopefully would lead to discoveries of materials or processes that would replace the resource extracted and used up.
All we need to do is rework the woefully antiquated General Mining Act of 1872 and renegotiate the leases.
Only on federal or state lands in the U.S. Unlike all other countries, idividuals own the mineral rights to their lands, unless they sell them. Internationally, you're correct, the countries own the minerals.
I sure do not like the under handed way the environmentalist are trying to stop oil exploration in the Arctic. Making the Polar Bear and endangered species is lame. Drilling in the Arctic HAS NO impact on Polar Bears or the climate change.
There are several problems with this approach.
One, fossil fuels encompass more than oil. The term also includes natural gas and coal, which produce emissions when burned, too.
Second, not all fossil fuels are used for transportation. For that matter, not all oil is used for transportation.
Third, we HAVE made those who benefit from the use of fossil fuels mitigate their cost to the environment through the use of pollution control devices, which were mandated by the federal Clean Air Act. This act covers motor vehicles, power plants and other sources of pollutants generated by the burning of fossil fuels. The producers bore the cost of initially developing and implemeting these pollution control measures, and they passed them on to paying customers.
The idea that drivers are getting some sort of free ride in this regard is nonsense. What has happened is that, over time, we have been able to absorb the initial cost of meeting the regulations. The air today is cleaner in the U.S. than it has been since the Industrial Revolution accelerated in the wake of the Civil War.
Incidentally, the idea that pollution started with the widespread adaption of automobiles is inaccurate. Wood- and coal-burning stoves and locomotives were filthy, and the horses used as the primary source of transportation prior to the advent of the automobile produced their own emissions, which were pounded into dust and attracted disease-carrying insects (not to mention those emissions smelled really bad). Horses and mules died regularly, and the disposal of their carcasses was a serious sanitation issue. It was said that the horse manure in New York City could be smelled from miles away in the summer months.
If anything, you should be THANKING the petroleum industry, for giving us a cleaner source of fuel, that could be regulated and properly cleaned up (think we can put a catalytic converter on a horse?). We live longer, healthier lives than ever before, and we are richer than ever before, and the advent of the automobile, made possible by relatively inexpensive petroleum, has played a big part in bringing that about.
Fourth, most of our military resources aimed at ensuring a reliable supply of oil are concentrated in the Middle East...oops, we only get about 10-13 percent of our oil from the Middle East.
If U.S. military spending is subsidizing any oil users, it is those who live in European and Asian nations that purchase Middle Eastern oil and benefit from stability in that region.
And you'd make a lot of people happy when they get to chase the land men off their surface property when they find out a gas well is going to be drilled in their living room (or their backyard mountain is going to be scraped off).
Owning something means it can not legally be taken away, and you don't have to pay anymore money for it. Owning property in this country is nothing more than leasing or renting it from the government.
I also can't relate to your stating that using oil is a "loss". If blueberries are growing in my backyard, I shouldn't pick them, and eat them, because then they are gone, and my digestion creates waste?
Oil and gas are wonderful resources that we are using to give us a great lifestyle. The world would be an awful place without them - imagine what life is like if there is no automation to grow or transport food. Or you have to ride a horse everywhere. And you need to cut (no chainsaw) and chop wood to heat your house.
Surely we need to move to some other energy someday, and that will have negatives too - all physical processes require materials and produce wastes.
Blueberries replenish themselves within 365 days. Oil takes a bit longer to replenish...like 365 times several million. :shades: When you use up something faster than it replenishes, it's a net loss.
I don't know if I agree with that. Yes Europe may get a greater percentage of their oil from the Middle East but that doesn't necessarily mean they are more exposed to a disruption in this supply. Take away Middle East oil and Europe will start bidding against us for our supplies. The net result is that we will all be affected equally. So the US has just as much at stake in protecting these supplies as anyone else. Actually the US has more at stake since we use the most oil. Probably the only reason we get a relatively small amount of our oil from the Middle East is due to transportation costs.
Not where I live. Where I live we will have $5 gas within a year, I'm sure.
We will have $4.25 gas in two weeks.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Aside from some major fitness changes, here's how riding to work has had an impact on my visits to the gas pump. During much of the winter and periods of severe rain I'll drive to work more often. If I drive all the time I have to fill up maybe every 5 days (around 6 times per month). When I ride to work the majority of the time that drops my gas station visits to around 2 times per month. I'm suddenly using only about 1/3 of the gas I had been. Cool beans, eh?
Okay, back to the "what in the world are we going to do as gas prices keep going up" discussions. There are choices between the two extremes of driving or getting out the Nikes. Think outside the box.
I agree. I recognize the government's need to fund itself but property taxes have always been my least favorite method, which is an understatement.
Surely we need to move to some other energy someday, and that will have negatives too - all physical processes require materials and produce wastes.
I don't agree. We are incapable of either producing or destroying energy. We merely convert it from one form into a more usable form. There's no law of physics that states this conversion process must be damaging or disruptive. Look at plants. They convert solar energy into stored energy and the process is actually beneficial to us; turning CO2 into Oxygen.
I ride it to work every day, including tomorrow......:)
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
RUG $3.78...
Mid $4.01 (New record over $4)...
Prem $4.15...
Diesel $4.45...
E85 $3.30...
Alaska hit $4.02 for RUG. I think they are the first state to hit $4 according to AAA. Way to go Alaska!
Calif. has diesel at an average of $4.74. That is almost equal to NY at $4.76. The race is neck and neck, who will make it to $5 first?
me: the only difference is the time-frame to do it naturally. Give me a fusion reactor and we'll make all the oil you want. The chemical reaction of burning oil/gasoline can be reversed, can be reversed today, but it is uneconomical. Have cheap energy and you can put the C, O, and H back together - anyone know where you can get some H2O and CO2.
me: where did I say man creates or destroys energy? I said we'd need to use a new energy source.
tpe: Look at plants. They convert solar energy into stored energy.
The energy is produced at the sun, and what the plant receives is from the sun. The Sun has used some of its materials and converted them. In the nuclear fusion there the products of each reaction are leading to elements that are "waste" - by waste in this case - meaning not fuseable any further. The Sun has a finite supply of fuel, and one day will not produce any substantial energy. All processes in the universe increase entropy - see 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
I better check my mail, I'm still waiting for the first PENNY. :mad:
Usually, when those big buck statistics about farm subsidies are thrown about they are talking about tax breaks given to big multi-nationals like Cargill. Even those farmers who get "paid" not to grow crops only get an average of $49 per acre. Only huge growers get any substantial money.
90% of all subsidies go to the top 10% of farms by size.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
My ride to work is 11 miles one way. There are no sidewalks or bike paths. Most of my journey is on the interstate where biking is illegal. In the winter it is below zero and there is two feet of snow.
If I biked to work it would eliminate all need for gas...I would be dead before I got there.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Again I disagree. The energy is converted at the sun. The sun will eventually burn out. We don't have much control over that. In the meantime the sun is sending us enough of it's energy that we shouldn't have any worries if we were smart enough about harnessing it.
Eminent domain would be the most obvious exception to prove your rule.
I also can't relate to your stating that using oil is a "loss".
You said something to the effect that the environment heals itself. I was pointing out that you can remediate the "scars on the land" but even so, it'll never be the same again.
Back on topic, my self puller gave up the ghost today. So I'm going to be saving gas (for a few days anyway).
If I biked to work it would eliminate all need for gas...I would be dead before I got there.
Sounds like where I live in So. MD. Not only are there no bike paths but there is no public transportation. There might even be a law against carpooling, but I'm not sure about that.
Alaska Journal of Commerce
A handful of Alaska villages have run out of heating oil, and are either having to bundle up for the winter or pay more than double the going price to restock.
Meanwhile, some data indicates families by the dozens are leaving their homes and moving to the cities.
The communities of Ambler in Northwest Alaska; Nikolski and Perryville, in the Aleutians; Kodiak Island's Karluk; and St. George and St. Paul in the Bering Sea all had to have fuel oil shipments flown in during the past few weeks.
Flying heating oil into villages pushes the price from the average of $4.25 a gallon to as much as $11 a gallon, said Delise Calcote, office manager with Alaska Inter-Tribal Council.
Increased fuel prices and long, cold winters, as well as a reduction in the number of shippers, have left these villages with no choice but to fly in fuel.
Worried about gas prices hitting $4 a gallon and beyond? Imagine if they were $6, $7 or even $8 a gallon. Those levels are a certain possibility should Congress pass cap-and-trade legislation, which could face a vote in early June.
Oil is trading at record levels, in excess of $120 a barrel. Leading Republican Sens. James Inhofe (Okla.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) both told the Business & Media Institute (BMI) energy prices would drastically increase if the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) is signed into law.
“The studies show it would be directly affected, would be a $1.50 a gallon, in addition to what it is today,” Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said to (BMI).
“The Democrats are the reason we have high prices at the pumps, and we’re not going to be able to alleviate that until we start producing again in America,” Inhofe added. “And I knew this was happening way back, well 10 years ago, when President Clinton vetoed the bill that would have allowed us to drill in ANWR. I said on the Senate floor that day 10 years ago that in 10 years we would regret this. It’s now 10 years later.”
Inhofe is delusional if he thinks the oil in ANWR is going to make a substantial difference in prices. He is in the same category as people that pray for rain or lower gasoline prices. We have a real world out there that needs understanding. His knowledge of science or anything related to the earth is about as close to zero as you can get. His attitude is drill anywhere, anyhow. He is big on beliefs but short on facts.
so if everyone does it, then it's ok?
you don't care that's how it works? Don't think we need change?
Washington's has you and alot of voters just where they want you.
How much time have you spent in ANWR? The oil in ANWR could replace any one of our top 4 importers for a conservative 30 years. Having spent the last 25 years of my employment in and around ANWR I am very familiar with the area. Where ANWR borders with Canada they are drilling and producing oil. Are they directional drilling into our oil pool. Who knows? I do know that it is a good source of oil that would give US some breathing room on finding alternatives that are not coming forth very quickly. Those that are against drilling in ANWR have very little knowledge of the area. It is no different than the rest of the Arctic. The Caribou and polar bears have increased over the years of oil production in the Arctic. All the worries about oil spills are really unfounded. The Navy found the original NPR because it was laying in pools. The oil producers are more conscientious than most industries in the lower 48.
Personally it makes little difference to me if folks like paying $4-$5-$6 or $10 per gallon. The impact on my life is negligible. And you know what? It is the young people that are voting in all these nut cases to tell them how to live and squeeze them for every cent they make. People are going to get what they deserve.
Remember Ms Pelosi said if we put the Democrats in charge of Congress your gas prices will go down. They were under $2.50 per gallon when she made that promise.
The advantage of this title is that it will still be valid when the Gallon shoots past $8 in not so many years.
Let's get this done. Now!
Regards,
OW
It was a great concept, but it only went 80 miles on a charge, which limited it to around-town use, which meant you had to own another car for any interstate travel. Kind of negated the purpose of the car in the first place.
Plus, as you all fondly remember, gasoline cost $1 per gallon back then. Who would sacrifice the comfort and convenience of an SUV just to save $15 per week on gas? So the EV-1 died. And conspiracy theories abound about who killed it.
I'm certain that oil and auto industry lobbyists played a part in its demise. However, the consumer bears the blame, because we all knew about it, thought it was kinda neato, then went to the Ford dealer to buy an Explorer.
Now that gas prices have quadrupled, many of us want to blame car makers, oil producers, the government, or all of the above. Certainly, they do whatever makes them the most money, even if they have to break the law to do it. But they are only a few million, while we consumers are a few hundred million. We complain a lot, but then we go to the station and buy gasoline. So, again, we bear the blame.
Bottom line: we all had a chance to do something 10 years ago, but we didn't. And not just the EV-1, but we could have bought the first generation Prius, or a few years later the Honda Insight. Instead, consumers not only rejected those cars, but riduculed anyone who bought them. That mockery continued until last year, as I, a hybrid owner, can testify.
Ain't nobody mocking me now.
But consumers are 4,000 days late and $4 a gallon short. So whenever any of us complains too loudly about gas prices, remember that we had a chance to prevent this, and we blew it.
.
I am 1500 miles south east from the epicenter and I did not feel it at all, being in Hainan island. This will be a painful reminder (maybe 40 thousand deaths) that buildings in China should also be designed to withstand sismic activity. I asked this question when I bought my appartment in Shenzhen in 2005 and people found this question weird. One year later, Shenzhen was struck by a small (level 3 richter) one....
Are KIAs popular over there?
Since the US has become a net importer of oil we've had presidents and Congresses of both parties in all combination and have yet to come up with a coherent plan to drastically reduce our oil consumption. As long as this remains so we will have fluctuations and a steadily rising cost.
Four dollar gas has already arrived as of this morning. Ultra 93 is $4.01 at the Sunoco on Rising Sun Avenue. Good thing I topped-off the Caddy with cheap $3.97 Ultra after work yesterday!
For all intents and purposes, it's here, too. I topped off the 5th Ave last nite at the Shell station next to the liquor store. 93 was something like $3.999 per gallon. There's a BP nearby that was up to $4.099! I still had a fairly full tank and this was just a top-off, so I just put in some $3.769 87 octane. Total bill came out to $23.76, for a week's worth of driving. Not too bad, considering a week's worth of beer came out to about $59-60! :surprise:
As for fuel economy, well last Thursday when I topped off, I'm almost positive that the pump shut off early, because there's no way that beast would get 15 mpg in mostly local driving, even if I was taking it easy on it. Sure enough, on this last fillup, I went 64.3 miles and it took 6.304 gallons. That comes out to a dismal 10.2 mpg! However, since it most likely wasn't full the last time, when I add up the total miles driven, and the total gallons from yesterday and last Thursday, it comes out to 12.5 mpg. Which is still nothing to crow about, but reasonable, I guess, for a 360-2bbl from the disco era that has to lug around nearly two tons in mostly local, short-trip driving.
I tried looking up the EPA estimates for my '79 5th Ave, but I think that year they only published the city MPG estimate, which was 14. In 1978 they published city and highway figures, but the R-body wasn't in production yet. The closest thing I could find, size/weight/engine-wise, was a 1978 Fury/Monaco/Magnum/Cordoba with the 360-2bbl, and it was rated at 14/22. A 1978 Newport, which was still a big mastodon that year, was actually rated an optimistic 13/20 with the 360-2, but I imagine it would take an act of God to get that kind of economy out of one of those beasts.
Still, considering how they changed the calculations in 1985 and again in 2007 to yield lower EPA estimates, I wouldn't be surprised if 12.5 mpg is about what my car would've tested out at using 1985 procedures, and probably way better than what 2007 numbers would yield.
What about the income-tax rebate-checks that are being sent out? I bet almost everyone is going to cash their's right? So yes if the laws are written such that everyone gets a rebate or subsidy, that's really not unfair. I agree with you that the tax code should be simple, and there should be no subsidies to any econiomic group or corporation, and there should be no foreign aid (especially when we're running a deficit!). Until people wake up and vote for some politicians, or realize that an Independent is not a Communist, [non-permissible content removed] or freak, we have the current system.
If you don't like subsidies, wait until this coming year when congressmen from the northeast start asking for extra billions of $ over the regular subsidy, to subsidize people's heating oil bills.
Oh and with increased use of public transportation, it'll be interesting to see if the subsidies to that go up, or will the increased ridership fill the trains and buses and actually make them closer to breaking-even?
Review of Bike to Work day from SW New Hampshire: didn't see a single person on a bike on my 4 mile commute. 2 people I work with don't own a car though, and bike regularly, so I'll see them later.
Listen, in 1982, only the big companies had main frame computers and hardly any desktops. The cars were garbage as a reaction to EPA/gas mileage (shrunken DeVille comes to mind in mid-'80's). MS who?
The point is the past matters little. I expect 4 electric motors driving my wheels with 100HP equivalent each and charge lasting 300 miles... and not take 20 years to make it mass market.
Get the heck going and get us 50 MPG or straight electric fast. No complaints, no excuses. Period.
Everything else will fall into place.
Regards,
OW
"All the worries about oil spills are really unfounded."
You seem to be forgetting the Exxon Valdez. Any kind of drilling or oil activity carries with it risk. We had a large salt water spill (from drilling operations) two years ago in ND.
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2006/07/13/news/local/117698.txt
The high gasoline prices are being driven by people consuming more and more gasoline. It is a world wide issue. I just read somewhere that car sales in China were up 18% from a year ago.
Even if we were getting oil from ANWR now it is likely that KSA would have slowed expansion of their oil production. We would still have the same price because the OPEC countries are hooked on $100+ barrel of oil.
The high price of gasoline has actually made me feel better. The prices are forcing people to think about driving and what type of car they buy. Maybe some people will make long term decisions. One can only hope.
The oil will not last forever. We need time to transition to other energy sources.
Also, as Bush prepared to leave Washington, Senate Democrats introduced a resolution that would block $1.4 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia unless Riyadh agrees to increase its oil production by 1 million barrels per day. The Democrats said they introduced the measure to coincide with Bush's trip to send a message to Saudi Arabia that it should pump more oil to reduce the cost of gas for Americans.
So we cut off one of the few exports we have left. Just pandering for votes....
What are the revised figures for the 1989 Cadillac Brougham w / 5.0 V-8?
Do you get better mileage with the beer or with the cheap Ultra $3.97 a gallon gas?