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
Looks like Exxon gets permits so they can sit on them and prevent other companies from developing the fields. They sat on Port Thomson for 30 years. (Alaska Journal of Commerce)
What's clear is that you can't rely on big oil to plan for our energy future.
There is a kit advertised that you can build and install on any vihicle that will extract Hydrogen from water and inject it into the cabbrator, to reduce the use of Gasoline by half. (???)
I have a 2001 Tracker 2.oL, 4 cylinder w/auto trans. I have been considering installing a kit just to see if and how well it works.
If you are interested, take a look at:
http://tinyurl.com/6jvvo5
If anyone has any experience (Bad or Good) with this "do it yourself" kit, let me know before I spend any bucks on it.
It would appear to be a good fit for the Tracker, if it indeed works.
Regards,
snichol
You can trust Exxon to make money. Pt. Thomson is a gas field with no market, so they did not 'sit on' it. To cycle gas to remove the relatively small volume of condensate associated with it is expensive, and Exxon is proposing it only to protect their interest now that the gas pipeline appears imminent. Once a gas pipeline gets built for Prudhoe, Pt Thomson (which by itself doesn't justify a gas pipeline) will be developed. The state is making this an issue so that they can get big $$ on these proven resources by reselling the leases. Exxon may be greedy, but they're not stupid (as someone would be 'sitting' on an attractive project).
This is being discussed elsewhere (hydrogen fuel cells, gas saving gizmos), but these hydrogen devices can't (not just don't) work. They use engine-generated electrical power (from the gasoline) to make hydrogen, then burn the hydrogen. The engine only gets 20% of the energy back in mechanical power from the fuel (any fuel, gas or hydrogen) it burns - the rest is lost as heat out the radiator or exhaust pipe. So it's a five to one losing proposition to use the engine to make the hydrogen.
Like you said, proven reserves.
Moving on....
Why would we do that? They are only interested in their future, just as we should be interested in our own.
Pt Thomson while it is a viable field has some downsides. They will have to extend the pipeline to produce that field. There are an estimated 300 Million barrels of oil. Will an extension pipeline be justified for that much oil After all they have considered ANWR not worth the effort with its 16 Billion barrels of reserve. Also allocation into the diminished carrying capacity of the main pipeline has to be considered. I think it is just a political football. Until a gas pipeline is built this constant talk about the huge amounts of gas is just rhetoric.
http://204.126.119.8/oil/products/slideshows/ogactivity_feb1999/sld044.htm
A friend just sold his work truck, a box truck for his home remodeling/construction work. He was tickled pink to find a buyer at the price he did. He's using his Pacifica as a work truck now.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Friday, June 06, 2008
DARTMOUTH, Mass — Authorities say a couple trying to beat the high cost of gasoline accidentally caused a fire that burned their apartment complex.
Fire Chief Richard Arruda says the couple had about 45 gallons of gasoline in nine plastic jugs stacked in a closet that also housed an air conditioning unit.
The gasoline fumes apparently set off Thursday's fire, which was quickly put out by a sprinkler system.
No one was seriously hurt, but residents of eight units of the complex were displaced.
Investigators believe the couple was storing the gas because of rising prices. Officials say they might face civil penalties for violating the fire code.
Random Apartment Fires
I was in a minivan with a bunch of friends (seven of us altogether, riding together to pool gas expense), and because we were travelling through LA with no intention of stopping there, I was in the carpool lane - in LA it is a separate lane demarcated by a double or quadruple yellow with only certain entry and exit points.
Anyway, that van pulls its best mileage at 60-65 mph (below that it tends to do a lot of gear-hunting when fully loaded), but just to try and accomodate other drivers I set the cruise on 70. Well, that wasn't enough for LA drivers. I had people in XTerras and Escalades zooming up on me from behind, thinking that c-a-r-p-o-o-l means "light speed lane", sitting on my rear bumper, flashing their high beams, then illegally crossing the quadruple yellows to go around me and resume the 90 mph they had been driving.
The only courteous driver I witnessed the whole time was this older couple in a black SEC500 (500 SEC? I always get my Mercedes designations muddled) who followed me at a polite distance for a long way, probably at least 40 miles. So if you're out there you two: thank you! :-)
LA drivers are out of control, but clearly not out of gas money. Driving an XTerra at 90 mph, I can only shudder to imagine what kind of gas mileage that produces. It is a high, upright vehicle with the aerodynamics of a brick, powered by a large-displacement V-6.
I'm sure there are plenty of people here who think I should have just been in the slow lane, but the problem in LA (on the 405) is that traffic crops up out of nowhere, leaving no time to get into the carpool lane before everything comes to a halt. Do I have any supporters out there who think it was OK for me to do what I did? I should add that at 70 mph I was already exceeding the posted limit by 5 mph. :confuse:
By the way, we had the pleasure of paying $4.59/gallon for regular in Orange County (Shell station) on the way down, and $4.79/gallon on the highway (Valero station) on the way back. Worse even than we feared when we planned the trip. :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Since self-employed and business driving is tax-deductible, why couldn't the feds extend the same benefit to employees for their commuting costs? It could be argued that getting employees to the worksite is a cost-of-doing-business.
So why not use the same rules that are in place now for workers when they travel on company business, but just extend them to everyone who drives to the office or factory to work? The tax income lost could be madeup by increasing some other tax.
To Nippon: if there's 1 lane, I don't see anything inappropriate with driving +5 mph over the limit. If you were under the limit, I'd say you should increase your speed.
Please clarify: Do you mean "they hate life" because it sucks being in SoCal, or because it sucks being on the freeway?
Because most people I know that live/have lived in SoCal really like the area. They hate the traffic, but they love SoCal and the beaches and the weather.
I noticed that even after I had passed LAX, I STILL couldn't see the Santa Monica mountains this time, it was so smoggy.... :sick:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Anyone living there who hates it, PLEASE leave and maybe the air will clean up a little and the traffic will die down a little.................
Plus look at all the money I saved by not replacing any clutches.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yeah I see that but I have to wonder if that is a good comparison. Most city drivers I know drive automatics as its a lot easier to drive in heavy traffic and most manual drivers I know live much less congested areas. my guess is that if you compared the two in identical driving conditions they would be much closer.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Well, I dunno about at 90 mph, but last year, my friends and I went on a trip, and took my buddy's '06 Xterra. On the stretches where I drove, we averaged around 20 mpg. When my friend, who owns it, but doesn't like to drive on long trips, drove, we averaged a bit less. Honestly, at 80 mph, it feels like it's barely moving. It has a 5-speed automatic, so in top gear it's really not revving that hard. Now when I was driving it, I was probably averaging 70-80, and there was a lot of mountain driving. However, I tried to make it a point to accelerate slowly whenever possible, and not vary my speed a whole lot.
When my friend drove, he didn't drive as fast, but would accelerate faster and brake harder, so that hurt its economy. On the way back home, I drove the whole trip, and the weather was so bad we were averaging more like 55-65, and I swear the thing was just as economical with me driving it at 70-80 as with me driving 55-65!
I'm sure at 90 though, it would tend to guzzle. Especially if you're getting there in a heavy-footed fashion, rather than gently getting up to cruising speed.
I just made the same trip this past weekend in my 2000 Intrepid though, and managed to get 32.1 mpg. Tended to stay round 58-65, with an occasional spurt to 70, maybe once to 75, momentarily, on a downhill run. When I had the Corolla, I didn't use the a/c at all, although with the Intrepid, there were some moments when I had to. Not so much in the morning, but going home it was still pretty humid.
Normally when I'd make that trip, I'd probably average 65-75, with an occasional run up to 80-85. Fuel economy would run more like 27-28. I wonder though, if I had driven the Corolla like that, how much its economy would have dropped off?
Here in NY no native born people will do farm work as the welfare benefits are worth about 33K per year. Most farm work is done by foreign born people who often don't have the documentation to get a driver's license let alone a car.
What you say about the socio-economic implications of the gas price increase are valid though. High gas prices are the most regressive tax you can imagine. They hit the working poor the hardest. These people are also the least likely to be able to afford more fuel efficient vehicles.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
For my GT Eclipse the AT gets one MPG better than the MT. Go figure. :confuse:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
My 1991 Olds with 3.8L would get 30+ mpg at 70mph on the highway. When my kids drove it they would get19mpg. I wonder why????
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
It won't do what a 4-cyl auto or manual Malibu would do around locally, but I can't afford to kick it to the curb and replace it because it's very reasonable as mileage goes.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My opinion - nothing wrong with what you did... you were in the carpool lane, with a load of folks in the vehicle, you were driving at a reasonable speed, so no problem. Having said that, one of the reasons I rarely use the carpool lane is that I hate being stuck in a lane with no way for the person in front of me to get out of my way, me to go around them, or the person behind me to pass if they so desire.
Go figure.
I wonder how far he actually rode, or if that was just a 1-mile photo op, like I've encountered with other politicians during some of my long rides. :sick: As someone on another forum pointed out, his seat was too low and the rear tire needed air. At least he was wearing a helmet.
Anyhoo...I just read in today's paper that we had the lowest average gas prices in the country Sunday at $3.802/gal here in MO. For me it was just adding a second water bottle since the temp was 94F.
Don't do it, instead of buying that kit send me the money you would spend on it. I will then use my physic powers to maximize your trackers MPG. I will work as well as that "Do it yourself" Hydrogen Fuel Cells.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I live 17 miles from work and get about 27 during the summer, and about 24 during the winter. In MN we all have to waste a ton of gas to get the car vaguely comfortable and to defrost the windows.
On a side note, I think the government could go a step further than the bill recently passed about making sure every vehicle gets the required 30 or something mpg. I think they should also push car manufacturers to install speed governors that are closer to the highest posted limit. As it is right now I think that cars which have governors I think they're mostly set around 90. I'm thinking 75, that would nip the whole speeding thing in the butt. It wouldn't be popular, but something has to be done. A national speed limit won't happen again, but preventing people from going a million miles an hour would help. I must admit that at one time I was the person exceeding the limit by a good 10 miles, but now I've started a game with myself, trying to see just how high I can get my mpg reading. So far I keep losing. I can't get above 29 or 30 for the life of me.
Anyway sorry to ramble.
No thanks, I'll bet you get better mpg by keeping the tailgate down on your Ranger, or is it up, or maybe off. I've even heard a 45 degree angle works too.
70 miles as a standalone would not be a dealbreaker - For me the issue is really time in transit. As an example, I used to have a team in Philly, and would drive down once or twice a week. Since I was going against traffic in both directions, I'd be able to leave my house somewhere between 7/7:30 and be on Arch St before 9.a.m. I'd be a whole lot less frustrated than when I drove in to my office in Manhattan - only 17 miles or so door to door, yet it would take anywhere from 45 minutes to one and a half hours.
Now my morning 'commute' 17 miles is easy. I spend 6 minutes on the freeway and 11 in city traffic, which at 4:00 in the morning most lights are green so I can more or less set the cruise and forget it.
I think governors are set a lot higher than 90 mph. According to car&driver's comparison test of economy cars, the slowest compact economy car was the Ford Focus, with a top speed of 112 mph with governor limiting. I'm not even sure all cars have a governor...
Cars governed at 75 would be an even more insane Orwellian ideal than what is seen in England.
I think the poster meant to say, "just send me a $20 dollar bill." :P
It's amazing how the spammers have come out of the woodwork now that gas prices are through through the roof.
(btw, haven't politicians, especially Democratic ones, learned not to wind up in a photo op wearing a helmet?)
Probably, but I just noticed that he was wearing long pants with no cuff protector. I get the idea that he doesn't regularly ride a bike.
That may change soon. There's an article in today's local paper about building a 2nd nuclear plant in Callaway County, about 100 miles west of St. Louis. Total cost would be $6 billion to $11 billion, depending on who you ask. Anti-nuclear activists are already sharpening their swords.
I guess if a major earthquake from the New Madrid fault doesn't get us the radioactive fallout will. :sick:
Key word is done safely, which requires following regulations. And we all know how much corporations LOVE to follow regulations, right? :shades:
Are you really sitting on the coal?
If ND wanted to build two small 50,000 barrel a day coal to diesel refineries they would need 30 million tons of coal a year. In other words, the coal production for the state of ND would double.
And, in case you have not seen some of the recent news reports, there is a shortage of those super sized tires they use on mining trucks. The rapid growth of countries like China and India are sending shock waves through ever industry from coal to steel.
" and have not built a nuclear plant in 30 years."
That is true for the U.S., however, the few that were tried did not make it due to cost overruns and other financial problems. A single power company generally does not have the money to finance a nuke plant. It is a very risky business.
" We will not drill and we won't let our private industry do what they do best, produce!"
Not true. If you do some checking you will see that the drilling industry is going just about flat out. Rig and labor shortages are a big problem. There is also the issue of nationalism, increased taxes and higher steel costs. Poking a few holes off Florida or in ANWR is not going to make that big a difference, especially not in the next few years.
Many of us have said this before, but it is worth repeating, get use to the "pain" of higher fuel prices.
You also know how the government loves to regulate, right?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
If France can power their country with nuclear plants, then so can we.
A series of nuclear plants in remote, uninhabited areas of this country that the federal government already owns (think central Nevada) would provide plenty of electricity to power homes and businesses. It would also recharge a whole lot of electric cars (a la the Chevy Volt), which would reduce and eventually eliminate our need for foreign oil.
We'd still need petroleum for the airlines, the trucking industry and the military. But we could fill that need with domestic production, and cut OPEC out completely.
Wouldn't that be fun?
.