I agree there is plenty of energy around. Of course, the trick is to harness it and make it usable/cost efficient. Unlike houses that can be modified to use solar energy, etc., it seems especially difficult to design new sources of energy for cars. Thus, the hope would be to conserve oil long enough for the energy companies or the gov't to come up with viable alternatives. I'm certainly not holding my breathe waiting for that to happen any time soon!
As far as what I've done with prices high - - I've reduced my automobile gas use by about 280 gallons this past year between getting a fuel efficient car and carpooling 3-4 days per week. It DOESN'T mean I never do anything wasteful but at least I'm doing better than before so occasional indulgences don't bring on a guilt trip.
Maybe I am late to this thread (didn't read all of the posts), but gasoline is still in many cases NOT the most expensive part of running the vehicle- depreciation (the cost of the vehicle itself over time) is. In my case, I drive my Volvo S-70 about 18K per year, it gets overall 23mpg for my driving, and I feed in premium (may not need it, but it's running great with 126K, not that big a deal). But that means that at $3.50/gallon, I am still spending roughly $2,740/year on fuel. And if I buy a new car to save fuel, it will be surely $3K-$5K depreciation per year for at least the first few years. And needless to say, the vehicle I buy as a replacement will surely have fuel costs too- maybe save $1,000 per year if I really downsize? And who is to say that gasoline won't drop at some point to $2.40/gallon (or maybe $5?). Sure, I think the next time that many people buy something new, they will consider something smaller, or certainly more fuel efficient, but the economics of buying just for some meager savings are not there.
Nah, it's not "communism" or anything remotely close to it---it's called "rationing" or a less severe form would be "allocating". It's quite a normal thing for a democracy to allocate resources in an emergency. America has done this many times (e.g., gas in WW II was rationed, and steel during the Korean War was allocated. I'm sure there are more examples).
The citizen of a democratic state doesn't have the right to consume any amount of what he wants to consume. There is no such right written or implied. To some extent he has the right to buy as much as he wants, but he cannot hoard nor can he over-consume in an emergency.
Rationing would have little affect on the price of gas except on the black market. I don't think you will see Congress doing anything to upset the apple cart. They have us paying higher prices which pleases the oil companies & our neighbors to the North and South. That puts more money into the war chests of the Congressmen and women. They get re-elected and we get to pay the bills. Those in control, know how far to push us. As long as we will pay they will sell. I do not see much conserving around here. I watched my neighbor go down the hill alone, to town and back 4 times today. How much gas would you say she used in her LX470? Hint: the closest store is 3 miles away. The mall is 8 miles.
I kinda like the gas guzzler tax idea, but only if revenues were strictly allocated and regulated by law. This could be implemented very gradually, to give automakers time to adjust supply to demand as the tax kicks in. I'd want the tax revenue to go directly to the common good and back to drivers is some other fashion, e.g., mass transportation grants.
I might even like to offer free Fast Trak toll transducers to certain type of fuel-efficient cars with say a $500 credit built into them. We could put different types of vehicles on different "guzzler" standards, such as "no sports car can get under 12 mpg or they'll be taxed" or "no RV can get under 10 mpg" etc.
I'd even give out "conservation medals" that would be really hard to get.
I like additional gas taxes to reduce consumption. There is no additional cost to regulate it. You just "pay at the pump" as always. The guzzler tax would also encourage more people to buy only what they need or at least think about fuel consumption when they buy.
Yes, that is a good way to regulate consumption, too. So the dollar rules the day - you want to consume more, pay for it one way or the other. This solution is similar to what another poster was saying - let gas price climb to $5 or $6 a gallon, then we'll see the effect.
I don't think there is enough shortage of gas right now to call for rationing or allocation. And, that might lead to black market or an underground oil economy, too. Will be difficult to gauge who needs how much. But, I am sure formulas can be worked out. However, don't you think that it is still some form of coercion?
You are right, gas is still cheap in America. However, gas prices are making an impact. In the past (10 years back) we used to budget driving cost based on depreciation only. Routine maintenance, gas and insurance were changes compared to it. May be $50 apiece, while depreciation was several 100's. Now all these are becoming comparable, and a sizeable chunk of the middle class income. I see this as a lowering of American living standards from what it used to be - equating it with a lower proportion of disposable income. This is not good news for businesses - as a direct result, retail sales could slow down, spiraling us down into another "r".
I sincerely hope somebody does something before that.
...yet no one will broach the idea of increasing the supply.
Build more refineries; drill for more oil; and construct coal gasification and thermal depolymerization facilities.
That'll bring the prices down WITHOUT needing to conserve.
...
But that'd be bad, m'kay. Cause like it'd make the earth asplode or something. Or maybe cause our children to become three-eyed frogmen from beneath the sea.
If supply increases and demand increases along with it, then the price doesn't go down. Sure, you can drill in Alaska for another 6 months' worth of oil, but I doubt that will drive the price down very much, if at all.
The more remote the oil is, the harder to find and extract, the more it will cost per barrel.
I think the "drill for more" plan is logical enough but too short-sighted for what's really going on with world oil supply, peak oil, etc.
The bad/good news is that,per CNN, a 1 mpg increase in fuel economy across the US passenger car fleet saves 375,000 barrels of oil per day. As we purchase diesel cars look at the potential reduced consumption!!!! So nobody wants to cooperate by slowing 5 mph? Fine,as long as prices stay up we will go diesel and regardless of speed save a lot of oil to buy time to come up with better solutions.
I did a long road trip yesterday and decided to experiment with various speeds. Here's my results on HWY 680 in northern California
55 mph -- impossible, dangerous, draws hostility.
62 mph -- the absolute minimal acceptable speed on this freeway. A bit dicey but do-able and practical.
62-65 mph -- the minimal realistic speed I need to maintain the car with traffic flow.
This is a bit slower than I normally drive (even at 62 mph I was being passed on the left AND the right at 10 mph faster), and it looks like my fuel mileage went from my usual 33-34 to 35-36.
So slowing down seems to work, but there is, for some of us on certain roads, a bit of anxiety because not all of our brother motorists are with the program.
Yes, true but you have to dodge the entering traffic now and then and go to lane #2, or the occasional RV lumbering along at 55---although I was passed by an RV towing a car while I was doing 65 mph. Can you even imagine the fuel that guy is sucking up? I figure at that speed he'll need 100 gallons each fillup at 6 mpg, so 600 miles is costing him $345, or .57 cents a mile to drive.
ROVER ISN'T KIDDING -- In L.A., they do that (not in the civilized North however)...they'll drive at 60 mph on the shoulder to pass a line of traffic, then cut back in the stream as the line exits an off-ramp.
Sure, you can drill in Alaska for another 6 months' worth of oil
I hope you don't really believe that. The average estimate for the ANWR area is 16 billion barrels. How long will that last at 1 million barrels per day? Remember they are still producing oil in the 9 billion barrel Prudhoe Bay field. That field went on line 30 years ago. That is a million barrels a day less needed from foreign sources.
Yeah the total will be about 6 months to a year of our total consumption (that is, if that were the only source). Sure you can spoon it out a cupful a day and it'll last forever, that's true.
An act of desperation at best that really doesn't address the problem at all IMO. Akin to the junkie breaking up the furniture in his house to stay warm?
The only change I saw in CA when the 55 MPH speed limit was repealed is different signs on the highway. People drove 70+ all the time during the 55 MPH era. Except when they detected radar.
This is a bit slower than I normally drive (even at 62 mph I was being passed on the left AND the right at 10 mph faster), and it looks like my fuel mileage went from my usual 33-34 to 35-36.
And in 1,000 miles of driving you will have saved less than 2 gallons. Was it worth it? For me the answer would be a definite no. If it's okay to burn a little extra gas on recreational pursuits it should also be okay to burn a little extra gas to reduce stress.
I think we are in agreement that this type of law just isn't going to work very well. Laws that attempt to change the behavior of a majority of the population don't generally succeed. Laws that curb the behavior of a very small minority often do work.
The only time I recall a law working on the vast majority of the population was the anti-littering law. Took a long time but it worked. I think part of the reason was community censorship of the offenders. Not sure we'd see that in a 55 mph rule.
REDUCING SPEED -- I'm okay with 65 mph but no way I'm going slower---it's dangerous. But at 65 maybe there's less wear and tear on the car and I can save a few bucks a week.
additional increases in fuel prices increases the prices of products...some which are more essential than fuel. you want our food prices to increase radically? you want it to have a negative impact on labor?
That is still a million barrels a day closer to oil independence. It is a moot point however. When the oil companies are ready to produce ANWR it WILL go online. I guarantee it. There is not a Senator or Congressman that is not beholden to oil money. Currently they are producing what the Pipeline will handle. They do not need ANWR yet with the NPR just coming online.
Oil independence is mathematically impossible without another energy source kicking in IMO. ANWR won't even make a noticeable blip in the scheme of things. It's junkie-thinking all over again if you ask me. Having lived in Manhattan many years, I know how junkies think :P
1 million barrels a day is the highest estimate I've heard for ANWR. I've also read that even if we started drilling today it wouldn't be producing at this level for about 15 years. By that time maybe it will make the difference between us importing 16 million barrels per day or 15 million barrels. Hard to get all that excited about this.
The people pushing the hardest for opening ANWR are the legislators from Alaska. The people pushing the hardest for expanded drilling in the Gulf of Mexico are the legislators from Louisiana. Seems a lot like the politics of special interests to me.
I guess that makes everyone driving a car a junkie or as recently posted. We are addicted to oil. If you think 16 billion barrels is a blip. I think you have been fed some flawed information. Maybe producing the oil off the coast of Florida is more to your liking. Or do you have another solution?
I personally would like to use up all the oil in the Middle East before we use our own.
This goes back to the fundamental logic problem. Why does an automaker/motorcycle maker build a vehicle that can go 120 mph, 150 mph or even an absurd 250 mph when the maximum speed limit in the US is < 75 mph? I believe ALL speeding problems MUST be dealt with at the DESIGN level. Put a governor on the car/cycle and or make the engine so small that at full throttle the vehicle travels at 75 mph. No speeding cops needed period on the highway. That will save taxpayers billions right there.
And in 1,000 miles of driving you will have saved less than 2 gallons. Was it worth it? For me the answer would be a definite no. If it's okay to burn a little extra gas on recreational pursuits it should also be okay to burn a little extra gas to reduce stress.
I totally gave up on my quest to get 40 mpg out of my uncle's '03 Corolla when I drove up to Carlisle and back this past Saturday. To really get an accurate read, I would've had to start off with a full tank, and I didn't feel like it, since it had, according to the gauge, about 7/8 of a tank (probably really more like 2/3, as I've discovered this thing's fuel gauge isn't perfectly accurate...but then again, is any gauge?).
On the way up, I did pretty much the flow of traffic, varying between 65-80 for the most part, but probaby keeping more to the upper ranges of that than I did when I made this same trip in April. And going home I was probably going more like 75-80, simply because the damn thing was starting to hurt my bum so much I just wanted to get home!
The first time I borrowed my uncle's car for this trip, it was a novelty. The second time though, it started to wear thin. I'm all for saving fuel and such, but I think this is going to be the last time I ask my uncle to borrow his car for a trip!
tpe: Clearly the taxpayers have been spending a lot of money securing the oil supply out of the Middle East.
me: I guess this refers to what we're spending in Iraq? I think these numbers of "the real" cost of gas, is from people who either don't like modern society and our use of gasoline and/or don't like the Iraq war.
But the fact is the war in Iraq is not strictly about keeping oil flowing. Iraq might put out 2% of the global oil. And whether we control Iraq or radical Moslems control Iraq, the oil will flow to the markets. Whoever controls Iraq will sell the oil to get the $. So it is an incorrect conclusion to state that our military's there to keep the oil flowing. The military is there to try and direct the $ to people who are friendly to us.
If you need proof of how a government who is very hostile to us will still keep the $ flowing just look next door to Iraq - Iran. And a less hostile Venezula has no trouble selling oil to the global markets either.
I'm all in favor of withdrawing from Iraq, and the oil will keep flowing. We heard for years in the 60's and 70's that if we withdrew from Vietnam there would be terrible consequences, and yet today you go there and shop in a basically capitalistic country. While a withdrawl from Iraq might be different, if people we don't like take over; well at least they'll be out in the open, which is a situation our military knows how to handle.
My solution for Iraq - outsource the occupation to China. Ask China to raise a small force (for them) of 5 to 10 million soldiers and police. Every male citizen between the ages of 10 and 70 has a chaperone. Anyone without a chaperone is a suspected militant/infiltrator. Seriously we'll never control that country; the only way Saddam did was to use Saddam tactics.
How is it different from CA or FL pushing for more tourists. It is revenue for the states. It would take several years to bring ANWR online. The flow is limited by the pipe carrying it South. I guess I do not understand your argument against using a viable resource.
additional increases in fuel prices increases the prices of products...some which are more essential than fuel. you want our food prices to increase radically?
This is the kind of statement that has been repeated so often people start actually believing it.
the "16 billion barrels" is a chimera...it's not real oil, only a potential, and it's just the dealer telling the junkie how good the stuff is and that there's "plenty more where that comes from"....remember oil shale?
If you want to see how futile the Alaskan oil project (or really, even "slowing down" is, in relation to "energy independence" I mean, just look at these charts and the staggering gaps between what we use and what we produce.
The current assessment shows an overall increase in estimated in-place oil resource when compared to the 1987 assessment. Ranges are 11.6 to 31.5 BBO versus 4.8 to 29.4 BBO,
I would guess more. The oil companies notoriously underestimate to keep leases low.
If you look at the leases they are usually a combination of oil companies. Since the last big leases were let in 1969 there are much fewer players in the market. Thanks to our last administration there are only two or three left to bid. They all work together. I am sure you realize that Exxon discovered the Prudhoe field and owns most of the oil. Yet BP now does all the production. Sound cozy to you?
you: Why does an automaker/motorcycle maker build a vehicle that can go 120 mph, 150 mph or even an absurd 250 mph when the maximum speed limit in the US is < 75 mph?
me: yes there is enough hypocrisy, politics, and conflicting goals of various groups around many automobile issues to make your head-spin. You might as well ask why we accept 40K fatalities per year on the roads with the current speed limits, when we know slower is safer. If we wanted really safe roads why wouldn't we not have a speed limit over 40 mph? or 35mph? or determine what is the safest design car on the road, and make all manufacturers make their models like that one? And if race car drivers are safer with helmets, wouldn't car drivers be also?
The reason the laws and regulations are like they are, is because we want to be safe and save fuel, but only when it suits us. Why was the governor of NJ in an SUV at 90mph w/o a seatbelt? Maybe a lot of people think they're special?
Why does an automaker/motorcycle maker build a vehicle that can go 120 mph, 150 mph or even an absurd 250 mph when the maximum speed limit in the US is < 75 mph?
Because they also sell in countries with higher speed limits. Most cars and trucks and motorcycles have electronic speed limiters on them, and most of them are aero limited to under 150 mph anyway.
A. No leases exist in ANWR B. Estimates are USGS, not oil co. C. Do not confuse oil-in-the-ground with recoverable oil. Only 1/3 - 1/2 (max.) of oil in the ground is typically recoverable.
I understand re the merging on ramps. I just try to stay in the right most lane if there aren't too many merging transactions w/ other cars. I like 65. It's a nice comfortable speed in my Accord and still would save a lot of oil at not too much time penalty.
I, personally, don't want anything bad to happen to anyone,anytime But we have got to face up to this problem with oil. An increase in the gas tax we already pay is a seamless way to reduce consumption.
I agree, but someone please explain what they're doing in Oregon - they want to replace or supplement the gas tax with a usage tax - tax$ = miles travelled X tax/mile, all tracked by GPS devices installed in cars. Talk about big brother!
Simply would be to Arcane to mechanically govern the engine, IMO. "Tax it and they won't come." Well, they won't come to the pump as often. Gotta go, Nascar is on.
And people think they're getting good info on TV - love it when they switch million/billion, that kind of thing, what's a factor of 1000, anyway? But I can't imagine where the 380 million came from, doesn't correspond to anything.
Comments
As far as what I've done with prices high - - I've reduced my automobile gas use by about 280 gallons this past year between getting a fuel efficient car and carpooling 3-4 days per week. It DOESN'T mean I never do anything wasteful but at least I'm doing better than before so occasional indulgences don't bring on a guilt trip.
The citizen of a democratic state doesn't have the right to consume any amount of what he wants to consume. There is no such right written or implied. To some extent he has the right to buy as much as he wants, but he cannot hoard nor can he over-consume in an emergency.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
Hint: the closest store is 3 miles away. The mall is 8 miles.
I might even like to offer free Fast Trak toll transducers to certain type of fuel-efficient cars with say a $500 credit built into them. We could put different types of vehicles on different "guzzler" standards, such as "no sports car can get under 12 mpg or they'll be taxed" or "no RV can get under 10 mpg" etc.
I'd even give out "conservation medals" that would be really hard to get.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
Yes, that is a good way to regulate consumption, too. So the dollar rules the day - you want to consume more, pay for it one way or the other. This solution is similar to what another poster was saying - let gas price climb to $5 or $6 a gallon, then we'll see the effect.
I don't think there is enough shortage of gas right now to call for rationing or allocation. And, that might lead to black market or an underground oil economy, too. Will be difficult to gauge who needs how much. But, I am sure formulas can be worked out. However, don't you think that it is still some form of coercion?
You are right, gas is still cheap in America. However, gas prices are making an impact. In the past (10 years back) we used to budget driving cost based on depreciation only. Routine maintenance, gas and insurance were changes compared to it. May be $50 apiece, while depreciation was several 100's. Now all these are becoming comparable, and a sizeable chunk of the middle class income. I see this as a lowering of American living standards from what it used to be - equating it with a lower proportion of disposable income. This is not good news for businesses - as a direct result, retail sales could slow down, spiraling us down into another "r".
I sincerely hope somebody does something before that.
...yet no one will broach the idea of increasing the supply.
Build more refineries; drill for more oil; and construct coal gasification and thermal depolymerization facilities.
That'll bring the prices down WITHOUT needing to conserve.
...
But that'd be bad, m'kay. Cause like it'd make the earth asplode or something. Or maybe cause our children to become three-eyed frogmen from beneath the sea.
So think of the children!
:sick:
The more remote the oil is, the harder to find and extract, the more it will cost per barrel.
I think the "drill for more" plan is logical enough but too short-sighted for what's really going on with world oil supply, peak oil, etc.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
55 mph -- impossible, dangerous, draws hostility.
62 mph -- the absolute minimal acceptable speed on this freeway. A bit dicey but do-able and practical.
62-65 mph -- the minimal realistic speed I need to maintain the car with traffic flow.
This is a bit slower than I normally drive (even at 62 mph I was being passed on the left AND the right at 10 mph faster), and it looks like my fuel mileage went from my usual 33-34 to 35-36.
So slowing down seems to work, but there is, for some of us on certain roads, a bit of anxiety because not all of our brother motorists are with the program.
Plenty of shoulder room on those freeways.
ROVER ISN'T KIDDING -- In L.A., they do that (not in the civilized North however)...they'll drive at 60 mph on the shoulder to pass a line of traffic, then cut back in the stream as the line exits an off-ramp.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
I hope you don't really believe that. The average estimate for the ANWR area is 16 billion barrels. How long will that last at 1 million barrels per day? Remember they are still producing oil in the 9 billion barrel Prudhoe Bay field. That field went on line 30 years ago. That is a million barrels a day less needed from foreign sources.
An act of desperation at best that really doesn't address the problem at all IMO. Akin to the junkie breaking up the furniture in his house to stay warm?
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
And in 1,000 miles of driving you will have saved less than 2 gallons. Was it worth it? For me the answer would be a definite no. If it's okay to burn a little extra gas on recreational pursuits it should also be okay to burn a little extra gas to reduce stress.
The only time I recall a law working on the vast majority of the population was the anti-littering law. Took a long time but it worked. I think part of the reason was community censorship of the offenders. Not sure we'd see that in a 55 mph rule.
REDUCING SPEED -- I'm okay with 65 mph but no way I'm going slower---it's dangerous. But at 65 maybe there's less wear and tear on the car and I can save a few bucks a week.
Assuming no more growth in oil consumption and no growth in export then we would burn through 16 billion barrels in about two years.
The people pushing the hardest for opening ANWR are the legislators from Alaska. The people pushing the hardest for expanded drilling in the Gulf of Mexico are the legislators from Louisiana. Seems a lot like the politics of special interests to me.
I personally would like to use up all the oil in the Middle East before we use our own.
I totally gave up on my quest to get 40 mpg out of my uncle's '03 Corolla when I drove up to Carlisle and back this past Saturday. To really get an accurate read, I would've had to start off with a full tank, and I didn't feel like it, since it had, according to the gauge, about 7/8 of a tank (probably really more like 2/3, as I've discovered this thing's fuel gauge isn't perfectly accurate...but then again, is any gauge?).
On the way up, I did pretty much the flow of traffic, varying between 65-80 for the most part, but probaby keeping more to the upper ranges of that than I did when I made this same trip in April. And going home I was probably going more like 75-80, simply because the damn thing was starting to hurt my bum so much I just wanted to get home!
The first time I borrowed my uncle's car for this trip, it was a novelty. The second time though, it started to wear thin. I'm all for saving fuel and such, but I think this is going to be the last time I ask my uncle to borrow his car for a trip!
me: I guess this refers to what we're spending in Iraq? I think these numbers of "the real" cost of gas, is from people who either don't like modern society and our use of gasoline and/or don't like the Iraq war.
But the fact is the war in Iraq is not strictly about keeping oil flowing. Iraq might put out 2% of the global oil. And whether we control Iraq or radical Moslems control Iraq, the oil will flow to the markets. Whoever controls Iraq will sell the oil to get the $. So it is an incorrect conclusion to state that our military's there to keep the oil flowing. The military is there to try and direct the $ to people who are friendly to us.
If you need proof of how a government who is very hostile to us will still keep the $ flowing just look next door to Iraq - Iran. And a less hostile Venezula has no trouble selling oil to the global markets either.
I'm all in favor of withdrawing from Iraq, and the oil will keep flowing. We heard for years in the 60's and 70's that if we withdrew from Vietnam there would be terrible consequences, and yet today you go there and shop in a basically capitalistic country. While a withdrawl from Iraq might be different, if people we don't like take over; well at least they'll be out in the open, which is a situation our military knows how to handle.
My solution for Iraq - outsource the occupation to China. Ask China to raise a small force (for them) of 5 to 10 million soldiers and police. Every male citizen between the ages of 10 and 70 has a chaperone. Anyone without a chaperone is a suspected militant/infiltrator. Seriously we'll never control that country; the only way Saddam did was to use Saddam tactics.
This is the kind of statement that has been repeated so often people start actually believing it.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/cpiforecasts.htm
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/table7.htm
I certainly don't see it but nevertheless it makes a compelling argument against high gas prices even if it is a myth.
If you want to see how futile the Alaskan oil project (or really, even "slowing down" is, in relation to "energy independence" I mean, just look at these charts and the staggering gaps between what we use and what we produce.
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/politics/GlobalOil.html
The current assessment shows an overall increase in estimated in-place oil resource when compared to the 1987 assessment. Ranges are 11.6 to 31.5 BBO versus 4.8 to 29.4 BBO,
I would guess more. The oil companies notoriously underestimate to keep leases low.
Aren't leases bid on? It seems to me that the lease price would be based upon the high bidder's assessment of the potential oil available.
me: yes there is enough hypocrisy, politics, and conflicting goals of various groups around many automobile issues to make your head-spin. You might as well ask why we accept 40K fatalities per year on the roads with the current speed limits, when we know slower is safer. If we wanted really safe roads why wouldn't we not have a speed limit over 40 mph? or 35mph? or determine what is the safest design car on the road, and make all manufacturers make their models like that one? And if race car drivers are safer with helmets, wouldn't car drivers be also?
The reason the laws and regulations are like they are, is because we want to be safe and save fuel, but only when it suits us. Why was the governor of NJ in an SUV at 90mph w/o a seatbelt? Maybe a lot of people think they're special?
Because they also sell in countries with higher speed limits. Most cars and trucks and motorcycles have electronic speed limiters on them, and most of them are aero limited to under 150 mph anyway.
B. Estimates are USGS, not oil co.
C. Do not confuse oil-in-the-ground with recoverable oil. Only 1/3 - 1/2 (max.) of oil in the ground is typically recoverable.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption
That doesn't work either.