oil companies$$$$

I am not in favor of taxing gas any more, but it does help convince people to use alternative methods of transportation. It does that in places like Norway, for example.

The trick here is that you have to have alternatives. This means support for public transportation.

When I was in Paris a couple of weeks ago, I avoided taxis if I wanted to get anywhere quickly. The metro worked great - if you don't mind a lack of airconditioning.

While we are not going to have metros in rural areas, I would like to see support for Amtrak - and Amtrack. If they ran more trains, I'd use the train for trips up to Chicago. Now, I have to leave too early and get back too late. Can't do it.

I would really like to see support for public transportation - that would reduce our gas use. I would prefer the option of taking a train or bus to work, rather than the drive.

Driving gets old when you drive 400-500 miles to work each week.
 
I would really like to see support for public transportation - that would reduce our gas use.
Click to expand...
Depending on what you use for public transportation, you may not be saving the society much gas, which is what drives up the cost. Buses burn gas, and running them on a lightly-used route is wasteful that way. Electric transportation, like subways, have to generate the electricity. What do they use for that?

None of the solutions are simple, except for one. Increased supply drives down cost. Drill for oil and increase refining capacity, and the drillers and refiners will make MORE moeny as the price of their product goes down.
 
Burn coal and install smog reduction systems.


Dinosaurs died for your sins!



munk
 
Liquefy coal and don't worry about scrubbers. Use LNG for buses. (New York City has some buses powered by gas instead of gasoline or diesel.)
 
Esav Benyamin said:
Depending on what you use for public transportation, you may not be saving the society much gas.
Click to expand...

I live too far out to bike, but when I lived near town it was easy. The metro area I was in built a paved 4-lane divided highway (in miniature) for bikes along an old railway line that went from downtown all the way through the suburbs. It was complete with entrance ramps, median, dotted white lines and mini-traffic signs at intersections/crossings.

I rode to work every day (10 mile round trip) down this thing and used metal-studded snow tires in the winter. You would think this would take longer, but my travel time one-way was actually cut by 15 minutes since it was a more direct route with no traffic jams. It was also alot safer during snowstorms and there was a city jeep with a snowplow that got the bike road plowed long before the surface streets were.

Generally the ride to and from was the high point of my day, regardless of the weather and if we had more facilities like that it would help alot. Every town seems to have its share of abandoned RR tracks.
 
For a few years when I worked in the General Post Office in NYC, I walked home 3 miles a day. I much preferred the walk, after a whole day behind a desk. When I transferred uptown, I had a half-hour stroll door-to-door to work, most of that through Central Park.

Unfortunately, most people doen't have that opportunity. Had I wanted to bicycle instead of walk from GPO, -- I'd be dead now. Just too hazardous, and the City wasn't bicycle-friendly.
 
im in the trades-i travel quite a bit in order to eat-

the prices go up on speculation alone -no valid reasons most of the time-who controls the speculators?

they had a old time oil executive on fox a month or so ago-he said "these problems that the sepulators use have always existed there are no valid reasons for such huge increases other than lack of govt oversight "

he came right out and said its the feds fault for letting them colude without any legal action-

so do the oil companies control the speculators?

yes the arabs get more -thats how our govt has it set up-most of the oil pumped from american oil fields get sold over seas while we buy from overseas
 
and didnt the govt years ago let U S companies move headquarters over sea's so they could avoid tax's-
 
he came right out and said its the feds fault for letting them colude without any legal action-
Click to expand...
He came right out and said it, did he? Well, then it must be right. Ha.

Get this: the more government control, the more scarcity. The more scarcity, the higher the price.

Gasoline prices at the pump vary from country to country, from region to region, based on the local tax structure. The underlying price of the gasoline, foreign or domestic is much the same.

Any area that forced down the underlying price of gasoline would have speculators from all over rushing in and buying that cheap gasoline -- which would drive the price back up.

Government regulates to the economy's detriment.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
Get this: the more government control, the more scarcity. The more scarcity, the higher the price.
Click to expand...

Get this: there's only so much oil, and it will get more and more scarce as time goes on. US production peaked in 1971. Scarcity, in the long run and even to a certain extent now, has far, far more to do with the fact that we're using up in an amazingly short time what has taken hundreds of millions of years to accumulate than any governmental control.

Yeah, yeah, I know, "Oil shale, blah, blah, blah, tar sands, blah, blah, blah." The only problem with that is it's not a question of whether it's economically viable to extract the oil from those sources (which in all but a few cases it isn't), it's a question of whether we can extract them with a net energy gain (i.e. the oil contains more energy than you spend getting it out). The answer? In some cases, barely. In most cases, nope! And even if we could, guess what you need to extract them? Natural gas. And, surprise, surprise, that's running out too.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, sooner or later oil will peak, natural gas will peak, hell, even coal (the wonderful form of energy that it is) will peak. Then they will go downhill, never to come back. I'm not telling you something there is a real debate over. The only serious debate is when. So we can b!tch all we want now, but if we don't as a society and a world wise up soon we are going to have some serious, serious problems. Should we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? Yes. Why? Because if we don't on our own, it will be reduced for us. Also, we're destroying the friggin world as we know it through this addiction. But even if you think that's fine and dandy you have plenty of reason to get on the alternative energy, conservation bandwagon.

:mad:
 
I am so impressed by the civil, educated, darn-near warm tone of this discussion compared to the ones over in the political forum. Contrary opinions don't seem to provoke flame wars over here...

Perhaps a little of Uncle Bill floating over this spot, lingering in binary? I dunno, but I like the idea.

We all need to be wary of the day when the Asian countries -- primarily India and China -- begin to require petrol in truly competetive quantities. I can't believe that hasn't been brought up.

We also need to look into fuel sources that are truly renewable. That means, not just one we haven't exhausted yet, but one that we can manufacture from a replenishable resource.

I know that they are making biodiesel out of garbage... ethanol from sawgrass.

The high gas prices are really hitting us common folk pretty hard, but if it provokes American ingenuity into some kind of overdrive, it will be worth it. Whereas in the early 20th century we sold our raw resources to the rest of the world, in the 21st, we can sell our know how. If we get it first.
 
brokenhallelujah said:
I am so impressed by the civil, educated, darn-near warm tone of this discussion compared to the ones over in the political forum. Contrary opinions don't seem to provoke flame wars over here...

Perhaps a little of Uncle Bill floating over this spot, lingering in binary? I dunno, but I like the idea.

We all need to be wary of the day when the Asian countries -- primarily India and China -- begin to require petrol in truly competetive quantities. I can't believe that hasn't been brought up.

We also need to look into fuel sources that are truly renewable. That means, not just one we haven't exhausted yet, but one that we can manufacture from a replenishable resource.

I know that they are making biodiesel out of garbage... ethanol from sawgrass.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right about how relatively civil this discussion is. We certainly take our jabs, but the few political discussions I've been involved in here haven't turned into open flame wars, as they easily could've given the wide range of opinions we've got here. Seems like appreciation of khuks goes beyond political affiliation. At last, we have found the bridge to bring people together across the isles! :D :rolleyes:

You're spot on about China and India too. That's what I was thinking about when I mentioned "the world" - once those two behemoths get into the energy game full bore it's going to be a whole different ballgame. (ps - I love mixing metaphors) Demand up, up, up and supply down, down, down. :( (and yet :thumbup:)

Biofuel is another energy source that has problems with net energy balance (whether you get out more than you put in). When you look at the amount of fossil fuels that go into Fertilizer, pesticide, direct production (farm equipment), processing, transportation, etc., etc. most biofuels hover right around zero gain. Corn is right there for sure. Some (sugar cane for one) are better, but have other problems - such as massive water usage for sugar cane. Making them out of waste (like biodisel out of used veggie oil) makes a lot of sense, but it's not really a large scale solution. How to replace fossil fuels is a really, really tough question that may just not have a solution. Certainly conservation and more local supply chains have to be adopted as much as possible. Will that be enough? Got me. Will it actually happen, and as fast as it needs to? I, for one, am not optimistic. :(
 
Esav Benyamin said:
Are you under the impression they don't pay taxes?
Click to expand...

I am under the impression that they have an oligopoly; and, that the level of competition within the industry is insufficient to encourage advancements in alternative fuel mix, refining capacity, or the development of significant raw crude production. The oil industry is just a big fat cash cow; and, I am not into sacred cows. Either get a dozen more producers on line and license new production fields for them; or, treat it as a utility and regulate the market price and conditions.

n2s
 
DGG said:
I don't get angry about gas prices. I just put a little money into the company's stock and watch it double/triple/etc. That way I get back some of what I lay out at the pump. Easy too. Anyone can do it.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=XOM
Click to expand...

Exactly, that is your only defense. I worked for Chevron USA for 7 years, and like good capitalists there is no doubt in my mind that they manipulated the situation in both '73 and '78 to screw the public. Refinery shortfalls were blamed for raising gas prices, when in fact they were closing their OWN refineries saying they were unprofitable. They continue this practice to this day. Those same refineries were then sold to smaller third parties who proceeded to expand them and make millions. Gee, guess they were profitable after all, do ya think? Anything to reduce supply and create demand. They cut back distribution in the channel through the company operated stations by going on gas rationing programs in 1978, and then raised the price as demand increased.

If I had held onto my Chevron stock from 1976 I would be retired now. I don't know how many times it has split since then.

You can crunch the numbers, and I know exploration and the cost of crude is a big part of it, but that doesn't explain an increased cost for already pumped domestic crude, why they raise their prices days _before_ an estimated "shortfall", with cheaper gas already in the distribution pipeline, or reduce refining capacity when demand increases are imminent.

It also doesn't jibe with the fact that they cut their product with oxygenating agents such as this MTBE waste product they generate practically for free, or with ethanol, which theoretcially should result in cost savings.

Bottom line, they have us by the cojones, and buying their stock is the only way to get some payback.

Norm
 
munk said:
There are things we could have done. The dual electric engine gas engine drive could have taken place years ago. Wind power is big in Montana- a huge project is being completed. Only time will tell if this is yet another tax write off debacle or actually viable.

I'm left in the unenviable position of believing no one; not the greens, not the oil companies.


munk
Click to expand...

Well said on all counts. Good luck on your wind power, as the greenies are attacking ours here in the central valley of Komifornia. Ends up that birds of prey are getting whacked by the turbines, so they are now restricting their use. The have already torn down some of our hydro damns as well, and are scheduled to take down more ~ all as this state grows at a ridicules rate.
 
Just saw on the Daily Show last night (I know... not the greatest source of info, but their figures are usually good)...

BP (British Petroleum) is currently making $55,000 a minute in profits! Holy Toledo...
 
exxon mobil-made $1318 a second-
not a math major-heard it on the radio-
10 billion in 90days-wtf

and anyone else notice that since the energy meetings when bush was elected( that but a privledged few know about ) everything that makes power has gone thru the roof-

man i would like to know what was said-

basicly the govt dropped the ball -no reason other than political greed can explain the situation we are now in-and no im not putting all the blame on king george-alot but not all
 
ACStudios said:
Just saw on the Daily Show last night (I know... not the greatest source of info, but their figures are usually good)...

BP (British Petroleum) is currently making $55,000 a minute in profits! Holy Toledo...
Click to expand...

Saw that too. They really need that much? Damn. I think they should be happy with only a billion or two a quarter. That's all I'm saying. :rolleyes:
 
stevomiller said:
Well said on all counts. Good luck on your wind power, as the greenies are attacking ours here in the central valley of Komifornia. Ends up that birds of prey are getting whacked by the turbines, so they are now restricting their use. The have already torn down some of our hydro damns as well, and are scheduled to take down more ~ all as this state grows at a ridicules rate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, have you seen the wind farms out by Palm Springs? I think each one of those towers is about 150' tall. Impressive. I gather that there is some technology that they can use that can help keep the birds away? Can't recall what it is, but right now once they fly into those towers they've pretty much had it.

Hey! Just build a nuclear reactor right? No bird strikes there. Right...:D

Norm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top