# Gas $4.00 a gallon



## terryl965 (Mar 11, 2008)

Here is a link for the article in Yahoo about gas prices jumping to records high this time. Link what fo you think about this?


----------



## MJS (Mar 11, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Here is a link for the article in Yahoo about gas prices jumping to records high this time. Link what fo you think about this?


 
What do I think about the high price of gas?  I think it stinks!  Some of the gas stations I've seen around my area have ranged from $3.19-$3.29.  I'm sure as the warm weather approaches, it'll rise.  My wife and I both have SUVs, so when I last gassed hers up, it was about a 1/4 of a tank left and with regular it came to a little over $43.00.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 11, 2008)

Well we have more competition for that oil now ie: China, India and of course the rest of the world.  The nations with the oil are going for it and the rest of us are paying for it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Unfortunately we will probably see up to $5 a gallon in the next four years.  So next time you buy think fuel efficient.


----------



## Blindside (Mar 11, 2008)

Sure I think it sucks, but it will be a driving economic force to move us off the oil tit, and might force Americans to do that thing they really don't like to do, conserve.  Just like in the late 70s the compact cars are going to make a comeback.


----------



## crushing (Mar 11, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Well we have more competition for that oil now ie: China, India and of course the rest of the world. The nations with the oil are going for it and the rest of us are paying for it.


 
I heard a report/story on the radio (NPR) that says the competition accounts for the increase of oil up to $80/bbl, but it's the speculators and investors that have push it up over the $107/bbl we are seeing now.

Tech bubble - - - -POP!
Housing bubble - - - - POP!
Oil Price Bubble - - -  POP?!?!?!

If investors overdo it, the bottom could fall out and prices have the possiblity of falling under $50/bbl.


----------



## crushing (Mar 11, 2008)

Hmmmm.  If we can get a few very vocal people to start talking about the bottom falling out of oil, maybe it will become a self-fullfilling prophesy, kind of like some economic slowdowns/downturns?

*I heard the bottom will fall out of oil prices this year!*


----------



## blackxpress (Mar 11, 2008)

I'm not buying the increased competition excuse.  Not completely anyway.  Oil prices didn't start to soar until recently.  Are we to believe that China and India suddenly started to use more oil just within the past couple of years?  It's true that their oil consumption is on the rise but that didn't happen over night.  As far as gasoline prices in the US are concerned there's one event that seems to be a kind of turning point.  The Iraq war.  Gas prices began to spike soon after we invaded Iraq and they've been going up ever since.  Interesting that none of the government economists ever make that connection.


----------



## tellner (Mar 11, 2008)

Crushing, you're dead wrong on this. 

The price of stocks is due to what people perceive as their future profitability. The price of a mortgage depends on the price of money, the cost of transferring or building a house, and the probability that the lender believes you are going to pay him back.

The price of oil is due to the supply of the stuff matched to how much people want it and how much they are using combined with the degree of price-fixing on the part of the suppliers. Unlike the first two it's a much harder edged thing. 

The world is at or past production capacity. You won't have a million dot petrol firms springing up to create more dead dinosaurs, so the supply isn't going to increase. In fact we know with grim certainty that the supply will never be as high as it was last year.

There's no way that we are going to drastically reduce demand for petroleum in the the next couple years. The amount needed for transportation, industry, electricity generation and so on isn't going to go down by any significant fraction barring total economic collapse throughout the world.

This is one area where Republican delusional faith-based "thinking" won't save you.


----------



## fireman00 (Mar 11, 2008)

A two pronged reason... there is no shortage of crude oil as OPEC keeps pumping it out and there are no problems getting crude to market.  The tensions in South America and the Middle East have not gotten worse so that shouldn't be a problem. 

The crux of the criminally outrageous high price of crude seems to be speculation and trying to hedge against the weak dollar/ recession. 

Two additional problems: 1.) refineries are in the "maintenance" period and operating at approximatley 80% - and since refineries only making a couple of dollars per barrel profit, unlike the 35 to 40 dollar per barrel  profit just about a year ago, there is no incentive for the refineries to crank up produciton. 

Happy frigging motoring.


----------



## crushing (Mar 11, 2008)

tellner,

You say I'm 'dead wrong' (ooooh, such scary and imposing language!) but then you didn't really counter anything I said.  You went on about something else with which I don't necessarily disagree.  Oh well.



> This is one area where Republican delusional faith-based "thinking" won't save you.



Also, I know it has become commonplace in many of your rants, especially against those with which you disagree and that you feel you can pigeon hole into a certain stereotypes, but can you please do without the snide insults?


----------



## Big Don (Mar 11, 2008)

This is a direct result of not allowing exploration for and exploitation of US based oil and not increasing refining capacity in decades. Add to that buying a hell of a lot of oil from people who don't like us, gee, high prices. Perhaps if the government, and by the way, the people had the stones to tell the rabid environmentalists where to get off we wouldn't be in this position.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 11, 2008)

My own two bits on this, because currently unemployed I feel the bite of rising gas prices a bit more acutely IMO. 
I drive a jeep which is okay on gas mileage as it were, but being it older and with over 250K it's not as it was when new. Yesterday, I was able to put five bucks in and gotten just little over a gallon plus. Gas gauge didn't even register or move from it's present position. How's that feel? Like I didn't put any in it. 

The war is a contributing factor in the rise of prices, and there are other factors involved. Greed for one thing. Greed from investors, from the Oil Mongers and Oil producers. When they spiked it a few years ago people went ahead bitched and paid for the gas ... the key is they paid for it. In many cases they didn't have a choice but I am thinking in a majority of cases they did. Driving slower, driving less, carpooling, public transport... all of these definitely help in reducing consumption. But no, folks need their cars and they need the speed and they need to get out of the house. The lessons from the 70's so called energy crisis hasn't been passed on to today's younger adult generation. 

We hear all sorts of stories about alternate fuel engines but don't see the production of these 100 miles to gallon wonders. The greed of the oil folks won't let it happen. We hear stories about the suppression of the technology and how certain inventors have "disappeared" off the face of the earth because they came up with a non-petroleum engine that offers just as much power and is three to four times more efficient. I won't even go into how it's even more healthier for the environment and us. 

We the people of the planet earth do have the power to tell these greedy jerkoffs that it's time the oil burning internal combustion engines is over and done with. I mean how much money do you need? Want to build another Ski Resort in the middle of the Arabian desert? Geez, I guess we got to keep paying extortion fees with the rising cost of gas to do it. 
We CAN say ... no. But we don't. Because we don't they keep raising the prices and find new ways to cover up the fact that they think they aren't making enough money and that they need more. More more more. 

Somehow the candidates in this year's election aren't making me feel comfortable that they'll fight to keep the costs down. 

Well excuse me, gotta go, I think my turn to bend over to take it up the tail pipe is coming up here again soon. Got to spend what's left of my dwindling cash reserves to fuel up and try to find another job before the tank runs dry. Ta-ta for now.


----------



## tellner (Mar 11, 2008)

Ah yes. Kill the caribou, and it will solve our problems.

Unfortunately, this little plum for the oil industry won't do much. The most optimistic projections are that the entire ANW would provide a few weeks' supply. Back in the sixties and early seventies the cornucopians and oil executives assured us that we weren't anywhere near capacity. There was plenty of oil out there and would be forever. 

We hit the Hubbard peak right on schedule.

Our oil fields have been in decline ever since, and there haven't been any really huge new finds. Nor do the industry scientists think there will be. The Bush Administration has given the industry everything it could possibly want. They have delivered increased profits, but no measurable new supplies.

In Europe the last major exploitable resource was the North Sea. It's pretty much played out.

The Middle Eastern fields are at capacity and increasingly senescent.

Central Asia and the West Coast of Africa have new capacity, but it's nothing like what we need to raise supplies enough to lower prices. And again, the oil industry doesn't think it will. Shell and at least two others whose names escape me at the moment have taken huge hits in the last couple years when they admitted that their real and theoretical oil stocks were lower than they had stated (i.e. they lied) and wouldn't increase. That included all the -stans and offshore oil near Africa.

Sorry people, but there isn't enough to go around at the rate of consumption we're used to. The oil companies know it. The scientists know it. The government knows it. And the magic petrol fairy isn't going to wave her wand and miraculously come up with quadrillions of extra barrels of the stuff.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 11, 2008)

tellner said:


> Ah yes. Kill the caribou, and it will solve our problems.
> 
> Unfortunately, this little plum for the oil industry won't do much. The most optimistic projections are that the entire ANW would provide a few weeks' supply. Back in the sixties and early seventies the cornucopians and oil executives assured us that we weren't anywhere near capacity. There was plenty of oil out there and would be forever.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with this fact, but here is my problem with the acceptance of this.  People keep saying that, and the oil companies use it to jusitfy the rising cost of gas.  If they opened more refineries they could keep the costs down for awhile, but they aren't willing.  WHY?  Because it would cut into their profit margin.  They are putting up record profits, so the "cost" of oil that they keep talking about isn't rising at the same rate that they are raising gas prices.  

It would be one thing if the cost per barrell rose, and their profits stayed the same because they only raised accordingly.  BUT, they are using the cost per barrell as an excuse to raise gas as much as they can, and still have people buy it.  

Mark my words, in the next week or so gas will be back to around $3 a barrell because people are getting fed up with the high price and will start talking about "dry days" where no one buys gas and then the miracle happens, the gas price magically drops.  Then they slowly build it back up and go a little higher the next time until it happens again.  This keeps happening over and over.


----------



## Monadnock (Mar 11, 2008)

Living in the Northeast, I get hit twice. Once for my gasoline, and again for my home fuel oil.

I'm seeking alternatives/more efficient appliances.

1. I traded my truck (19 mpg) for a car (32 mpg).
2. I am going to add a wood/pellet burning stove to my house

P.S. I think Exxon Mobil's profits were ~40 billion last year.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 11, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> I agree with this fact, but here is my problem with the acceptance of this.  People keep saying that, and the oil companies use it to jusitfy the rising cost of gas.  If they opened more refineries they could keep the costs down for awhile, but they aren't willing.  WHY?  Because it would cut into their profit margin.  They are putting up record profits, so the "cost" of oil that they keep talking about isn't rising at the same rate that they are raising gas prices.
> 
> It would be one thing if the cost per barrell rose, and their profits stayed the same because they only raised accordingly.  BUT, they are using the cost per barrell as an excuse to raise gas as much as they can, and still have people buy it.
> 
> Mark my words, in the next week or so gas will be back to around $3 a barrell because people are getting fed up with the high price and will start talking about "dry days" where no one buys gas and then the miracle happens, the gas price magically drops.  Then they slowly build it back up and go a little higher the next time until it happens again.  This keeps happening over and over.



Well, the oil companies will keep going no matter how much John Q Public bitches about the rising prices. They have to have an _incentive_ to stop the increase, otherwise they just turn up the volume on their IPods and keep right on going in their gas guzzling limousines.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 11, 2008)

tellner said:


> Sorry people, but there isn't enough to go around at the rate of consumption we're used to. The oil companies know it. The scientists know it. The government knows it. And the magic petrol fairy isn't going to wave her wand and miraculously come up with quadrillions of extra barrels of the stuff.



Right.  Its that simple.  We're running dry.

Now, this means that the market for "work from home" technologies -- VOIP / VPN / SSH all of that stuff will start to crank up.  Business don't like it, but they don't have to like it, they just have to TAKE it.

Those businesses that offer this "work from remote" option will be able to get the best employees -- that perk, not paying for transportation cost -- will be a big draw in the future.

That also means some people will make money by selling these services.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 11, 2008)

crushing said:


> Hmmmm.  If we can get a few very vocal people to start talking about the bottom falling out of oil, maybe it will become a self-fullfilling prophesy, kind of like some economic slowdowns/downturns?
> 
> *I heard the bottom will fall out of oil prices this year!*




Hahaha!!! Yes, it only depends on what you say!  Just keep saying to yourself -- "The economy is not failing -- we are in good shape!"  Just like George Bush's little lap dog says!

Oh, you people crack me up!!!


----------



## crushing (Mar 11, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> Hahaha!!! Yes, it only depends on what you say!


 
Yes, it was meant to be funny.  I'm just a regular Joe and won't have an impact no matter what font size I use.    No, it doesn't ONLY depend on what people say, nobody said that.  There is a reason consumer confidence reports are seen as an important indicator.  What the media, politicians, and Fed say can have an impact on consumer confidence.  Then it feeds itself.



newGuy12 said:


> Just keep saying to yourself -- "The economy is not failing -- we are in good shape!" Just like George Bush's little lap dog says!


 
Yes, there is a conflict between the 'If it bleeds it leads' media along with politicians that have something to gain from a faltering economy and with those that something to gain by keeping the economy steady and growing along with those that paint an overly rosy and optimistic picture of the same for their parties own re-election purposes.



newGuy12 said:


> Oh, *you people* crack me up!!!


 
You people????  I don't get this game or whatever it is.  It's happened twice now in this thread.  I see party loyalists (Republican and Democrat) on various forums try to pull this "us v. them" stunt, but I really don't understand the purpose of such an attempted marginalization in what could be just a straight-up discussion.

Best regards,
crushing


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 11, 2008)

crushing said:


> You people????  I don't get this game or whatever it is.



'You people' == 'You users of the MartialTalk.com forum'


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 11, 2008)

Check this link out, http://www.ilovephysics.com/archives/2006/04/27/the-cost-of-a-gallon-of-gas/

For y'all that hate "big business" the oil companies only make 8% proofit on a gallon of gas. The bad guy's here are the State and Ferderal Governments, they make more $ on a gal. of gas then anybody, and they do nothing to find the oil, drill for it, refine it, and transport it to gas stations.
So please check out the link above and inform yourselves.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Mar 11, 2008)

This has nothing to do with hating big business.  In 2006, Exxon-Mobil made more profit than any corporation in the entire history of corporations.  And in 2007, they beat that!  Yet they're still getting tax breaks, presumably for more R&D. So Navyvetcv60, in fact, taxes DO contribute to finding, drilling, refining, and transporting--it comes in the form of those tax breaks.  It seems to me that corporate profit should be funding their R&D--not our tax money.

We have to use less oil. It's not a renewable resource--it's finite.  Plus, it puts us at the mercy of foreign governments that do not have our interests at heart--some are downright hostile.  You can't just keep on expecting to squeeze out a little more gasoline from, let's say, ANWR.  There just isn't enough there. 

IMO, the decreased demand for oil (and lower prices) has to come from more than one direction. 

Firstly, consumers have to demand cars that get better mileage, and ultimately, cars that utilize renewable fuel.  If consumers refuse to buy gas guzzlers, auto manufacturers won't make them.  Now, if you like your gas guzzler, then quit complaining--for one thing, you won't be helping to create the market forces moving us away from oil.

I also happen to think that government should nudge the auto manufacturers along with CAFE standards.  And our government should also give better rebates and incentives to buy solar and other renewable energy sources.  It took me 6 months to get the solar panels for my house!!!  Why? Most PV cells are made in the US.  But the people in Europe and Japan can afford to buy the panels at a higher price because they have better government rebates and incentives.  So the solar manufacturers have  no motivation to sell here!  There should be better tax incentives for consumers to use renewables, and for companies to produce renewables--and that money should come from the current tax breaks for oil companies which should be ended.

Remember, right now we have an oil man, a good friend of the Sauds, in the White House.  That does not portend well for the price of fossil fuel.


----------



## blackxpress (Mar 11, 2008)

I'm not sure how much control, if any, politicians have over the price of gas but I would sure be more confident in them if they actually knew something about what's going on.  I heard W's press conference the other day and one of the reporters asked him about the prediction that gas was going to hit $4.00 per gallon.  W said he didn't know where the guy was getting his information and that he hadn't heard anything about it.  It had only been in all the major newspapers for about a week at the time.  Is our president really that clueless?


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 11, 2008)

blackxpress said:


> Is our president really that clueless?


Evidently, yes.  And it makes me wonder -- sometimes I hear that the President really doesn't run the country -- that he's "bought and paid for".  This makes me suspect that it has to be true.  How else could anything ever get done?


----------



## donna (Mar 11, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Well we have more competition for that oil now ie: China, India and of course the rest of the world.  The nations with the oil are going for it and the rest of us are paying for it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 If you do the conversion, here in country Australia, we are already paying more than $5.00 US a gallon. Going on yesterdays price it works out to $5.06US for unleaded fuel and $5.44US for diesel. I have to fill up on average every 3-4 weeks and it costs me $138 US ($150 AU) . (120 litre tank)
It dosnt matter how high the price goes we still have to pay it because there is no alternative here. No  useable public transport in the country areas.


----------



## blackxpress (Mar 11, 2008)

donna said:


> It dosnt matter how high the price goes we still have to pay it because there is no alternative here. No  useable public transport in the country areas.



Same here.  There are very few US cities with viable public transportation systems.  Most of us don't live close enough to a mass transit route to make it practical.  The best we can do is buy more fuel efficient vehicles and cut down on unnecessary driving.  I'm doing my part.  Traded my Camaro for a Corolla just last week.  Even the Corolla is not as fuel efficient as I'd like but it was the best I could do on my budget.  I've gone from averaging 20mpg to 30+.  If gas gets much higher I'll get a bicycle for short trips.  At least it'll be good for my cardio.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 11, 2008)

As a further example of the problem of profligate fuel expenditure, I used to get high-20's per gallon from my Capri Mark I in the late 70's - that's a car driven with an immortal teenagers lead-foot.  

Thirty years on and across the Pond that fuel consumption is seen as good?!

No further comment - flabbergastation has set in :lol:


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 11, 2008)

At some point, we, as a society, are going to have to face the fact that the future is not going to be as bright (as we define it now) as it is now.  Our unsustainable society is going to have its day of reckoning within my lifetime.  We are going to be FORCED to re-evaluate everything that we value.  That is the nature of living on a sphere.  It doesn't matter how rich you are.  It doesn't matter how powerful you may be, we are all limited by simple geometry.  

People laugh at me when I tell them I invest in landfills.  I tell them that garbage is valuable.  I tell them that in the future we will be mining our trash of today in order to run the society of the future.  Nothing.  Nothing demonstrates the problem that we face more then that.

What do you value?  How do you really know that?  Who told you that?


----------



## tellner (Mar 11, 2008)

blackxpress said:


> Same here. There are very few US cities with viable public transportation systems. Most of us don't live close enough to a mass transit route to make it practical.


 
And that wasn't always the case. Up until the 1950s places like Portland, LA and New York City had excellent mass transit systems, mostly based on streetcars. It worked wonderfully. The whole sad story of how GM in particular destroyed public transportation and rigged whole State zoning and standards boards to make it impossible to do anything but worship at the Cult of the Automobile has begun to come out. 

Who Framed Roger Rabbit wasn't a parody. It was a deliberate and by several orders of magnitude understatement of what happened. We went from streetcars and passenger rail to cars and airplanes both enormously subsidized. We now have a rail system that would be the envy of Botswana but certainly not Bulgaria. It wasn't necessary. It took decades of calculated destruction. But that's where we are. We might be able to reverse it in time, but I'm not that optimistic.


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 11, 2008)

I have to run my mouth again on this subject. It seems to me that the majority of the  response on this subject  is  the Government needs to fix this, i will assert that  the government needs to keep their hands off! The Government is not the solution to the problem, the Government is the problem, and i will add the misinformed public is part of the problem. Like i stated in my last post THE STATE & FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAKES MORE MONEY ON A GALLON OF GASOLINE THEN THE OIL COMPANIES DO!  If the oil companies decided to operate as a none profit organization the price of a gallon of gas would be reduced by .23 cent a gal. so Instead of paying $3.00 A gal. you would pay $2.77 a gal.
If the Liberals would let us drill for our own oil we would not be in this predicament.
I keep hearing from the sheeple in this country that the planet is running out of oil, and that we need a renewable energy source. This is absolute  hogwash! The Rand Corp. and many scientist say that the planet has as much oil as it did over a hundred years ago when we drilled the first oil well, so that means that OIL IS A RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE, yes i said it oil is a renewable energy source, quit depending on Al Gore and his Sheeple for your information, do the research, and don't just go to the Sierra club or Green Peace for your info. BE INDEPENDENT!!


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 11, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> I keep hearing from the sheeple in this country that the planet is running out of oil, and that we need a renewable energy source. This is absolute  hogwash! The Rand Corp. and many scientist say that the planet has as much oil as it did over a hundred years ago when we drilled the first oil well, so that means that OIL IS A RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE



Well, that changes things entirely.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 11, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> I have to run my mouth again on this subject. It seems to me that the majority of the response on this subject is the Government needs to fix this, i will assert that the government needs to keep their hands off! The Government is not the solution to the problem, the Government is the problem, and i will add the misinformed public is part of the problem. Like i stated in my last post THE STATE & FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAKES MORE MONEY ON A GALLON OF GASOLINE THEN THE OIL COMPANIES DO! If the oil companies decided to operate as a none profit organization the price of a gallon of gas would be reduced by .23 cent a gal. so Instead of paying $3.00 A gal. you would pay $2.77 a gal.


 
I don't even know where to begin-but I'll leave this first part alone-it speaks for itself, and it's partially correct. The government does make a lot ofg money on oil....whatever.



			
				navyvetcv60 said:
			
		

> If the Liberals would let us drill for our own oil we would not be in this predicament.


 
.....er, _what oil?_



			
				navyvetcv60 said:
			
		

> I keep hearing from the sheeple in this country that the planet is running out of oil, and that we need a renewable energy source. This is absolute hogwash! The Rand Corp. and many scientist say that the planet has as much oil as it did over a hundred years ago when we drilled the first oil well, so that means that OIL IS A RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE, yes i said it oil is a renewable energy source, quit depending on Al Gore and his Sheeple for your information, do the research, and don't just go to the Sierra club or Green Peace for your info. BE INDEPENDENT!!


 
Well, I have to open my mouth again, and point out what I said  here

and  HERE! 

Oil is *not* "A RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE" (?????WTF????)-unless, of course, you've got a stash of dinosaurs somewhere....

As for what the Rand COrp. has to say, look  here.

Unless you're talking about oil shale-which is another discussion entirely-the world is running out of oil. We'll be making gasoline out of coal, soon, just as they have in South Africa for the last 40 years, but it's too little, too late.


----------



## cstanley (Mar 12, 2008)

elder999 said:


> I don't even know where to begin-but I'll leave this first part alone-it speaks for itself, and it's partially correct. The government does make a lot ofg money on oil....whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
There is a big stash of dinosaurs in a box in my children's closet (I mean, like, a lot!). I could maybe put them in a blender and get some oil, you think?


----------



## crushing (Mar 12, 2008)

cstanley said:


> There is a big stash of dinosaurs in a box in my children's closet (I mean, like, a lot!). I could maybe put them in a blender and get some oil, you think?


 
You've got Congress in your children's closet?  Blender?  Hmmm.  Soylent Crude biofuel anyone?


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 12, 2008)

Huh you have it easy! ours costs the equivalent of $8 upwards a gallon (depending on where you go it's £1.06 upwards per litre for petrol and £1.12 upwards for diesel). It also varies where you are in the country. The government's taxes are responsible for a big chunk of that.


----------



## cstanley (Mar 12, 2008)

I never know who to believe. The Democrats (at least the Left wing of the party) are anti-capitalist, anti-free enterprise, and tend toward excessive tree hugging. The Republicans are often too cozy with corporate America and are too dismissive of environmental issues. Also, there is a lot of bad science out there. Some of it is just poor research, but a lot of the problem is that scientists are guilty of allowing their political views to taint their results. Competition among researchers keeps them from working together to share results and reach a scientifically reliable consensus. Then, there are those things which are hard to prove, such as whether warming and cooling cycles are just natural processes that have nothing to do with human variables or whether man makes a significant contribution either way.

So, I am left with common sense (my Dad used to say I had none). 

1. It is hard to imagine that a technological/industrial species such as man (of which we are too many) does NOT have some direct influence on long term environmental phenomena.
2. If Nazi Germany could produce synthetic fuel, we can, too. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but my suspicion is that corporations won't do it until they have to or are made to. It is about money.
3. None of the three candidates we are currently being offerred for President is qualified to deal with any of this...or anything else for that matter. (Just threw that in.)


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 12, 2008)

All I know at 4.00 a gallon I will be driving my wifes little car that gets 35 mpg instead of the mini van that gets only 18. Damm little *** cars.


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 12, 2008)

There's no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to fuels for vehicles.  Each type is going to have its baggage attached, and until people become willing to accept those consequences, we're still going to be stuck on conventional gasoline and diesel.  

I can still remember John Kerry blasting the Bush administration for funding fuel cell research that involved making engines that would strip individual hydrogens from conventional fuels (far more efficient than internal combustion), asserting that they should be funding fuel cells that would strip hydrogens from water instead.  

The sad thing is, nobody in the media blasted Kerry for his nonsense, since it actually takes *more* energy to obtain hydrogen from water via electrolysis, than the energy you'll get in return as a fuel.  





crushing said:


> You've got Congress in your children's closet?  Blender?  Hmmm.  Soylent Crude biofuel anyone?



But...  Soylent Green is...   

people!


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 12, 2008)

cstanley said:


> 3. None of the three candidates we are currently being offerred for President is qualified to deal with any of this...or anything else for that matter. (Just threw that in.)


 
Unfortunately, this is true.  Especially on this matter.  Not a single candidate we have to choose from has offered a single workable solution that would help in the short term and help in the long term.  I have no idea how to awaken the American conciousness to this problem.  I think it may come down to the feces actually hitting the fan...and then its too late.


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 12, 2008)

Elder999 and Cstanley, Please, Please tell me that you don't believe that the oil that we have been pumping out of the ground for over 100 years is from decomposing Dinosours, Give me a break,( That is propoganda the envirowacko's in the Government run schools put's out to the young Sheeple) That is such a myth and is very untrue. The planet produces oil naturally, over the years when a oil well would be pumped empty they would cap and seal it, years later the same well would be full again, this is happening all over the planet.


----------



## cstanley (Mar 12, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> Elder999 and Cstanley, Please, Please tell me that you don't believe that the oil that we have been pumping out of the ground for over 100 years is from decomposing Dinosours, Give me a break,( That is propoganda the envirowacko's in the Government run schools put's out to the young Sheeple) That is such a myth and is very untrue. The planet produces oil naturally, over the years when a oil well would be pumped empty they would cap and seal it, years later the same well would be full again, this is happening all over the planet.


 
Well, oil is produced from carbon based decay, whether dinosaurs or whatever. Chemical testing can prove that...no carbon, no oil. Scientific dating can also indicate the age of the deposits. These things indicate that oil is produced over a LONG period of time by decaying organic matter.

There could be a number of reasons for oil reappearing in a capped well:
1. They didn't get it all because of inefficient methods.
2. Shifts in the earth caused by tremors, earthquakes, etc.
3. Pressures deep in the earth forced deeper oil to the surface.
4. Gremlins sneaked in and poured used oil from old car engines into the holes.
5. It wasn't really oil but black ink dumped there by manufacturers when they told us all to switch to blue ink.
6. Sand worm waste. (See "Dune")
7. George Bush and Dick Cheney, in yet another dastardly Republican plot, pumped oil from their own vast personal reserves (hidden under the Pentagon) into those wells to shut everybody up. This was just after they blew up the World Trade Center, generated Katrina from their secret hurricane machine, and caused the volcanic eruption  that destroyed Pompeii.


----------



## Blindside (Mar 12, 2008)

cstanley said:


> Well, oil is produced from carbon based decay, whether dinosaurs or whatever. Chemical testing can prove that...no carbon, no oil. Scientific dating can also indicate the age of the deposits. These things indicate that oil is produced over a LONG period of time by decaying organic matter.


 
Oil isn't a renewable resource under most abiotic/abiogenic theories anyway.  Even if the oil fields are refilling, it isn't equal to the rate of consumption, and the theoretical oil pools that the abiotic theory is suggesting are far too deep for us to access in the near future.  The net effect is that it doesn't change the increase in demand and reduction in available oil that we are currently experiencing.

Lamont


----------



## tellner (Mar 12, 2008)

navyvetcv60....

Where the hell do you think it comes from? Do the fairies come at night and fill the Earth with magic pixie squeezings? Oil, coal and natural gas are called fossil fuels because they are made of the pressurized remains of dead plants and animals. They are "renewable" if you're willing to wait a couple hundred million years. 

"If we just leave them alone they'll miraculously fill themselves up again" is just about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 12, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> Elder999 and Cstanley, Please, Please tell me that you don't believe that the oil that we have been pumping out of the ground for over 100 years is from decomposing Dinosours, Give me a break,( That is propoganda the envirowacko's in the Government run schools put's out to the young Sheeple) That is such a myth and is very untrue. The planet produces oil naturally, over the years when a oil well would be pumped empty they would cap and seal it, years later the same well would be full again, this is happening all over the planet.


 
The abiotic oil theory is ******** Soviet propaganda.  During the Cold War in order to distinguish themselves from the Americans and provide incentive for huge financial interests to invest in Russian oil infrastructure, the Abiotic Oil Theory was conceived.  It did not matter if observations did not fit the theory.

For example

1.  No structurally independent oil feild has ever been observed to "refill".  Even though some feilds have shown evidence of recovery, this is easily attributed to the structural connections that the feild has with other nearby feilds.  Also, it should be noted observations of feild recovery are extremely rare.

2.  No deep drilling into crystalline precambrian rock has EVER turned up an appreciable amount of oil.  Deposits are ALWAYS found in sedimentary and metamorphic structures called impermeable anticlines.  The one exception always cited by ABOTists are some drilling samples taken in the Caspian Basin.  Deep core samples were taken from the surface of crystalline basement rock and a small amount of oil was found.  The structure that was drilled was a magnetic rise the bedrock surrounded by more typical impermeable anticlines that contained oil.  Thus, the most probably source for this oil is assumed to be the nearby oil traps.

3.  Fossils of bacteria, algal colonies, and various species of foraminifera are nearly always associated deposits of oil.  Even in surrounding sedimentary structures that are completely disassociated from this kind of life, these fossils are still found, precluding any claims of contamination.  Thus, providing strong evidence that petroleum is indeed a fossil fuel and is non-renewable.  

With that being said, I find it so ironic that so many right wing anti-government conspiracy theorists have mind communist propaganda psuedoscience to support their claims.  OMG WTF!!!!


----------



## cstanley (Mar 12, 2008)

tellner said:


> navyvetcv60....
> 
> Where the hell do you think it comes from? Do the fairies come at night and fill the Earth with magic pixie squeezings? Oil, coal and natural gas are called fossil fuels because they are made of the pressurized remains of dead plants and animals. They are "renewable" if you're willing to wait a couple hundred million years.
> 
> "If we just leave them alone they'll miraculously fill themselves up again" is just about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.


 
No, Tellner, I liked my theories about where it comes from better. You know, there are gremlins everywhere. They could be dumping old engine oil from old Chevy and Ford engine blocks into those wells. Nobody would see them at night out in the plains, under a starry sky...which reminds me, it could also be aliens from the planet Bugaloo. (makes as much sense as the abiotic theory, anyway.):cheers:


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 12, 2008)

Blindside said:


> Oil isn't a renewable resource under most abiotic/abiogenic theories anyway. Even if the oil fields are refilling, it isn't equal to the rate of consumption, and the theoretical oil pools that the abiotic theory is suggesting are far too deep for us to access in the near future. The net effect is that it doesn't change the increase in demand and reduction in available oil that we are currently experiencing.
> 
> Lamont


 
There are two versions of the Abiotic Oil Theory.  One states that oil is produced rapidly and that feild recovery would also happen rapidly.  The other states that oil is produced very slowly and that feild recovery would occur gradually over long periods of time.

With greater ABOT, the world would literally be awash in oil.  There aren't enough traps available on this planet to catch it all so most of it would end up on the surface.  These molecules would quickly get munched by bacteria and carbon dioxide would be released in response.  The amount of oil released by greater ABOT would make our planet resemble something like Venus.

With lesser ABOT, the rate of recovery would have to occur so slowing in order to fit in with current observations of the climate, that no oil feild would ever recover more then 1% in 10,000 years.  Thus the point is moot.  Oil would still be a "non-renewable" resource because our rate of consumption is exponentially greater.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 12, 2008)

tellner said:


> navyvetcv60....
> 
> Where the hell do you think it comes from? Do the fairies come at night and fill the Earth with magic pixie squeezings? Oil, coal and natural gas are called fossil fuels because they are made of the pressurized remains of dead plants and animals. They are "renewable" if you're willing to wait a couple hundred million years.
> 
> "If we just leave them alone they'll miraculously fill themselves up again" is just about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.


 
Gotta love the folks that think the earth has some sort of creamy nougat center filled with oil...


----------



## cstanley (Mar 12, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Gotta love the folks that think the earth has some sort of creamy nougat center filled with oil...


 
I like the crunchy centers better.


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 12, 2008)

Tellner, you can't be serious in thinking that all the oil we have used and all the oil that is still in the ground is from dead rabbits and dead weeds, GIVE ME A BREAK.  I always thought nerds were smart, guess i was wrong


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 12, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> Tellner, you can't be serious in thinking that all the oil we have used and all the oil that is still in the ground is from dead rabbits and dead weeds, GIVE ME A BREAK. I always thought nerds were smart, guess i was wrong


 
So where do you think oil come from?


----------



## tellner (Mar 12, 2008)

upnorthkyosa beat me to it, but I'll repeat the question.

If oil, coal and natural gas don't come from organic matter where do they come from? 

The evidence has been extremely clearly presented elsewhere in this thread. You have yet to respond rationally to any of it.

The energy contained in a gallon of gasoline can push a car twenty miles. If it just magically appears and reappears where is the energy coming from? Is it being created out of nothing? By cold fusion and ground loops?


----------



## theletch1 (Mar 12, 2008)

[playnice]Jeff Letchford[/playnice]


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2008)

cstanley said:


> Competition among researchers keeps them from working together to share results and reach a scientifically reliable consensus.



I'm sorry, there's no nice way to say this.  You have no idea what the **** you are talking about.  I am a scientist, and this is very far from the truth.  In fact, the conditions of our own funding require us to share information and resources with each other.  Very few scientists can be successful without collaboration.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> The planet produces oil naturally, over the years when a oil well would be pumped empty they would cap and seal it, years later the same well would be full again, this is happening all over the planet.



:erg:


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 12, 2008)

It's over $4 a gallon here, and our dollar is worth more then yours 

US gas prices are still a fair bit lower then in most other places.

Right now they work out to about $4.20 / gallon USD here.


----------



## cstanley (Mar 12, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I'm sorry, there's no nice way to say this. You have no idea WTF you are talking about. I am a scientist, and this is very far from the truth. In fact, the conditions of our own funding require us to share information and resources with each other. Very few scientists can be successful without collaboration.


 
Actually, this has been told me by several engineers and one pharmaceutical reseracher who are clients of mine. I guess they don't know what the fornication they are talking about either. There is no nice way to say this, but you don't really speak for all scientists, now do you.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2008)

cstanley said:


> Actually, this has been told me by several engineers and one pharmaceutical reseracher who are clients of mine. I guess they don't know what the fornication they are talking about either.



Commerical researchers then, I might have guessed.  I don't know about your engineer friends, but for the pharm industry, by far the greatest amount of target discovery is done by academic science.  Pharm guys do target validation and drug development.



cstanley said:


> There is no nice way to say this, but you don't really speak for all scientists, now do you.



Why do you think scientists clamor so hard to get their research published in journals?  That isn't a very effective way to hide their light under a bushel basket.


----------



## tellner (Mar 12, 2008)

Sorry cstanley, he's right. You don't understand how science is done. He's working in the field and knows how the process goes. So have I. So have a lot of people.


----------



## cstanley (Mar 12, 2008)

tellner said:


> Sorry cstanley, he's right. You don't understand how science is done. He's working in the field and knows how the process goes. So have I. So have a lot of people.


 
Only repeating what I have been told by others like you. There have even been articles published about it in magazines. Why do you think "corporate espionage" exists? I don't think they are stealing cookies.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 12, 2008)

I'd like to hear from more people who have some economics training regarding the following query...just how much is the weak dollar driving today's spike in oil prices?

From my understanding, it would seem that the oil production peak would affect long term prices.  

The short term very well could be a result of the Fed's injection of liquidity into the world markets.


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 13, 2008)

The $4 / gallon figure is probably going to be localized to areas that are traditionally higher on a regular basis, such as California, etc.  The rest of the nation will probably see $3.30 - $3.50, as long as the oil refinery status doesn't change.  






Empty Hands said:


> the conditions of our own funding require us to share information and resources with each other. Very few scientists can be successful without collaboration.


 
As another scientist, I'd have to agree.  

These days, it is getting even more difficult to get a R01 grant proposal funded, and the cutoff number for such grants has been getting smaller and smaller, to the point where "guaranteed funding" scores from just 7-8 years ago, are now in that "unfundable" scoring range.  

In order to get those really nice scores that are in today's "guaranteed funding" range, you have to put forth one heck of an effort in your grants.  This generally means that you need as much help as you can get from your fellow researchers.  

Now, there may be some people out there who scoff at the idea of collaboration, asserting that "if you don't get your own grants, all by yourself, then you're not any good," but those folks have either kept themselves isolated, already have plenty of stable funding, or are in the process of dying out.  Collaboration is a *good* thing, and it's amazing what two different minds can do, compared to one, since sometimes, all it takes is a fresh view on things.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 13, 2008)

I was taught that collaboration is the essence of the difference between majic (the old ways) and science (the new ways).  The al-chemist is a secret person, who does not publish what he knows.  The scientist, though, will publish EXACTLY how to run the experiment.  Anyone, anywhere in the would should be able to run the same experiment and get results that are similar. 

I went to a school once that had some kind of honor society for science students.  The literature for that group made quite a point of saying that they were NOT a secret society, in any way -- that that is not the way of science, ever, and that they were not a group of magicians, but of scientists.

Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor!   hahahahaha!


----------

