Gasoline!?!?!

munk said:
You are so right. But they aren't waiting for me to go there; what you want to bet this is already being preached in Mosques?

And I still recall the comment by a Christian leader here that 9-11 was caused because we'd strayed from God. Not that he spoke for the Christians who are my neighbors.



munk
Click to expand...


Using religion like that really sucks.

I guy in my Bible study class said that AIDS was God punishing homosexuals. I was the first on my feet proclaiming, "Aw, come on!. I CAN'T believe you are saying that!" He was booed down quickly.
 
Some of the most horrid and evil things done in the world have been done in the name of *insert higher being of choice*. It's sad as most of the "good stuff" in religious texts teach peace, understanding, compassion, acceptance. Men are violent beasts given the gifts of reason and imagination. This can be a dangerous combo. With enough reason and imagination one can extrapolate anything one wishes from a religious text. Sometimes when i think about the way the world is, all i can think about is a room full of monkeys with 5lb sledgehammers in their hands smacking away at the floor...that's covered in pressure sensitive detonators.

Jake
 
hollowdweller said:
Gas is going nowhere but up regardless I believe.

As soon as everybody in China and India all have 2 cars and an air conditioner there will be $6 gas.

In a lot of ways it is sad that we failed to continue with the initiatives President Nixon and Carter started to conserve and encourage domestic production and alternative sources of energy. After the OPEC stranglehold kind of collapsed in 86 we basically abandoned all conservation.

When I started to work here 1984 I was driving a 4 cylinder and when I would get stuck in traffic what was around me? Pintos, Gremlins, Chevettes, Chevy Luvs, VW's. Fast forward to 2005. I'm stuck in traffic in my 4 cylinder. What's around me?? Hummers, F150's, SUV's. I think we should have at least figured out some way to encourage conservation thru tax breaks.

Here's an idea:

http://biowillie.com/
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but after 30 years there is no reason we should not be as independent as France as far as domestic electrical suppolies are concerned. The transmission towers are in place, and don't care whether the power comes from coal or a reactor. This is one we can lay squarely at the feet of the environmentalists who view nuclear power as "atomic poison power", and have actively thwarted all development of new reactors since the 70's. Good job folks.
 
arty said:
I may be wrong here, but I think that our government is owned by the oil and medical/drug industries. If they don't own our gov't, then someone does....and it is not the voter. The voter has seen a decline in income over the past 4 years, and these gas prices really hurt.
Click to expand...

Uh... what business were the president and vice president in before being elected?
:eek:
 
Svashtar said:
I'm sorry, but after 30 years there is no reason we should not be as independent as France as far as domestic electrical suppolies are concerned. The transmission towers are in place, and don't care whether the power comes from coal or a reactor. This is one we can lay squarely at the feet of the environmentalists who view nuclear power as "atomic poison power", and have actively thwarted all development of new reactors since the 70's. Good job folks.
Click to expand...


I don't agree with you. Or maybe I do. I guess it all depends on what you consider an "environmentalist". True there are some professional protest junkies who deplor nuclear power, but as I remember our former very conservative moderator Rusty was very against his home state of Nevada hosting the Yucca mountain nuclear waste storage facility. There are a million people like that all over the US who don't like the idea of having a potential bomb setting near them. I wouldn't really stereotype them as environmentalists, but more as concerned citizens.

I believe that nuclear power is generally safe myself, although I'd have to think twice about having one near me, on the other hand people are going to have to figure out they can't have it both ways. If you want the oil to last and no nuclear power then you can't drive 10 cyl dodge rams. If you want cheaper energy then you are going to have to accept nuclear as part of the package. Right now with Global Warming I think nuclear is probably better than burning coal.
 
Here's another look at the price of oil energy from the other side:

CHICAGO - The cost of renting a deep-water oil rig reached US$400,000 ($580,000) a day for the first time as producers such as Exxon Mobil Corp intensified their search for reserves amid record energy prices.

Exxon Mobil will pay rates of US$395,000 to US$445,000 a day under a rig agreement with Norway's Ocean Rig ASA, said people familiar with the contract who asked not to be identified because terms are confidential.

Ocean Rig disclosed the two-year deal on August 24...

...Transocean, the world's largest offshore driller, this month said it was negotiating day rates as high as US$395,000, double what the company charged a year ago.

The record reflects a shortage of the most prized rigs, those that can drill in waters as deep as 10,000 feet (3048 metres), along with soaring oil and natural-gas prices.

"These rates vividly illustrate the tightness of the offshore rig market," said Tom Kellock, head of consulting for ODS- Petrodata, a market research firm in Houston.

"There are virtually no rigs immediately available today."

Only about 20 rigs around the world can drill in the deepest waters...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=3&ObjectID=10343405

So are Transocean and Ocean Rig making some "immoral" killing?? They lost money when oil was $10 bl in 2000, and sure didn't have the funds to start building more deep water rigs then, even if someone were able to convince folks it would pay off.

This stuff is complicated.

BTW, compare the profit margins of the "big oils" to those of major insurers, financial corporations like Citigroup, "techs" like Microsoft, etc.

For instance Exxon's "obscene" profit margin for last year was 10-11%, about the same as GE's. Chevron's was 8.6 "

Microsoft's was 30-something. Citigroup's was 26%. Bank of America's was 31%.

We could argue over exactly what metric to use, but I think the point is made.
 
firkin said:
Here's another look at the price of oil energy from the other side:

CHICAGO - The cost of renting a deep-water oil rig reached US$400,000 ($580,000) a day for the first time as producers such as Exxon Mobil Corp intensified their search for reserves amid record energy prices.

Exxon Mobil will pay rates of US$395,000 to US$445,000 a day under a rig agreement with Norway's Ocean Rig ASA, said people familiar with the contract who asked not to be identified because terms are confidential.

Ocean Rig disclosed the two-year deal on August 24...

...Transocean, the world's largest offshore driller, this month said it was negotiating day rates as high as US$395,000, double what the company charged a year ago.

The record reflects a shortage of the most prized rigs, those that can drill in waters as deep as 10,000 feet (3048 metres), along with soaring oil and natural-gas prices.

"These rates vividly illustrate the tightness of the offshore rig market," said Tom Kellock, head of consulting for ODS- Petrodata, a market research firm in Houston.

"There are virtually no rigs immediately available today."

Only about 20 rigs around the world can drill in the deepest waters...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=3&ObjectID=10343405

So are Transocean and Ocean Rig making some "immoral" killing?? They lost money when oil was $10 bl in 2000, and sure didn't have the funds to start building more deep water rigs then, even if someone were able to convince folks it would pay off.

This stuff is complicated.

BTW, compare the profit margins of the "big oils" to those of major insurers, financial corporations like Citigroup, "techs" like Microsoft, etc.

For instance Exxon's "obscene" profit margin for last year was 10-11%, about the same as GE's. Chevron's was 8.6 "

Microsoft's was 30-something. Citigroup's was 26%. Bank of America's was 31%.

We could argue over exactly what metric to use, but I think the point is made.
Click to expand...

Good post! :thumbup:
 
Posted profit margins are issued by accountants after being filtered through senior management.


Mathematician: 2 plus 2 equals 4

Accountant: What do you want it to equal?

Every quarter margins are re-evaluated depending on what the management wants the stock prices to reflect.


I don't disagree with you, firkin.... But numbers no longer reflect reality as far as corporate entities go.
 
But that is true for just about ALL companies.
Click to expand...

What connection do you see between profit margin and pricing? Perhaps the company is simply inefficient; it still does not mean that customers are getting a good deal, or a fair pricing.

n2s
 
Interesting.

The prices around here fluctuate a bit but not badly. Currently we're still at under $3 for everything. I'm actually a bit surprised by this. I was expecting the prices to rise considerably. Right now diesel is cheaper than everything except for regular - another nice change of pace. It tends to be the most expensive type of fuel around here for reasons that defy rational explaination.

Today I filled up on base. I log my fuel consumption from tank to tank in an ongoing effort to know who's got the best fuel and what the best product for doping it is. (Our diesel fuel is garbage in this country and the '04 TDI is notoriously picky about its fuel.) I fill at the same pump at each station, fill until it stops on its own, and divide the amount of fuel purchased by the miles on the trip odometer, which is reset on each fillup. It's not the most accurate system in the world but it's reasonably so.

This fillup:

11.868 gallons purchased, against 487.6 miles traveled, for 41.085 gallons per mile fuel consumption. This was mostly around town and I'm known as a leadfoot.

Muscle car owners post their quarter mile times. TDI owners post their fuel consumption figures. :) I can achieve 50 if I go easy on the go-pedal and stick to the highways.

Gas prices will rise - it is a fact of life. When we were taught as children that we had a hundred years or more of petroleum left this was before the industrialization of China, India, and others. Those lessons no longer apply. We'd best get used to the idea, the sooner the better.

In the short term, we need more efficient vehicles - this is happening. (Whether people choose to drive them or not is of course up to them but some are coming around.) In the long term we will have to find something else and I'm not talking about vaporware, like hydrogen fueling and such. There is no easy way out of this, but some ways are harder than others.
 
I have 75 gallons of unleaded, mine-all-mine...

in a boat in my yard. Free for the hand-pumping.


Ad Astra :rolleyes: :(
 
We're supposed to be getting sulfur-free diesel this year. Then maybe we'll see more efficient diesel engines like they use in Europe. I'm all for nuclear power. Put one right in my backyard. As long as I can shoot the mutants for target practice :D
 
The prices here have dropped from $5.87 down to about $3.29. I was complaining last week about having to pay $2.69. During the craziness a few days ago, people would have kissed your butt to get $2.69.

The problem Yvsa, Kismet and a few others, is that you and I are old enough to remember low prices. I can remember gas being under $0.20 a gallon. I filled my brand new 1964 Ford Galaxy 500 Fastback (Maroon with a black interior and a 4 speed, police interceptor 390 engine) for $4.

This was from dead empty to full of high test. AND someone at the “service station” Pumped it for you! AND they checked your oil and tire pressure. Topped up the radiator if it needed it. Cleaned ALL your windows. Called you “Sir” and spoke American!

I thought that $4 for a fill-up was a lot! But I was making $4 an hour. A fillup now costs me $61 at $2.69 and I am sure not making $61 an hour!

In 1969 a friend bought a new Toyota for about $2,000. A comparable car today costs $32,000 SIXTEEN TIMES AS MUCH.

Carry that forward. I would guess that an average family income in 1969 was about $20,000. Now I would guess it is about $40,000.

To keep up with car prices we should be making 16x $20k. That would be about $320,000? Anybody getting that? Not me!

AND most families can not get by without two cars! So we MUST have two wage earners. Husband and wife MUST work.

I am not blaiming the car dealers here, but our family values are going down the toilet because Mama has to work. The kids are being raised by television.

Really, most young couples can not afford to have children. AND maintain a lifestyle they feel they need.

My wife, Anne, said it all, "Why do people buy things they don't need (on credit) to impress people they don't like?"

Not to make this a political forum, but this really is bad and I hate to point this out, but the Mexicans I know, (and they are more shy in Atlanta than southern California) have very powerful family values. The husband works and the wife stays home and takes care of the children. They all go to church on Sunday and it is not just lip service.

I hire them in Atlanta for grounds and landscaping work, painting my houses, roofing, cement and brickwork. I have never had one steal from me. Almost never had a worker that I would call "lazy." AND NEVER had a single one give me 'attitude.'

I do require seeing a green card or some form of legal paperwork.

I have never had a family not pay their rent on time and when they leave a house it is cleaner than when they took occupancy.

I know about the problems in California and I sure do not mean to minimize the destruction some Mexicans can cause, but the people here, and most are from Jalisco and Guadalajara, are good people. BUT even they don't like the central and northern Mexicans.

AND they are the fastest growing ethnic group in this country...........
 
I know about the problems in California and I sure do not mean to minimize the destruction some Mexicans can cause, but the people here, and most are from Jalisco and Guadalajara, are good people. BUT even they don't like the central and northern Mexicans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't know if Guadalajara is the same thing as the Guatamala, but Guatamalans have always been very good workers and are sought after, (or were) for agriculture in California. I've lived around 'Mexicans" (whatever the heck that is) all my life. There are strong family and church values in many parts of Mexico and they want nothing to do with second or third generation welfare Mexicans in LA. They aren't the same people any longer.

I don't really think there are any generalizations that are safe.

edit- I guess Guadalajara is a State of Mexico. Guatamala is another country, one the Mexicans do not easily accept immigration from.


munk
 
Yeah Bill,

I got teased about "putting a 327 in a '51 Ford when gas prices are going up to twenty-nine cents a gallon."

Of course, I was also working days to save for college, and pumping gas and changing oil at the local Standard Station at night to pay for the car.

It's just life. Those days are those days. These days are these days.




A good friend's business went under recently. He'd kept it going, in part because it was the supplemental income to hundreds of farm families, whose men worked the farm, and the women worked at his plant in the community, during "school hours." It was a community responsibility, he felt.

Over the recent years, the work force had been replaced to a large extent by immigrant Mexicans. Aside from illegal documentation cases, he said he had never had a better work force.

Socially, the only constant is change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top