# OT/NT Increase prices with less complaints



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Have you noticed that the gas companies have been increasing prices by 50 cents or so and there is this big hub-bub and then it goes down about 25 cents and everybody feels better and it all quiets down? 

I think they have figured out how to continually increase prices, yet evade a Congressional investigation this way. When the price goes up, everybody gets all up in arms and Representatives and Senators start threatening official hearings and such, but then the price drops about half of what it went up and they all forget about it. YET, it is still up about 25 cents over what it was. 

If it had just gone up the 25 cents and stayed there, there would be that investigation, but because it decreases half of what it went up nothing happens 

Anybody else notice that?


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Yep, It happens all the time, and just about everywhere else as well.Mark it up a whole bunch, then advertise it "on sale" and people happily gobble it up for more than the old price. 

In fact, I sort of noticed something similar with um, brass track on here as well, lol.


----------



## markperr (Jan 7, 2008)

Here in Michigan we have a furniture chain that continuously advertises everything at "HALF-OFF" because they "bought too many, bought another closed out furniture store, got a great deal on brazilian coco plants" you name it, they got a reason to make it half off. 

A couple of years ago, I went into one of their stores when there wasn't a sale going on and all of the furniture was the same price as when it was on sale, the difference being that the marked up "real price" tag wasn't on the furniture. 

Mark


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

That kind of pricing is illegal in some communities. 

edit: It is also illegal in some communities to have a continuous "Going out of business" sale. You even have to get a "permit" to have one and it must be completed in some period of time or the company can be fined.


----------



## flatracker (Jan 2, 2008)

Mostly I've just noticed gas prices going UP. Two days ago it was $3.47 at Wal-Mart. Yesterday it was $3.61. Sort of makes you want to fill up even if your not empty before it goes up again. Lets see, $3.61 x 5 = $18.05 to fill the gas can for my lawn mower. Gee, it wasn't all that long ago that would fill my car. 

How about coffee? Folgers was a lttle over $3 for the 39 oz. container before Katrina. Then it went to just over $5 because the port was closed and it had to be rerouted. Now the port is open and it is $7.49. What's that about???? Maybe greed?


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Charles, 

What can you do? Don't buy gas, don't drive a car. Our society is gasoline based. I have to go to work, so I don't have time to go picket a gas station. I have started to carpool with a co-worker, but she's about 1/3 the way to work, so I still have to drive at least part way every day. I do have a bike (2 of them), and have considered riding the 26+ miles each way to work, but home life dictates a speedy return home in the evening, so an hour and a half ride home is out of the question. 

I was reading a blog the other day about fuel prices and the potential for oil to go to $200/ barrel in the near future. That'd mean $7 or higher for a gallon of gas. What will that do to our economy? I still have to go to work, so guess what? I'll have to pay that. 

Maybe you guys that lived through the 60s can teach us young guys how to beat the Man. Oh wait, I forgot, most of you are the Man!!


----------



## wchasr (Jan 2, 2008)

"Maybe you guys that lived through the 60s can teach us young guys how to beat the Man. Oh wait, I forgot, most of you are the Man!! " 

Actually we need to be thinking farther back to our history books for us Mark. Back to the late 20's and the early thirties during the Great Depression. Im afraid things will likely get that bad! 

Chas


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

What milage does your car get? 

If it gets less than 25mpg, your part of the problem. 

If it gets less than 15mpg, you ARE the problem. 

There are several cars out there that get over 30mpg, a few that get 40mpg, even some SUVs and trucks that get 25+mpg. Motorcycle sales are going way up, as are Vespa scooters. and according to the paper this weekend here in LA, traffic is down in many areas as more people take the commuter trains to work. There are alternatives out there. 

Face it, its OUR addiction as a nation to big gas guzzling vehicles thats a huge chunk of the problem, experts have been saying for decades that Americans need to change their driving habits, but everyone has been more than willing to follow the Pied Piper of Detroit right over the cheap fuel dependant cliff. I grew up and remember the Gas Crisis vividly, waiting in lines for gas, the ration cards, I really dont think my fellow Americans will "get it" until they have to go through something that cathartic again. I grew up in the era of small cars, they were slow, not the greatest in comfort but we got by, we lived with the small car, in fact with a couple exceptions, I have ALWAYS had a small car, and I'm not exactly petit, so it isnt this great impossibility, and modern small cars are lightyears ahead of the econo-crappers of the 70-80's in comfort and performance. 

Most of our local and all of our federal leaders have for decades flaked out on the issue, especially on mass transit. There are in reality ony TWO serious method to get from point A to point B in this country, drive or fly, what happens this summer when high fuel prices either make flying painfully expensive, and/or airlines start dropping like flies? Drive? Hmm...cross country at $5 a gallon? Doesnt sound pretty, lots of Happy Meals and camp grounds to save costs? Amtrak needs a SERIOUS overhaul as part of a national transit policy that begins to de-emphisis automobiles and air traffic. 

When I traded in my truck for my Scion Xb, some of the people I know were saying, "why did you trade it in, it was so big and comfortable?" when I said I didnt like paying $70 to fill it, they would still reply "but it was so big and comfortable?" Despite the fact that my Scion is far MORE comfortable than the truck and has much MORE passenger room inside, I still get, "its so small looking...." 

$5 this summer, ready for it?


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

"Attention Attention News Alert!! they have now developed a vehicle which is powered by SAND!! Just in time oh holy crap "Guess who owns all the sand?!!"


----------



## wchasr (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 05/13/2008 9:00 AM 
What milage does your car get? 
If it gets less than 25mpg, your part of the problem. 


Both vehicles do. Minivan and Full size van. Minivan averages right now about 20 to 23 MPG. It used to get more but it's getting older now. 

If it gets less than 15mpg, you ARE the problem.


One does. So Yes I'm part of the problem as you define it. Still I only put about 40 gallons of gas in it a month. 


There are several cars out there that get over 30mpg, a few that get 40mpg, even some SUVs and trucks that get 25+mpg. Motorcycle sales are going way up, as are Vespa scooters. and according to the paper this weekend here in LA, traffic is down in many areas as more people take the commuter trains to work. There are alternatives out there.


Not for what I paid or can afford. Brand new Full size vans or SUV's are in the range of $30,000 to as much as $60,000, I got my big van for hauling the whole family and our camping gear in a utility trailer. I paid $3000 for it a year ago and it will be paid off this fall if all goes well. I drive it to and from work and when we need to drive other wise we take the minivan. On a regualr basis I only put gas in the big van twice a month. Where as my wife drives the minivan and puts gas in it at least once a week. She drives to work much farther than I do though. There is NO public transportation available for either of us and I'm not quite close enough to ride my bicycle. Two years ago when prices spiked because of Katrina I rode my bicycle a LOT. Even had a trailer to pick up the girls from teh sitters in. They no longer fit in the bike trailer and I've got double the distance (& elevation) to ride to get home with or without them even if they did fit in the bike trailer. 


Face it, its OUR addiction as a nation to big gas guzzling vehicles thats a huge chunk of the problem, experts have been saying for decades that Americans need to change their driving habits, but everyone has been more than willing to follow the Pied Piper of Detroit right over the cheap fuel dependant cliff. I grew up and remember the Gas Crisis vividly, waiting in lines for gas, the ration cards, I really dont think my fellow Americans will "get it" until they have to go through something that cathartic again. 
$5 this summer, ready for it? 


Yup I've dratically changed my driving habits as my life has changed. When I was single and Gas was cheap road trips were awesome! Then I got married and trips to visit family were budgetted in and roadtrips were out. Divorced and remarried and had kids and roadtrips are totally out. Vacations are scheduled and budgetted to within pennies and un-neccesary trips are generally cancelled. Camping is even limited to once a summer anymore. As my life changes my driving habits and vehicles have changed. Just fact, not really anything to do with the economy. I'm already budgetting $4 to $5 a gallon for gas. 

Chas


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

The big wigs are always talking about taking buses/commuter trains, but there ain't no such animal here in central Neb. It's drive or nothing. 3 hours to an airport, can catch Amtrak at 3am about 40 miles from here, otherwise that's it, and every administration tries to get rid of Amtrak, our only alternative to flying. 
Sheeesh, . Jerry


----------



## thekollector (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Jerry, 

Nebraskans and ex Nebraskans (like me) may need to go back to oat burners (horses for the rest of you). I would love to see the tie rails show up in front of businesses again. 

Jack B


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 05/13/2008 9:00 AM 
What milage does your car get? 
If it gets less than 25mpg, your part of the problem. 
If it gets less than 15mpg, you ARE the problem. 
There are several cars out there that get over 30mpg, a few that get 40mpg, even some SUVs and trucks that get 25+mpg. Motorcycle sales are going way up, as are Vespa scooters. and according to the paper this weekend here in LA, traffic is down in many areas as more people take the commuter trains to work. There are alternatives out there.


AMEN! Our cars get 32 & 40 mpg, cost $12K & &15K, and we don't let ourselves gripe about the cost of fuel. When I hear people at work (usually the ones driving the trucks & SUVs) complain, I remind them that they are the ones who bought the huge truck as a commuter vehicle. 

I'm sorry, but trucks and vans just don't make sense in most cases. Our Scion xA can easily haul 4 or 5 adults, and with a single axle trailer or roof rack can handle all the camping gear needed for a trip of several weeks. All while getting around 40 mpg. You want a truck/SUV/van? Fine, I won't stop you, but I don't want to hear complaints about the cost of gasoline. 

The way I see it, fuel prices are up, are going up, and will stay up. The result will eventually be a shift to smaller cars, and hopefully greater dependance on mass transit. If we as a country are really dumb, we won't have learned anything from the '70s, in which case we all buy fuel efficient cars, gas prices go down, and we all buy gas guzzlers again. 30-40 years from now, our kids will have to go through the same thing over again. Let's hope we're collectively smarter than that. 

I, for one, intend to ignore the cost as far as practical, and just go on building model trains. I just hope the rising oil prices don't send Plastruct and Evergreen prices through the roof. Then I will be mad!/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/tongue.gif


----------



## wchasr (Jan 2, 2008)

Kenneth, 
What even midsize vehicel will carry 4 or 5 (preferably 6) AND tow a vehicle at 32 to 40 MPG? AND will convince me to spend 30K on it? 

currently I'll keep my big old Van and NOT complain about the gas I put in it at any cost. I'm offended when someone tells me that "I am the problem" though. Sorry Vic. No easy solution here in the hills of W NY. 4 & 6 bangers don't haul up and down our hills. 

Chas


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Shifting the discussion slightly, I don't think smaller, more fuel efficient cars are the solution...they're JUST part of it. I live in a heavily urbanized area...and frankly, I think a concentrated plan to shift us from cars to GOOD public transit must become part of the solution. 

In Southern California, we're seeing freeway widening projects costing over $100,000,000 per mile these days. There is a $1.4 billion widening project finishing up now that widened I-15 here...for 9 miles...to reduce commute times for 10's of thousands of people. And that's just the beginning. CALTRANS is budgeting for miles and miles of more freeway widening to handle MORE cars...that are not fuel efficient when compared to rail transit...nor are they speedy. 

Somehow, we need to shift from driving to work to driving to high speed train stations and riding the train to a station that offers both public and private transportation to work. It also means HUGE parking facilities at stations. 

California is pursuing it's High Speed Transportation system which is strongly supported by the environmental groups...because it is SO energy efficient...and so polution reducing...and it's far less distruptive than these HUGE, multiyear freeway widening projects. In fact, it's elevated on a bridge in urban areas and uses the existing freeway right of way. The latest twist to the project is a study to see if the whole high speed train initiative can be made energy neutral...perhaps energy positive...by leasing right of way to solar power generation facilities. 

But...the train is only the long haul part of the solution. How to get from the destination to your job is the other part that must be solved. That's either more buses/trolleys, electric cars, or regional shuttles. That is NOT part of the high speed train solution...in fact, I don't see that the HST commission is even looking at the train as a commuter solution...something it could be. 

But with housing prices driving people away from where they work, someone needs to think about how to get those folks to work...without building more freeways...and more fuel efficiently. I look at the housing that is being built north of me in Riverside...and see the thousands of cars driving south to San Diego. The math for transportation says that a high speed rail line running at load factors of 85% is equal to a 4 lane freeway running at a 45 mph average speed...that's about 8500 people per hour...and that's with only 8 trains per hour on one track. But, it's six times faster in commute time...shrinking the long haul part of a commute of 50 miles from just over an hour to under 15 minutes. 

That time savings provides lots of time for people to disembark and wait/take local transit to their job...and, is far more relaxing. 

The solution to this oil price increase needs a LOT more out of the box thinking than it's getting. More efficient cars is one piece of the solution...but it's NOT a solution when you look at the big picture. Further, more efficient cars still use oil. Others forms of power need to be used to stabilize costs of getting around...because I don't see anything other than trains that competitively uses other energy forms to contain the rising price of oil. Right now, there are no alterntives...so oil being a seller's market will stay...and oil prices will continue to go up...simple supply and demand. 

And, this isn't rocket science...Japan, Germany, and France already do this...because they dealt with the energy cost issues before the US did. It's time to think outside the box...and look for a solution in a different solution space...and as a bonus, for those that need the van for the family might be able to keep it...if all it was used for daily was to drive a short distance to the train station and drop someone off...maybe several people.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Mike, 

I agree with you! I believe that finding solutions will be the challenge for us. I think part of the problem is the flexibility of the automobile. We have become accostomed to providing our own transportation, and our shopping habits and lifestyles are tied to them. Personal transportation is not something we're going to be able to give up easily. I shudder when I think of toting groceries home from the supermarket on public transit (if we had it) or on a bike trailer. It is not impossible, but it would take some detailed planning, that's for sure! And no impulse buying! That'd be the killer! 

My point is that transportation solutions are going to have to come from local groups. Wider roads to accomodate bicycles and sidewalks, etc... What works in one place may work in another with some tweaking. 

Here in central PA, the populations are not concentrated in the cities, but rather, we're all scattered around. There is a high speed train line from Harrisburg to Philadelphia (and connecting to the North East Corridor) that runs through Lancaster. They have done a major upgrade to the line recently and decreased transit time between Lancaster and Philly by 15 minutes or so, while keeping the ticket price low ($14 one way to Philly, $48 to Penn Station, New York). The decreased transit time meant that more trains could be operated over the two track line, resulting in more frequent (and convinient) service. If I worked in Harrisburg or Philly, that would be a major draw to ride. The trains are highly patronized and ridership is growing. That's good news for that line and selfish me! I have an alternate to the toll roads of PA, NY, and NJ when traveling to see my parents. While it will take me a grand total of 1 hour longer to get to my parents house in CT, I have a more enjoyable trip, and I get one more visit to Grand Central Terminal. When Luke is older, it'll be more practical to take that route. Right now, however, it is the SUV for the weekend road trips. I don't have a trailer and didn't like hauling one that one time I used the suburban to tow 12 tons of stone to the house. 

I looked in to riding the bus system here as well (and NO, they are not pulled by mules!!). The problem is that I would have to connect to 4 different busses, and the resulting commute time was something like 90 minutes for a 26 mile commute, all but 5 miles of which is low traffic highway driving. There used to be a railroad line from Lancaster to York. The tracks crossed the Susquehanna River at Columbia/Wrightsville, a mile wide crossing. There are currently two road bridges there, and the old piers for the railroad still exist. The tracks from Lancaster west were double or triple tracked at one point, but it is currently single tracked. Norfolk Southern owns that line and uses it daily. Theoretically, a new bridge could be built on the old piers and a second, dedicated track could be laid adjacent to the NS line in place. Train service to an from York could be possible, but in this area, folks tend to shoot down anything that doesn't benefit them directly. Case in point, Lancaster county voted against a $25/100,000 property assesment tax that would fund libraries. As a result, several libraries closed. Maybe it was the Amish vote, I don't know, but it seems pretty short sighted and foolish to me. 


I have started to carpool with a co-worker, and that has worked out pretty well. We have the same hours and drive to the same office (that sounds weird, but we have 4 offices in York). 

Part of the problem for me is I got lucky and found an affordable house in the best school district in Lancaster Co (and one of the top 500 in the US). Now that I have been here for 5 years, I am reluctant to move from here so that I could have a shorter commute to work (and theoretically use less fuel). 

There's not an easy way to turn the clock back to 1890, unfortunately. 

Mark


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

Last time I checked, this is a free country and a person is allowed to spend his/her money as they like. If he/she wants to buy a SUV or a pickup truck, it is his/her right to do so. If you want to buy one of those little cars, go for it. Don't tell me that I have to buy one of them. 

We have plenty of oil, coal, and natural gas to use -- but the environmental extremists block us from getting at it. 85% of off shore oil is off limits!!! 

Terry


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Terry I agree with you 100%, I firmly beleive one should drive what they like and like what they drive. 

Where I draw the line is when I have to listen to people who have knowingly bought costly-to-own poor milage vehicles for the "Gotta impress the crowd" Bling-Bling factor, giant SUV's, 4x4s, luxo-coupes, then publicly whine and bemoan about having to pour $100 twice a week into the fuel tank! 

You would be surprised how many people I have run into that seam to think they have some god-given entitlement to cheap gasoline. When I reply that the writting has been on the wall for over 3 years now that gas was going to go nowhere but up, and that they are either going to have to suck it up and pay the price to keep their Ford Expedition, or trade it in for something more practical like a Ford Escape, they react with a shock like I just declared to their 2 year old that Santa isnt real. I really do feel we will have to thru another cathartic gas crisis before people "get it" this time... 

I'm already expecting Ford and GM to suffer badly in the coming 5 years and Chrylser may completely disappear, considering the PT Cruiser is the ONLY small car in their lineup. 

I hope the silver lining is that maybe, just maybe, we'll start to really build a national co-hesive passenger rail system, California has a start with Amtrak California, Metrorail and Calrail, but the HST project has repeatly been stonewalled by the highway and airline special interests. Oil may reach such a painfull level that airfare and gas prices become prohibitivlly costly to travel, rail may become the only true viable option. But I suspect we are only a few years away from some serious planning to electrify many miles of the national network...powered by nuclear powerplants. 

I'm saying it now, if your even thinking of trading in that low milage car for a higher milage model, better consider doing it this year, next year if gas does indeed break $5 a gallon, anything that gets less than 15mpg and isnt running on vegitable oil, isnt going to be worth the metal its made out of...


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

Actually I lived through the 60's. Gas was $0.32 a gallon most places and you got full service at the pump. Then the Arab Oil Embargo hit in 1973 and it went to $1.20 (or so) overnight. Four fold increase, that really hurt. I solved that problem by buying a smaller car and driving less. It was an immediate, effective solution. 

Here in Vegas, there is no shortage of Escalade, Navigator, F350 (and larger)etc, and yet people complain. 

I don't want to hear a word out of any politician on the high price of gas. If they really cared, they could cut all the taxes out gas and prices would plummet.


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

One thing to consider -- In the 70's the cost of gas was 0.50 / gal and the hourly wage was $5 and hour. Wages have gone up faster than the cost of gas and the ratio is lower now. 

The government makes a very large profit on a gallon of gas -- much more than the oil companies. 

Terry


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Based on the way MOST people drive they are not interested in saving money when it comes to driving. They still average 10 mph over the posted 65 mph posted speed limit. That extra 10 mph reduces their milage buy at least 2 mpg (5 to 10 %) Some people are not directly effected buy the gas prices, the have enough money or don't drive enough for it to have an effect. They WILL be indirectly effected sooner or later. My 1st class membership renewal... sorry it's going in the gas tank to get to steam-ups this year. 
Most people say the gas price is a result of supply and demand, but from where I sit it looks more like a result of the those with the money and insite making tons of money in the commodities market. ? 
In this economy I'm just happy to be working ! I don't see anything happening to make me think things are going to get "better" any time soon. Will we have a short recession.. I hope but with energy and food prices increasing as fast as they are I fear we are just getting started. It may be time to sell off the rental house and put the money in the bank... but I may suffer at TAX time ???? 
Speaking of TAXES they re-assessed my house again.. the second time in less then 5 years, up another 30 grand WTF, guess I'll have to raise my tennants rent by $50.00 a month to cover the tax increase.. no, no $100.00 a month Have to plan ahead for the next tax increase.. 
OK END of RANT, I feel better now! Thanks for listening.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 05/13/2008 9:00 AM 

If it gets less than 15mpg, you ARE the problem. 
..... There are alternatives out there. 

$5 this summer, ready for it?




First, I need a VAN or TRUCK to haul my biz stuff to shows. I've been trying to use Kim's car as much as possible at other times, but it doesn't get very good mileage either. 
Second, the public transportation system here does NOT go where I need to go (like work) WHEN I need to go there. It is also MORE expensive (even with a pass) than putting gas in the van. 
Third, as I said before, there is simply NO MONEY available to replace either vehicle. Living just a smidge above the poverty level sure ain't fun. 


It's REAL easy for rich city folks to point fingers.... They have more choices, and banks will loan them money. 

IMO the "problem" is a society that does NOT pay enough for "essential" workers (teachers, farmers, nurses, truck drivers, and yes even garbage collectors) to live on and conversely hugely rewards people who shuffle money, play kid's games, or etc. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif


----------



## markperr (Jan 7, 2008)

Depending on your point of view and who you listen to, you can either blame the gas guzzling crowd and their mega trucks or PETA and the Sierra Club and their environmental activism. 

My take. Why haven't we built any new refineries since 1976? Why must we have so many different formulas for gasoline each summer? Why aren't we building nuclear power plants? After all, it's the cleanest burning form of fuel. 

We complain about jobs being outsourced to places like China but we still buy Chinese goods. The Chinese are experiencing unprecented growth in their economy as are the Indians. Their combined populationa are eight times that of the U.S. They are gulping not only petroleum but ALL commodities at an excessively high rate, but their economy requires it as an outgrowth of it's expansion. 

This situation is highly complex and personally, I believe, it's a little naive to blame someone because of their personal choice in transportation. 

If you really want to hedge yourself against rising oil prices, buy oil stocks. 

mark


----------



## cmjdisanto (Jan 6, 2008)

/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By terry_n_85318 on 05/13/2008 4:14 PM
One thing to consider -- In the 70's the cost of gas was 0.50 / gal and the hourly wage was $5 and hour. Wages have gone up faster than the cost of gas and the ratio is lower now. 





Um, hello. I make $7.15 an hour. A GOOD paying job in this area is $10-15/hr and gas is $3.759 this morning...just HOW is that a lower ratio? New Math?


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Just my opionion, but I don't think we'll see much in the way of new nuclear power plants. Sure, it is the most efficient way of making energy with the lowest environmental impact, but who wants a nuclear plant in their backyard? The regulations and hoops a power company would have to jump through to get permitted usually means that power generation is done by burning coal and then cleaning the fumes with a wet scrubber. 

I'd love to see someone build a power plant in California. Coal, Nuclear, or anything else. 

I was thinking a little bit last night on my drive home about riding a bicylce the 52 miles roundtrip to work and home. I'm not concerned about physically making the trip. I have a very light road bike with slightly knobby tires (it is technically a Cyclocross bike, used for racing road bikes off road. I've never used it for that, but it goes fast on packed cinder rail trails, etc..). Riding that bike at 18-20 mph is not much of a challenge, and I've had her up to almost 40 on a long downhill. I'm already conditioned as a long distance runner, and converting myself to a long disance cylcist would not take too long. But I was thinking, how much money would I really save by riding? See, riding that far twice a day would result in higher food consumption by me. I'd have to start eating high energy foods, or more high energy foods! I could see my food intake double, especially if I take the logical route and consume Power Bars or other energy bars that taste nasty but pack a whollop. That might cost me more than gas! The upside of riding to work every day would be increased healthiness (unless I get hit by a car). The downside would be an additional 2 hours of commuting time and higher food bills. We have facilities at work where I could get showered after the ride, so my co workers wouldn't be subjected to working with a 'more' stinky guy. 

Mark


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

The other negative for nukes is that they require a rather large water supply for cooling. With the prolonged drought in many areas of the country rivers and resevoirs are at all time lows, not the best place to build something that needs lots of water for cooling, so ocean front plants and largest river locations like the Mississippi River may be the only really vaible locations, and as you say, no one wants one in there back yard.


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

Mik, 

Depends on your occupation and location. If you choose to work and live where the wages are lower, don't complain. If you want to make more money, then you will have to move to where the good paying jobs are. The choice is yours. 

Terry


----------



## cmjdisanto (Jan 6, 2008)

/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2008)

cmjdisanto, 

i think you err, if you compare the upcoming times with the depression of the 30ies. 

then they had a deflation. nobody had money, but money did buy every- and anything. 

now your problem are the many dollars, your federal reserve printed (or just programmed in computers). 
there are too many dollars, compared to the assets or productions of the US. 
in the recent past, about 80% of all dollars were outside the US. (china alone holds more dollars, than the US brutto product of a year is) 
now the foreign holders of all those dollars are starting to buy with them - in the US! 
as a result you got too much dollars in the country. 
as a result you will get a nice little runaway inflation to cope with. 

that means, everybody has to change habits. 
my experience with inflations in south america (we had more than 30% annual) says, that those who are dependant on fixed monthly income (employees and pensioners) are in the deepest sh... 
simple labour will get paid dayly, so they can buy dayly at least their food. 
monthly pay will not keep up in speed with the devaluation. 
small businesses and retailers will have to change prices weekly, to meet the costs of restocking. 
those with some money to spare will start to buy things instead of having bank accounts, to preserve value. 

believe me, that will be a very different from the great depression.


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

Life is about choices -- Where you live, what tye of work you do, and your education to list a few. If you set your mind to do something, you can do it. 

Sure, moving is tough, but if you want to improve your quality of life for your family you need to do what needs to be done. If that means going to night school or whatever, you do it If you are happy with your present situation, then you stay where you are. 

Don't complain about your status if you aren't willing to make the required changes, whatever they may be. 

Terry


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Terry, it IS about what is BEST for my family. My parents live here, my grandmothers live here, my children live here with their mother. The roots run deep, and I care about more than just "me". Yes, I made that choice. Am I wrong? If I am (IMO) society is sick. 

Then there is the fact that I am on disability. So I am quite limited in the amount I can make BY LAW. Think of it as a fixed pension with even less money. It would take a REALLY good job with excellent bennies to pay for the meds and other stuff I need everyday. 

Add to that the fact that places with better job markets also have MUCH higher costs of living. My little brother moved to South Carolina for better work 20 some odd years ago. Except he continues to find that "right to work" mostly means some weasel has the right to come in and underbid him on his job right after he EARNS a raise and then he has to start over again. So what real choice is there in that? 

Like I said, easy for rich city fellas to point fingers.


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

Uncalled for personal attack. Define "rich". If I make fifty cents more an hour than you, is that rich? 

It still comes down to choice whether you like it or not. 

Terry


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Guys 

Let us keep this discussion away from the personal. The current economic climate affects us all in various ways and it is recognized that some are affected more greatly than others. But this is not the place for semi political crusading against Big Business nor for remarks which may be construed as persoanl attacks. 

The discussion to now has been spirited but civil - let us keep it that way. 

Regards (with my moderator's hat on) ... Doug


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

BTW I'm not rich either, if I was I wouldn't be bashing $40 HLW Macks and $5 Scientific frieght cars, I'd be completing my complete collection of Accucraft and Roundhouse live steamers! For every one driver that has a legitimate reason for owning such a large vehicle, there are 100 who dont have any other reason than to stroke their own egos. 

I see a parking lot of giant shiny polished chrome wheeled SUVs and trucks every day, each with a single occupant, slogging their way into work after their 1hr commute. Even this type of vehicular stroke-my-ego behavior is NOT what I was referring to, it was the overtly verbal whining crying of people complaining that they have to live in a capitalist system where the world market dictates gasoline prices that I just want to stuff their whining pie-holes with a large sock full of horse manure. I really think there are some people out here who live in a fantasy world and truely beleive that there's no reason we shouldnt have 30 cent a gallon gas just like Venezuela or Saudi Arabia. 

The irony is that most of the people who drive these types of vehicles are clearly of the means to trade it in for a more efficient car, but they would rather pay thru the nose to keep the Bling-bling image than be seen in something less desirable. Thats fine with me, I think people should drive whatever turns them on, I just wish they'de keep their pain-at-the-pump to themselves. 

The thing is when one can see an issue that will become a problem in the future, one has two choices, try to address it, or ignore it. Most people with these large vehicles choose to ignore the issue, hoping that the Blue Fairy would appear, save Pinnochio and make gas prices go back down at the same time, and now they're having to deal with the new reality. 

When gas prices first hit the fan and I realized that for simple economics, I really needed to dump my less than 2 years old truck, but I had to wait until I could swing a deal thru my credit union where the amount I owed on the truck equaled the blue book trade in, so it was essentially a wash to get rid of it, and I still had to bite the bullet and get a loan thru my credit union to buy my Scion. With gas prices the way they were, no one was going to buy my truck for more than blue book so trade in was the best option for me. 

All the people who bought the first hybrids and other smaller cars are now in a much better position and even if gas prices continue to spiral upwards, are going to have the last laugh...yesterday cost me $40 to fill the tank, used to cost only $25 when I first got it, am I going to complain?, nope, cause it would have been $90+ on the truck. Even if it goes to $60, It will hurt, but $60 is far better than $130 now isnt it? 

PS Mik, if by any chance you can swing a replacement car, I highly recommend looking at a Scion Xbs, it has more interior cab room than my Nissan Fronteir pickup had, and with the rear seat down, ALOT of cargo room, and they've been around for a while so used ones are not hard to find, just trying to help, being on a fixed income really stinks when prices start climbing or unexpected bills happen, I used to be self-employed and hurting for money during the last bad recession in the 90's. I know about trying to make $40 last a week. It sucks.


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

V 
If you work out the numbers, it takes a long time to break even on the cost of trading in your vehicle and buying one of the more fuel effcient vehicles. If you take the cost of a gallon of gas divide it by the difference in gas milage you get Dollars per mile. Take the cost of the new car - trade in and divide by the dollars per mile. You will get the number of miles you need to drive to break even at the current cost of gas. 
I have a full size pickup, I only put ~ 8000 miles a year on the pickup. I live two miles from work and I use less than a gallon of gas a day to go to and from work. I know the cost of the driving a vehicle that only gets 18 mpg, but I can live with that. 
I don't expect to get gas at 30 cents a gallon. With India and China in the equation now, the free market determines the cost of the fuel. Until the US can use the resources it has, the price will be going up to a point where the market will stabilize between supply and demand. 
The only one entity that is making an obscene profit is the Government -- they do no work but get 20% or so of the cost of a gallon of gas. 

On a previous post I referred to $5 hour wage. At that time the minimum wage was $1.70 an hour and the cost of gas was $0.50 / gal. Today the cost of gas is ~ $3.50 and the minimum wage is between $7 and $8 an hour. The ratio moved up a bit, but not that much. 

Terry


----------



## Road Foreman (Jan 2, 2008)

Vic, 

Check out Pebble Bed Reactors for a waterless power plant!! 

BulletBob


----------



## Rayman4449 (Jan 2, 2008)

No doubt it's a multifaceted issue. One key issue is, the known world reserves of oil peaked around the late 80's early 90's and we are on the downward side of the bell curve. With this fact plus China and India coming up, we are going to rapidly run out of crude oil. The politicians and oil companies know this and like it or not the market is what's going to and is driving the innovation and push to other forms of energy... i.e. high gas prices. It's an unfortunate truth that few people will look for more efficient vehicles or alternate forms of powered cars like all electric (which is how I want to go soon for my commuting back and forth from work) unless they are forced to. As I see it, there is really an incentive to raise and keep the prices high now to get people moving off of crude oil energy. It's not going to be fun, but it has to be done, so in some ways I'm glad to see prices have stayed up there. There are a lot of new types of vehicles about to enter the market, some all electric etc. One company is talking with paring with a new startup working on a Hyper capacitor that would allow for a 100mile or so travel and a recharge rate of 4-5 mins. You could stop at a station, plug in and be gone in minutes. 

http://peakoil.com/index.php - this site indicates US production peaked in the 70s and has been going down ever since.


----------



## thekollector (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 05/14/2008 4:09 PM

All the people who bought the first hybrids and other smaller cars are now in a much better position and even if gas prices continue to spiral upwards, are going to have the last laugh... 




Yep! right up until they have to replace the battery pack. That ought to get their attention! 

The battery material is mined in northern Canada, shipped to England for refining and then shipped to Japan for production. Pretty fair carbon footprint before it rolls a foot. 

Jack B.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

A few thoughts... 

1) Repealing--even temporarily--gas taxes does nothing. New York State did that back when we were complaining about $1.55/gallon, and distributors almost immediately jacked their prices up, claiming "rising prices." Keeping the taxes in place takes away the distributors' headroom, and also keeps money in the bank to fund road projects, which are already under-funded as it is. New shocks and struts every year cost more than I'd save without the gas taxes. 

2) The "slow down to save gas" theory is fuzzy math. Yes, you burn more gas, but you burn it for a shorter period of time. The practical fuel savings is pretty much a wash. I recently had a rental car that displayed instantaneous gas milage. At 75mph, it registered 22 mpg. At 65, it registered 23 mpg. No matter how I altered my highway driving, my average milage stayed within 0.2 mpg over the course of a few days. You'll improve your milage more simply by making sure your tires are properly inflated, and accellerating slowly at intersections. 

3) The SUV argument--Those who say "ditch the SUV" obviously forgot what it was like to travel with children (or travel through 18" of snow because the city doesn't plow your neighborhood streets). It is simply not a practicality. There's a reason the family station wagon was a staple in the 70s. My SUV gets 18 mpg. Even if I were to get a car that got twice that milage, by the time I pay for maintenance and insurance--to say nothing of the car itself--my cost savings disappears very quickly. 

3a) I could trade the SUV in for a more efficient model, but seeing as how my car is paid for, I'd have to add the car payment (and added insurance costs) to my monthly budget. 

My suggestion--buy oil stocks. Get your gas rebate through the back door.  

Later, 

K


----------



## KYYADA (Mar 24, 2008)

I was watching a show about trains the other day and it had a segment on trains going over the Cajon Pass in CA. I wondered why they couldn't have a hand full of locomotives set up to take the trains over that was equiped with an overhead wire system like electric locos. That way they could put the power from the dynamic brakes into the lines and use it to help power trains up the other side instead of just wasted heat. Wouldn't it be nice if hybrid cars could use power off the grid while making long trips on interstates using a wire system in the road? You could just pay your bill when you got off the system like a toll road. You could drive hundreds of miles for very little cost. No one really knows for sure what the oil reserves are. All the wells in Saudia Arabia and Iraq and such places in that area are around 1600' deep and almost no deeper drilling has ever been done there. The 60% to 70% easily recoverable oil in fields in TX and other fields in the US has been removed and the other little bit of recoverable oil left is very expensive to produce but can be at todays prices. 

Is the time right for Hemp? Henry Ford knew ethanol was the fuel of the future back in the 20's. He built a car out of hemp and ran it on ethanol made form hemp in 1941 here is a video of it 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rgDyEO_8cI 

Also one acre of hemp produces more paper than four acres of trees and the process is not as bad on the environment. The first drafts of the Constitution were written on paper made from hemp. Hemp can be grown in all 50 states and in southern states you can get up to three crops per year! It takes around 10 years to produce a stand of trees for pulp. I was reading on the net that if 11% of farmland in the US went into hemp production we coulld produce all the ethanol needed for fuel. That could be a net statistic as they are not reliable at times. 

just my 0.02 cents


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Industrial hemp is an interesting idea...as long as 1. You keep the idiots who can't tell it from pot from stealing it to smoke and/or 2. The organized crime people don't get involved and use the fields to HIDE pot in plain sight.....


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

While _electrics_ seem like a good idea. The first questions that come to my mind are;[*]1) Just exactly where is all the extra power generation that's going to be required to do the charging going to come from and what fuel is going to be used to generate it?[*]2) How is the national power grid going to support all this additional load that it's going to have to distribute, since its infrastructure is pretty much pushed to its limits many times, and it's maintenance hasn't been kept up with as it should have been.[/list]Don't take what I've said in the wrong manner, I'm not trying to criticize anything, but there are inherent problems with all proposed solutions, that will have to be addressed sooner or later.


----------



## flatracker (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey Kevin, I like the idea of buying oil stock. However, I'm retired and don't have the extra money to mess around in the stock market, and I'm sure the same applies to most of us. 

I'm interested in the environment, like most are, but I also believe in common sense too. I think we ought to drill for oil where necessary, including in ANWAR and the gulf, etc. Of course that would include being careful. Remember all the crying about how the Alaska pipeline would harm the animals and environment? Did that happen? NO! I find that along the same lines as the gun control people screaming about blood running in the streets and Dodge City shootouts if people are allowed to carry. What has happened in every case? Lower crime rates. But God forbid anyone mention that! (The FBI records prove this out in every case.) If the oil companies had been allowed to drill several years ago when they found sources, we wouldn't be in the fix we are in now. 

Now for the REAL problem. Overpopulation of the planet. As well as India and China's huge growth in the marketplace. If you are to believe the "experts" the population is 6 1/2 billion at present and within 30-50 years it will be 9 billion. Without some sort of control, there will be famine all over. You and I know there will never be any control, especially in this country where individual rights has become more important than the whole. In my opinion, liberalism and political correctness is ruining this country. And lack of common sense. 

Off the soap box, and tucked away.


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

I have watched with some interest the commentary of Americans on drilling for oil in Alaska in ANWR. I can appreciate fully Ron's (blackburn)comments on the fundamental economic boost it would give to the state and those who live there. But I cannot understand the remarks of those who think it will help lower the cost of gas in the US. 

Here in Canada, there are huge reserves of oil - in the Beaufort Sea, in Hibernia and of course in the Athabascan Tar Sands. But in extracting this crude oil, no consideration is given to subsidizing it to provide low cost gas to Canadians. It would be absurd and economically stupid to sell oil to ourselves cheap when we can sell it at world prices to Americans. I assume the same would apply to oil from Alaska. 

The oil is a natural resource occurring mainly under land in Canada held by the Crown. The Crown (government) sells the rights to the oil and takes its cut that way. Taxes are levied on the sale of gas to pay ostensibly for roads - the governments are actually in surplus. The capitalist market is working about the way one would ex[pect. 

In terms of environment and electricity, no one in this country laments California's decisions to not generate power for themselves - we make a huge multibillion dollar annual windfall selling power to California and some other states too. Again, electrical utilities here are governmkent run so that windfall profit goes straight to reducing the tax burden. Most Canadians have no qualms about nuclear power though the acid rain debacle has pretty much convinced us that coal is a terrible answer. 

Nuclear power is the low cost option available now - I can only say to the environmentalists who oppose it that it helps to have the government run it. Would you trust nuclear power in the hands of the typical private sector firm cutting every cost to maximize profit? 

Regards ... Doug


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Doug, 

Coal is an option provided you install a wet limestone scrubber to neutralize the SO2 and the mercury in the flue gas. The new scrubbers remove 97% (or more) of the SO2 which in the past has been linked to acid rain. Tighter federal requirements have resulted in many power stations installing wet scrubbers. This is especially true of the Ohio river valley. Low sulfur coal is available from the Powder River Basin, but it is expensive. Many of the power plants in the Ohio River valley have access to West Virginia or Kentucky medium and high sulfur coals at much lower costs (either by rail, barge or truck). The company I work for sells the 

Then there is IGCC, coal gassification which creates electricity and gas in the same process. Buku bucks, and the tax structure is not in place to give investors a confident return yet, so that's down the road a piece. 

Mark


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Mark 

All good stuff and I really do hope that you guys use the technology to keep the acid rain off us. Canada has little coal and none in the east so it is not an option I would expect to see here. In any case, nuclear is a well developed technology, uranium is readily available and a lower investment needed to produce very clean power - cold water is no problem for the cooling requirement. 

Ontario was a bit shortsighted over the last couple of decades in not building new power generation but the Churchill Falls project in Labrador and the James Bay project in Quebec permit the export of billions of dollars annually in electricity ... similarly BC generates and exports several billion dollars of electricity. 

Exporting energy, whether electricity, crude oil or natural gas, to the US is one of our biggest industries. And while it is of enormous benefit to Canadians generally (because natural resources are generally owned by the Crown) and specifically for those employed in the business, it is primarily there because for a number of reasons, Americans cannot or will not produce their own energy. 

Regards ... Doug


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

Americans would like to produce our own energy, but a very small special interest group(s) is/are blocking most of the projects that would lead to a reduction of reliance on imported oil. (Refineries, nuclear, more coal fired plants, gasification, etc.) 

Terry


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

I know that I'm going to be bucking the current trend in _"conventional wisdom"_ with this.

However, as far as I can see the main cause of the current rapid rise in the price of gasoline in the U.S. has more to do with the devaluation of the U.S. dollar. Rather than any increase in demand on the world crude oil market, supposedly caused by China and/or India.

For example, take a look at how the Canadian & U.S. dollar compare over approx. eight years. Then cross reference that with how both the Canadian & U.S. dollars compare to the Euro over the same period. 
02-JAN-2001 1 CD = 0.67 USD 
14-MAY-2008 1 CD = 1.00 USD

02-JAN-2001 1 CD = 0.71 Euro 
14-MAY-2008 1 CD = 0.65 Euro

02-JAN-2001 1 USD = 1.06 Euro 
14-MAY-2008 1 USD = 0.65 EuroNotice that the Canadian dollar hasn't changed much at all against the Euro, But the U.S. dollar has reacted almost the same to the Canadian dollar & Euro (i.e. lost close to half its value), and that isn't the result of increased demand on the world crude oil market. But it darn sure is going to effect the price we pay for everything.

The above is courtesy of the financial mess we've allowed to develop in the U.S. and the recent actions of the U.S. Federal Reserve. You remember, pumping all those wonderful little pieces of paper printed with such nice colored ink, into the economy, and repeatedly dropping the interest rate. Trying to compensate for the lousy economics we've practiced.

Heck, if the U.S. started drilling in all those areas that are currently taboo, and by the grace of GOD hit the mother-load of all crude oil deposits. It wouldn't do much, because the fact is there hasn't been any investment in increasing our refining capacity so we couldn't do much with it. Don't know, but you might be surprised if you go take a look at the increase in the volume of gasoline (note that is _gasoline_, not crude oil) that the U.S. now imports.


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dougald on 05/15/2008 11:16 AM

_ Exporting energy, whether electricity, crude oil or natural gas, to the US is one of our biggest industries_[/b]. And while it is of enormous benefit to Canadians generally (because natural resources are generally owned by the Crown) and specifically for those employed in the business, it is primarily there because for a number of reasons, _*Americans cannot or will not produce their own energy*_. Regards ... Doug


That is a fascinating  and most-revealing observation coming from outside the US--one with which I heartily agree.  It sure says a lot about us American (USA) citizens_ and our own foolishness_.   I don't know about how the development of ANWR would affect the price of gas at the pump, if at all. What I do know is it makes absolutely no sense_ not_ to produce it domestically to the extent that we can as opposed to purchasing crude oil elsewhere. This is especially the case when the opposing arguments are based on junk science.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

I personally think its only a matter of time befoere ANWR gets opened up, its inevitable unless drastic major shifts occur in our energy priorities, and that dont look likely. 

The trouble with the ANWR argument is that even they had OK'd drilling yesterday, it would still be 3-5 years at least to get in there and gear up and maybe another 3-5 years before any meaningfull production came out of there, so the short term effect is still zip, nada and zilch. Gas will still be on the closer to $4 a gallon side for the foreseeable future, maybe much higher. To me, the question is how are people going to deal with it for the next 2 to 3 years? I've already changed my habits with the Scion, and I'm looking at that Smart car eyeingly, because I know not to expect either Detroit, the Guv'ment or the oil companies to ride to the rescue...its left up to yourself, and thats just the way its going to be.


----------



## MarkLewis (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By terry_n_85318 on 05/13/2008 4:14 PM
One thing to consider -- In the 70's the cost of gas was 0.50 / gal and the hourly wage was $5 and hour. Wages have gone up faster than the cost of gas and the ratio is lower now. 
The government makes a very large profit on a gallon of gas -- much more than the oil companies. 
Terry




That's a line of bull! As long as you ignore inflation everything was cheaper. Adjusted for inflation the price of gasoline in 1972 was over $2.00 per gal in today's dollars. That same year the minumum wage was 1.60 per hour or $6.20 per hour in today's dollars. WaGES HAVE NOT GONE UP FASTER THAN THE PRICE OF GAS. 

Mark


----------



## Rayman4449 (Jan 2, 2008)

Good points, they will have to increase capacity in transmission and generation no doubt if a move to all electrics starts to happen. No worries, they will do it, they have to. If not, wait till the first brown-out happens and see how fast they jump on the problem. One thing will be that most people will be charging in the evening when electric demand is normally at it's lowest point. Fuel? Hopefully we continue the march towards more wind and solar over time. In the short term it will likely mean more coal and nuclear but I look at it this way, if I'm using all electric, I will be for the most part using 100% made in the USA power.  Will also be saving good money as it costs a lot less to go a given distance on electric than it does gas. 


Raymond


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

Mark, 

Most wages went up (execpt for the minimum wage jobs). 

Terry


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Raymond

I hope that you're right, cause if California as a guide, well it doesn't seem that they've jumped on correcting the deficiency they have in power generation. Like Doug stated above Canada makes a good deal of money on what we're unwilling or incapable of doing in that area.

Even if they do jump right on it it won't happen quickly, it sure won't be inexpensive, and the tax payer will be expected to foot the cost. Finally the cost per energy unit is going to follow the free market rules, price follows demand


----------



## flatracker (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks for the information Dug and Mark! I'm always interested in adding to my knowledge, and never too old to learn. 

The problem with how long it would take us to have any gains in drilling in several places including ANWAR, is a good point, BUT the same excuse was used back in the early 90's. Sooo...what if we had gone ahead and drilled then? And so it goes... 

California is in a world of it's own, wanting none of the polution etc., but still wants what is gained from having it in someone elses back yard. I can't feel sorry for anyone who uses that type of reasoning, or keeps voting for those that continue to further that philosophy at the cost of everyone else, and still wanting cheaper power. 

And now our Senators and House members, in all their wisdom, have passed a huge bill to aid the farmers who are having record profits. Yes, special interest groups are doing well...at our expense. 

Anyway, this is an interesting subject and I'm learning a lot.


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Along with good driving habits: 
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/driveHabits.shtml 

One could carpool, take mass transit, all are good short term help to reduce consumption and lower costs both for individual budgets and market prices. Gas rationing could be a short term enforcer of conversative habits. Additional drilling for oil is a short term bandaid even in the North Dakota fields (projections about the same for ANWAR) it would an additional 5-10 years in offsetting oil from aboard to reach the gas pumps. 

Long term there needs to be a shift: more nuclear plants, wind/solar, better and more accessible mass transit, and cars running on electric/H fuel and a redesign with carbon fiber material (yes- cost is a problem at this point to switch from steel in mass production assembly process). 

Steve C- Prices are not being control by the "free market" but by unregulated speculators that with a drop of a hat raise the cost of a barrel for very minor situations. Think about it, oil is much higher now that with Katrina. There is nothing (including increase demand) that in the system of supply and demand that justifies the large increase overall and in this past month, weeks or even as of today. If Katrina took off line a large portion of refineries and oil supplies with the resutling "market adjust" that had some rationale then how can the greater increase be justifed with the increase we currently see (no drop in oil production, refineries at full capacity, China/USA has not proportionally changes usage, some adjustment for seaonal fuel)? Simple- greet due to irrational price setting. 

Kevin- I like your "back door" rebate but this damn hobby takes all my extra monies!


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

Mark, 

I don't know what kind of work you do, but my wages have gone up from when I was working for $1.69 hour in 1969. I had an additional post relating the fifty cent gas to the minimum wage of the time and todays minimum wage. The ratio has gone up, but not much more than anything else has gone up (food, housing, etc.). 

Terry


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Charles on 05/16/2008 7:01 AM

«snip...» Steve C- Prices are not being control by the "free market" but by unregulated speculators that with a drop of a hat raise the cost of a barrel for very minor situations. Think about it, oil is much higher now that with Katrina. There is nothing (including increase demand) that in the system of supply and demand that justifies the large increase overall and in this past month, weeks or even as of today. If Katrina took off line a large portion of refineries and oil supplies with the resutling "market adjust" that had some rationale then how can the greater increase be justifed with the increase we currently see (no drop in oil production, refineries at full capacity, China/USA has not proportionally changes usage, some adjustment for seaonal fuel)? Simple- greet due to irrational price setting. «snip...»
Charles

While all of what you've stated to varying degrees are true, and each in turn has its own affect on the price of crude oil. However nothing in what you've stated invalidates what I've said above


----------



## cmjdisanto (Jan 6, 2008)

Instead of trying to make straight commentary I'm going at this in a different approach. I have a couple questions. 
With all the talk of free-markets, world-markets, demand, supply, yadda, yadda, yadda..... 

Why has the price actually increased so much, especially in the last year. From our perspective, demand on a world scale seems to be no greater now than it was even 5 years ago. Then there was 3 years ago when we had Katrina, a serious disruption to the supply, and oil did not increase to the level it is now. Yet even on little to no real issues, oil seems to not stop. 
Now as I mentioned there's been a great deal of talk about free-markets. But if you look at the overall state of things today regarding oil and the cascadeing effect that it's increase has had across the board, when did this country move from a Nation to an economy? I mean when did it actually become more important for a select group to make money than ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense or even promoting general welfare as a country and for it's citizens. 

We have the oil. We have the means to get it right here and yet we sell it off since it generates more income for a chosen few all the while the rest of the country is thrown into turmoil and the majoity of it's citizens are fleeced. 
Right now refineries are scaleing back production of gasoline because gasoline consumption is actually down. The price has finally caused a close to 25% drop as compared to May of last year. So the theory of supply and demand will be countered by a slow-down in production. Therfore prices will not drop but only increase. The supply will remain constant t the demand. Yet there seems to be no shortage. The real ironic thing is that this doesn't have to be decided in some smoke filled board room, but rather on each refineries books. 

Everyone talks about what it was like way back when and makes comparisons about the ratio of oil, gas prices or even the price of tea in China to wages 30-40-50 years ago. It's not then it's now and right now we are in serious trouble all because we allow or contribute to a situation that seems to be nothing more than a selct group of people taking advantage for their own unfair gains. Yet if we do make comparisons, wasn't the crisis in the 70's actually caused in part by a disruption of supply. This is still something we have yet to really see today, but those speculators driving the market sure can create the thought of it. 
As far as buying oil stock to as has been suggested, I would venture to say that there are very few people here that could purchase enough oil stock to make a difference in their life. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Joe 

Speaking here as citizen of a foreign country ... 

The USA consumes way more oil and energy of all types than it produces. As such you must buy on the world market and pay the world price. 

Your contention that demand for oil has declined or is flat may or may not be true for the American economy but in a world wide context it is false. The balance between supply and demand for oil is precarious and just a slight imbalance causes a big movement in price. China provided that slight imbalance coupled with some declines in production in a few major oil producers (Russia, Nigeria and Mexico). 

Canada is a major producer of all sorts of energy but we do not sell it to ourselves at a subsidized rate. We charge the world price to ourselves (and to you) for a simple reason - we learned long ago that distorting a market with subsidies is costly and prevents the long term adjustment that price provides. 

Oil companies who have access to oil reserves that they can pump do make a huge windfall profit. But they also took a huge risk at some point in the past to drill. Right now, the Beaufort Sea has large reserves of oil. It may be just profitable at current prices ~$125/barrel to extract BUT it is risky. The Beaufort Sea is in the Arctic, there is not an oil pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley and a large investment is required before any profit can be made. The Crown owns the resource but I would be most surprised if the government were to go back into the oil business (didnt we learn that once with PetroCan?). An oil company who makes the investment today in the Beaufort Sea may someday make an enormous profit when oil is worth ~$250 per barrel but that is the stakes that are being discussed. 

I am not an American citizen and cannot vote or otherwise have a say in American policy. For us here in Canada, I am in favour of maintaining the sale of energy at the world price ie no subsidy, making additional investments in nuclear power generation and encouraging (not through tax breaks!) the private sector to make the investment required to extract natural resources like oil. 

The only thing I can wish for about the American approach is that if you continue to burn coal, at least do it cleanly. Global warming, true or otherwise, is a benefit to Canadians (just ask anyone around Ottawa if a few degrees warmer wouldn't be better!) but polluting the atmosphere is not helpful to those like us who have the prevailing winds blow our way. 

Regards ... Doug


----------



## cmjdisanto (Jan 6, 2008)

Doug, 

I actually had a very well thought out and productive response until the site locked up on me. 

I'm not even going to attempt to rewrite things but I will say that the fact we do not produce our own energy or most of it has scared the bejeebus outta me since the conversations I overheard as a youngster in the last energy crisis. 

The comment I made about consumption was that Gasoline consumption here in the states is down by almost 25% over May of last year. I'm not sure how sustantiated that number is since i went to find the article I read it in and it was gone. I would have liked to post the link, it was a good article.


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

The problem is here to stay. The government needs to be cutting some tax deals for alternative energy companies so they can get them out to the public. The current solar tax break expires this year. Lots of people used to use natural gas in their cars to get around locally, that could be a good option. For most of our driving an electric car with 80-100 mile range would be fine for 80% of our driving. Plus, the government could let them drill off the east coast and closed areas of the Carribean. Oil rigs seldom leak anymore, so no reason not to drill more. Jerry


----------



## Al McEvoy (Jan 3, 2008)

Don't fret. Oil price will come down. The market has a mysterious way of not letting anything cause big disruptions in stable economies for very long. Read this: http://tinyurl.com/6rmb8u 

My 2005 Prius keeps humming along, 45,000+ miles, getting anywhere from 45mpg in the coldest weather (gas engine runs more often to keep the catalytic converter up to required temperature) to 51 mpg in the summer, combined city/hiway driving. And Jack, that argument about the cost of replacement batteries is old and doesn't hold water. Please read this: http://tinyurl.com/2eq9qh 
Toyota's competition tried to float that fear-mongering warning years ago to dissuade potential Pruis customers, but history has proven it without merit. 
My wife's 2002 PT Cruiser keeps humming along nicely also - 75,000+ miles and averages about 22mpg all around. Not the most efficient but we carpool to work together in the Prius most of the time. 

Wish the Maryland Dept of Transportation would consider more commuter rail but they have their collectives heads in very dark damp places. 

If BJ Clinton had signed the ANWR bill in 1994 when it was presented to him we would have had a productive field 4 years ago and would have that much more oil today. But he and the Party whose symbol is a jackass don't want U.S. energy independence if it involves oil or nuclear power. The 1979 fictional movie "China Syndrome" induced fear into enough people that they naively dumped all the science and engineering that preveted Three Mile Island from melting down and enacted laws that have got us to where we are today: dependent on OPEC. 

Then again, I can't give very good marks to the other party since many of them including our esteemed POTUS have been trying to kill Amtrak via financial starvation since it's inception. 

Oh and BTW - we *are* expanding refinery capacity in the U.S. (although not building any new ones just yet): http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUKN2121150320070921 

Happy Motoring!  
AL


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

We have plenty of oil, coal, and natural gas to use -- but the environmental extremists block us from getting at it. 85% of off shore oil is off limits!!! 


I agree, I am so sick of the enviromental wacko's. They care about every tree, shrub, insect, worm, snail, etc., etc.,....................everything but people. Why don't they ever gripe about how the other Countries polute? Check out China, Russia, Mexico, etc., but no, to the wacko's only the U.S. is to blame. I say drill where ever we can in our own Country, including off our shores, start building coal to oil production facilities (this is World War I technology that works) and tell the middle east to eat sand.


----------

