Gas Prices

[govols]

The problem is not so much with getting the oil over here, it is refining the oil to distribute. If the silly Californians would pick 1 - 5 brands of petrol and not 10 + then the refineries would be able to produce more.

I did like when the president said he wanted to make some of the old army / air force bases into refineries.

[Edited on 8-12-2005 by govols]

 

[Bladestunner316]

Alaska is not the answer. Neither is oil. But until then I would rather see one brand then 10.

 

[LadyFlynt]

$2.60 here in the midwest. Cost me $35.00 today...and that was only "almost" full.

 

[Joseph Ringling]

$2.54

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

$2.59

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
Alaska is not the answer. Neither is oil. But until then I would rather see one brand then 10.

What is the answer, then?

 

[Average Joey]

Originally posted by joshua
I think Alaska's the answer. Why not? You're talking a little over .1% (I think) of the land that we could drill on and be covered for a long, long time.

Exactly!My main point was just us threatening to drill in Alaska would cause the Saudis to cut prices in half at the least.They donnot want to lose our buiseness.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Average Joey

Originally posted by joshua
I think Alaska's the answer. Why not? You're talking a little over .1% (I think) of the land that we could drill on and be covered for a long, long time.

Exactly!My main point was just us threatening to drill in Alaska would cause the Saudis to cut prices in half at the least.They donnot want to lose our buiseness.

Oil pricing is not that simple. It is basically a supply and demand issue. For your thesis to be coherent, you would have to believe that the Saudi's have some hidden oil that no on knows about that they will bring on the market if the US threatens to drill in Alaska.

There is also the issue over exactly how much oil is in Alaska. I am not sure if there is a great consensus on that point.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

At my gas station, the price has risen 22 cents in the last 36 hours.

 

[Average Joey]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Average Joey

Originally posted by joshua
I think Alaska's the answer. Why not? You're talking a little over .1% (I think) of the land that we could drill on and be covered for a long, long time.

Exactly!My main point was just us threatening to drill in Alaska would cause the Saudis to cut prices in half at the least.They donnot want to lose our buiseness.

Oil pricing is not that simple. It is basically a supply and demand issue. For your thesis to be coherent, you would have to believe that the Saudi's have some hidden oil that no on knows about that they will bring on the market if the US threatens to drill in Alaska.

There is also the issue over exactly how much oil is in Alaska. I am not sure if there is a great consensus on that point.

I did not mean for it to be simple.My belief is it all has to do with Greed.The Saudis are raising oil prices because they know we will pay it.The whole Alaskan deal would change everything.in my opinion.

 

[Bladestunner316]

Well first off were associating the rising costs as a loss of oil production. So that we need to go get more from another muslim nation as a solution.

OPEC controls the prices. The ME decides the price of oil. We have Iran which is not an ally at this point. We will go to war with them over rising oil costs. Just like when we overthrew them with a coup in 52'-53' because they wanted to use russian companies instead of British.

In order to survive the world must develop better sources of fuel besides oil. Example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_fuel . We could use Hydrogen extract it from water. It would be a better solution for car fuel.

We become weak when we are so overly dependent upon oil or etc.. that we cant function without it.

But the real problem is are government and others are run by men who have their hands on piles of money coming from Big Oil companies. They wont switch over until they can make profit. So the government is not a solution to the oil crisis.

So while we pay the price with rising gas prices oil companies are reaping the benefits of a gulable nation. Ohh its IRan, Its hurricanes, its its...its......???

Your going to tell me that a HUGE oil companie thats billions upon billions in the go not prepared for hurricanes??? or armed conflict?? Armed conflict is what mercanaries are for there all over Iraq working for companies. Hired guns. Its also helps to have a business partner controlling a large military force.

But if were fighting for oil then why are we paying so much? Well we are fighting and dieing for oil and the GOV is reaping the benefits none of which we will never see. We are used. Thats what big governments do.

So the solution is stop drilling start investing in alternative sources. Dont let the government get so big that it monopolizes an industry to benefit the few and not the many.

Blade

 

[Bladestunner316]

Also if oil is naturally supposed to lube the earth and we take that away and away so much it cant replenish itself then would there not be adverse affects geologically speaking?

Like say oceanic warming off my coast of 2-5 degrees. Causing the salmon to die off, and birds to die off, and plankton to die off. Not to mention sealife dieing off of florida.

Just thinking outloud.

Blade

 

[Average Joey]

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
Well first off were associating the rising costs as a loss of oil production. So that we need to go get more from another muslim nation as a solution.

OPEC controls the prices. The ME decides the price of oil. We have Iran which is not an ally at this point. We will go to war with them over rising oil costs. Just like when we overthrew them with a coup in 52'-53' because they wanted to use russian companies instead of British.

In order to survive the world must develop better sources of fuel besides oil. Example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_fuel . We could use Hydrogen extract it from water. It would be a better solution for car fuel.

We become weak when we are so overly dependent upon oil or etc.. that we cant function without it.

But the real problem is are government and others are run by men who have their hands on piles of money coming from Big Oil companies. They wont switch over until they can make profit. So the government is not a solution to the oil crisis.

So while we pay the price with rising gas prices oil companies are reaping the benefits of a gulable nation. Ohh its IRan, Its hurricanes, its its...its......???

Your going to tell me that a HUGE oil companie thats billions upon billions in the go not prepared for hurricanes??? or armed conflict?? Armed conflict is what mercanaries are for there all over Iraq working for companies. Hired guns. Its also helps to have a business partner controlling a large military force.

But if were fighting for oil then why are we paying so much? Well we are fighting and dieing for oil and the GOV is reaping the benefits none of which we will never see. We are used. Thats what big governments do.

So the solution is stop drilling start investing in alternative sources. Dont let the government get so big that it monopolizes an industry to benefit the few and not the many.

Blade

They`ll just take advantage of the alternative too.

 

[Bladestunner316]

I would rather be using hydrogen from water than using oil. Its 2005 and were still using oil where are the flying vehicles???

 

[Average Joey]

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
I would rather be using hydrogen from water than using oil. Its 2005 and were still using oil where are the flying vehicles???

Yeah,according to Back to the Future part 2,we should be flying cars in 10 years.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Average Joey

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
I would rather be using hydrogen from water than using oil. Its 2005 and were still using oil where are the flying vehicles???

Yeah,according to Back to the Future part 2,we should be flying cars in 10 years.

Mr. Fusion! :bigsmile:

 

[toddpedlar]

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
I would rather be using hydrogen from water than using oil.

Hydrogen's nice and all, but you still have to generate the power to split water. Eventually, we'll have to use hydrogen cells, indeed, particularly for cars/trains in the future - but right now it's exceedingly cost ineffective to produce hydrogen cells. Until other alternative are made less expensive (I'm a strong proponent of developing wind) in order to fuel hydrogen generation plants, it really can't fly. (unless you want to burn coal to produce hydrogen from water... now that makes sense.)

Anyway, the statement that some in government are making (that hydrogen is the answer) are simplistic, not taking into account the difficulties involved in ramping up to produce sufficient hydrogen for the usage envisioned.

Todd

 

[Bladestunner316]

wind sounds like a good proposal. What about solar energy? use it to charge cars?

blade

 

[toddpedlar]

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
wind sounds like a good proposal. What about solar energy? use it to charge cars?

blade

Wind, Solar or any power source, really, can be used to create hydrogen cells. Solar is pretty inefficient as a technology - wind is the best, but there are many who are quite anti-wind, although for the life of me I cannot understand their objections. The primary reason that people argue against wind turbines (at least those I've come into contact with, in person or in print) is aesthetics. They don't like the way wind turbines look.

In SE Washington state, where my wife grew up, there is a large array of wind turbines (a couple hundred?) on some ridges along the Columbia river - and in my opinion, they're at least neutral, if not pleasing to the eye. One can argue about destroying natural beauty by putting up wind turbines... but i have to say it's better than the alternative.

Studies have shown that much of the US energy needs can be supplied by wind, if enough wind turbine installations are created - I think, if I'm not mistaken, that the dakotas + texas, if wind tech is really exploited, can almost do it themselves.

As for charging cars - battery technology is pretty poor. If you're talking about 'charging hydrogen fuel cells' (which produce electrical current by recombination of hydrogen and oxygen into water' then yes, I'd say use solar / wind to produce the necessary hydrogen - that's the way to go.

 

[toddpedlar]

btw, since Wednesday, our gas rose from 2.15 to 2.35...

 

[Bladestunner316]

Hmm wind turbines or power stations and transformers??

Thats a tough choice

blade

 

[Bladestunner316]

I like your thinking about the wind. Plant a bunch on florida hurrican blows by have enough energy for a long time.

blade

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

250 MPG!

 

[Bladestunner316]

 

[jfschultz]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
250 MPG!

The potential problem is with the life of the battery. Toyota expects the battery to last the life of the car because the ECU is programmed to keep the battery within the middle 50% of its capacity. The plug-in hybrid will cycle the battery through most of its capacity, which will reduce the life of the battery. One company that is working on a third-party upgrade for the Prius expects it will cost $12,000 and that the battery will last 6-8 years. The Toyota warranty for the hybrid system, including the battery is 8 years. (How many of you expect to need to replace your engine when the typical 3 year warranty expires?)

Stewardship Gen 1:28 Not Plunder

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by jfschultz]

 

[heartoflesh]

$2.69 in the Twin Cities.

 

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

Wind turbines? Wait till you have them near your house and it sounds like trains rumbling by 24 hours a day and seven days a week. We are trying it in New Zealand but there are so many complaints. Whole villages can get hit by the noise so it is not just people living within a stone-throw of them.

[Edited on 16-8-2005 by Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

 

[BobVigneault]

So for all the folks who believe we kicked Hussein out of Iraq so we could maintain the flow of cheap oil.... 2.69 here in WI/IL. Ugh!

My partner at work and I live 2 miles apart in Wisconsin. We each travel 45 miles to Rockford to work 20 feet from each other. Because my boss wants us covering from 6am to 4:30pm block we leave our homes 2 hours apart and can't carpool. That's insane. I asked my boss what the price of gas will need to get to before we can merge our trips. No answer so far.

 

[toddpedlar]

Originally posted by Rick Larson
$2.69 in the Twin Cities.

I'll stop complaining, now. It's only $2.45 down here
in NE Iowa... (of course that's up $0.30 since a week ago)

Todd

 

[Bladestunner316]

We went to Iraq for the Oil but the only ones that see the benefit are the big oil companies that get breaks and bonuses from the government go figure.

blade