May 15th "gas protest" nonsense

[southsideirish71]

This is pretty much the same thing I've said about high gas prices all along. If you wan't to drive the big SUV, that's great ( I own an SUV ) but don't come crying to me when gas goes up and you have to pay more to fuel it. That's hypocrasy and it also runs contrary to my beliefs about personal responsibility.

 

Well people should do some research when they want to buy an SUV or larger vehicle. Not all of them are total pigs. The SUV's that are based on a car frame have a better fuel economy than the traditional ones based on the truck frame. Using a CVT transmission is another thing that helps with gas millage, however a lot of people dont like the CVT transmission because the car has a different feel when you accelerate. When we stared to have children we wanted a bigger vehicle, however I didn't want to empty the bank on filling up the tank. So we did a ton of research and found the vehicle that fit our requirements the best. We went with the 2004 Nissan Murrano with CVT transmission. It gets 24 hwy/20 cty mpg, which compared to my car a 99 Honda Accord that gets 28 hwy/20 cty mpg isn't that far off. The difference annually is about 250 dollars a year in gas costs. I drive my Accord a lot farther than my wife drives the Murrano, and I fill up more. And yes I could go out and drop a lot of money on a new car that gets better gas mileage, however I bought my Honda because the damn thing drives forever. I have 140k miles on it, and it drives and looks like its brand new. I cant justify dropping 30k on a new car, so I can save 200 dollars a year at the pump.

[southsider2k5]

The growth in demand of gas is not being controlled by only the price of gas. It's being controlled by growth in other places; i.e. if there is growth in the Chinese economy, that growth enables more people to afford vehicles and gasoline for those vehicles despite increasing prices, so the increased price is not enough to offset growth in demand fueled by growth in other industries.

 

That doesn't matter. In the USA, the price is going up AND demand is going up at the sametime. That makes it an irrational market.

[Texsox]

Isn't supply part of the equation? When the demand outstrips the supply, doesn't prices always rise? We are using oil faster than the earth can produce it. Basically the producers have X barrels to sell in their lifetime. Produce faster or slower doesn't change the amount they have to sell.

 

Plus a lot of products work that way. High demand and suppliers can charge whatever they can and either make more by selling more, or make the same and sell less. As demand falls, or more suppliers get into the game, suppliers start lowers prices to milk the last bit of profit out of the venture. Then as they are the last supplier and anyone needing spare parts, new items, etc, the prices again start to rise, partly because of smaller production runs.

[southsider2k5]

Supply side economics? I was told for the past 30 years that it doesn't exsist!

[Jenksismyhero]

This entire thread is pointless. We all know the real solution:

 

 

 

 

 

Alaska.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I thought you had a stratus?

 

 

I traded it in last year for a Jeep Cherokee.

[southsideirish71]

This entire thread is pointless. We all know the real solution:

Alaska.

 

There is also some possibilities off the Florida coast, but they are blocked to drill by our laws. Meanwhile the Chinese are drilling on an angle so they can stay outside of our waters, while drilling our oil. Very shady.

 

Why not reap the rewards ourselves if the risk is already there from the Chinese drilling.

 

Bush needs to pull rank on his brother. This is in the interest of national security that we explore any areas of oil in the area. If its under our nose, and other countries are drilling there or going to drill there. Then we are stupid not to do it. The risk is still there. They are going to drill. So its not like our drilling is going to hurt anything.

 

The United States Geological Survey estimates the Cuban deal involves 4.6 billion barrels of oil and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the Times. The paper said that's enough oil and gas to power the U.S. for a few months.

 

The paper also cited an Interior Department study that said the U.S. continental shelf contained 115 billion barrels of oil and 633 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That would be enough oil to satisfy U.S. demand, at current consumption levels, for 16 years and enough natural gas for 25 years, according to the Times.

 

"American politics today -- it is the no-drill zone," said Sen. Larry E. Craig, Idaho Republican.

"We sit here watching China exploit a valuable resource within eyesight of the U.S. coast," he said, noting that one 2005 U.S. Geological Survey estimated the North Cuba Basin may contain as much oil as the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve in Alaska.

"I am certain the American public would be shocked, as this country is trying to reduce our dependency on Middle East oil, that countries like China are realizing this energy resource," Mr. Craig said.

 

Do we want to emulate the actions of nations like Cuba and China? Do we want the Florida Straits dotted with oil

 

Debbie, they are going to drill. Just because you cant see the oil rig, the oil drill is on an angle and is still stick itself below your waters. So the environmental disaster can still happen. This is a mess up on both sides of the aisle here. This is like Ted Kennedy talking about being green, and then not wanting windmills because it spoils his views.

Edited May 16, 2007 by southsideirish71

[Balta1701]

The United States Geological Survey estimates the Cuban deal involves 4.6 billion barrels of oil and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the Times. The paper said that's enough oil and gas to power the U.S. for a few months.

Ugh, I can't stand estimates like this, because they're so bloody misleading. The same thing happens with ANWR.

 

Yes, 4.6 billion barrels of oil would be enough to power the U.S. in its entirety for a few months. But, that is if all of that oil could be pumped out within a few months. Sadly, that simply can't happen. What is a lot more likely is that a lot of money will be spent over the next 10 years developing these fields and overall they'll produce something on the order of a few hundred thousand barrels of oil per day. In reality, this is basically just a drop in the bucket. The output of these fields won't even be enough to offset the decrease in production of Mexico now that mexico's largest oil field in the Gulf has peaked. It won't even be enough to offset the growth of U.S. energy demand over 1 year (depending on how much the price goes up).

 

If you start talking about not drilling here, not drilling in ANWR, and not drilling in the rocky mountain front region, you're talking about sacrificing maybe 1% of the U.S.'s oil consumption. The simple fact is, while these reservoirs sound big, they are microscopic compared with even the growth of U.S. energy demand, let alone the total bulk energy demand.

[NorthSideSox72]

Ugh, I can't stand estimates like this, because they're so bloody misleading. The same thing happens with ANWR.

 

Yes, 4.6 billion barrels of oil would be enough to power the U.S. in its entirety for a few months. But, that is if all of that oil could be pumped out within a few months. Sadly, that simply can't happen. What is a lot more likely is that a lot of money will be spent over the next 10 years developing these fields and overall they'll produce something on the order of a few hundred thousand barrels of oil per day. In reality, this is basically just a drop in the bucket. The output of these fields won't even be enough to offset the decrease in production of Mexico now that mexico's largest oil field in the Gulf has peaked. It won't even be enough to offset the growth of U.S. energy demand over 1 year (depending on how much the price goes up).

 

If you start talking about not drilling here, not drilling in ANWR, and not drilling in the rocky mountain front region, you're talking about sacrificing maybe 1% of the U.S.'s oil consumption. The simple fact is, while these reservoirs sound big, they are microscopic compared with even the growth of U.S. energy demand, let alone the total bulk energy demand.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Alaska is no solution at all. Getting us further off oil to reduce demand is the only real option.

[southsider2k5]

Ugh, I can't stand estimates like this, because they're so bloody misleading. The same thing happens with ANWR.

 

They are incredibly misleading. If anything the estimates of oil, pretty much world-wide, have always proved way lower than the actually end up being. Heck I remember my third or forth grade textbook in science predicting that we would run out of oil by around the year 2000...

[Texsox]

Drilling around the US and picking up 2 or 3% of our needs, or reducing consumption? Seems like an easy choice.

[Balta1701]

Drilling around the US and picking up 2 or 3% of our needs, or reducing consumption? Seems like an easy choice.

Yup. Must increase drilling, it's the only one that makes more $$$$$$$.

[Balance]

The only real solution is to use less oil. We need to start using energy sources other than oil to power our automobiles.

[southsideirish71]

The only real solution is to use less oil. We need to start using energy sources other than oil to power our automobiles.

 

Great idea.

 

Now here is the problem.

 

What is this energy source? Can it be mass produced? Can you get filling stations to retrofit so it can deliver it? What is the cost of this source? What is the cost to the average American to replace or retrofit their vehicles to run on this energy source. What is the environmental costs of mass production of this new "green" energy source.

 

Until these are answered, America is still going to use Oil at a high demand. So we need to address oil production still until an alternative can be named.

[Texsox]

The only real solution is to use less oil. We need to start using energy sources other than oil to power our automobiles.

 

And producing the "new" energy must use less oil than what it is replacing. We forget that making energy, costs energy.

 

In a similar vein, I was on my country clubs committee to replace the fleet of golf carts. Someone mentioned it was nice we are using electric because they don't pollute. I mentioned that what really happens is we shift the point of pollution to where the electricity is generated. It was like a light bulb went off.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Great idea.

 

Now here is the problem.

 

What is this energy source? Can it be mass produced? Can you get filling stations to retrofit so it can deliver it? What is the cost of this source? What is the cost to the average American to replace or retrofit their vehicles to run on this energy source. What is the environmental costs of mass production of this new "green" energy source.

 

Until these are answered, America is still going to use Oil at a high demand. So we need to address oil production still until an alternative can be named.

 

 

The need to ditch oil as our primary source of energy is clear. That being said, you're right though. This new source of energy is not that easy to come by. Even ethanol is starting to get a lot of heat from certain circles becuase it's driving up the price of corn and poor countries are b****ing that it's harder to feed their people as a result.

 

We need to drill more, we need to use less, and we also need to find an acceptable substitute. Unfortunately, nobody is really serious about doing any of these things. Instead, typical of your average American, they want to sit around and cry because they're paying 3 bucks a gallon to fill up their Suburban. No sympathy from me over gas prices being too high. Until people start doing what needs to be done to actually bring down prices I have 3 words for them...........DEAL WITH IT!!!!

[Texsox]

If anyone is up for hypotheticals, tackle this.

 

How would America be worse off if suddenly everyone was driving smallish, lightweight, 4 cylinder cars and motorcycles?

 

I know I miss the comfort of my big Dodge 10 cylinder pickup, but I haven't used $100 in fuel for one day since I got rid of it.

[Soxy]

If anyone is up for hypotheticals, tackle this.

 

How would America be worse off if suddenly everyone was driving smallish, lightweight, 4 cylinder cars and motorcycles?

 

I know I miss the comfort of my big Dodge 10 cylinder pickup, but I haven't used $100 in fuel for one day since I got rid of it.

My dad has some huge ass GMC truck, but he needs it for work (he's a contractor and it pulls his work trailer). So, I genuinely feel bad for him. But when I'm driving to work or the store and I see people driving SUV's that hold 6-8 people, but there's only 1 or 2 people in it I'm annoyed. I drive a little Corolla and every week I have to put in about a half a tank. If you need a big car for work, that's one thing but I think the grand majority of Americans could VASTLY downgrade their cars if they wanted. I echo Nuke's sentiment, be more frugal with your car choices or stfu about high gas prices. In Europe gas prices are STILL higher than what we pay, but they don't b**** nearly as much. Instead they all limit driving, take public transport when available and drive SMALL SENSIBLE CARS.

 

As for drilling in Alaska, I would gladly pay $4-5/gal to avoid that.

 

I really think we need to really start thinking about beefing up our national public transport systems. I think that should really be examined.

[kapkomet]

I really think we need to really start thinking about beefing up our national public transport systems. I think that should really be examined.

Hallelujah. Can I get an amen?

 

Seriously, I wish I could take public transportation. We are in what is becoming one of the top 5 metro areas in the country (I think it goes NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, and D/FW). We have NO public transportation except one teeny ass train that runs between Fort Worth and Dallas, and another smaller one that runs from the north Dallas suburbs to downtown Dallas. Big deal. If we had a really good infastructure, I'd use it. The problem here is that everything is so spread out. Unfortunately, I could either pay up the ass for a house that costs twice as much as mine, or I drive 25+ miles to work one way every day.

 

I can afford the gas, but it sucks because it definitely costs more to just work then it did just 6 months ago.

[southsider2k5]

Hallelujah. Can I get an amen?

 

Seriously, I wish I could take public transportation. We are in what is becoming one of the top 5 metro areas in the country (I think it goes NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, and D/FW). We have NO public transportation except one teeny ass train that runs between Fort Worth and Dallas, and another smaller one that runs from the north Dallas suburbs to downtown Dallas. Big deal. If we had a really good infastructure, I'd use it. Unfortunately, I could either pay up the ass for a house that costs twice as much as mine, or I drive 25+ miles to work one way every day.

 

I can afford the gas, but it sucks because it definitely costs more to just work then it did just 6 months ago.

 

I take an hour and a half train ride each way everyday to work. Not only does it save my sanity from traffic on the Ryan, it saves me an incredible amount of money each month. The only thing I lose is sometime most days, but it is worth it to me.

[vandy125]

We keep on mentioning cars as the main problem, but shouldn't we also look at where everyone lives and how far away from work that is? Commute times are going up every year. I think that we also need to find creative ways to get people to move in closer to where they work.

 

If you are 30 minutes from work instead of 60 minutes, how much gas/oil would that save? You would also be closer to public transportation and be able to use that as well.

Edited May 16, 2007 by vandy125

[Texsox]

By now we were going to be a nation of telecommuters

 

Don't stop believing.

[mreye]

Toothpaste has glycerin in it.

Glycerin tastes sweet.

Glycerin is made from oil.

What about the toothpaste tube? It is plastic.

What about the toothbrush?

 

http://www.schools.ash.org.au/elanorah/oiltpast.htm

 

I think we need to stop brushing our teeth.

[Texsox]

Aren't those by products of the refining process?

[NorthSideSox72]

Its a shame our national rail system sucks so bad. We need to take some notes from Europe. Some individual cities have good systems, but Amtrak is a mess and a half. With all the added pain in the ass of air travel, and high gas prices, Amtrak should be booming, but isn't. Now is the time to get that system working efficiently and intelligently. For intercity travel, particularly regionally, it should be a main source of travel (Acela does that, but its the only one that works at all right now).