mr_genius Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 By end of next year book it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 07:58 PM) By end of next year book it Working from home 4 out of the 5 days a week. Book it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 sucks for truck drivers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigEdWalsh Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 Cubs will win the World Series this year. Book it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 sucks for truck drivers... Which makes it sucky for the rest of us in the consumer industry. Come on, let's just tap into Alaska already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 07:13 PM) Which makes it sucky for the rest of us in the consumer industry. Come on, let's just tap into Alaska already. There isn't enough oil in Alaska to make a dent in this issue. Even if ANWR had been attacked by drillers 15 years ago and was at peak production right now, it wouldn't make a shred of difference. Any additional savings that would exist would have been eaten up by additional consumption growth in China and India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 there is only one way to battle gas prices, and that is to conserve. Not buy huge ass SUV's and guzzle gas, and god forbid if you walk somewhere once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 10:13 PM) Which makes it sucky for the rest of us in the consumer industry. Come on, let's get serious about alternative energy sources instead of paying lip service to it. fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 Two words...Oil Sands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daa84 Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 QUOTE (BearSox @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 10:51 PM) there is only one way to battle gas prices, and that is to conserve. Not buy huge ass SUV's and guzzle gas, and god forbid if you walk somewhere once in a while. i walk 3.5 miles to and from school when its not raining Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 08:34 PM) Two words...Oil Sands. Even at those prices, it would take a couple years to begin ramping up production of those enough to meet the demand spike/production decline associated with a price spike of this magnitude. It takes an awful lot of energy and work and equipment and time to turn those in to usable gasoline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 Country would be bankrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggsmaggs Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 I bike everywhere around Mizzou's campus. Get a good workout in and save money, only bad thing, the brakes of my bike are s***ty and I have almost crashed a couple times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted April 29, 2008 Author Share Posted April 29, 2008 QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 09:11 PM) Cubs will win the World Series this year. Book it. thats a bold prediction my friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted April 29, 2008 Author Share Posted April 29, 2008 QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 10:52 PM) Country would be bankrupt. I believe the price is already around $9 per gallon in Europe. ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 09:15 PM) There isn't enough oil in Alaska to make a dent in this issue. Even if ANWR had been attacked by drillers 15 years ago and was at peak production right now, it wouldn't make a shred of difference. Any additional savings that would exist would have been eaten up by additional consumption growth in China and India. You'd be surprised how untrue that actually is. It takes a very small movement in supply or demand in energies to create wild price fluxuations. The oil crisis of the 70's was brought about by only a 15% reduction in supply, which led to a tripling/quadrupling of prices. If supply had only fallen by say 10%, what is to say that prices would have only doubled? Its not a big leap a faith to think that a very small supply increase from anywhere (not just Alaska) could have moderated price increases greatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 07:37 AM) You'd be surprised how untrue that actually is. It takes a very small movement in supply or demand in energies to create wild price fluxuations. The oil crisis of the 70's was brought about by only a 15% reduction in supply, which led to a tripling/quadrupling of prices. If supply had only fallen by say 10%, what is to say that prices would have only doubled? Its not a big leap a faith to think that a very small supply increase from anywhere (not just Alaska) could have moderated price increases greatly. Wouldn't that also depend on the cost of that oil? As I understood it, even industry execs said the cost per barrel would be higher than what was on the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 06:37 AM) You'd be surprised how untrue that actually is. It takes a very small movement in supply or demand in energies to create wild price fluxuations. The oil crisis of the 70's was brought about by only a 15% reduction in supply, which led to a tripling/quadrupling of prices. If supply had only fallen by say 10%, what is to say that prices would have only doubled? Its not a big leap a faith to think that a very small supply increase from anywhere (not just Alaska) could have moderated price increases greatly. I will need to go find the articles, but as I've read before in the WSJ and elsewhere, the projections are that the ANWR field(s) would maybe add less than a half percent to the current US internal flow of oil. And that would translate into, at best, about a penny per gallon. Plus as I understand it, the biggest choke point is refining capacity. That needs to be addressed. But ultimately, the only real long term solution is to get away from oil to the extent possible. And if its made a priority, that could be done, to very positive results for the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 07:47 AM) I will need to go find the articles, but as I've read before in the WSJ and elsewhere, the projections are that the ANWR field(s) would maybe add less than a half percent to the current US internal flow of oil. And that would translate into, at best, about a penny per gallon. Plus as I understand it, the biggest choke point is refining capacity. That needs to be addressed. But ultimately, the only real long term solution is to get away from oil to the extent possible. And if its made a priority, that could be done, to very positive results for the economy. That's the fun part... Everyone seems to want more refining capacity, but no one wants it built next to them. The NIMBY factor is huge here. Not to mention with all of the emphasis towards getting off of oil, why would any company look at putting up billions of dollars into technology that everyone is talking about phasing out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 Yet another reason I'm so happy with my new job that is less than 5 minutes from my house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 When I bought my house a few years back, gas was still under $2.00/gallon. I lowered my commute from 52 miles each way to 36 each way,thinking that would be a good thing. I tried to find closer, but even houses in the s***ty neighborhoods up here cost $50,000 MORE than what I paid for, PLUS were smaller and crappier. The nicer houses were all a lot more and figuring gas at between $2 and $3 per gallon was still not worth the additional expense. However at $10, I may have to redo the math. If it hits $10, I think I just get a cot and sleep in the store all week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 08:53 AM) When I bought my house a few years back, gas was still under $2.00/gallon. I lowered my commute from 52 miles each way to 36 each way,thinking that would be a good thing. I tried to find closer, but even houses in the s***ty neighborhoods up here cost $50,000 MORE than what I paid for, PLUS were smaller and crappier. The nicer houses were all a lot more and figuring gas at between $2 and $3 per gallon was still not worth the additional expense. However at $10, I may have to redo the math. If it hits $10, I think I just get a cot and sleep in the store all week. What you are alluding to are market factors that are some nice side effects of this - less sprawl, more centralization of urban areas. That helps the environment, not to mention allows for greater use of public transit. We're in the process of looking for a house too. I'd be either working from home or working downtown, so all I need is to be close to Metra, but the wife works in Northbrook. We had cast a pretty wide net for houses previously, but now, we are narrowing the circle quite a bit, in part becuase of gas prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 07:56 AM) We're in the process of looking for a house too. I'd be either working from home or working downtown, so all I need is to be close to Metra, but the wife works in Northbrook. We had cast a pretty wide net for houses previously, but now, we are narrowing the circle quite a bit, in part becuase of gas prices. The balance is still out of whack, though. I work in Des Plaines and live in Woodridge right now. If I wanted to get close to work ( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 08:28 AM) That's the fun part... Everyone seems to want more refining capacity, but no one wants it built next to them. The NIMBY factor is huge here. Not to mention with all of the emphasis towards getting off of oil, why would any company look at putting up billions of dollars into technology that everyone is talking about phasing out? You've been to Houston. NIMBY Great thought on capacity and investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 10:00 AM) You've been to Houston. NIMBY Great thought on capacity and investment. LaPorte County Indiana is the King of the NIMBY's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts