PDA

View Full Version : $10 for a gallon of gas?


MACH1
04-30-2008, 07:04 PM
Get ready for another economic shock of major proportions a virtual doubling of prices at the gas pump to as much as $10 a gallon.

http://www2.nysun.com/article/75363

Might be time to break out with the horse and buggy.

Steeler in Carolina
04-30-2008, 07:06 PM
As a guy who spends 6-7 hours a day in the truck, I will go completely broke.

TheWarDen86
04-30-2008, 07:12 PM
http://www2.nysun.com/article/75363

Might be time to break out with the horse and buggy.

Hmmmm. If I bought a horse I'd break even after about 20 fill-ups. I'm all for it.

BettisFan
04-30-2008, 07:52 PM
i would have to ride a bike everywhere my car would just die :(

millwalldavey
04-30-2008, 09:30 PM
I'm glad my job is two blocks downhill from here.

If it gets too bad, I'll be stuck in the friggin town all summer!

Borski
04-30-2008, 09:33 PM
I'm thinking about getting a scooter for intown travel. the Yamaha Zuma gets over 120 MPG and can go 45 MPH which is perfect for the side roads of my town.

I-Want-Troy's-Hair
04-30-2008, 11:14 PM
http://www2.nysun.com/article/75363

Might be time to break out with the horse and buggy.

Horse you may want to rethink the horse a bail of hay now costs $35.00 a year ago it cost $12.00. Sad thing is people are starting to starve their animals because of the price. Yeah thanks Bush.

MACH1
04-30-2008, 11:27 PM
Horse you may want to rethink the horse a bail of hay now costs $35.00 a year ago it cost $12.00. Sad thing is people are starting to starve their animals because of the price. Yeah thanks Bush.

WOW....Its about $150 a ton here.

GBMelBlount
05-01-2008, 06:25 AM
Horse you may want to rethink the horse a bail of hay now costs $35.00 a year ago it cost $12.00. Sad thing is people are starting to starve their animals because of the price. Yeah thanks Bush.

That's terrible Troys-Hair! What did Bush do to cause the price of the bails of hay you buy to triple in one year?

TackleMeBen
05-01-2008, 06:37 AM
guess there will be no summer vacation for some of us ..lol

HometownGal
05-01-2008, 08:22 AM
I try to use the shoeleather express whenever I can to save a few pennies here and there, but these rising gas prices are really taking a toll on middle and low income Americans. :banging:

What I have never understood is why the hell are we buying oil from and getting financially raped by countries who hate us?? :banging:

rbryan
05-01-2008, 08:30 AM
Approaching $4/gallon here in Atlanta, doesn't seem to be keeping anyone off the road yet. The real shock is EVERYTHING else going up in price to adjust for the expense of distribution.

This article is just priming you for $5-6 gal. That won't seem so bad compared to the $10 estimates. Way to go George, most presidents need to be out of office a at least a few years to fully grasp thier legacy.

TackleMeBen
05-01-2008, 09:06 AM
I try to use the shoeleather express whenever I can to save a few pennies here and there, but these rising gas prices are really taking a toll on middle and low income Americans. :banging:

What I have never understood is why the hell are we buying oil from and getting financially raped by countries who hate us?? :banging:
b/c tree hugging hippies wont let us utilize our own resources.lol

GBMelBlount
05-01-2008, 09:07 AM
Way to go George, most presidents need to be out of office a at least a few years to fully grasp thier legacy.

Well said rbryan! I am not sure what exactly Bush did to cause this but I am sure he will be blamed regardless. I guess the rise of countries like China have nothing to do with it. Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to bring economics 101 into this.

fansince'76
05-01-2008, 09:10 AM
I guess the rise of countries like China have nothing to do with it.

Not to mention draconian legislation brought about by militant environmentalists that keep us from tapping into our own reserves and prevent us from increasing our refining capacity! :thumbsup:

TackleMeBen
05-01-2008, 09:21 AM
Not to mention draconian legislation brought about by militant environmentalists that keep us from tapping into our own reserves and prevent us from increasing our refining capacity! :thumbsup:
:applaudit::applaudit::applaudit::applaudit: i couldnt agree more

revefsreleets
05-01-2008, 09:29 AM
Friedman is a little radical...he wants to dramatically INCREASE taxes at the pump to force alternative fuels, but, nonetheless, this is an interesting article:

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/18440709.html?page=all&c=y


When money laundering is your energy policy
Published on Thursday, May 01, 2008





NEW YORK: It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away.

Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer's travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: We borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.

When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit.

No, no, no, we'll just get the money by taxing Big Oil, says Clinton. Even if you could do that, what a terrible way to spend precious tax dollars — burning it up on the way to the beach rather than on innovation?

The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: ''Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.''

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

But here's what's scary: Our problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you would want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage — gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars — and you would want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage — new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

Are you sitting down?

Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy.

The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again — which often happens — investments in wind and solar would still be profitable. That's how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale, so it can compete without subsidies.

The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.

''It's a disaster,'' says Michael Polsky, founder of Invenergy, one of the biggest wind-power developers in America. ''Wind is a very capital-intensive industry, and financial institutions are not ready to take 'congressional risk.' They say if you don't get the [production tax credit] we will not lend you the money to buy more turbines and build projects.''

It is also alarming, says Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that the U.S. has reached a point ''where the priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics'' that it would turn its back on the next great global industry — clean power — ''but that's exactly what is happening.''

If the wind and solar credits expire, said Resch, the impact in just 2009 would be more than 100,000 jobs either lost or not created in these industries, and $20-billion worth of investments that won't be made.

While all the presidential candidates were railing about lost manufacturing jobs in Ohio, no one noticed that America's premier solar company, First Solar, from Toledo, Ohio, was opening its newest factory in the former East Germany — 540 high-paying engineering jobs — because Germany has created a booming solar market and America has not.

In 1997, said Resch, America was the leader in solar energy technology, with 40 percent of global solar production. ''Last year, we were less than 8 percent, and even most of that was manufacturing for overseas markets.''

The McCain-Clinton proposal is a reminder to me that the biggest energy crisis we have in our country today is the energy to be serious — the energy to do big things in a sustained, focused and intelligent way. We are in the midst of a national political brownout.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friedman is a New York Times columnist.

MACH1
05-01-2008, 09:38 AM
Well said rbryan! I am not sure what exactly Bush did to cause this but I am sure he will be blamed regardless. I guess the rise of countries like China have nothing to do with it. Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to bring economics 101 into this.

Lets not forget India is also competing for the same resources also.

X-Terminator
05-01-2008, 09:46 AM
We should have been developing our alternative fuel/energy markets 15 years ago - hell, we should be leading the damn world in both - but that article pretty much nails the reason why it hasn't. The federal government - no matter if you are a D or an R - is so consumed with power and taking the oil interests' money that so much of this stuff gets left out in the cold. I think now would be a good time to get the ball rolling on developing new sources of energy. We should have wind farms, hydroelectric plants and solar grids replacing traditional coal-burning electric plants all over this country. We've found a way to make electricity out of natural gas (co-generation). We've developed an engine that basically runs on water (hydrogen fuel-cell). Hell, we've even found a way to get 100+ MPG out of the hybrid engine. It's not like it can't be done - it's already BEING done. All they need is the cash, and the Feds have plenty of it. Something needs to be done ASAP, because I can't begin to think what it's going to be like in 10 years when people will have to decide whether to pay to heat their homes in the wintertime or pay $200 to gas up their Escalade (which points to another huge reason why we're in this mess, but I'll save that rant for another day).

stillers4me
05-01-2008, 10:20 AM
What really pisses me off is that not only are we paying exorbitant gas prices, they are adding more ethanol to it and my gas mileage is crap. So know I have to buy even more overpriced gas just to get to work.

Galax Steeler
05-02-2008, 03:48 AM
It's just hard to belive the way gas has climbed over the past 3 years.

stlrtruck
05-02-2008, 07:47 AM
It's time to buy a motorcycle or start jogging to work.

revefsreleets
05-02-2008, 08:13 AM
More...a lot of common sense here...

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/18478399.html

Price of oil too high? Start drilling
By Robert Samuelson

WASHINGTON: What to do about oil? First it went from $60 to $80 a barrel, then from $80 to $100 and now to $120. Perhaps we can persuade OPEC to raise production, as some senators suggest; but this seems unlikely.

The truth is that we're almost powerless to influence today's prices. We are because we didn't take sensible actions 10 or 20 years ago. If we persist, we will be even worse off in a decade or two. The first thing to do: Start drilling.

It may surprise Americans to discover that the United States is the third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. We could be producing more, but Congress has put large areas of potential supply off-limits. These include the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and parts of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

By government estimates, these areas may contain 25 billion-30 billion barrels of oil (against about 30 billion of proven U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic feet or more of natural gas (compared with about 200 tcf of proven reserves).

What keeps these areas closed are exaggerated environmental fears, strong prejudice against oil companies and sheer stupidity. Americans favor both ''energy independence'' and cheap fuel. They deplore imports — who wants to pay foreigners? — but oppose more production in the United States. Got it? The result is a ''no-pain energy agenda that sounds appealing but has no basis in reality,'' writes Robert Bryce in Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence.'

Unsurprisingly, all three major presidential candidates tout ''energy independence.'' This reflects either ignorance (unlikely) or pandering (probable). The United States now imports about 60 percent of its oil, up from 42 percent in 1990. We'll import lots more for the foreseeable future.

The world uses 86 million barrels of oil a day, up from 67 mbd in 1990. The basic cause of exploding prices is that advancing demand has virtually exhausted the world's surplus production capacity, says analyst Douglas MacIntyre of the Energy Information Administration. The result: Any unexpected rise in demand or threat to supply triggers higher prices.

The best we can do is to try to influence the global balance of supply and demand. Increase our supply. Restrain our demand. With luck, this might widen the worldwide surplus of production capacity. Producers would have less power to exact ever-higher prices, because there would be more competition among them to sell.

OPEC loses some leverage; its members cheat. Congress took a small step last year by increasing fuel economy standards for new cars and light trucks from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. (And yes, we need a gradually rising fuel tax to create a strong market for more-efficient vehicles.)

Increasing production also is important. Output from older fields, including Alaska's North Slope, is declining. Although production from restricted areas won't make the U.S. self-sufficient, it might stabilize output or even reduce imports. No one knows exactly what's in these areas, because the exploratory work is old. Estimates indicate that production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge might equal almost 5 percent of present U.S. oil use.

Members of Congress complain loudly about high oil profits ($40.6 billion for ExxonMobil last year) but frustrate those companies from using those profits to explore and produce in the United States. Getting access to oil elsewhere is increasingly difficult. Governments own three-quarters or more of proven reserves. Higher prices perversely discourage other countries from approving new projects. Flush with oil revenues, countries have less need to expand production. Undersupply and high prices then feed on each other.

But it's hard for the United States to complain that other countries limit access to their reserves when we're doing the same. If higher U.S. production reduced world prices, other countries might expand production. What they couldn't get from prices they'd try to get from greater sales.

On environmental grounds, the alternatives to more drilling are usually worse. Subsidies to ethanol made from corn have increased food prices and used scarce water, with few benefits.

If oil is imported, it's vulnerable to tanker spills. By contrast, local production is probably safer. There were 4,000 platforms operating in the Gulf of Mexico when hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit. Despite extensive damage, there were no major spills, says Robbie Diamond of Securing America's Future Energy, an advocacy group.

Perhaps oil prices will drop when some long-delayed projects begin production or if demand slackens. But the basic problem will remain. Though dependent on foreign oil, we might conceivably curb the power of foreign producers. But this is not a task of a month or a year. It is a task of decades; new production projects take that long. If we don't start now, our future dependence and its

WASHINGTON: What to do about oil? First it went from $60 to $80 a barrel, then from $80 to $100 and now to $120. Perhaps we can persuade OPEC to raise production, as some senators suggest; but this seems unlikely.

The truth is that we're almost powerless to influence today's prices. We are because we didn't take sensible actions 10 or 20 years ago. If we persist, we will be even worse off in a decade or two. The first thing to do: Start drilling.

It may surprise Americans to discover that the United States is the third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. We could be producing more, but Congress has put large areas of potential supply off-limits. These include the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and parts of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

By government estimates, these areas may contain 25 billion-30 billion barrels of oil (against about 30 billion of proven U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic feet or more of natural gas (compared with about 200 tcf of proven reserves).

What keeps these areas closed are exaggerated environmental fears, strong prejudice against oil companies and sheer stupidity. Americans favor both ''energy independence'' and cheap fuel. They deplore imports — who wants to pay foreigners? — but oppose more production in the United States. Got it? The result is a ''no-pain energy agenda that sounds appealing but has no basis in reality,'' writes Robert Bryce in Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence.'

Unsurprisingly, all three major presidential candidates tout ''energy independence.'' This reflects either ignorance (unlikely) or pandering (probable). The United States now imports about 60 percent of its oil, up from 42 percent in 1990. We'll import lots more for the foreseeable future.

The world uses 86 million barrels of oil a day, up from 67 mbd in 1990. The basic cause of exploding prices is that advancing demand has virtually exhausted the world's surplus production capacity, says analyst Douglas MacIntyre of the Energy Information Administration. The result: Any unexpected rise in demand or threat to supply triggers higher prices.

The best we can do is to try to influence the global balance of supply and demand. Increase our supply. Restrain our demand. With luck, this might widen the worldwide surplus of production capacity. Producers would have less power to exact ever-higher prices, because there would be more competition among them to sell.

OPEC loses some leverage; its members cheat. Congress took a small step last year by increasing fuel economy standards for new cars and light trucks from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. (And yes, we need a gradually rising fuel tax to create a strong market for more-efficient vehicles.)

Increasing production also is important. Output from older fields, including Alaska's North Slope, is declining. Although production from restricted areas won't make the U.S. self-sufficient, it might stabilize output or even reduce imports. No one knows exactly what's in these areas, because the exploratory work is old. Estimates indicate that production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge might equal almost 5 percent of present U.S. oil use.

Members of Congress complain loudly about high oil profits ($40.6 billion for ExxonMobil last year) but frustrate those companies from using those profits to explore and produce in the United States. Getting access to oil elsewhere is increasingly difficult. Governments own three-quarters or more of proven reserves. Higher prices perversely discourage other countries from approving new projects. Flush with oil revenues, countries have less need to expand production. Undersupply and high prices then feed on each other.

But it's hard for the United States to complain that other countries limit access to their reserves when we're doing the same. If higher U.S. production reduced world prices, other countries might expand production. What they couldn't get from prices they'd try to get from greater sales.

On environmental grounds, the alternatives to more drilling are usually worse. Subsidies to ethanol made from corn have increased food prices and used scarce water, with few benefits.

If oil is imported, it's vulnerable to tanker spills. By contrast, local production is probably safer. There were 4,000 platforms operating in the Gulf of Mexico when hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit. Despite extensive damage, there were no major spills, says Robbie Diamond of Securing America's Future Energy, an advocacy group.

Perhaps oil prices will drop when some long-delayed projects begin production or if demand slackens. But the basic problem will remain. Though dependent on foreign oil, we might conceivably curb the power of foreign producers.

revefsreleets
05-02-2008, 08:14 AM
Sorry, don't know what happened to the end of the article...

TackleMeBen
05-02-2008, 08:14 AM
It's time to buy a motorcycle or start jogging to work.
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u251/beautifulgirl427/GSX1300RK8_BlackBlue_001d60.jpg :wink02:

stlrtruck
05-02-2008, 08:27 AM
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u251/beautifulgirl427/GSX1300RK8_BlackBlue_001d60.jpg :wink02:

I said motorcycle, not deathcycle. I'm trying to convince my wife I need a cruiser. I show her that picture and it would be an instant NO

TackleMeBen
05-02-2008, 08:29 AM
I said motorcycle, not deathcycle. I'm trying to convince my wife I need a cruiser. I show her that picture and it would be an instant NO
my friend just bought one and we went out the other day on it.. i was like this thing is awesome. i might have to invest in one. :wink02:. and no we dont want you getting killed. i would so miss reading your post.

MACH1
05-02-2008, 10:04 AM
An enormous oil field once thought unattainable now is. Read this link and Google "Bakken Oil Formation".
We will become oil independent, with our own oil. There are also vast other supplies available in the US. The Gulf of mexico, Both our coasts, The western mountainous states, and of course Alaska! WE JUST HAVE TO DRILL FOR IT!!! There are literally hundreds of years of oil at our disposal. It is said that this find will cut the price of gas in the near future in half. We would of already had more oil and low priced gas available if the Democrat liberal environmentalists wouldn't have blocked the construction of any new refineries for the last 35 years! You have them to thank for high gas prices!

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

GBMelBlount
05-02-2008, 10:39 AM
Good post. I call the short term spike in gas prices "the Starks effect."

TackleMeBen
05-02-2008, 03:05 PM
I said motorcycle, not deathcycle. I'm trying to convince my wife I need a cruiser. I show her that picture and it would be an instant NO

here you go then.. this might be more up your alley :wink02:

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u251/beautifulgirl427/bike.jpg

Preacher
05-02-2008, 03:14 PM
An enormous oil field once thought unattainable now is. Read this link and Google "Bakken Oil Formation".
We will become oil independent, with our own oil. There are also vast other supplies available in the US. The Gulf of mexico, Both our coasts, The western mountainous states, and of course Alaska! WE JUST HAVE TO DRILL FOR IT!!! There are literally hundreds of years of oil at our disposal. It is said that this find will cut the price of gas in the near future in half. We would of already had more oil and low priced gas available if the Democrat liberal environmentalists wouldn't have blocked the construction of any new refineries for the last 35 years! You have them to thank for high gas prices!

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html


Your right. However, doing that and that alone will not help our long term needs. What we need is to have a dual policy which allows for the drilling of oil... AND develop alt. fuels. That way, (we will NEVER FULLY get away from oil) we can stretch the scores or even a couple hundred years of oil out for half a mil.

Galax Steeler
05-02-2008, 03:57 PM
I had no idea that the usa was third in oil production behind saudia,russia.

MACH1
05-02-2008, 04:13 PM
Your right. However, doing that and that alone will not help our long term needs. What we need is to have a dual policy which allows for the drilling of oil... AND develop alt. fuels. That way, (we will NEVER FULLY get away from oil) we can stretch the scores or even a couple hundred years of oil out for half a mil.

Its not just alt. fuels, its much much larger than that. While I agree we need to get moving on the alt. fuel like hydrogen, solar or wind power.

While the price a gas goes up so does everything else. Most people probably don't realize how many things are made out of petroleum. So its more than the price of gas and the cost of filling the gas tanks to ship products to the market.

Here's a link to a small list of whats actually made from petroleum. And if you look close enough FOOTBALLS are made from the stuff. :doh:

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm

VTsteel
05-02-2008, 05:25 PM
Not to mention draconian legislation brought about by militant environmentalists that keep us from tapping into our own reserves and prevent us from increasing our refining capacity! :thumbsup:

I say use up their resources . . . in 50 yrs. We'll be one of the only one's with it. Turn about is fair play . . . Using their Oil now is an investment in our future!

stlrtruck
05-05-2008, 07:53 AM
here you go then.. this might be more up your alley :wink02:

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u251/beautifulgirl427/bike.jpg

Yeah, that one would do it!!!!