$3.50 a gallon? GMAFB

[craigsub]

Let us review these terribly inconvenient things call facts.

1. From 1977 to 2006, let us not allow the opening of any new oil fields on any US property. Anwar ? no. Gulf of Mexico ? no. Off the coast of California ? no.

2. Let us drive SUVs, even in places like Florida.

3. Let us ban putting up any new refineries.

4. NOW, after we have strangled the supply side of the equation, while doing nothing (as consumers) on the demand side to lower it, let us all bi*ch and moan about high oil prices.

If anyone is having a hard time understand this, please ask.

 

[Audioholics]

so they decide to put only five gallons of gas in each tank and run the test that way instead.

These guys are so unprofessional in the scientific sense that it makes me laugh... Did they use 1 or 2 cars? If they didn't use the same car and simply use a timer the test is useless due to the variance in vehicles... also, what was the exact time difference? Far apart, or basically negligible?

I love the show, but I spend more time picking out the ways they screw up the tests than actually thinking they prove or bust anything...

 

[majorloser]

When Dodge makes 400+ horsepower Hemi hybrid, I'll think about it.

Till then, I'll suffer with my 1998 Ram SST with 12MPG highway performance.

 

[Hi Ho]

These guys are so unprofessional in the scientific sense that it makes me laugh... Did they use 1 or 2 cars? If they didn't use the same car and simply use a timer the test is useless due to the variance in vehicles... also, what was the exact time difference? Far apart, or basically negligible?

They used two identical vehicles (same options, everything) and they measured milage, not time. They used the cruise control. I believe the difference was a few miles.

Now, of course, even with two identical vehicles, they can perform differently due to variances in manufacturing. Maybe a revisit is in store?

 

[Sheep]

They need to revisit the Coke(A Cola) Myths. They tried to show tooth decay with coke, forgetting the saliva is needed to make sugar acidic.

SheepStar

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Let us review these terribly inconvenient things call facts.

1. From 1977 to 2006, let us not allow the opening of any new oil fields on any US property. Anwar ? no. Gulf of Mexico ? no. Off the coast of California ? no.

2. Let us drive SUVs, even in places like Florida.

3. Let us ban putting up any new refineries.

4. NOW, after we have strangled the supply side of the equation, while doing nothing (as consumers) on the demand side to lower it, let us all bi*ch and moan about high oil prices.

If anyone is having a hard time understand this, please ask.

Craig,

All great points.

Question -

What do the following consumers of these nations pay (on average) for a gallon of gas?
Why do you think that is?

Saudi Arabia
Puerto Rico
Kuwait
Eqypt
Nigeria
Laos
Thailand
China
Russia
Kazakhstan
Azerbaijan
Venezuela

Some interesting facts from a recent google search on gasoline:

A 1998 analysis conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that there were about 7 billion barrels of profitable oil in the 1002 Area alone (Artic Nat'l Wildlife Refuge).

The United States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil each day, or after refining, 400 million gallons. That's over 140 billion gallons a year.

A gallon of gasoline contains about 132x10 to the 6th power/joules of energy, which is equivalent to 125,000 BTU or 36,650 watt-hours. If you took a 1,500-watt space heater and left it on full blast for a full 24-hour day, that's about how much heat is in a gallon of gas.

Gasoline is mostly carbon by weight, so a gallon of gas might release 5 to 6 pounds of carbon into the atmosphere. If it were solid carbon, it would be extremely noticeable -- it would be like throwing a 5-pound bag of sugar out the window of your car for every gallon of gas burned. But because the 5 pounds of carbon comes out as an invisible gas (carbon dioxide), most of us are oblivious to it. The carbon dioxide coming out of every car's tailpipe is a greenhouse gas. The U.S. is releasing roughly 2 billion pounds of carbon into the atmosphere each day.

During WWI, it was discovered that you can add a chemical called tetraethyl lead to gasoline and significantly improve its octane rating. Cheaper grades of gasoline could be made usable by adding this chemical. This led to the widespread use of "ethyl" or "leaded" gasoline. Airplanes are still allowed to use leaded gasoline, and octane ratings of 115 are commonly used in super-high-performance piston airplane engines (jet engines burn kerosene, by the way).

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

NEW YORK, April 28 (Reuters) - Chevron Corp. (CVX.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the No. 2 U.S. oil company, on Friday said its quarterly earnings surged 49 percent to $4 billion, topping Wall Street expectations and sparking a 2 percent rise in the stock.

On Thursday, Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the world's largest publicly traded oil company reported $8.4 billion in earnings -- its biggest first-quarter profit ever.

You still think you're getting a good deal on gasoline? When was the last time you saw an oil company advertise on television? When was the last time Microsoft advertised on television? Do you see a correlation?

 

[Johnd]

Since the dawn of time it has been known that the fossil fuel supply is limited.

Since our insatiable thirst for fossil fuels began (in the latter part of the 20th century) we have known that the fossil fuel supply will be spent (for all intents and purposes) by the year 2040. If China continues it's current trend of oil usage, that day will come sooner. Imagine if India follows suit.

I agree that the oil companies practices are egregious and greedy, if not criminal. But if half the time and energy spent on complaining about oil prices was spent on alternative fuel sources, the US might be closer to Brazil's current state of (near) energy independence. Parts of Europe are currently paying $7.00-$8.00 per gallon of gasoline. Parts of Europe have been paying $4.00-$6.00 per gallon for decades. Wake up.

If some peoples eyes were not closed until it hit their pocketbook, they would have seen the current situation coming. It's been a freight train looming for the past several decades. The Alaska pipeline was a bandaid...we've always known that. Pricing will inevitably get worse as supplies dwindle. It's economics 101 (supply/demand). Perhaps energy and time would be better spent on a meaningful solution (i.e. alternative fuel sources) rather than Monday morning complaining. Just my Saturday morning dose of philosophy. Cheers to all.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Still waiting to buy an electric car. Despite decades of *****ing about gas prices I can't pay cash money for an electric car that goes 55mph and will run for more than 20 miles.

Electric cars and backyard turbines would turn this country around overnight. But You can't buy either!

 

[Johnd]

With enough prodding of the powers that be, that day should not be far off.

 

[MDS]

If some peoples eyes were not closed until it hit their pocketbook, they would have seen the current situation coming. It's been a freight train looming for the past several decades. The Alaska pipeline was a bandaid...we've always known that. Pricing will inevitably get worse as supplies dwindle. It's economics 101 (supply/demand). Perhaps energy and time would be better spent on a meaningful solution (i.e. alternative fuel sources) rather than Monday morning complaining. Just my Saturday morning dose of philosophy. Cheers to all.

Now there's a perfectly accurate and sane comment in contrast to the typical conspiracy theories that 'they' (the oil/gas companies) are sticking it to us.

I suppose few remember as early as 1998 when a gallon of oil fell to $10. Did the government do the sane thing and use the record tax receipts from capital gains made from the technology and internet stock bubble to stockpile oil and add it to our strategic reserve? Of course not. They forcast the gains would last forever and hey no sense saving now we can increase spending instead. We did just that and as I have said before, we are now the world's largest debtor nation. Oil is priced in dollars, there are too many dollars and coupled with increased demand the price of oil skyrockets. The oil companies are in business to make money and are doing just that.

It sucks for us as consumers but it was as predictable as a sunrise. Now it's approaching a crisis and congress swings into action to find someone to blame. That's the way it always is - social security, medicare, health care, et al are going the same way. WHEN they become a crisis, congress will once again look for scapegoats rather than preparing for the inevitable NOW.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Johnd: I agree that the oil companies practices are egregious and greedy, if not criminal.

I agree. Someone please explain where all these record profits are coming from.

But if half the time and energy spent on complaining about oil prices was spent on alternative fuel sources, the US might be closer to Brazil's current state of (near) energy independence.

It's hard to do that with an oil man in the White House. Curious GW has pushed for alternative sources, but there's a reason for that. See below.

Parts of Europe are currently paying $7.00-$8.00 per gallon of gasoline. Parts of Europe have been paying $4.00-$6.00 per gallon for decades. Wake up.

Different tax structure. Check what the Europeans tax per litre of gas compared to the US and other nations not paying exorbitant prices. Not apples to apples.

Pricing will inevitably get worse as supplies dwindle. It's economics 101 (supply/demand).

That is simple economics. Monopolies like big oil and politics are not simple economics. Neither are companies like Microsoft. When you control the supply, you create the demand. Incorrect forecasting leads to higher pricing, and that in turn leads to record profits.

Perhaps energy and time would be better spent on a meaningful solution (i.e. alternative fuel sources) rather than Monday morning complaining.

The issue is the internal combustion engine. It is very difficult to run this engine on alternative fuels at any net savings - while keeping the environment in mind. Think of the process needed to swap every i.c.e. vehicle over to full electric or hybrid. It's not economically feasible, and big oil knows this. To top that off, auto manufacturers aren't given enough incentives to make it worthwhile to create/manufacture new hybrid cars. If that were the case, every other car produced would/should have this technology. Just look at how many hybrid cars are on the road right now. Anyone check the price of replacing those batteries after 7-8 years?

I have no problem with paying $2.50 - $3.50 a gallon IF big oil is not gouging the consumer, and making record profits while doing it. Let simple economics rule oil, and not a new "OPEC" which dictates pricing across the board. People will wake up when they start seeing all the big oil companies posting record profits this quarter, and next.

 

[craigsub]

Exxon made a net, after tax profit of $8.4 Billion in the First Quarter on $89 Billion in sales.

Exxon paid a total, between income and Excise taxes, of $25.8 Billion in the first quarter of 2006.

This means Exxon had 9.4 % of its total sales go to net profit, and 29.0 % of its total sales go to taxes.

In the same quarter, Apple computer had $4.36 billion in total revenue, and made a profit of $410 million, or 9.4% if its total revenue. Apple also paid $231million in taxes, or 5.3 % of total revenue.

While we are pounding on Exxon, they are trying to delevop more supply around the world. more supply is precisely what we need. They just signed deals with foreign sources for new oil fields which will yield about 1 million barrels per day. The expense was $4.8 Billion.

I wonder what might happen if we allowed Exxon and other companies actually try to find more oil in the US ...

And is anyone prepared to get on the government's case for gouging at 3 times the pace Exxon is ?

 

[Johnd]

Buckeye & Craig: I agree almost entirely with what you're both saying, but..

If alternative fuels do not burn well in internal combustion engines (not entirely true)...then I say get on with it.

If alternative fuels are not readily available at economically feasible prices...then I say get on with it.

If the predominant automobile manufacturers lack the economic incentives to design an alternative fuel vehicle...then I say get on with it.

If Eli Whitney, Henry Ford, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, etc. were so stymied and acquiescient, we never would have had the Industrial Revolution. We are very used to fossil fuels, the internal combustion engine and low gas prices. The alternatives are truly endless. Think about it...and get on with it. The days of $1.00-$2.00 gasoline are (almost) forever gone (unless you happen to live in Caracas or Saudi Arabia). Realize it...then I say get on with it.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

I wonder what might happen if we allowed Exxon and other companies actually try to find more oil in the US ...

And is anyone prepared to get on the government's case for gouging at 3 times the pace Exxon is ?

Excellent points. The only issue with Exxon is that they are one of the few not investing as much as others in R&D for alternative fuel sources.

The government is a whole other can of worms. Lets be happy we don't live in a socialist economy where they gouge your eyeballs and guts out of you.

 

[Johnd]

That is simple economics. Monopolies like big oil and politics are not simple economics. Neither are companies like Microsoft. When you control the supply, you create the demand. Incorrect forecasting leads to higher pricing, and that in turn leads to record profits.

Well, excuse me, but I think OPEC and the Big Three is as unmonopolistic as you're going to get with the forever dwindling supply. It is a limited resource, and it is just about spent. I am less concerned with gouging than I am with waste and R & D. The time to develop new technology is long overdue.

 

[WmAx]

Is new technology needed in order to give up reliance on oil as the primary source of automobile fuel?

Brazil has made pure alcohol a viable fuel, and the cars required to run on such, for the most part, can automatically adjust their fuel delivery systems to run on any blend of gas/alcohol, or pure versions of each. From what I have read, the cost to add this functionality is so low, that many cars in Brazil do not have an additional cost to consumer vs. regular gasoline cars. Such cars do not use any *new* technology. Apparently, the difference is the fuel delivery system.

What is the feasibility of converting the U.S.A. to alcohol that is created from corn and sugar crops, as in Brazil? Would the agriculture in this country allow for such amount of crops to support the fuel demand? If so, would it be possible to have 50% of cars on the road using alcohol in 10 years? 95% in 25 years?

If production of the size of crops needed is possible in the U.S., what is preventing this from occuring? It seems that this would be good all the way around(alochol less toxic, less toxic byproducts when burned, renewable resource, keeps money in the U.S. as opposed to sending to other countries, existing engine technology compatible, etc.).

-Chris

 

[Johnd]

Yes, WmAx. Questions such as these are far more progressive and potentially productive than others.

 

[rgriffin25]

Maybe this thread should be titled "People who drive Expeditions, Suburbans, Hummers, and any other low gas mileage vehicle GMAFB!"

Come on guys, I realize the Oil companies are making huge profits but enough is enough. Both of my vehicles average 30-35 mpg, how many of you can say that?

 

[Johnd]

My Beemer (motorcycle) can get up to to 50 mpg! Touche! Unfortunately, at no one's fault but by own, my every day work vehicle gets 1/5 of that. When will I learn (and practice what I preach)? But good for you, and good precedence, rgriffin25.