Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????

Page 2 of 4  
"Brent Bolin" wrote

Where do you get your information? http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#World.27s_Largest_Refineries_.28Barrels.2FDay.29
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#World.27s_Largest_Refineries_.28Barrels.2FDay.29
He mean no *new* drilling or refining. Our neighbors are drilling offshore nex to our borders wiith what should have been our oil.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Nice theory, but it doesn't explain why countries with even less of an energy policy than we are seeing the cost of oil go up too.
As to oil companies owning the White House and Congress, who would you rather own them? Rice farmers? Rat Terrier breeders? The AMC Gremlin Fan Club?
At least with oil companies, when you get screwed, you get lubed up first.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote on 29 Mar 2008 in group alt.home.repair:

Ed Wallace, a commentator in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, pointed out in a recent column that supply is up, and demand is down, so prices should be down. He thinks the high prices are driven by speculation and a weak Dollar. In 2000 there were 9 gigabucks in the oil futures market. In 2008 the amount is 250 gigabucks.
Here's a link to the column: http://www.star-telegram.com/ed_wallace/story/541726.html
--
Steve B.
New Life Home Improvement
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
feds should loosen smog regulations on gasoline and additives, to help bring price down a little
temporarily suspend the federal gasoline tax
feds should allow cheap dirty econo car sales in the US for a limited number of years. low power they wouldnt be allowed on some roads, lower safety. but say 50 MPG minimum. such cars are sold in other countries thru out the world
now before you gewt your panties in a wad, people use motorcycles for transportation too, and by all means any car should be safer than a harley...
all of these would help our short term problem. the cost of in action is a major recession..........
and most importandly change funding of all national elections completely. limit 100 bucks per person, no corporate giving to candidates.
so our representives arent bought and sold anymore
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Loosening any gasoline formulation regulations is only going to bring the price down a little. Given that gas prices have about tripled, it doesn't seem to me that any small change in the price is going to be worth dirty air.

Yeah, they could do that. I think it's about 16 cents. But without a corresponding decrease in spending, it would add to the deficit,

Where are these cheap dirty cars being driven? Certainly not in Europe, Japan, Canada, etc. Maybe in China, where they don't give a damn about the environment. I don't understand why they need to be dirty. We have reasonable cost cars here getting very good mileage that also meet all US regulations. The problem is, people haven't been buying them. They've been buying bigger cars and more importantly SUV's, so clearly price isn't the problem.

How is allowing cheap dirty cars into the US a short term solution to anything?

IMO, unconstitutional.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

You have something like seven different formulations that need to be changed during the seasons. And most refineries can't do many of the different types without major changes. Even then, refineries have to be shut down to make the changeover. If demand is increased in one area, it is not likely that the refineries in another would be able to easily change over. Having just one or two (probably even if the one is for California) could help a bit with using refinery capacity we have now more efficiently.

Cheap oil was the reason (among others) and the fleet doesn't change all that quickly. You can see the smaller, cleaner, and more fuel efficient cars making head way in market now. It will accelerate once people get convinced that this isn't just another 70s style bounce that will go away soon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

a little here, a little there. it all adds up in the end. diesel has soared in cost because of the low sulphur regulations

Unemployment benefits welfare and all the rest to help a recession costs too. better to start the help at the top.

add a fuel hog tax to any new vehicle getting under 20 MPG. sure car companies will miss the SUV sales but its important.

they get excellent gas mileage around 50MPG the tata costs 2500 bucks, so lots of americans could afford a commuter or around home car.

theres lots of rules on fundraising, this would just be more restrictive........ and great for our country. and necessary, just look at congress in the last 10 years, they are pathetic
we also need to look at what america can afford to do in the world? wht should we still have military in europe? japan etc?
pre set hardened bases, with skelton crews, our troops back hme spending their money here, providing border security etc......
currently our troops are just fiancial aid to other countries, like germany.
definetely keep active bases in s korea etc........
in this day and age we can create a system to get our troops to any part of the world in a day or two
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And again, how is this a SHORT term solution to gasoline demand? And the problem is most people are buying bigger, more expensive cars and particularly SUV's, instead of cars like the cheaper Honda Civic, which gets 30/40MPG then how does offering a $2500 Indian shit box solve anything? If anything it would likely increase the fuel usage problem, by putting MORE cars on the road. People would use them as cheap second, third or fourth cars and we would go back 30 years in air and safety standards in the process.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

use it for alternative development, efficient mass transit, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
incidently my local home depot reports sales are dead, part timers hours cut. the place was empty.......
normally they are hiring at this time:(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Exactly. Fuel use is virtually inelastic. Price goes up, people pay it or starve, lose their jobs, or suffer other dire consequences. Gone are the days when people "went for a drive." Virtually all travel is a necessity.
As for using increased tax revenues to fund, say, mass transit. It takes five years to lay track. So 100% of the drivers in my town would be charged extra amounts so that five years from now, 2% of the population will have the opportunity to use rail transit? Really bad trade-off. Really bad.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Five years to lay track, but 10 years to do the engineering studies, 5 to do the enviornmental impact statements, 5 years to get the right of way figured out. One of the first things I did in '76 when I was a freshly minted newspaper reporter was attend the first public hearing for a bypass around the city I worked in. The final section was opened up 3 years ago. Took 'em '76 to 95 to put the first shovel in the ground and '95 to '05 to get it done.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

conventional ones or privately run gypsy/jitney ones. Unlike Europe or the old dense urban areas of east coast, most of US is not mass-transit friendly. Too spread out, and peoples schedules vary too much. Around here, they cut the bus routes back to the old part of the city. The routes to the burbs and large apartment projects were money holes, even with a buttload of federal subsidies. At work, I suggested they get with the city bus folks, and try 4-trip a day (early and late to the office, then the same thing the other way at quitting time) shuttle service from where employee homes were concentrated to the office complex. The idea went nowhere, even though several apartment complexes probably account for a third of the junior-level employees.
-- aem sends...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Schedules are not a problem. Years ago companies and workers adapted to available transportation or they walked because they lived near the mill That is probably the only easy part to overcome. The automobile allowed us to use many other options. Used to be, people did not complain about taking two busses and a trolley to get to work. Now we complain if our parking spot is more than 25' from the door. If a train dropped 100 people off at the entrance to an industrial park, chances are they'd still have to travel a quarter mile to a mile to their workplace along roads with no sidewalks.
The last time I took public transportation to work was in the 1960's and where I park at work is only 10' from the door.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

pay parking. I investigated taking the bus and got all the brochures from the bus company. Of major interest to me was their giving their total passenger miles and fuel consumed. A simple calculation revealed that one gallon of gasoline transported one passenger nine miles - less than half the mileage I was getting on my car at the time ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

I'm not sure, but I think we are agreeing with each other. Until July 05, I lived in the apartments about a mile west of here, which was the turnaround point for the end of that particular bus route (before it was cancelled.) So, in theory, I could have ridden the bus to work, assuming I got my lazy ass out of bed in time. However, it was a 20 minute meandering ride from their to the central bus stop downtown, and then a 20 minute wait for a transfer for the bus that stopped in front of my office. Call it 50 minutes to an hour, minimum, twice a day.
I'm 51 years old. The insurance company tables say I have maybe 35 years left, if I'm lucky. I can DRIVE to work in 10-12 minutes. Am I going to use up 2 hours sitting on a bus every day? Would you? Would anyone rational, unless they were flat broke and had no other choice? If my employers and the city had come up with a express shuttle for the federal installation where I work, so no transfer was involved and it only took, say, 20 minutes twice a day, the bus would suddenly look a whole lot more interesting. The apartments where I lived could have filled half a bus with just the federal employees that lived there. Add in the other apartments up and down the main drag on this side of town, it could have worked out. The main drags in the other 3 compass directions would have similar numbers- hit the big apartment complexes, and maybe certain subdivisions where you know the employees live.
Hey, I LIKE buses. I rode them a lot in college. But they were cheap, and went directly from where I slept, to where I needed to be, and there was one every 15 minutes.
-- aem sends...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:01:26 +0000, aemeijers wrote:

Buses aren't a bad solution in a places, but your opinion is poorly thought out. Huge amounts of fuel consumption could be saved by replacing the most heavily traveled air commute routes (e.g. L.A. to New York, L.A. to Las Vegas...) with high speed rail solutions. We wouldn't have to develop the tech ourselves either, we can look to Germany, France, Switzerland, China and Japan for examples, and attempt to improve on their designs. Significant fuel use (and human lives) can be saved by allowing people to place their cars on trains for transport (this is done is areas of Switzerland).
For commuting distances less than 50 miles, another solution is alternative modes of personal transportation. I personally want a Twike (www.twike.com). In high sun states, e.g. Utah, Arizona, Nevada, California, you could commute entirely on solar energy (charging when parked, not solar cells on twike), _without any new tech_. If more money gets pumped into such vehicles, improvements will come rapidly. In high population density areas, improved Bike infrastructure will help. Better health of the populace, reduced traffic congestion, reduced noise and air pollution. It would be wonderful. For longer commutes, ride-sharing and car-pooling can make significant impacts.
In areas where traditional vehicles are needed (farming, development), bio- diesel is a practical solution, and stricter efficiency regulations are needed.
We're stuck in a rut, and we need to get out of it. Culturally, we seem to want a simple one-shot magic bullet that cures our woes without any change of behavior on our part. On the other hand, a few common sense tactics and a minor shift in our way of thinking, can make huge differences while we work on further improvements.
Removing our dependence on fossil fuels is an eventual necessity. We can already make huge dents in it now. The approaches needed will have both immediate and long term benefits. No one solution is going to work in every area of such a diverse land mass as the United-States, so regional approaches have to be taken. What's most important is to avoid knee jerk 'oh that can't work' reactions. Apply careful analysis, and use what works where it works.
Of course, there's a lot of propaganda out there to sabotage these efforts, and most of that propaganda comes from the energy and automobile industries, who are worried about shifting power structures and reduced profits. The worst nightmare for America's energy industry is more self reliant America, where the citizens produce a large portion of the energy they consume themselves. It would reduce their power and profits drastically.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah people would be lining up to pay more for a 2 day train ride.
When air fare was 10 times the price of the train people still took the plane.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 30, 11:22�am, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

mag lev can do it at 300 miles per hour, with flight delays etc speed would be a wash.
once terrorists shoot some commercial airliners out of the sky mag lev will surge.........
they could build a mag lev system with bus sized vehicles leaving hourly sharing a rail guideway running continiously. all coputer controlled for spacing
when you want to travel it would be like a bus just go and get on.....
if you want timed reservtions pay a bit more.
capital building costs high, operating costs low, very flexible.
no air pollution except for international flights.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.