WINNABLE Gas War

Page 1 of 2  
GAS WAR??
a GAS WAR idea that WILL work覧覧>
This was originally sent by a retired Coca Cola executive. It came from one of his engineer buddies who retired from Halliburton. It's worthy ofyour consideration:
Join the resistance! I hear we are going to hit close to $4.00 a gallon bysummer and it might possibly go higher! Want gasoline prices to come down? We need to take some intelligent, united action. Phillip Hollsworth offered this good idea. This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" campaign that was going around earlier!
The oil companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" ourselves by refusing to buy gas. It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them.
But whoever thought of THIS idea, has come up with a plan that can really work. Please read on and join with us!
By now you're probably thinking gasoline priced at about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is currently $2.79 for regular unleaded in my town. Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50 - $1.75, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace..... not sellers.
With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need to take action. The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And, we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves.
How?
Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to force a price war.
Here's the idea:
For the rest of 2007, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit.
But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do! Now, don't wimp out at this point.... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people.
I am sending this note to 30 people. If each of us sends it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) ... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000)... and so on... by the time the message reaches the sixth group of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers. If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!!
Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all. (If you don't understand how we can reach 300 million and all you have to do is send this to 10 people.... Well, let's face it, you just aren't a mathematician. (But I am, so trust me on this one.) How long would all that take?
If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!! I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you? Acting together we can make a difference. If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on.
I suggest that we not buy from EXXON/MOBIL UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (Jeff Gagnon) wrote in
*snip*

*snip*
A mathemetician, perhaps, but not an economist. Gas is not a competive market commodity, supply is purposely fixed and carefully regulated so demand will drive the prices higher. Sounds like a monopoly to me.
I'm not an economist either, but I took a couple classes in college.
What can you do to "win" this gas price escallation? Drive a more fuel efficient car and take a bike or walk if you're close enough to the place you're going. If you should be pressuring anybody, it should be the insurance companies in order to make purpose-based vehicle ownership cheaper. That way, when you need to haul several sheets of plywood, you can do it. When you just need a couple screws, a few pieces of sandpaper, and a gallon of milk, you can drive a more fuel efficient car to get those items.
To the OP: Please note the proper tagging of the subject line with [OT]. All posts (including general interest) that aren't about wood working originally should be marked with this notation.
Puckdropper
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


I agree with Puckdropper.
Supply and demand says it all. If the cost of gas has no effect on demand, why shouldn't it continue to go up? Only when the overall demand changes will the price of gas stabilize.
Prior to January 2001, my local gas prices were influenced by competition between local gas stations. Not no more! There is only one or two sources of wholesale gas, and ALL gas stations in my area get their supply from this small quantity of (non-completive?) sources. It is the total demand that will change the equation, not just a boycott of some independent owned franchise station. Why pick on the little guy with no influence?
Puckdropper correctly pointed out, use less gas.
Aside: How can I continue to indulge in woodworking as a hobby when I am now spending $50.00 per week on gas just to go to work. That is double what I spent on gas just 3 or 4 years ago. $25.00 a week adds up to a lot of tools, wood, and wood hobby magazines. And I ain't got it as bad as many others who need 2 tanks of gas to get to work each week because of how far in the suburbs they live from work. {If my local Woodcraft store is 4 gallons of gas away (round trip), that makes the cost of that .......}
Phil
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 20 May 2007 11:12:05 GMT, "Phil-in-MI" <NO Spam &

This is why some folks also consider rising energy prices to be anti-inflationary.
You have to go to work, and you have to eat. When these basics go up, you spend less on other, discretionary items, slowing the overall economy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
To the original poster:
Your post is pure bullshit. I'm sure you're just a troll. But here is a link http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/e/exxon-mobil-boycott.htm in regards to the post. I use the site on a weekly basis, since I get emails from coworkers who seemed to get suckered into just about anything.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
B A R R Y wrote:
| On Sun, 20 May 2007 11:12:05 GMT, "Phil-in-MI" <NO Spam & | snipped-for-privacy@1-2-3-4-5-6.notspam> wrote: | || Aside: How can I continue to indulge in woodworking as a hobby || when I am now spending $50.00 per week on gas just to go to work. | | This is why some folks also consider rising energy prices to be | anti-inflationary.
I don't think so. As the cost of production goes up, the price of goods and services will remain at some multiplier of that cost. It's been a long time since I studied this stuff, but isn't this "cost push" inflation?
| You have to go to work, and you have to eat. When these basics go | up, you spend less on other, discretionary items, slowing the | overall economy.
Yuppers - but many will reconsider their means of transportation, and many will find ways to spend less on food.
Application of Murphy's Law and the Law of Unintended Consequences to the scenario indicates that more people will be driving "beaters" than will be shifting to public transportation, and that there will be an increase in malnutrition and general health problems.
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You hit the nail squarely on the head. The version of Supply and Demand that we are seeing, has progressed to the stage of "What the market will bare. This is not however a monopoly as other companies are involved. Letting all the oil companies merge in to 1/2 the number that there were around 10 years ago, basically eleminating 1/2 the competition is a steer towards a monopoly like trend. I firmly believe that oil prices are fixed by fear much like fear drives the stock market. If the local and national news woudl SHUT UP about anouncing gas prices goin up the oil companies would not have to raise the prices to meet our expectations. The oil companies love the news agency being the barer of bad news, it gets us ready for the next price hike.
An interseting side note, The Shell VP was on the news the other day and he indicated the supply and demand excuse cutting short of calling it what it actually is, "what the market will bare. He said there is no shortage of oil, simply a shortate of a way to produce gasoline. With no shortage of oil and oil prices being lower than what they have been, why is gasoline at an all time high? It's, what the market will bare. He also went on to say that no oil refinery has been built since 1977, too much governmant red tape and cost. Awhhhh, what part of business does not have red tape??? If they built more refineries there would be less restriction on refining.
Another interesting note, a long time friend and neighbor is an engeneer that just finished working in California. He was the site cost engeneer overseeing the expenses of revamping a refinery for Valero. He learned that in California that Valero's cost to produce 1 gallon of gasoline is $1.02 and 1 gallon of diesel is $0.89.
Oil companies claim demand is up and some have even blamed the earlier day light saving time this year as a reason. If demand is up and creating a problem I wonder who is sitting in line to get gas? I remember those shortages in the 70's, those were more real than what we have today.

Get rid of the need for gasoline altogether. Yes it will affect the economy, but oil is used for a lot more than producing fuel for cars and trucks. The typical gasoline engine only makes use of 25% of the fuel it burns the other 75% is lost to heat. The new hybrid yet to be marketed cars can operate from electricity for about 2.2 cents per mile. While converting fuel to electriciey is wastful, it is not nearly as inefficient as letting the engine in your car convert the fuel into useable energy. Typically, all things being equal the cost of electricity needed to drive a car the same distance as 1 gallon of gasoline, would be 75 cents as compared to gasoline at $3 per gallon. This information is from the specs on the GM Volt concept car and the from the Zap motor company that has been producing electric vehicles in California for the last 10 years. Zap has produced and sold over 90,000 vehicles world wide.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:
<snip>
| Get rid of the need for gasoline altogether. Yes it will affect the | economy, but oil is used for a lot more than producing fuel for | cars and trucks.
*YES!* Thank you for saying the words that so much needed to be said. It _will_ happen in the long term, and the only open question is how painful the transition will be - and the longer we procrastinate the more difficult the change.
Even if we were to achieve global "no-fuel" energy production (unlikely in the short and intermediate term) we would still likely need significant amounts of petroleum for non-fuel uses.
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:

No "procrastination". The only way for such a change to occur at this time would be for the government to subsidize the alternative technology. When the price of gas goes high enough that something else is significantly cheaper then we'll see an alternative technology brought to market. Right now that is not the case.
I don't see how "procrastinating" while more efficient technologies are developed will make the change "more difficult". If we "procrastinate" long enough then somebody will find an economically viable way to obtain carbon from atmospheric CO2 and the long term production of synthetic gasoline will become possible, at which time a "transition" will no longer be necessary, we'll just keep on doing what we're doing only using gasoline synthezied from hydrogen and carbon derived from water and air, with the energy input coming from nuclear energy, instead of using gasoline derived from something pumped out of holes in the ground. And if we procrastinate long enough then that nuclear energy will come from fusion, which we can with the available stocks of hydrogen continue using at far higher rates than today for a large multiple of the anticipated life of the universe.

Or any other term. Your vision of a world powered by "free" solar energy ain't gonna happen.

Which can and in the long term will be synthesized. There's nothing magic about the chemistry of dead dinosaurs. The best quality lubricants are synthesized already.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:
| If we | "procrastinate" long enough then somebody will find an economically | viable way to obtain carbon from atmospheric CO2 and the long term | production of synthetic gasoline will become possible,
And so will perpetual motion. I'm eagerly awaiting an explanation of how a fuel might be synthesized from its constituant elements in a reaction that consumes less energy than will be released in its subsequent oxidation.
Not holding my breath waiting for that to happen, though. :-)
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That type of reaction would violate the principles of thermodynamics (see, my Dutch side is shining through <grin>). However, it would be nice to use sunlight to split water molecules, release the oxygen, but trap the hydrogen for use as a fuel. Something analogous to photosynthesis, which is slowly releasing some of its secrets, the latest being some ultrafast intra- or intermolecular twisting to make the essential reaction happen. Don't pin me on the details, just see Science magazine. You can start here: <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci ;316/5825/703>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
> And so will perpetual motion. I'm eagerly awaiting an explanation of > how a fuel might be synthesized from its constituant elements in a > reaction that consumes less energy than will be released in its > subsequent oxidation.
It has been many years since I toiled in the vineyards of thermodynamics; however, I am certain that The General Energy Equation still rules.
It is rather brutal when it comes to separating the horse crap from the alfalfa.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:
| It has been many years since I toiled in the vineyards of | thermodynamics; however, I am certain that The General Energy | Equation still rules. | | It is rather brutal when it comes to separating the horse crap from | the alfalfa.
True, but Han has just pointed in a direction that may prove interesting. IIRC, there was some possibly promising work being done in Israel with solar/bacterial bioconversion. I didn't hear much and haven't heard anything for some time - so don't know if the research dead-ended or was put under wraps.
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:
> > True, but Han has just pointed in a direction that may prove > interesting. IIRC, there was some possibly promising work being done > in Israel with solar/bacterial bioconversion. I didn't hear much and > haven't heard anything for some time - so don't know if the research > dead-ended or was put under wraps.
Here in California, we not only have oil to be sucked out of the ground and refined, but also geo-thermal, solar and wind.
Also some interesting work being done in reverse osmosis, especially since SoCal is basically a desert and control of the water supply is a political art form.
Some interesting work being done with solar to generate steam to run turbines to turn generators to generate power.
Interesting way to generate high voltage AC as opposed to using solar to generate low voltage DC.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yup. Interestingly, the Wilmington fields have more than quadrupled production (from 200 bbl/day to almost 4000 bbl/day) in the last couple of years, due to advanced extraction/injection techniques.
And don't forget the big solar reflector plant up in the high desert.
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

However, there was recent article about a researcher who alloyed a low grade of gallium with aluminum (aluminium for the right ponders) and found it makes an execellent catalyst for the separation of H from O2 in water; the H2 can be subsequently burned or used in a fuel cell. The gallium prevents the Al from forming an oxide layer which inhibits the catalytic reaction.
This has some promise; fill your tank with the Al alloy and another smaller tank with water. The catalyst does require a substantial amount of energy to regenerate, but the regen plants can be co-located with Hydro or Nuclear plants. The current projections were in the equiv to $4.00 or so a gal gas.
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sometimes the price of converting one type of energy to another is worth it. A nuclear power station is not very portable, the hydrogen extracted from water through electrolysis is pretty predictable and is portable. This is just an example.
We are making some headway with battery technology. Solar to charge batteries is another path, but batteries are quite dirty, from a land- fill perspective. Some argue that the impact on the environment of a Prius is worse than a Hummer, if one includes the entire life-cycle of the products.
Oh, and that 500 HP bass boat?? Try 2 x 250 HP... leave one for trolling...<EG>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote: | Morris Dovey wrote:
|| Even if we were to achieve global "no-fuel" energy production || (unlikely in the short and intermediate term) | | Or any other term. Your vision of a world powered by "free" solar | energy ain't gonna happen.
That's not /my/ vision - if that's what you've inferred from my enthusiasm for using solar energy where it offers economic advantage, then you're over-simplifying and over-generalizing.
|| we would still likely || need significant amounts of petroleum for non-fuel uses. | | Which can and in the long term will be synthesized. There's nothing | magic about the chemistry of dead dinosaurs. The best quality | lubricants are synthesized already.
Without disagreeing with your statement, I'd suggest that at some point we may find dead dinos in short supply - and that the synthesis of which you speak requires a net energy input.
I also hope for a fundamental breakthrough in energy production. The problem with such breakthrough events is their unpredictability. It could happen later today - or it could happen thousand years from now. I'm of the opinion that a decision to gamble on a "timely" breakthrough carries unacceptable risk. YMMV.
There's another fly in the ointment: consider the consequences of a breakthrough that provided a handy low-temperature fusion power source using some commonly available fuel (water would be nice, yes?) that could be made small enough and inexpensively enough to provide essentially unlimited no-cost energy for everyone on the planet.
Sounds attractive until one realizes that this unlimited no-cost energy is going to be released as thermal energy regardless of the form in which it is generated or used.
You might find it interesting to estimate how much energy you might use if you weren't constrained by cost (just imagine, you could have a 500hp bass boat to speed you to your favorite fishing spot!) - then multiply by the population of the planet and convert to Btu (500 hp 372.849936kW, 1kWh = 3412.14163Btu).
All things considered, I kinda like the idea of making good (and better) use of what we already have.
BTW, I'm still interested in learning why the folks in your area got rid of their solar panels. If you don't want to publicly post the info, I'd welcome an e-mail...
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

No business has red tape like energy-related ones. A gas-fired electrical generating plant was built in my area a few years ago. It took ELEVEN YEARS to get past all the regulatory hurdles and court cases before construction was begun. It then took another three years to actually build the thing.
Gasoline is not at an all-time high, either in actual cost or in percentage of disposable income. That high took place in 1981.
I remind you that there are five different blends of gasoline required in the Chicago area. This kind of silliness wrecks havoc in the distribution scheme.

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

Actually gasoline is at an all time high. Compared to a cost of living example of how things were in 1981 is simply a comparison of the percentage of your income that went towards purchasing gasoline then vs. now. Even with that in consideration, last year when gasoline prices were considerable less than they are today we were within about 10% of having matched that ratio compairison of 1981 prices. We are certainly paying much more today than we were last year.
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.