DVD Talk
Gas Price Problems Over -- Obama to the rescue [Archive] - Page 2 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Gas Price Problems Over -- Obama to the rescue


Pages : 1 [2]

wmansir
03-02-12, 05:16 PM
Obama demands Congress end oil, gas subsidies (http://www.pjstar.com/free/x132510677/Obama-demands-Congress-end-oil-gas-subsidies), It's a cheap campaign gimmick but it shows how much Obama cares about the rising price of gas. Of course, it's really not a secret, since his Secretary of Energy says lowering is gas prices not a goal of this administration (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73408_Page2.html). In fact, he believes high gas prices only help their primary goal: developing "alternative" energy.

Meanwhile, Chevy is going to pause production of the Volt (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-gm-to-halt-volt-production-for-five-weeks-20120302,0,2093346.story) because they are not selling fast enough. Production will be stopped for 5 weeks, with 1300 people laid off, to clear out built up inventory. Last year the Volt sold about half the number GM originally projected.

DJLinus
03-03-12, 09:18 AM
Meanwhile, Chevy is going to pause production of the Volt (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-gm-to-halt-volt-production-for-five-weeks-20120302,0,2093346.story) because they are not selling fast enough. Production will be stopped for 5 weeks, with 1300 people laid off, to clear out built up inventory. Last year the Volt sold about half the number GM originally projected.

The diabolical and all-powerful Rush Limbaugh claims another victory (http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/02/436898/gm-the-chevy-volt-has-become-a-political-punching-bag/?mobile=nc). He didn't even have to call the Volt a slut.

Mabuse
03-05-12, 01:45 PM
You gotta love that at the same time we are experiencing the highest gas prices in 5 years GM halts production of the Chevy Volt due to lack of demand. $5 gas and there still is no demand for your car!? Classic!!!!

Ranger
03-05-12, 01:53 PM
I think the Nissan Leaf is doing well.

GM and Chrysler did say they would have natural gas pick-up trucks. That might become popular.

kvrdave
03-05-12, 04:17 PM
http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-brief/61204-chevy-volt-and-nissan-leaf-sales-dip-in-january

GM confirms it sold 603 Volts in January 2012, compared to just 321 Volts sold in January of 2011. And in December 2011, GM shipped 1529 Volts for its best month since the car launched.

Meanwhile, Nissan sold 676 of its Leaf all electric sedans in January 2012 - compared to 954 it offloaded in December of 2011.

darkhawk
03-08-12, 10:22 PM
It was learned that the Secretary of Energy, who's trying to get people interested in the Volt, a car that he says runs great, doesn't even own a Volt or a regular car himself.

Thank heaven Ford was smart and didn't get mixed up with the lies from Obuma. Their sales are doing great.

Ranger
03-08-12, 11:20 PM
It was learned that the Secretary of Energy, who's trying to get people interested in the Volt, a car that he says runs great, doesn't even own a Volt or a regular car himself.

Thank heaven Ford was smart and didn't get mixed up with the lies from Obuma. Their sales are doing great.Although it must be pointed out that in 2011 GM was the number one car seller on the planet, followed by VW, then Toyota.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/19/gm-back-on-top-with-9-million-unit-sales-in-2011/

classicman2
03-09-12, 08:53 AM
The current Sec. of Energy is the most incompetent & the most out-of-touch with reality in the history of the department.

Pharoh
03-09-12, 09:30 AM
Although it must be pointed out that in 2011 GM was the number one car seller on the planet, followed by VW, then Toyota.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/19/gm-back-on-top-with-9-million-unit-sales-in-2011/

Only according to GM.

wmansir
03-09-12, 03:11 PM
Based on current energy rates this bulb will pay for itself in only 120 years vs a $2 13W CFL.

Government’s $10 million affordability award goes to $50 Philips light bulb (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/government-subsidized-green-light-bulb-carries-costly-price-tag/2012/03/07/gIQAFxOD0R_story_1.html)

Energy Dept. defends prize, intended to fostercheaper ‘green’ options

By Peter Whoriskey, Friday, March 09,12:39 AM

The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the “L Prize,” for any manufacturer that could create a “green” but affordable light bulb.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would spur industry to offer the costly bulbs, known as LEDs, at prices “affordable for American families.” There was also a “Buy America” component. Portions of the bulb would have to be made in the United States.

Now the winning bulb is on the market.

The price is $50.

Retailers said the bulb, made by Philips, is likely to be too pricey to have broad appeal. Similar LED bulbs are less than half the cost.

“I don’t want to say it’s exorbitant, but if a customer is only looking at the price, they could come to that conclusion,” said Brad Paulsen, merchant for the light-bulb category at Home Depot, the largest U.S. seller of light bulbs. “This is a Cadillac product, and that’s why you have a premium on it.”

How the expensive bulb won a $10 million government prize meant to foster energy-efficient affordability is one of the curiosities that arise as the country undergoes a massive, mandated turnover from traditional incandescent lamps to more energy-
efficient ones.

Energy legislation signed by President George W. Bush in 2007 introduced a ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs, covering traditional 100-watt bulbs this year. Sales of traditional 75-watt incandescents will be prohibited next year, and 60-watt incandescents will go after that.

When replacing a bulb, consumers must now go out and buy energy-efficient incandescent, compact fluorescent and LED (light-emitting diode) bulbs, in a compulsory transition that has prompted some conservatives to characterize the law as an unfair burden on consumers and an “issue of freedom,” as Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) put it.

The L Prize was meant to ease this transition by enticing manufacturers to create affordable bulbs to replace the most common type, the traditional 60-watt.

A Philips spokesman declined to talk in detail about the bulb or its price because the product has yet to be formally launched. It is expected to hit stores within weeks and is available online. But the spokesman said the L Prize bulb costs more because, as the contest required, it is even more energy-efficient, running on 10 watts instead of 12.5 watts. It is also brighter, renders colors better and lasts longer.

Still, the contest set price goals. According to the L Prize guidelines, manufacturers were “strong*ly encouraged to offer products at prices that prove cost-effective and attractive to buyers, and therefore more successful in the market.” The target retail price, including rebates from utilities, was to be $22 in the first year, $15 in the second year and $8 in the third year.

Energy Department officials defended the award, saying that they expect the cost of the L Prize bulbs to drop over time. “The L Prize competition played a critical role in driving manufacturing and engineering innovations in the U.S. lighting industry and helping to make the next generation of energy-saving LED lighting options more affordable for con*sumers,” said department spokes*woman Niketa Kumar.

Officials added that they are working with utilities to provide rebates for consumers. That could lower the price of the L Prize bulbs. But existing rebates, which max out around $10, are too small to take a big slice out of the $50 price tag. By comparison, the typical 60-watt bulb that it would replace, an old-fashioned energy hog, can cost as little as $1.

Some utilities are not offering anything yet. Pepco offers Maryland customers $10 incentive per bulb. In Virginia, Dominion Power has proposed to give consumers a discount of $1.41 per bulb.

“Are there many consumers who will say a $50 bulb is affordable? I don’t think so,” said one retailer familiar with the new bulbs, who like others. Many retailers said they were reluctant to speak on the record for fear of endangering their relationship with Philips, a major supplier.

Two other manufacturers, General Electric and Lighting Science Group, announced last year that they were developing entrants to the competition. But before they could submit, the prize was awarded and the competition closed. The contest also required that at least some of the manufacturing be done in the United States, where costs can be higher. The Philips bulb will be assembled in Wisconsin, and the chips will be made at a Philips plant in San Jose, the company said.

In many ways, however, the L Prize may have been irrelevant. According to retailers, consumers are embracing LEDs, which were the focus of the prize, and CFLs, or compact fluorescent lights, faster than many in the industry expected. The new bulbs can cut energy costs by more than 75 percent.

CFLs already outsell incandescents in terms of dollars, Paulsen said. And he predicted that the percentage of LED bulbs sold would rise from 5 percent to 35 percent over the next three years. “The adoption wave has already begun,” Paulsen said.

In part, that’s because manufacturers are offering LED bulbs for far less than the L Prize bulb.

For example, at Home Depot, one can find LED bulbs to replace the 60-watt incandescent for much less than $50. Lighting Science Group, under the EcoSmart label, offers another for $23.97. It is assembled in Mexico. And another Philips LED bulb on sale costs $24.97. It was made in China.

“This is a very interesting time in light bulbs, believe it or not,” Paulsen said.

fujishig
03-09-12, 04:07 PM
Wow, people pay 25 bucks for a single led bulb now?

Groucho
03-09-12, 04:10 PM
From the light bulb article above: Energy legislation signed by [the president] introduced a ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs, covering traditional 100-watt bulbs this year. Sales of traditional 75-watt incandescents will be prohibited next year, and 60-watt incandescents will go after that.This is why we need to get Obama out of office NOW, folks.

CRM114
03-09-12, 09:12 PM
Since the article states Philips already sells an LED for $25, is the article implying that the cost increase is because it has to be made in America? (and the reduction in wattage from 12.5 to 10) Weird article.

kvrdave
03-09-12, 09:48 PM
With all the electricity saved by all those light bulbs, we could charge electric cars FOREVER!!!

wmansir
03-09-12, 09:49 PM
I recall reading about the contest when it was first announced. Like most "X prize" contests it worked by defining a set of specifications and the first group to meet the specs took the prize. The performance specs for the bulb were well defined, better than current tech but not revolutionary. As the headline indicates affordability was a primary goal. Since the project was intended to attract small innovators they only required applicants to project it could be mass produced relatively cheaply, they didn't have to actually bring it to market to take the prize. I imagine the mfg cost estimates in Philips submission were extremely optimistic.

DVD Polizei
03-10-12, 03:52 PM
From the light bulb article above: This is why we need to get Obama out of office NOW, folks.

Wouldn't surprise me if the entire Shit House--I mean White House--has all bulbs removed and the taxpayer will be paying for these $50 bulbs.

DVD Polizei
03-10-12, 03:53 PM
I recall reading about the contest when it was first announced. Like most "X prize" contests it worked by defining a set of specifications and the first group to meet the specs took the prize. The performance specs for the bulb were well defined, better than current tech but not revolutionary. As the headline indicates affordability was a primary goal. Since the project was intended to attract small innovators they only required applicants to project it could be mass produced relatively cheaply, they didn't have to actually bring it to market to take the prize. I imagine the mfg cost estimates in Philips submission were extremely optimistic.

Maybe the Chevy Volt can have those $50 bulbs for its brand new interior lighting for the 2013 model. :up:

wmansir
03-14-12, 06:25 PM
Obama demands Congress end oil, gas subsidies (http://www.pjstar.com/free/x132510677/Obama-demands-Congress-end-oil-gas-subsidies), It's a cheap campaign gimmick but it shows how much Obama cares about the rising price of gas. Of course, it's really not a secret, since his Secretary of Energy says lowering is gas prices not a goal of this administration (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73408_Page2.html). In fact, he believes high gas prices only help their primary goal: developing "alternative" energy.
What a difference a week (and a record low presidential approval number) makes: Steven Chu's Epiphany on Gas Prices (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-14/steven-chu-s-epiphany-on-gas-prices-the-ticker.html)

OldDude
03-14-12, 06:41 PM
What a difference a week (and a record low presidential approval number) makes: Steven Chu's Epiphany on Gas Prices (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-14/steven-chu-s-epiphany-on-gas-prices-the-ticker.html)

I think the epiphany was "if my boss doesn't get re-elected, I'll be out on my ass."

SuprVgeta
03-15-12, 01:55 AM
Deja Vu?

04/21/2011
<embed src="http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#333333" width="425" height="279" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" FlashVars="si=254&contentValue=50103645&shareUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7363454n" />

03/13/2012:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/13/obamas_fix_for_gas_prices_set_up_a_task_force_to_look_into_speculation.html

Yeah... that whole task force idea... good thinking Obama.

classicman2
03-22-12, 04:48 PM
"Oil is our friend. We should love it. We should drill more."

Words from the President during his visit to Cushing, OK.

Well - he didn't say those exact words, but it seems he's changed his mind concerning oil. I wonder why?

OldDude
03-22-12, 05:46 PM
"Oil is our friend. We should love it. We should drill more."

Words from the President during his visit to Cushing, OK.

Well - he didn't say those exact words, but it seems he's changed his mind concerning oil. I wonder why?

Is that a rhetorical wonder? I know you know why.

Jason
03-22-12, 07:31 PM
Wouldn't surprise me if the entire Shit House--I mean White House--has all bulbs removed and the taxpayer will be paying for these $50 bulbs.

Like the ones in there now are 79 cent wal-mart specials...

X
03-29-12, 03:05 PM
It appears Obama's answer to the gas "crisis" is to blame the oil companies and go after their tax breaks and profits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-americans-getting-hit-twice-over-gas-prices--at-the-pump-and-with-tax-subsidies-to-big-oil/2012/03/29/gIQAshQyiS_story.html

Nice deflection attempt! :lol:

kvrdave
03-29-12, 03:15 PM
Ahhhhh, get rid of tax breaks and profits. That will reduce how much they charge for gas.

RoyalTea
03-29-12, 03:16 PM
It appears Obama's answer to the gas "crisis" is to blame the oil companies and go after their tax breaks and profits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-americans-getting-hit-twice-over-gas-prices--at-the-pump-and-with-tax-subsidies-to-big-oil/2012/03/29/gIQAshQyiS_story.html

Nice deflection attempt! :lol:

I'm no expert, but wouldn't making the oil companies pay more in taxes result in the oil companies recouping that money with higher prices at the pump?

CRM114
03-29-12, 03:19 PM
That Obama! What a dope!

clappj
03-29-12, 03:42 PM
I'm no expert, but wouldn't making the oil companies pay more in taxes result in the oil companies recouping that money with higher prices at the pump?

Most likely.
Obama isn't powerful enough to do anything about inflated gas prices.
He's just going through the motions of pretending like he cares.
It would be the same if we had a Rep. president.
It's just the the neverending American war machine. No one man can turn it around.

X
03-29-12, 04:20 PM
Most likely.
Obama isn't powerful enough to do anything about inflated gas prices.
He's just going through the motions of pretending like he cares.
It would be the same if we had a Rep. president.
It's just the the neverending American war machine. No one man can turn it around.Obama could do two things that would immediately reduce the price of oil.

1) Announce the opening of vast areas of federal land and offshore areas for drilling.
2) Mandate that all new federal/postal service vehicles will have to run on natural gas.

X
03-29-12, 04:24 PM
Oops...

Carney Asked Why Obama Supported Tax Breaks For Oil Companies In 2005

White House press secretary Jay Carney had no answer as to why Obama supported tax breaks for oil companies as a Senator in 2005, but now opposes them as President.

Henry: Why did the President vote for the energy bill in 2005 as a Senator that had over $2 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry? They were making a lot of money then too.

Carney: What I can tell you Ed is that the oil and gas companies in this country are making record profits, now, in 2012. The price at the pump is very high and that is plenty of incentive for these companies to continue drill, to continue to explore, to continue to develop energy sources here in the United States and abroad. There is no reason for the American taxpayer to subsidize that activity.

Henry: So why’d he vote for it?

Carney: I haven’t examined the vote, or what the prices were at the time, or the whole bill it was attached to. What I know and what the President knows is that this year, 2012, when we are seeing high prices at the pump, high prices in the international oil markets and high profits for the oil and gas companies, there is no reason to continue these kinds of subsidies. Take that argument to the people, I don’t think they’ll go along with it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/29/carney_asked_why_obama_supported_tax_breaks_for_oil_companies_in_2005_.htmlKind of how he was against the individual mandate when he was running for president and now he's in court supporting it.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view.bg?articleid=1076910&srvc=rss

4KRG
03-29-12, 04:51 PM
Obama could do two things that would immediately reduce the price of oil.

1) Announce the opening of vast areas of federal land and offshore areas for drilling.
2) Mandate that all new federal/postal service vehicles will have to run on natural gas.

um only two?

How about get rid of the silly Ethanol requirement and subsidy

and

allow more refineries to be built inside the US (or better yet, eliminate the EPA, this action would allow more refineries)

X
03-29-12, 05:11 PM
um only two?

How about get rid of the silly Ethanol requirement and subsidy

and

allow more refineries to be built inside the US (or better yet, eliminate the EPA, this action would allow more refineries)Sure, but I was just going for 2 that he could do today and have an immediate impact on speculation in oil.

K&AJones
03-29-12, 05:36 PM
I'm not sure what everyone is paying but for nearly 16 months we've seen gas above $3 a gallon. We're about 15 cents away from that real boiling point number of $4.00. But we still may have worse times ahead with not just higher gas but higher energy costs thanks to the EPA's new set of rules for coal fire energy plants and some having to close.

In the meantime we're to believe that taking away tax credits and raising taxes on Big Oil is somehow going to reduce the price of gas, food, consumer goods and bolster the economy? I wish some reporter would ask Carney that if Big Oil is making record profits, aren't they also paying record taxes which should make the Goverment happy?

Dr Mabuse
03-29-12, 05:45 PM
allow more refineries to be built inside the US (or better yet, eliminate the EPA, this action would allow more refineries)

:lol:

The only problem in the US is that refineries are being closed. Have been for decades. This year, this month in fact, refineries continue to be closed and it drives up the price of gas. We have a larger surplus of refined gasoline in this country right now, than we ever have as a nation. It's all being exported out of the country, to drive up gas prices in the US. We are also exporting more refined fuels out of the US on a daily basis than we ever have as a nation.

It used to surprise me to see propaganda, that is the exact opposite of reality, show up year after year in discussions about an issue, it doesn't any more. The powerful have such an easy job convincing people of anything they want them to think and parrot.

4KRG
03-29-12, 05:49 PM
:lol:

The only problem in the US is that refineries are being closed. Have been for decades. This year, this month in fact, refineries continue to be closed and it drives up the price of gas.


no argument, What reasons are the refineries closing? (be VERY specific)

Just saying they are closing is meaningless unless you know precisely why.

(hint: the sole purpose isn't so Exxon can have more profit :lol: )



We have a larger surplus of refined gasoline in this country right now, than we ever have as a nation. It's all being exported out of the country, to drive up gas prices in the US. We are also exporting more refined fuels out of the US on a daily basis than we ever have as a nation.

It used to surprise me to see propaganda, that is the exact opposite of reality, show up year after year in discussions about an issue, it doesn't any more. The powerful have such an easy job convincing people of anything they want them to think and parrot.




Again, WHY is this the case? (be specific)

Saying it is happening without knowing why is once again meaningless.

Dr Mabuse
03-29-12, 07:05 PM
I blame the EPA for it all, of course. I do so because I'm well informed.

Also... the 'meaning' of my post was pointing out how ridiculous and nonsensical your post was, and it had the 'meaning' that was intended.

:lol:

Did you know the US has more oil than Saudi Arabia? We do! More than Saudi Arabia and Venezuela combined! If those damned liberals, the hippies at the EPA, and that Obama would just let the oil companies drill we would become the world's largest producer of oil and never need to buy another barrel of oil from a foreign source again. All that oil would be kept just for the US, in a special lock box disguised to look like Dumas' 'The Count of Monte Cristo'.

SuprVgeta
03-30-12, 12:31 AM
The whole premise behind Obama's argument is non-sense. First of all, the U.S. Government does NOT "subsidize" the oil companies on the backs of the U.S. tax payers. Oil companies pay a tremendous amount of income taxes. Oil companies are given deductions for exploration, etc... that results in the government to TAKING LESS from them in taxes. Let's say you have $500 in your pocket, and a thief robs you at gunpoint and steals your $500. The thief then feels bad and decides to give you $50 back. According to Obama that thief just subsidized the victim of the crime $50. When in reality all he did was TAKE LESS from him. On the other hand, what Obama is doing by GIVING MONEY DIRECTLY (aka a SUBSIDY) to alternative energy firms such as First Solar, Solyndra, A123 Batteries, etc... is actually off the back of the U.S. Taxpayer. I mean is this guy serious??? Does he just not understand what the word subsidy means?

The reason the cost of oil (and food, energy, etc..) is going up is because of massive government spending, trillion dollar budget deficits, and the Federal Reserve's willingness to monetize those budget deficits. It is creating inflation at a real rate of 8-10% / year which is driving costs up for EVERYTHING. Oil production is up, and oil consumption is down in the U.S. yet prices are not falling? WHY? Because the supply of dollars is growing faster than the supply of oil. If Obama were honest he would just come out and say if you're going to want all of these social programs and massive government deficit spending then you're going to have to deal with higher costs of everything else due to the inflation that it is causing. Instead he deflects blame with ridiculous arguments that it's speculators, corruption, and tough talk by Iran, etc... The B.S. that comes out of this Administration just boggles my mind.

How many days until this clown is voted out of office?

PopcornTreeCt
03-30-12, 12:40 AM
:lol:

The only problem in the US is that refineries are being closed. Have been for decades. This year, this month in fact, refineries continue to be closed and it drives up the price of gas. We have a larger surplus of refined gasoline in this country right now, than we ever have as a nation. It's all being exported out of the country, to drive up gas prices in the US. We are also exporting more refined fuels out of the US on a daily basis than we ever have as a nation.

It used to surprise me to see propaganda, that is the exact opposite of reality, show up year after year in discussions about an issue, it doesn't any more. The powerful have such an easy job convincing people of anything they want them to think and parrot.

This fact seems to be lost on a lot of people.

Lastdaysofrain
03-30-12, 08:34 AM
The systematic devaluation of the dollar which was a key piece of ideology in the Bush administration is a big factor in this as well. If the dollar is weak we're going to have a lot more exports coming out of the US to countries with stronger currency.

classicman2
03-30-12, 08:41 AM
:lol:

The only problem in the US is that refineries are being closed. Have been for decades. This year, this month in fact, refineries continue to be closed and it drives up the price of gas. We have a larger surplus of refined gasoline in this country right now, than we ever have as a nation. It's all being exported out of the country, to drive up gas prices in the US. We are also exporting more refined fuels out of the US on a daily basis than we ever have as a nation.

It used to surprise me to see propaganda, that is the exact opposite of reality, show up year after year in discussions about an issue, it doesn't any more. The powerful have such an easy job convincing people of anything they want them to think and parrot.

Would you provide the forum with a reliable source for the statements you made in paragraph one?

Dr Mabuse
03-30-12, 01:15 PM
Would you provide the forum with a reliable source for the statements you made in paragraph one?

There's really no point to doing so, but since you asked, here's a few citations. There is a lot more data out there to back up the facts in my post, of course, and has been for years. I wonder why such information never shows up on CNN, the world's news leader? Considering the relevance of it, the constant coverage of 'high gas prices' in every media outlet, you'd think factual information about the causes of those high prices would be a major part of the 24 news cycle too right? You know... since we have a 'free and open' press in the US, that isn't a bought and paid for propaganda outlet on every TV channel.

:lol:

In 2011, refined fuel was the #1 export for America as a nation. That hadn't been true since the 40's. In fact it was 1949, that year the U.S. exported ~86 million barrels and imported ~82 million barrels. In the first ten months of 2011 alone, the US exported ~850 million barrels and imported ~750 million barrels. Profits are the reason for this, and the reason for the closing of refineries that's been going on for decades. Gas demand in the US has been falling since 2007, more sharply since the financial collapse of 2008. We have an all time record overabundance of refined gas and diesel in the US. But with the closing of refineries and record setting exporting of the refined gas, gas prices continue to climb to record highs in the US.

I hate to shatter anyone's poorly informed and thus naive worldview, but yes, it's all about the windfall profits for the petroleum industry.

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii18/drmabuse06/Forum%20comments/link.gif (http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2012/03/as_more_refineries_close_exper.html)

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii18/drmabuse06/Forum%20comments/link.gif (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/12/business/la-fi-fuel-exports-20111112)

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii18/drmabuse06/Forum%20comments/link.gif (http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/01/02/top-u-s-export-for-2011-was-fuel-u-s-gas-prices-at-record-high-70261)

Ranger
03-30-12, 01:28 PM
Well, here's a link.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0328/Why-gasoline-could-be-in-short-supply-this-summer-on-East-Coast
As demand for gasoline has slackened (due in part to a weak economy and greater fuel-efficiency for cars), refiners have struggled to sell enough product to stay in business.
Does that make sense?

classicman2
03-30-12, 02:16 PM
Independent producers drill 95 percent of the oil and natural gas wells in America, producing 54 percent of U.S. liquids – 54 percent oil and 81 percent condensates. Independent producers reinvest 150 percent of their American cash flow back into new American production.

RoyalTea
03-30-12, 02:26 PM
Too bad Republicans are in charge of the House. That's probably the only thing stopping Obama from getting Congress to pass a law that says gasoline cannot be sold for more than $3/gal.

X
03-30-12, 02:58 PM
Too bad Republicans are in charge of the House. That's probably the only thing stopping Obama from getting Congress to pass a law that says gasoline cannot be sold for more than $3/gal.And that everyone has to buy it, whether they want it or not. That's how the price is kept low.

CRM114
03-30-12, 03:02 PM
So $4 is he boiling boint when Obama is President but it wasn't a problem when Bush was President. Oh that's right, it depends what party the person you are talking to is a member of.

CRM114
03-30-12, 03:05 PM
The whole premise behind Obama's argument is non-sense. First of all, the U.S. Government does NOT "subsidize" the oil companies on the backs of the U.S. tax payers. Oil companies pay a tremendous amount of income taxes. Oil companies are given deductions for exploration, etc... that results in the government to TAKING LESS from them in taxes. Let's say you have $500 in your pocket, and a thief robs you at gunpoint and steals your $500. The thief then feels bad and decides to give you $50 back. According to Obama that thief just subsidized the victim of the crime $50. When in reality all he did was TAKE LESS from him. On the other hand, what Obama is doing by GIVING MONEY DIRECTLY (aka a SUBSIDY) to alternative energy firms such as First Solar, Solyndra, A123 Batteries, etc... is actually off the back of the U.S. Taxpayer. I mean is this guy serious??? Does he just not understand what the word subsidy means?

The reason the cost of oil (and food, energy, etc..) is going up is because of massive government spending, trillion dollar budget deficits, and the Federal Reserve's willingness to monetize those budget deficits. It is creating inflation at a real rate of 8-10% / year which is driving costs up for EVERYTHING. Oil production is up, and oil consumption is down in the U.S. yet prices are not falling? WHY? Because the supply of dollars is growing faster than the supply of oil. If Obama were honest he would just come out and say if you're going to want all of these social programs and massive government deficit spending then you're going to have to deal with higher costs of everything else due to the inflation that it is causing. Instead he deflects blame with ridiculous arguments that it's speculators, corruption, and tough talk by Iran, etc... The B.S. that comes out of this Administration just boggles my mind.

How many days until this clown is voted out of office?

:violin: Let's all shed a tear for the oil industry.

And everyone now, in unison, Fucking Obama! :mad:

CRM114
03-30-12, 03:07 PM
And that everyone has to buy it, whether they want it or not. That's how the price is kept low.

Just like broccoli!

cpgator
03-30-12, 04:20 PM
So $4 is he boiling boint when Obama is President but it wasn't a problem when Bush was President. Oh that's right, it depends what party the person you are talking to is a member of.

Uh, Bush got slammed for the price of gas.

CRM114
03-30-12, 04:22 PM
And I believe the Republican response was "Duh, the President has no control over gas prices."

crazyronin
03-30-12, 04:45 PM
And I believe the Republican response was "Duh, the President has no control over gas prices."

And I believe the Democratic response to that was, "HALLIBURTON!"

or, "yes he does. neener neener bo, bo!"

kvrdave
03-30-12, 07:33 PM
What's next, war is bad when it is Bush, but good when it is Obama?

DVD Polizei
03-30-12, 09:16 PM
Everytime I post under you, I read your sig, lose my thoughts, because you're sig looks like this to me:

"Of all trannies a tranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive..."

kvrdave
03-30-12, 10:23 PM
Ever since the mhg thing, so do I. Have thought about changing it often.

PopcornTreeCt
03-31-12, 03:36 AM
What's next, war is bad when it is Bush, but good when it is Obama?

I think people just don't give a shit anymore.

K&AJones
03-31-12, 12:06 PM
I think people just don't give a shit anymore.



Amen....

I might add it's safe to say close to 50-60% in this country are ill informed, not informed, totally ignorant and as you say don't give a shit anymore. There' more out there that can recite the words of the top rap songs, give you complete history of Survivor, know everything about the Kardashians but cannot tell you what the Bill of Rights is, why we celebrate July 4th or even name the first President.

K&AJones
03-31-12, 12:23 PM
What a laugh....Google

"Obama Gas Prices"......303,000,000 hits

"Bush Gas Prices"......72,100,000 hits

SuprVgeta
03-31-12, 07:58 PM
:violin: Let's all shed a tear for the oil industry.

And everyone now, in unison, Fucking Obama! :mad:
It's not about "shedding tears" for a certain industry, it's about putting the blame on the proper individuals for causing higher gas prices. Obama can point all the fingers he wants to at the evil oil companies, but as long as his administration, in addition with the Federal Reserve keep expanding the money supply at the rate that they're currently doing, prices are going nowhere but UP.

P.S. - I already know Bush's deficit policies did not help this too, but Obama has simply taken those bad policies and multiplied them by 5. So please don't espouse the typical "well Bush was bad" response.

kvrdave
03-31-12, 08:45 PM
Limit yourself to only responding to quality CRM posts, and you'll find you don't need to respond.

CRM114
05-09-12, 12:04 PM
It's not about "shedding tears" for a certain industry, it's about putting the blame on the proper individuals for causing higher gas prices. Obama can point all the fingers he wants to at the evil oil companies, but as long as his administration, in addition with the Federal Reserve keep expanding the money supply at the rate that they're currently doing, prices are going nowhere but UP.


Gas Prices Decline Five Weeks In A Row (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/gas-prices-summer-declining-2012_n_1501198.html)

Gas prices have been falling for five consecutive weeks, defying prognosticators who said the cost would soar to a national average of $5 a gallon.

Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, called earlier predictions of $5 gas prices "apocalyptic," and had promised the folks at AAA that he'd wear a clown costume to their annual meeting if he was wrong. It looks like he won't have to get a costume.

The New York Times in February warned that prices would ratchet up over $5 a gallon if tensions in the Middle East didn't ease. There were worries that Iran was strengthening its nuclear program, but diplomatic talks have calmed those concerns.

So down gas prices came. The U.S. Energy Information Administration on Tuesday lowered its outlook for gas prices through September, saying they should stay around $3.79 on a national average, 16 cents a gallon lower than it had previously predicted.

And the price could keep falling.

"If I were betting in Vegas whether or not gas will be higher or lower on July 4th, I would say lower," said Kloza, whose company provides research and investment information on the cost of oil.

Of course, there are regional pockets where gas prices are higher, like in California, Alaska and Hawaii, where the average price is still over $4 a gallon. But overall, gas prices are predicted to stay flat or decline modestly in the next few months.

Gas prices will, inevitably, keep going up over time. There is a limited amount of oil buried under the ground worldwide, and as the size of the global middle class grows, so will the demand for oil and gas.

Kloza said he's not promising gas prices won't spike at some point this year: When hurricane season arrives, the U.S. is very likely to see another spike. And if there is another increase in Middle East tensions, that could also push prices up. But barring that, prices will likely inch downward.

Declining gas prices are good news for U.S. consumers, who face less financial pressure when they don't have to spend $100 filling up their SUVs. But it's also good news for President Obama, who has faced election-year criticism over rising gas costs.

"The price at the pump, while it's lower now than it was this time last year, is still high," said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney during a press gaggle on Air Force One Tuesday. "It still poses a burden for Americans trying to make ends meet. That's why the president is not going to drop this issue."

AAA spokesman Michael Green said drivers will likely use falling gas prices as an excuse to fall back into old habits. Back in March, when gas prices were rising, the travel group surveyed drivers and found 87 percent of them said they were changing their habits because of fuel costs. They were combining errands into one trip, carpooling, looking for a more fuel-efficient car or taking public transportation.

"This is good news for drivers, because they don't have to change their habits," he said. "It's helping consumers and providing welcome relief."

And drivers will likely stick with their summer travel plans. Dan Lennon, vice president of marketing and public relations for Branson, Mo., Chamber of Commerce, said his group monitors gas prices closely, since 90 percent of the 7.5 million visitors to Branson each year drive there.

With gas prices moderating, Lennon said he expects the crowds will be slightly higher this summer, compared with last summer. Visitors who come to Branson for the live shows or amusement parks are generally folks who are doing well enough financially that they can absorb higher gas prices. And if they don't have to spend more on gas, they'll likely spend more while in town.

People appear to be getting accustomed to higher fuel costs. The Chamber of Commerce surveyed people earlier this year to find out what price per gallon would force travelers to stay home. The average response was $4.69.

"We've already been to $4 a gallon in 2008, so it doesn't have the kind of impact it once did," he said. "A couple of years ago, the response would have been $3.25."



http://insultyourbossday.com/Images/fist.jpg

"Fucking Obama!!!!!"

classicman2
05-09-12, 12:41 PM
Do you really believe Obama has anything to do with the decline in gasoline prices?

X
05-09-12, 12:44 PM
Do you really believe Obama has anything to do with the decline in gasoline prices?Driving the economy into the dumper helps a lot. Millions of people not needing to drive to work, no money to buy gas, no money to buy other countries' products, etc.

wendersfan
05-09-12, 12:46 PM
Do you really believe Obama has anything to do with the decline in gasoline prices?

Driving the economy into the dumper helps a lot. Millions of people not needing to drive to work, no money to buy gas, no money to buy other countries' products, etc.
Anyone who thinks Obama has much control over gas prices (or the economy) should probably change their reading habits.

X
05-09-12, 12:49 PM
Anyone who thinks Obama has much control over gas prices (or the economy) should probably change their reading habits.The way a president helps the economy is by not getting in the way of what it wants to do naturally. This president has stood in the way of it almost every way he could.

Do you not think that supressing coal usage and offshore oil drilling, stopping the Keystone pipeline, adding healthcare and heavy regulations to business has done nothing to the economy?

Tracer Bullet
05-09-12, 01:49 PM
The way a president helps the economy is by not getting in the way of what it wants to do naturally.

:lol: People still believe this shit?

orangecrush
05-09-12, 01:52 PM
Anyone who thinks Obama has much control over gas prices (or the economy) should probably change their reading habits.There isn't a lot of direct control, obviously. However, they can do smart or dumb things and have a significant indirect impact.

As an aside: I heard Charlie Munger give an interesting take on oil production this weekend. Because oil is a valuable, limited, natural resource that we rely heavily on we should try to import as much as possible while increasing our reserves here. It would be in our self interest to use up other people’s oil supplies before we use our own. The same can be said of natural gas.

X
05-09-12, 01:58 PM
As an aside: I heard Charlie Munger give an interesting take on oil production this weekend. Because oil is a valuable, limited, natural resource that we rely heavily on we should try to import as much as possible while increasing our reserves here. It would be in our self interest to use up other people’s oil supplies before we use our own. The same can be said of natural gas.The problem with that is that you can irreparably harm yourself before you reach the goal of being the primary supplier. If we have to keep borrowing money from China or kowtowing to Middle East countries to get the oil we might not be in a position to be the ones to reap the benefits when our oil eventually gets exploited.

orangecrush
05-09-12, 02:04 PM
The problem with that is that you can irreparably harm yourself before you reach the goal of being the primary supplier. If we have to keep borrowing money from China or kowtowing to Middle East countries to get the oil we might not be in a position to be the ones to reap the benefits when our oil eventually gets exploited.We aren't borrowing money from China to buy oil.

X
05-09-12, 02:04 PM
We aren't borrowing money from China to buy oil.We're borrowing money to finance our imbalance of trade.

CRM114
05-09-12, 03:29 PM
Do you really believe Obama has anything to do with the decline in gasoline prices?

Where did I say he did? :hscratch:

Oh, oh,...that's right. He only has to do with it when the prices go UP. I forgot your talking point.

CRM114
05-09-12, 03:31 PM
Driving the economy into the dumper helps a lot. Millions of people not needing to drive to work, no money to buy gas, no money to buy other countries' products, etc.

:lol: Now THATS an epic stretch. rotfl

CRM114
05-09-12, 03:32 PM
There isn't a lot of direct control, obviously. However, they can do smart or dumb things and have a significant indirect impact.

No, no. They can only do DUMB things to drive the price UP. (i.e. Obama) Get with the program.

RayChuang
05-11-12, 08:02 AM
What bothers me is the following:

1. Why aren't we looking at expanding the use of wind power in the upper US Midwest, one of the world's best places for wind power?

2. Why aren't we looking at expanding the use of solar power in the US Southwest, one of the world's best places for solar power?

3. Why aren't we seriously looking at advanced, vastly safer forms of nuclear power such as the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), design a standardized-design power plant around this safer reactor technology (just like what Electricite de France did with conventional nuclear reactors), and build a couple hundred of them not only to replace older nuclear power plants, but replace obsolete coal-fired power plants?

Implement such a plan and we could have millions of people back at work installing wind turbines in the upper Midwest, solar power "farms" in the US Southwest, and LFTR nuclear power plants all over the USA maybe 5-7 years from now. And that's on top of people needed to dismantle the older obsolete coal-fired power plants and decommissioned older nuclear power plants.

But getting back on topic, the price has dropped because the speculators didn't realize that once the price of gasoline crossed above the psychological US$4.00/US gallon barrier for regular unleaded, it immediately started to hurt the demand for gasoline--as such, it resulted in oil companies holding on to a tad too much expensive petroleum products.

Nausicaa
05-11-12, 11:12 AM
What bothers me is the following:

1. Why aren't we looking at expanding the use of wind power in the upper US Midwest, one of the world's best places for wind power?

I know there are a lot of wind farms in the upper midwest. Notably in central Indiana, Southern Illinois, and also near Waupun, WI - that I've seen. The one in central Indiana is enormous - there must be 150-200 wind mills in that cluster, at least. I'd be curious how much power such a set up generates.

wishbone
05-11-12, 11:33 AM
The one in central Indiana is enormous - there must be 150-200 wind mills in that cluster, at least. I'd be curious how much power such a set up generates.http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/4527/june08map.gif

If you're referring to Fowler Ridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler_Ridge_Wind_Farm) it's located in NW Indiana. It's #5 on this list (http://www.energydigital.com/top_ten/top-10-business/the-top-ten-largest-wind-farms-in-the-world) in terms of size.

Nausicaa
05-11-12, 11:41 AM
That's the one. I guess it has over 400 turbines!!! It's pretty cool driving through it.

Mabuse
05-11-12, 03:37 PM
What bothers me is the following:


2. Why aren't we looking at expanding the use of solar power in the US Southwest, one of the world's best places for solar power?

I can't speak to all your points but out here in CA there is a lot of concern (or really just opposition from environmental groups and zero growth lunatics) that solar power in our high deserts will result in too much water being diverted for electrical generation and that will have ecological consequences.

arminius
05-11-12, 03:53 PM
For solar I would think satellites in orbit then beaming or cabling down the power would be more efficient than ground based collectors.

Mabuse
05-11-12, 03:55 PM
For solar I would think satellites in orbit then beaming or cabling down the power would be more efficient than ground based collectors.

That would have to be one big orbiting solar array. You can't be serious.

CRM114
05-11-12, 04:01 PM
And a long cable. :lol:

Tracer Bullet
05-11-12, 04:10 PM
And a long cable. :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

Dr Mabuse
05-11-12, 04:40 PM
The best use of solar and wind is right at the point of consumption. At the house or business. Get serious about that and you'll see real results that no other method will provide. Man the city, state, and regional demand on the coal plants would drop if we got serious about that.

An outright subsidy to drastically lower install costs until, via scale, the prices would plummet would be fine. We could take the billions and billions in corporate welfare we currently give to the most profitable companies on Earth including energy companies, and use those billions to subsidize solar and wind at the home and business. Then all those BS artist commentators and demagogues who talk about, and the suckers who fall for the 'capitalism' and 'free markets' talk, would be happy to see those companies actually off the welfare teet right?

:lol:

arminius
05-11-12, 05:18 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

There have been and are studies for this also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

My point is think big and far future, not just little stuff. I just don't see fields of wind turbines or solar arrays in the desert being the answer for the amount of energy we need.

Dr Mabuse
05-11-12, 05:21 PM
There have been and are studies for this also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

Oh yeah, a lot of thought has gone into that. I've been hearing and reading about plans for that stuff for over a decade. Including a geosynchronous concentrator to reflect to Earth, like a magnifying glass on ants kind of thing.

Nausicaa
05-11-12, 05:40 PM
Oh yeah, a lot of thought has gone into that. I've been hearing and reading about plans for that stuff for over a decade. Including a geosynchronous concentrator to reflect to Earth, like a magnifying glass on ants kind of thing.

God that would be awesome. We could use it for capital punishment too. Just toss the poor guy into the concentrated light and watch as he vaporizes in an instant.

classicman2
05-11-12, 06:14 PM
The best use of solar and wind is right at the point of consumption. At the house or business. Get serious about that and you'll see real results that no other method will provide. Man the city, state, and regional demand on the coal plants would drop if we got serious about that.

An outright subsidy to drastically lower install costs until, via scale, the prices would plummet would be fine. We could take the billions and billions in corporate welfare we currently give to the most profitable companies on Earth including energy companies, and use those billions to subsidize solar and wind at the home and business. Then all those BS artist commentators and demagogues who talk about, and the suckers who fall for the 'capitalism' and 'free markets' talk, would be happy to see those companies actually off the welfare teet right?

:lol:

I had solar panels on 3 homes. They were failures. They wouldn't even keep the hot water tanks heated. All 3 homes were in areas of abundant sunshine.

I currently live in the country. I have looked into wind turbines for my property. The problem is that they are quite expensive and unkeep is also a negative factor in them. The large wind turbines near highways are also a accidental hazzard. The blades sometimes come off. They are quite large and do significant damage to passing vehicles and humans that ride in those vehicles. ;)

Having said that, I believe this country should pursue all the development and use of all forms of energy with the realization that we are going to be primarily dependent upon fossil fuels for the next 30 years or more.

Tracer Bullet
05-11-12, 07:52 PM
Oh yeah, a lot of thought has gone into that. I've been hearing and reading about plans for that stuff for over a decade. Including a geosynchronous concentrator to reflect to Earth, like a magnifying glass on ants kind of thing.

There have been and are studies for this also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

My point is think big and far future, not just little stuff. I just don't see fields of wind turbines or solar arrays in the desert being the answer for the amount of energy we need.

This would be awesome.

arminius
05-12-12, 09:33 AM
WE have a source of energy that will be around as long as the Earth is. A nuclear reactor that is self running and correcting and if there is a major problem, it would have happened whether or not we are using the energy from it. So it is now an engineering problem on how to harness it. I really don't see any other finite (oil, gas,...) or inefficient infinite (wind, geo-thermal, tidal, solar...) being a reasonable solution. And by infinite I mean usable as long as the planet exists.

I think the major hurdle other than the costs for start up are how will someone make a profit from it. I think we use energy in the way that we do by the way it is profitable rather than any environmantal or efficiency reasons. That is understandable but highlights the reason that this is something that government funding and resources should be put into as per the space program in the 50s and 60s.

Cheap energy would solve alot of the worlds problems so we can concentrate on the really important stuff like who's god is the most powerful or the proper winner of the World Cup.

CapRockBrewingCo.
06-22-12, 01:58 PM
I'm not sure what everyone is paying but for nearly 16 months we've seen gas above $3 a gallon. We're about 15 cents away from that real boiling point number of $4.00.

Well that didn't last. Gas prices are going down. Gas is averaging about $3.15 in Texas. I was in Plano yesterday and paid $3.13. Some stations in Houston are at $2.99. Nashville is actually cheaper!

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/06/22/gas-prices-dip-below-3-at-some-houston-stations/

X
06-22-12, 02:03 PM
Well that didn't last. Gas prices are going down. Gas is averaging about $3.15 in Texas. $1 higher in California right now.

CapRockBrewingCo.
06-22-12, 02:04 PM
$1 higher in California right now.

So it's down in California too.

Edit - The avg in CA right now is $3.85.

X
06-22-12, 02:17 PM
So it's down in California too.

Edit - The avg in CA right now is $3.85.Down maybe 20¢ per gallon since the high. I haven't seen under $4.19 per gallon in my area, but I'm sure it's lower in the boonies.

General Zod
06-22-12, 02:53 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/06/13/Trump-Obama-Cut-Deal-with-Saudis-to-Keep-Oil-Prices%20Low-Until-Election

Well Bush got accused of working with his "oil buddies" to get the prices down for his election.. so I guess at least one person is looking at what Obama is doing there..

logrus9
06-22-12, 04:34 PM
WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - U.S. crude oil demand rose slightly in May, the first year-over-year increase in demand in 14 months, the American Petroleum Institute said on Friday.
Petroleum consumption in May climbed a modest 0.5 percent from a year before to 18.457 million barrels per day, but the overall fuel consumption picture remained weak.
"Despite the positive movement, fuel demand is still not strong," said API chief economist John Felmy. "Weak growth in the United States, stubborn unemployment, and a world economy doing little better than treading water are contributing to this."
Gasoline demand was up 0.4 percent in May at 8.815 million bpd. Consumption of the fuel was down 0.6 percent for the first five months of the year, compared to the same period a year ago, however.
API's demand figure for May is lower than the U.S. Energy Information Administration's preliminary estimate of fuel consumption at 18.565 million bpd for the month. The EIA issues its revised May demand number at the end of July.
Demand for distillate fuel, which includes diesel and heating oil, rose 2 percent to 3.731 million bpd in May. Jet fuel consumption climbed 1.4 percent to 1.449 million bpd for the month.
Total imports in May accounted for 57.1 percent of U.S. oil demand, down from 63.5 percent a year earlier.

U.S. DELIVERIES, IMPORTS, PRODUCTION
(million bpd)

MAY 2012 MAY 2011 Yr Ago Pct Jan-MAY 2012 YTD Pct
Change Change
DELIVERIES
Gasoline 8.815 8.784 0.4 8.618 -0.6
Kerosene/jet 1.449 1.429 1.4 1.380 -1.0
Distillate 3.731 3.657 2.0 3.778 -1.5
Deliveries 18.457 18.363 0.5 18.432 -2.2
Exports 3.152 2.642 19.3 2.998 11.3
Total 21.609 21.005 2.9 21.430 -0.5

IMPORTS
Crude oil 8.874 8.988 -1.3 8.735 -0.5
Oil products 1.587 2.681 -40.8 1.721 -33.3
Total 10.461 11.669 -10.4 10.537 -7.2

PRODUCTION
Crude 6.126 5.647 8.5 6.123 10.1
Gasoline 9.092 9.142 -0.5 8.809 -0.7
Distillate 4.531 4.277 5.9 4.396 4.1
Kerosene/jet 1.499 1.483 1.1 1.434 2.3

Cliff Notes - consumption has been down for months.

classicman2
06-22-12, 06:03 PM
Gasoline prices have gone up about $.25 gallon in my area.

I bought gasoline last week for $3.02 gallon. Some stations in OKC were selling gasoline at $2.99 per gallon.

I guess this is the 4th of July bump.

wmansir
06-22-12, 07:21 PM
Gas prices trending down help Obama's campaign, but only because it takes pressure off the issue. He's not going to win any votes bragging that fuel prices are no longer more than double what they were when he took office.

"Gas prices: Now only 70% higher" is not a winning slogan.

shadowhawk2020
06-23-12, 06:59 AM
Gas prices trending down help Obama's campaign, but only because it takes pressure off the issue. He's not going to win any votes bragging that fuel prices are no longer more than double what they were when he took office.

"Gas prices: Now only 70% higher" is not a winning slogan.

Christ I am tired of the gas prices are higher now than when Obama was elected argument.

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/06/gas-prices-4.html

Average price of a gallon in June 2008 $4.10. It's not like Obama was elected when gas prices were $2.00 and they had never been higher.

crazyronin
06-23-12, 07:16 AM
Christ I am tired of the gas prices are higher now than when Obama was elected argument.

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/06/gas-prices-4.html

Average price of a gallon in June 2008 $4.10. It's not like Obama was elected when gas prices were $2.00 and they had never been higher.

How does it feel to be a well boiled frog?

shadowhawk2020
06-23-12, 07:19 AM
How does it feel to be a well boiled frog?

Hot?

logrus9
06-23-12, 08:02 AM
http://www.GasBuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA Average&city2=&city3=&crude=y&tme=96&units=us

http://66.70.86.64/ChartServer/ch.gaschart?Country=Canada&Crude=t&Period=96&Areas=USA%20Average,,&Unit=US%20$/G

The price of crude oil was about 40% higher in 2008.

classicman2
09-06-12, 08:12 AM
Remember the promise Obama made in March 2012 at Cushing, OK, concerning the Keystone Pipeline? He was going to push forward (on that very day) to remove the impediments to its construction.

What happened? Hmm! It seems it's going to be delayed until after after the election. One wonders why?

Draven
09-06-12, 08:53 AM
Remember the promise Obama made in March 2012 at Cushing, OK, concerning the Keystone Pipeline? He was going to push forward (on that very day) to remove the impediments to its construction.

What happened? Hmm! It seems it's going to be delayed until after after the election. One wonders why?

One finds an answer (http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/05/pipeline-keystone-route-idINL2E8K59H820120905).

UPDATE 1-TransCanada submits new Keystone XL route in Nebraska
Thu Sep 6, 2012 12:24am IST

* TransCanada says new route avoids Nebraska Sandhills

* Obama delayed decision on environmental concerns

* Environmentalist decries new route

By Timothy Gardner

WASHINGTON, Sept 5 (Reuters) - TransCanada Corp said on Wednesday it has submitted a new route for the project to build the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline from Canada to Texas that will avoid sensitive ecological areas in Nebraska.

The company said the 830,000 barrels per day pipeline will avoid the Sandhills, a region of prairie and sand dunes that is rich in plants and wildlife, with thousands of ponds and lakes.

President Barack Obama delayed a decision on the $7.6 billion pipeline application earlier this year, citing concerns about the northern portion of the route near a major aquifer and the Sandhills in the state.

The pipeline has been at the center of an emotional debate in the United States, pitting promoters of energy security and job creation against advocates of a green economy who fear the environmental risks of moving oil through the country's midsection.

TransCanada has been working with Nebraska officials to come up with a new route and it hopes to have U.S. State Department approval for the northern section early next year.

"Based on feedback from the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality and the public, we have refined our proposed routing," Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive officer, said in a release.

The alternative route submitted in an environmental report to Nebraska on Wednesday was developed "based on extensive feedback from Nebraskans, and reflects our shared desire to minimize the disturbance of land and sensitive resources in the state," said Girling.

Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality plans to publish maps of the new route on its website later on Wednesday, a public affairs official said.

NO MIDDLE MAN

An environmentalist who had seen the new route said it still crosses the Ogallala Aquifer, high water tables and sandy soil regions that could be vulnerable to a leak from the pipeline.

"We will not allow middle America to be the middle man for a foreign tar sands pipeline," said Jane Kleeb, the executive director of Bold Nebraska.

Grady Semmens, a spokesman for TransCanada countered that the new route avoids all of the official Sandhills and reduced the amount it would through pass through regions similar to the Sandhills to 36 miles (60 km) from about 60 miles.

The new route reduces the length where the pipeline would cross the aquifer, but it is difficult to avoid it entirely, Semmens said, since the formation is under most of the state.

Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman must approve or deny the new route and send his decision to the State Department, which is conducting its own environmental review of the pipeline.

Construction on the 700,000 bpd southern part of the line, renamed the Gulf Coast project, has already begun after Obama gave his support for it.

The Gulf Coast project will drain a glut of crude in the U.S. heartland fed mostly by the oil boom in North Dakota.

The northern section of the line needs approval from the State Department because it crosses the national border. TransCanada hopes to have State Department approval by early next year with the aim of putting it into service by the end of 2014 or early 2015.

Now you can choose not to believe any of this, but a) it's not the first huge construction project (private or government) to be delayed in this country and b) I'd rather they do it right than do it fast. It would have a big impact on the environment even if done right.

Also, it sounds like the Republicans would have been praising Obama if he'd pushed it through, but it has the potential to completely blow up in his face, so I think it's a good idea to take more time.

Others may disagree.

classicman2
09-06-12, 09:31 AM
And that has nothing to do with the promise about completion of the southern end of the pipeline.

wendersfan
09-06-12, 09:32 AM
And that has nothing to do with the promise about completion of the southern end of the pipeline.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yh6sUukJ_hM/T2LmdKs9mGI/AAAAAAAAGrw/Yqz0xHsHl4Y/s1600/cmbadv25.jpg

classicman2
09-06-12, 09:38 AM
Who is moving the goal posts?

wendersfan
09-06-12, 09:45 AM
Remember the promise Obama made in March 2012 at Cushing, OK, concerning the Keystone Pipeline?
And that has nothing to do with the promise about completion of the southern end of the pipeline.
Who is moving the goal posts?
Hard to say.

classicman2
09-06-12, 09:49 AM
I assumed by referring to his speech he made in Cushing, OK, about the subject, it wasn't necessary to say what part since that was the subject that being discussed - and why he came to OK.

K&AJones
09-06-12, 10:33 AM
The assumption is that Canada, which is where the crude is coming from, is just going to sit idle, brush off offers from other countries and wait on Obama is totally adsurb.

And this non-sense of "enviromental impact studies"...the last time I looked we have a Alaskan Pipeline that's been in operation how long? And how many horror stories of ruining the land and wildlife has there been? Bottomline you have an administration that's playing chicken with the energy security of the nation on one side and the kook fringe base of his party on the other side all in the name of votes...plain and simple.

classicman2
09-06-12, 10:44 AM
The assumption is that Canada, which is where the crude is coming from, is just going to sit idle, brush off offers from other countries and wait on Obama is totally adsurb.

And this non-sense of "enviromental impact studies"...the last time I looked we have a Alaskan Pipeline that's been in operation how long? And how many horror stories of ruining the land and wildlife has there been? Bottomline you have an administration that's playing chicken with the energy security of the nation on one side and the kook fringe base of his party on the other side all in the name of votes...plain and simple.

Absolutely!

Caribou population that was such a concern to the radical environmentalists -remember? The population has increased since the pipeline was built. Caribou, unlike humans, learn to adapt.

btw: Exxon-Valdez would not have occurred if the Alaskan Pipeline had been completed.

As a man who knows about energy (all forms) said - "The Keystone Pipeline would benefit both the U.S. & Canada."

But we can't piss off the radical environmentalists - can we?

Draven
09-06-12, 10:49 AM
And this non-sense of "enviromental impact studies"...the last time I looked we have a Alaskan Pipeline that's been in operation how long? And how many horror stories of ruining the land and wildlife has there been? Bottomline you have an administration that's playing chicken with the energy security of the nation on one side and the kook fringe base of his party on the other side all in the name of votes...plain and simple.

Or they want to make sure they've covered all their bases and done the necessary research before building a massive project through the middle of the country that could potentially impact the environment in a negative way. I think that's more "plain and simple" than believing it's all political.

Is there anything that's actually true, or is everything a conspiracy?

And I don't know - did the Alaskan Pipeline go up quickly with no delays?

K&AJones
09-19-12, 12:57 AM
Obama's Four Gallons of Gas Minimum Mandate

By Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), Special to The Hill...September 18, 2012

The latest mandate handed down from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is so ridiculous, even I was shocked. The EPA has now mandated how much gasoline you must buy at certain gas stations. Say hello to the Obama Administration’s four gallon minimum.

This unprecedented EPA overreach applies when filling up at a gas station that provides both E15 and E10, gasoline with 15 or 10 percent of ethanol, respectively, from the same hose.

At the insistence of the ethanol industry, the Obama Administration is pushing E15 into the marketplace, regardless of the serious concerns about the fuel’s impact on drivers. From its inception, E15 is a study in the consequences of government interference in the marketplace. The EPA’s decision to set a minimum purchase requirement is just the most recent example.

If this seems too far-fetched to be true, here is what the EPA recently wrote in a letter to the American Motorcyclist Association:

"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps either dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the case of E15 and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at least four gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines with smaller fuel tanks from being exposed to gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing greater than 10 volume percent ethanol."

The EPA approved E15 for sale in the U.S. using a partial waiver, meaning it is only approved for some vehicles on the road— cars 2001 and later.


Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/gas/2012/09/18/obamas-four-gallons-gas-minimum-mandate#ixzz26t9O5oWD

wendersfan
09-19-12, 07:46 AM
Apparently it's because the new E15 formulation will cause mis-firing in smaller engines, like those in motorcycles. The four-gallon rule will prevent people from putting that type of gas into those engines.

classicman2
09-19-12, 08:24 AM
You don't know when you fill up at a service station whether there's ethanol in the gas or not. The service station owner doesn't know what he's getting. That 'may contain 10% ethanol sticker' is useless.

orangecrush
09-19-12, 10:29 AM
The assumption is that Canada, which is where the crude is coming from, is just going to sit idle, brush off offers from other countries and wait on Obama is totally adsurb.

And this non-sense of "enviromental impact studies"...the last time I looked we have a Alaskan Pipeline that's been in operation how long? And how many horror stories of ruining the land and wildlife has there been? Bottomline you have an administration that's playing chicken with the energy security of the nation on one side and the kook fringe base of his party on the other side all in the name of votes...plain and simple.People in Nebraska are worried about the water table in the sand hills, not the animals. We shoot the animals here.

orangecrush
09-19-12, 10:32 AM
You don't know when you fill up at a service station whether there's ethanol in the gas or not. The service station owner doesn't know what he's getting. That 'may contain 10% ethanol sticker' is useless.I'd like to know more about this. We buy the non-ethanol gas as whenever we have tested it, our milage is about 5-10% better w/o the ethanol (more than makes up for the difference in price).

Mabuse
09-19-12, 02:53 PM
I'd like to know more about this. We buy the non-ethanol gas as whenever we have tested it, our milage is about 5-10% better w/o the ethanol (more than makes up for the difference in price).

What's to know? Ethanol is effectivly water. It waters down your gas. You pay $4.xx/per gallon but 10% of that gallon does not actually propel your car when combusted. It's filler, waste. We put it in as a sop to the farmers.

classicman2
09-19-12, 03:07 PM
I'd like to know more about this. We buy the non-ethanol gas as whenever we have tested it, our milage is about 5-10% better w/o the ethanol (more than makes up for the difference in price).

In older cars that didn't have a computer the car didn't run well at all with ethanol.

I believe that you get better mileage with 'no-ethanol' gas, but the automobile engineers say you don't.

X
09-19-12, 03:14 PM
I believe that you get better mileage with 'no-ethanol' gas, but the automobile engineers say you don't.They're wrong. A gallon of gasoline contains 114,000 BTUs of energy. Ethanol contains 76,100 BTUs per gallon. You don't even need to do the math.

starman9000
10-11-12, 12:20 AM
An oil refinery has been approved to be built in ND: :up:

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/376913/

How insane is it that it's the first major refinery in 30 years and the first in the lower 48 since 77?

Dr Mabuse
10-11-12, 12:25 AM
An oil refinery has been approved to be built in ND: :up:

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/376913/

How insane is it that it's the first major refinery in 30 years and the first in the lower 48 since 77?

How insane? It's not insane at all.

Our problem with refineries, for years now, is how many the various petroleum companies have been closing.

starman9000
10-11-12, 12:31 AM
I don't understand your confusion.

Jason
10-11-12, 08:30 AM
Or they want to make sure they've covered all their bases and done the necessary research before building a massive project through the middle of the country that could potentially impact the environment in a negative way. I think that's more "plain and simple" than believing it's all political.

Nah, if Fartbongo said in March that he was going to build it, they should have completed it by May.

classicman2
10-11-12, 08:36 AM
One way to save money in the refinery process is to do away with the requirement for unleaded gasoline.

OldDude
10-11-12, 09:11 AM
In older cars that didn't have a computer the car didn't run well at all with ethanol.

I believe that you get better mileage with 'no-ethanol' gas, but the automobile engineers say you don't.

Depends on what gas you compare it to. All "reformulated" gasoline requires oxygenate. It doesn't matter (much) what oxygenate is used, ethanol, MTBE, or others. If the gasoline is oxygenated to, say, 2.5%, you get 2.5% worse mileage. There may be MINOR differences (less than 0.1%) depending on which oxygenate, but that is correct to first order. 10% ethanol is equivalent to just about 3% oxygenate. 85% ethanol, E85, gets about 70% of the mileage of "real" gasoline, and always appears to be a terrible deal in my area.

However, E85 is VERY high octane. An high compression engine tuned for it might do 5% or so better, but can't run on regular (would probably need AVGAS to run on straight gasoline) and nobody builds such.

Performance of all alternate fuel engines is VERY close to what you would calculate using the "lower heating value" of the fuel (corrects for the water vapor produced by combustion being exhausted as steam and not recovered).

Sorry for long technical answer, but automotive engineers don't say that. They say it performs about as well on an energy adjusted basis. X's post following yours is about right on the energy content of the two fuels.

JasonF
10-11-12, 09:14 AM
One way to save money in the refinery process is to do away with the requirement for unleaded gasoline.

Since leaded gasoline is incompatible with catalytic converters, and virtually every vehicle on the road today has a catalytic converter, that seems like a bad idea.

OldDude
10-11-12, 09:18 AM
One way to save money in the refinery process is to do away with the requirement for unleaded gasoline.

Terrible idea. It would not only increase lead emissions, it would poison the catalysts and dramatically increase ALL emissions, CO, HC, NOx, and return us to the foul, emission-spewing cars of the 60's. Also in areas with annual emissions tests, all drivers would be spending several hundred for a new catalytic converter annually.

While the EPA might over-regulate to the point of absurdity, we SHOULDN'T do THAT!

We could reduce crazy requirements for hundreds of boutique blends by county, and have one standard for areas where air quality is OK and ONE standard for areas where further improvement is needed (IF and only if it is gasoline-fueled cars that are the major contributor). Maybe there are sufficiently unique requirements for two or three reformulated blends, but not the crazy number that exist.

classicman2
10-11-12, 09:50 AM
When did the catalytic converter appear on automobiles?

You, most likely, survied those terrible emissions. I did.

OldDude
10-11-12, 10:10 AM
When did the catalytic converter appear on automobiles?

You, most likely, survied those terrible emissions. I did.

First ones appeared some time in the 70's; I'd have to do some research to determine exact date. Modern ones are MUCH more effective but equally prone to lead posoining. There are MANY more cars on the road today. In a remote area, even a suburb, you might be ok, but many areas would not.

As cars are mobile (well, that's kind of the point, right) you can't have leaded in some areas, no-lead in others, because the difference damages the car. Although I disagree, the EPA would argue 100s of boutique blends are OK because most gas is used within a few miles of home, and none of them damage the car and render it non-fit for use in polluted areas.

Also, in inner cities, 40 years ago, most lead exposure to kids was car exhaust. Now it is paint chips in old buildings. Lead from cars is non-existent.

I doubt the capacity even exists to make the volume of tetraethyl lead required.
*No-lead: Good
*Oxygenated (reformulated) gasoline: Very debatable, may be no real benefit and higher price. If there is a benefit, it is mostly limited to carburetted, not fuel-injected, vehicles and there aren't many on the road anymore.
*100s of boutique blends: Stupid and evidence of a total lack of energy policy
*Ethanol blends: Above 10%, see boutique, although honestly, a blend for oxygenate requirements is no worse than any other oxygenate.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

orangecrush
10-11-12, 10:11 AM
When did the catalytic converter appear on automobiles?

You, most likely, survied those terrible emissions. I did.Right now, a leaf blower puts out more crap emissions than a 3/4 ton truck. I perfer it that way to the way it used to be.

CRM114
10-11-12, 10:16 AM
Since leaded gasoline is incompatible with catalytic converters, and virtually every vehicle on the road today has a catalytic converter, that seems like a bad idea.

:lol:

We should bring back those pull tabs on soda cans too. I liked it better when you just pulled the tab off and threw it on the ground. It smelled like .... America.

classicman2
10-11-12, 11:09 AM
Stop bitching about the gasoline prices - folks.

You all seem to want your cake & eat it too.

Try an experiment - remove your catalytic coverter - and run an exhaust pipe straight to your muffler.

Tracer Bullet
10-11-12, 11:11 AM
You, most likely, survied those terrible emissions. I did.

Are we sure about that?

classicman2
10-11-12, 11:15 AM
Are we sure about that?

You weren't even a gleam in your father's eye before catalytic converters came on the scene. :)

Save Ferris
10-11-12, 11:58 AM
Stop bitching about the gasoline prices - folks.

You all seem to want your cake & eat it too.

Try an experiment - remove your catalytic coverter - and run an exhaust pipe straight to your muffler.

My car came with 2 catalytic converters (to conform to the strictest state, California). When one failed I looked online and saw that I could replace it with chrome headers and do a little workaround that moved the oxygen sensor down a few inches.

I can still pass smog tests and saved a lot of money. Even after buying the chrome headers. I just printed out the internet how-to and gave it to my mechanic, and paid cash.