How about them gas prices???

[kuyu]

I'm a delivery driver. These gas prices blow. My income is much lower due to this OPEC BS.

I wonder what a tariff threat to the nations of OPEC that is contingent of a certain level of output would do.

Better yet, get Gates to shut down their computers unless they stop this stupid gouge on the American consumer.

Thoughts....?

[mactastic]

You'd think the one thing this administration could get right is being able to talk to OPEC about the oil and gas industry. And before anyone starts complaining about the evil Democrats blocking our Great President's Energy Policy (otherwise known as The Secret Pact), even with it's passage in year one of the Bush administration, NO OIL WOULD YET BE FLOWING FROM NEW DOMESTIC SOURCES. Whether it would help in the future is debatable, but at the current time it would do no good.

[zimv20]

I'm a delivery driver. These gas prices blow. My income is much lower due to this OPEC BS.

i'm sorry it's affecting you this way. (do you have your own business? if not, how is it affecting your bottom line?)

but -- i'm happy they're up and hope they go even higher. maybe words like 'conservation' and 'high mileage' will creep back into the national vocabulary.

i think this is the only way american drivers will start buying better mileage cars and, ultimately, reduce our foreign oil dependence. i don't know if the day is today, but it's coming sooner or later.

(on NPR the other day, they revealed the gas mileage of the model T -- it was either 21 or 28 mpg, i forget which. how sad that we haven't been able to improve much on that)

[kuyu]

I deliver pizza's in my own car. I buy the gas, so the price affects my income.

Personally, I'd love to have a hybrid, but I can't afford one.

The model T did get better gas milege than Ford's current line-up. However, it was a bit more environmentally unfriendly.

[zimv20]

I deliver pizza's in my own car. I buy the gas, so the price affects my income.

ahh. how do you do your expenses - can you deduct gas or do you do the overall mileage deduction?


Personally, I'd love to have a hybrid, but I can't afford one.

diesels get great mileage. pseudo and i both have late model VWs w/ TDi's. i get about 40/55.

[numediaman]

I'm a delivery driver. These gas prices blow. My income is much lower due to this OPEC BS . . .

Thoughts....?

Ok, I'm going to do the unthinkable -- I'm going to defend OPEC.

First, OPEC prices oil in U.S. dollars, right?

Since the Bush administration has come into office the dollar has declined in value 45% against the Euro, from a low of 0.8230 dollars in October 2000 to well over $1.20. (Today was the first day the value of the dollar against the Euro dipped below $1.20 since November.) As a result, quite a number of OPEC oil ministers have complained to the Bush administration that the U.S.'s weak dollar policy was driving down their income.

Today the price of a barrel of oil is $38 -- a huge increase in price. But the equivalent would be a $20 barrel -- a very low price indeed! (By the way, until the dollar's collapse, OPEC liked to keep oil in the $22 to $28 range.)

So who is making money with a low dollar and high oil prices? Refiners and oil importers. Even with the same margins, they can make more profit with higher oil prices.

Can you name some companies that might like this situation??

[kuyu]

Great point about the falling dollar. You're right, but OPEC cutting supplies is still unacceptable. It's price gouging, and a cartel. Kind of like deBeers.

Off topic, but....
Did you know... If any of the DeBeers execs set foot on US soil they will be arrested on site? They run a cartel and artificially inflate the price of diamomds. A one-carot diamond is actually worth about $10. They keep warehouses full of them and only allow so many to circulate at once, therby inflating the price several hundred fold.

[kuyu]

Zim, I only had to pay ~$60 this year in taxes, so I don't even worry about deductions. I have $15 taken from every paycheck so I'm sure to get a refund. BTW, my refund this year is about $110 more than last year. Thanks G Dub. I'll be sending the money to Apple for one of those sweet new emac's.

[pseudobrit]

Zim, I only had to pay ~$60 this year in taxes, so I don't even worry about deductions. I have $15 taken from every paycheck so I'm sure to get a refund. BTW, my refund this year is about $110 more than last year. Thanks G Dub. I'll be sending the money to Apple for one of those sweet new emac's.

The amount of your refund has little to do with how much you paid in taxes. For instance, this year I owe money even though I paid less in taxes than last year (I was unemployed for a few months this past year when my manufacturing job disappeared).

And even if you paid less in overall federal tax, have any fees or local taxes gone up for you? I know they have for me.

[pseudobrit]

Great point about the falling dollar. You're right, but OPEC cutting supplies is still unacceptable. It's price gouging, and a cartel. Kind of like deBeers.

They sit on a limited unrenewable resource.

Would you be so quick to take land rights away from an American landowner in say, Alaska, if gold was found on his property so it could be commerically mined faster than he wanted to do it himself?

If OPEC switches to the euro there will be hell to pay. I'm talking US bombings.

[kuyu]

And even if you paid less in overall federal tax, have any fees or local taxes gone up for you? I know they have for me.

Our mayor is trying to raise taxes to buy a water company that's not for sale. But, she's so far unsuccessful. My taxes for state and local were the same, federals were lower.

[SlyHunter]

I'm a bank courier this year my millage credit is 37.5 cents per mile BTW.
Anyhow it 1980 dollars we pay less in gas (in Florida) than we did in 1980. Somebody keeps forgetting to adjust for inflation when they talk about high gas prices. California I heard is near record almost 3 bucks a galloon which is over a dollar a galloon than I pay in Florida. Maybe the fact that they can only use oil produced in California made with their overpriced gasoline formulas has somethign to do with it?

Also gas prices would be lower if we were allowed to drill for our own oil resources where our oil resources actually lay. We can't drill for it where it aint and environmentalist aint allowing us to drill for it where it is. If the Environmentalist cared more about humanity than the loussy carabo, who loves mating next to "warm" oil pipes and thus oil drilling actually increases their population, then they would shut up and let us do what we need to do. I assure you these oil companies while greedy capitalist pigs aren't interested in ruining their bottom line by having an accident and feeding the liberal left wing PR machine. They will do everything in their power to insure accidents don't happen. The very same so called greed that makes a company tick will also protect the environment.

Also while I hate the monopoly of Opec and was hoping our war with Iraq could break that monopoly up. BTW if it was a war about oil than we would not have allowed Iraq to rejoin OPEC. But we didn't have a say in the matter. Anyhow in the same token once that oil is gone so are they. Name one thing they produce besides oil that someone outside of the Middle East is willing to pay for? Name one thing they've invented that matters to anyone else in this world? Nothing comes out of the middle East except terrorism and oil. Without these they wouldn't matter at all.

[numediaman]

SlyHunter:
liberal left wing PR machine . . . Name one thing they've invented that matters to anyone else in this world? Nothing comes out of the middle East except terrorism and oil . . .

For a moment there I almost thought you were going to present serious arguments. I guess not.

[SlyHunter]

SlyHunter:
liberal left wing PR machine . . . Name one thing they've invented that matters to anyone else in this world? Nothing comes out of the middle East except terrorism and oil . . .

For a moment there I almost thought you were going to present serious arguments. I guess not.
Sorry I forgot to finish that paragraph.

Therefore I cannot blame them for milking what they do have to export as much as possible.

[Ugg]

Anyhow it 1980 dollars we pay less in gas (in Florida) than we did in 1980. Somebody keeps forgetting to adjust for inflation when they talk about high gas prices. California I heard is near record almost 3 bucks a galloon which is over a dollar a galloon than I pay in Florida. Maybe the fact that they can only use oil produced in California made with their overpriced gasoline formulas has somethign to do with it?

Also gas prices would be lower if we were allowed to drill for our own oil resources where our oil resources actually lay. We can't drill for it where it aint and environmentalist aint allowing us to drill for it where it is. If the Environmentalist cared more about humanity than the loussy carabo, who loves mating next to "warm" oil pipes and thus oil drilling actually increases their population, then they would shut up and let us do what we need to do. I assure you these oil companies while greedy capitalist pigs aren't interested in ruining their bottom line by having an accident and feeding the liberal left wing PR machine. They will do everything in their power to insure accidents don't happen. The very same so called greed that makes a company tick will also protect the environment.

Also while I hate the monopoly of Opec and was hoping our war with Iraq could break that monopoly up. BTW if it was a war about oil than we would not have allowed Iraq to rejoin OPEC. But we didn't have a say in the matter. Anyhow in the same token once that oil is gone so are they. Name one thing they produce besides oil that someone outside of the Middle East is willing to pay for? Name one thing they've invented that matters to anyone else in this world? Nothing comes out of the middle East except terrorism and oil. Without these they wouldn't matter at all.

Although $2.25 a gallon is high it is nowhere near $3 a gallon. Perhaps you are simply exagerating to state your case? And, while CA does have a lot of oil and refines a great deal, the majority comes from outside the borders of the state and outside the borders of the US. The state does have strict emissions policies but the major reason for high gas prices in the state is the lack of refining capacity and the excessive breeding practices of SUVs.

Your knowledge of the caribou seems to have come directly from an Exxon advertisement. Rather than believing the propaganda of gw & co. it wouldn't hurt if you did a little research to see exactly how devastating oil exploration and drilling are in the great white north. There are areas up there that will never recover from the damage already inflicted. This we know as a fact. Also, global warming, whether natural or man-made has made the pipeline into a dangerous unstable entity. The tundra is melting and the pipeline in many areas is sinking. There are many who doubt that it will last another 15 years at the current rate of warming. Since that is the only possible way of getting oil off the north slope it is sort of stupid to drill for it if you can't get it out of there.

People?!?!? or are they simply irrelevant to your argument? This lack of respect for those who don't share your views is why we are there in the first place and our historical support of terrorist organizations is why bin laden came to power. We created the situation. The other thing is that why should we continue to support those countries and companies that have created the situation? We have the ability to transform our import-based economy to a domestic supplied economy when it comes to fuel within 50 years. Unfortunately we have a prez who is only interested in helping out his oil field buddies (the same ones who bailed him out of his failed businesses) and cares nothing for putting Americans to work.

[IJ Reilly]

California is saddled with a very problematic gasoline refining oligopoly -- most of the capacity is owned by a very few companies, and they're always running on the hairy edge of meeting demand. You'd think that such a strong market demand and high prices would lead to greater production, but you'd be wrong. In fact, Texaco is about to close one of their refineries in California. This closure will come right in the middle of the summer driving season. Odd? Some think so.

Also, for some time, the state's been asking the EPA for a waiver from the requirement to use gasoline reformulated with ethanol. If this waiver was approved, California would be able to import gasoline used in other states. The EPA is sandbagging this request. Odd? Some think so.

[jelloshotsrule]

diesels get great mileage. pseudo and i both have late model VWs w/ TDi's. i get about 40/55.

but the stuff they spew out is... well, horrible to put it nicely

it's a tough question with regards to diesel vs regular gas... i think hybrids are the best option right now. a high mileage non diesel would be a tough competition for the diesels... but i don't know that there are any regular gas, 5 seat sedans that get 35+ mileage, so for now i'll lean towards the diesels. but hopefully the hybrids will soon take over... or whatever tech might be next/better...

[zimv20]

but the stuff they spew out is... well, horrible to put it nicely

modern diesels, like the kind mercedes and VW are using, are actually pretty clean. it's a good fuel and a good technology. iirc, some 30% of european passenger cars are diesel.

[SlyHunter]

modern diesels, like the kind mercedes and VW are using, are actually pretty clean. it's a good fuel and a good technology. iirc, some 30% of european passenger cars are diesel.
And stink to high heavens.

I'm liking hybrids myself but I'm worried about finding a mechanic when it breaks down. I drive over 100,000 miles a year and that could become a huge problem.

Vehicles based on water I think could be a problem because water is already getting pretty expensive for my tastes. We have to deal with yearly water shortages already.

[blue&whiteman]

none of this will matter in 20 years or so when all of the worlds fuel resources will be depleted. that 20 years will get even shorter if this suv obsession keeps up.

its all fine by me since I don't drive anyway. cars are evil!

convenience over a healthy earth? I think not.

dead earth = dead population of the earth.

end tree hugging rant :)

[SlyHunter]

none of this will matter in 20 years or so when all of the worlds fuel resources will be depleted. that 20 years will get even shorter if this suv obsession keeps up.

its all fine by me since I don't drive anyway. cars are evil!

convenience over a healthy earth? I think not.

dead earth = dead population of the earth.

end tree hugging rant :)
20 years ago they said we would be out of gas today.
20 years ago they said global warming would be to such an extreme today Miami would be underwater.

Not safe to believe everything they say. I got a great book the Last gasp about how we couldn't be alive in the State of Florida today written back in the 70's. Guess they were wrong.

[blue&whiteman]

20 years ago they said we would be out of gas today.
20 years ago they said global warming would be to such an extreme today Miami would be underwater.

Not safe to believe everything they say. I got a great book the Last gasp about how we couldn't be alive in the State of Florida today written back in the 70's. Guess they were wrong.

regardless. its still bad for our mother earth.

I know some people do need to drive and all but when I see a 90 pound woman driving an suv alone (and thats a lot) it makes me want to scream. thats total over-consumption.

[zimv20]

20 years ago they said we would be out of gas today.

someday, it will be true. more consumption today moves that date closer. wouldn't you agree?

[SlyHunter]

someday, it will be true. more consumption today moves that date closer. wouldn't you agree?
Yes, hopefully by that time we will have a better energy source.
Someday there will be nothing left on Earth to use and by that time I hope we'd have colonize planets beyond our solar system. As such we need an investment today to insure that future should we survive long enough comes about before we run out of energy sources.

[numediaman]

someday, it will be true. more consumption today moves that date closer. wouldn't you agree?

Zimv20: why are you arguing with a troll?

SlyHunter:
. . . I got bored in the forum I was in. The only folks that were left were the ones who agreed with me and the lunatics that could never be convinced they were wrong. I did a search on Google for Left Wing radicals who needed their blindfolds removed and this was the top of the list. I have no interest in discussion macs and I could've left IBM completly off my profile . . .

As I said before, I certainly don't mind discussing politics with someone to the right of me (basically everyone on the planet), but discussing politics with a PC user crosses the line. ;)

[zimv20]

Zimv20: why are you arguing with a troll?

he's about this close --><-- to hitting my ignore list. i really really try to give people the benefit of the doubt. we'll see.

[SlyHunter]

Zimv20: why are you arguing with a troll?

SlyHunter:
. . . I got bored in the forum I was in. The only folks that were left were the ones who agreed with me and the lunatics that could never be convinced they were wrong. I did a search on Google for Left Wing radicals who needed their blindfolds removed and this was the top of the list. I have no interest in discussion macs and I could've left IBM completly off my profile . . .

As I said before, I certainly don't mind discussing politics with someone to the right of me (basically everyone on the planet), but discussing politics with a PC user crosses the line. ;)
I could've used a better word than lunatic.
My comment about the google search was meant as a non serious reply to a non serious question. Everyone who post here was new here once.
BTW I don't care about my post count any time you feel like it zeroize it you won't get a complaint from me. I post only when I think I have something to say and sometimes thats quite often.

[zimv20]

I don't care about my post count
posts in the poli forums aren't counted, anyway

[IJ Reilly]

Everyone who post here was new here once.

This is true, but very few posters, new or veteran, confuse quantity with quality the way you do.

[SlyHunter]

This is true, but very few posters, new or veteran, confuse quantity with quality the way you do.
You being psychic again? Now you can read my mind?

[ethernet76]

I'm a bank courier this year my millage credit is 37.5 cents per mile BTW.
Anyhow it 1980 dollars we pay less in gas (in Florida) than we did in 1980. Somebody keeps forgetting to adjust for inflation when they talk about high gas prices. California I heard is near record almost 3 bucks a galloon which is over a dollar a galloon than I pay in Florida. Maybe the fact that they can only use oil produced in California made with their overpriced gasoline formulas has somethign to do with it?

Also gas prices would be lower if we were allowed to drill for our own oil resources where our oil resources actually lay. We can't drill for it where it aint and environmentalist aint allowing us to drill for it where it is. If the Environmentalist cared more about humanity than the loussy carabo, who loves mating next to "warm" oil pipes and thus oil drilling actually increases their population, then they would shut up and let us do what we need to do. I assure you these oil companies while greedy capitalist pigs aren't interested in ruining their bottom line by having an accident and feeding the liberal left wing PR machine. They will do everything in their power to insure accidents don't happen. The very same so called greed that makes a company tick will also protect the environment.

Also while I hate the monopoly of Opec and was hoping our war with Iraq could break that monopoly up. BTW if it was a war about oil than we would not have allowed Iraq to rejoin OPEC. But we didn't have a say in the matter. Anyhow in the same token once that oil is gone so are they. Name one thing they produce besides oil that someone outside of the Middle East is willing to pay for? Name one thing they've invented that matters to anyone else in this world? Nothing comes out of the middle East except terrorism and oil. Without these they wouldn't matter at all.

The United States is the only major oil producing contry that still imports oil. We're the largest producer of crude oil in the world and 50% of all oil used in America is imported. Something is wrong with this economic model.

Some people feel it is unfair to set the rate of production of crude. Do these same people believe the U.S. tariffs imposed on imported steel were unfair, or were they only protecting American steel interests?

By setting a set production quota OPEC is protecting their nations' interests. Besides, no one really believe all OPEC members stick to those numbers. They usually go over by 10%.

Also you incorrectly assume that all OPEC members are in the Middle East. OPEC member include Algeria(Africa), Indonesia(Asia), Iran(Middle East), Iraq(Middle East), Kuwait(Middle East), Libya(Africa), Nigeria(Africa), Qatar(Middle East), Saudi Arabia(Middle East), United Arab Emirates(Middle East), and Venezuela(South America). Six of 11, while that is a majority, it would be foolish to assume the Middle East controls all the world's oil. Only 28 percent of the world's total oil comes from the region.

You also never stated the largest producer of oil is in fact the United States at 9.1 billion barrels a day. Second is Saudia Arabia at 8.5. The difference between the two countries is their export statiistics. Whlie the US exports no oil Saudia Arabia exports 82 percent of it's daily oil production.

The United States economy is overly based on oil when compared to European nations. I would prove this with facts. But when your base arguements rely on unproven person observations it isn't worth my time. Blame your SUV, not the fact that you can't rape the oil industry like the coffee market. God forbid

Edit: On the "we should be allowed to drill where there is oil, **** the animals" arguement. Would you say the same for Yellowstone? Yosemite? Why does the fact that this preserve is in the northern part of the world and isn't a pretty tourist attraction change things? The Alaskan reserve is estimated at 9 - environmentalist - and 61 - Oil companies - billion barrels. United States consumes 20 a day. At most we could supply ourself on this reserve alone for three days. Wouldn't reducing the 20 billion barrels a day consumed in the long run be more beneficial than sucking up every last ounce of the stuff?

www.maketradefair.com

[Neserk]

Gas is between $2.01 and $2.23 around here.

Yikes. I fill up about every 2 weeks, thank God I don't have a job that requires a lot of travel and that I have a car that gets good gas mileage. It is hard because I'd like to go to the mountains and go camping but the 1/2 gas is cost prohibitive right now. *sigh*

[pseudobrit]

You being psychic again? Now you can read my mind?

Judging by the amount of your gushing of words on this forum, I can't imagine every last thought that enters your mind in a day doesn't make it on here.

So I can't blame anyone who assumes they've read your mind. They're probably half right.

[pseudobrit]

Maybe the fact that they can only use oil produced in California made with their overpriced gasoline formulas has somethign to do with it?

Are you seriously mistaken, misled or do you often create "fact" out of whole cloth?

Also gas prices would be lower if we were allowed to drill for our own oil resources where our oil resources actually lay. We can't drill for it where it aint and environmentalist aint allowing us to drill for it where it is. If the Environmentalist cared more about humanity than the loussy carabo, who loves mating next to "warm" oil pipes and thus oil drilling actually increases their population, then they would shut up and let us do what we need to do.

There it is again. Mistake, misled, or complete fabrication. How do you plead?


Name one thing they produce besides oil that someone outside of the Middle East is willing to pay for?

Name one thing that comes out of Alaska besides oil that someone outside of America is willing to pay for. I guess Alaska is a worthless ****hole too.

Name one thing they've invented that matters to anyone else in this world?

Numbers. Medicine.

Nothing comes out of the middle East except terrorism and oil. Without these they wouldn't matter at all.

Nothing comes out of you except nonsense and racism. Without these you wouldn't have any posts in this thread.

[kuyu]

20 years ago they said global warming would be to such an extreme today Miami would be underwater.

Not safe to believe everything they say. I got a great book the Last gasp about how we couldn't be alive in the State of Florida today written back in the 70's. Guess they were wrong.

This is a little off topic, but the sea level won't rise is the poles melt. Don't believe me, try this.

Fill a glass up past the brim with ice. Make sure it's sticking out above the rim. Fill the glass ALL the way up with water. Let the glass sit until the ice melts. Notice that not a single drop of water spilled. Ice is less dense than water, thus, if the ice (which is mostly under water) melts, then the sea level will drop, not rise.

[SlyHunter]

The United States is the only major oil producing contry that still imports oil. We're the largest producer of crude oil in the world and 50% of all oil used in America is imported. Something is wrong with this economic model.

were also the largest exporters of money in the world we send more money out of our border than we bring in and thus the world is enriched by our over consumption of a variety of products.

Some people feel it is unfair to set the rate of production of crude. Do these same people believe the U.S. tariffs imposed on imported steel were unfair, or were they only protecting American steel interests?

Answering for myself Yes. Bush made a booboo but he was between a rock and a hard place and they have allot of votes.

Edit: On the "we should be allowed to drill where there is oil, **** the animals" arguement. Would you say the same for Yellowstone? Yosemite? Why does the fact that this preserve is in the northern part of the world and isn't a pretty tourist attraction change things? The Alaskan reserve is estimated at 9 - environmentalist - and 61 - Oil companies - billion barrels. United States consumes 20 a day. At most we could supply ourself on this reserve alone for three days. Wouldn't reducing the 20 billion barrels a day consumed in the long run be more beneficial than sucking up every last ounce of the stuff?

www.maketradefair.com
Yes. We can always move yellowstone park easier than we would be able to move the location of an oil field if it were to be found under it.

[SlyHunter]

This is a little off topic, but the sea level won't rise is the poles melt. Don't believe me, try this.

Fill a glass up past the brim with ice. Make sure it's sticking out above the rim. Fill the glass ALL the way up with water. Let the glass sit until the ice melts. Notice that not a single drop of water spilled. Ice is less dense than water, thus, if the ice (which is mostly under water) melts, then the sea level will drop, not rise.
Your only counting the ice thats already in the drink. Your not counting the ice thats above the liquid that is not displacing in fluid.

[SlyHunter]

I would first like to make a comment that it is sometimes awkward to not be able to automatically quote a quote this system seems to strip them out. I understand the logic but sometimes its nice to include it all like I did below.


Originally Posted by SlyHunter
Maybe the fact that they can only use oil produced in California made with their overpriced gasoline formulas has somethign to do with it?

Are you seriously mistaken, misled or do you often create "fact" out of whole cloth?

it is a fact that California requires that all gas purchased in California is refined in California.
It is a fact that standards for gas formulas in California is the most strictest and the most expensive in the country.
Thus any logical person can easily see that those two factors add additional cost to gasoline that the rest of the country doesn't have to pay.


Originally Posted by SlyHunter
Also gas prices would be lower if we were allowed to drill for our own oil resources where our oil resources actually lay. We can't drill for it where it aint and environmentalist aint allowing us to drill for it where it is. If the Environmentalist cared more about humanity than the loussy carabo, who loves mating next to "warm" oil pipes and thus oil drilling actually increases their population, then they would shut up and let us do what we need to do.

There it is again. Mistake, misled, or complete fabrication. How do you plead?

innocent. it is true we are not permitted by environmental law suits time and time again to drill for oil in the gulf of mexico and Alaska. Yes I know my own governer a republican fights to keep them from drilling off our shores.


Originally Posted by SlyHunter
Name one thing they produce besides oil that someone outside of the Middle East is willing to pay for?

Name one thing that comes out of Alaska besides oil that someone outside of America is willing to pay for. I guess Alaska is a worthless ****hole too.

Research into the ozone. Research into the night sky that they can see easier. Experiments that the public doesn't know about because 1. fewer people there to risk if there is an accident and 2 the natural coldness restricts the escape of some of their experiments. And besides that they aren't exporting terrorism which was my point when I said that.

[IJ Reilly]

This is a little off topic, but the sea level won't rise is the poles melt. Don't believe me, try this.

Fill a glass up past the brim with ice. Make sure it's sticking out above the rim. Fill the glass ALL the way up with water. Let the glass sit until the ice melts. Notice that not a single drop of water spilled. Ice is less dense than water, thus, if the ice (which is mostly under water) melts, then the sea level will drop, not rise.

Talk about a little knowledge being dangerous. A large portion of the polar ice caps and other glacial places on the earth are above sea level, which is why actual scientists forecast rising ocean levels with global warming.

[SlyHunter]

In your glass example the ice above the water is still sitting on the water thus displacing the water and thats why it does not rise. Most of the ice in the Artic is sitting on the bottom of the water or situated in a way in which its weight is not being supported by the water and therefore is not displacing the water but would be if it melted.


However here is a valid argument. Global warming creates melting ice which in turn gets evaporated by the heat back up into the air which comes down in rain which cools the planet back off and thus it is a natural cycle. plus these people keep overlooking the fact that after taking into account that the sun went up 1 degree in temperature (which man kind did not make happen) there is no global warming.

[pseudobrit]

it is a fact that California requires that all gas purchased in California is refined in California.

Now you've changed your statement.

It is a fact that standards for gas formulas in California is the most strictest and the most expensive in the country.
Thus any logical person can easily see that those two factors add additional cost to gasoline that the rest of the country doesn't have to pay.

California also has a major problem with smog. Which is more desirable, having cheap gas or being able to breathe? I choose air.


innocent. it is true we are not permitted by environmental law suits time and time again to drill for oil in the gulf of mexico and Alaska. Yes I know my own governer a republican fights to keep them from drilling off our shores.

I was referring to the utter nonsense you posted about how caribou love to have sex next to oil wells.

Research into the ozone. Research into the night sky that they can see easier. Experiments that the public doesn't know about because 1. fewer people there to risk if there is an accident and 2 the natural coldness restricts the escape of some of their experiments. And besides that they aren't exporting terrorism which was my point when I said that.

No, your point seemed to be that the Middle East is worthless because they haven't done anything worthwhile and are only good for oil and murder. It was a statement poisoned with racism.

[kuyu]

Talk about a little knowledge being dangerous. A large portion of the polar ice caps and other glacial places on the earth are above sea level, which is why actual scientists forecast rising ocean levels with global warming.

I had this experiment performed for me, and explained to me by an "actual" scientist. Unless a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University and tenure at a major research university doesn't qualify one as an "actual' scientist.

I raised your exact point to him. His response was that, although a great portion of the ice caps are above water, the vast majority of ice is submerged. Thus, were all of it to melt, the net effect would be a decrease in sea levels. So, if the amount of water (in any form) remains constant, and a large portion of it becomes more dense (smaller), the seas will have less net volume. The above water ice will reduce the effect of the transformation from ice to liquid, but not to the point that the sea level rises.

[SlyHunter]

I had this experiment performed for me, and explained to me by an "actual" scientist. Unless a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University and tenure at a major research university doesn't qualify one as an "actual' scientist.

I raised your exact point to him. His response was that, although a great portion of the ice caps are above water, the vast majority of ice is submerged. Thus, were all of it to melt, the net effect would be a decrease in sea levels. So, if the amount of water (in any form) remains constant, and a large portion of it becomes more dense (smaller), the seas will have less net volume. The above water ice will reduce the effect of the transformation from ice to liquid, but not to the point that the sea level rises.
How about if the ice reached the bottom of the ocean and its weight was resting on the solid ground beneath the water and thus not adding their wt to the displacement of the surrounding water?

[IJ Reilly]

I had this experiment performed for me, and explained to me by an "actual" scientist. Unless a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University and tenure at a major research university doesn't qualify one as an "actual' scientist.

Okay then, why do most scientists forecast rising sea levels associated with global warming?

[Desertrat]

IJ, I guess the rise in sea level from melting of icecaps is one of those "everybody knows" deals. When I was a kid, the commonly given numbers were a rise of 50 feet from melting the Arctic icecap, and 200 feet from melting that of the Antarctic. Dunno wuz this only the ice above sea level. How the total volume of ice as calculated is another unknown...

Dunno why anybody is surprised about gasoline prices. It's all been at least halfway obvious for a couple or three years, now. Much of it is just the old supply/demand thing.

In the FWIW department, it's around $1.70 along I-10 from San Antonio to Tallahassee. $1.95 down in Terlingua; $1.65 in Thomasville, Jawgia.

:), 'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Okay then, why do most scientists forecast rising sea levels associated with global warming?

Antarctica has most (?) of its ice atop terra firma.

[zimv20]

How about if the ice reached the bottom of the ocean and its weight was resting on the solid ground beneath the water and thus not adding their wt to the displacement of the surrounding water?
please explain to me the relationship between weight and displacement

[SlyHunter]

please explain to me the relationship between weight and displacement
Wt is what something Weighs in a gravity well.
Displacement is how much water is moved out of the way when that object is placed in water. And if the water displaced is enough it can hold the entire wt of an object part of which above water.

A boat floats because it displaces enough water to hold its wt.

However objects above the water whose wt is not born on the water but on a solid subject like the land beneath the water or some solid land like an isle or whatever doesn't displace any water except for that part of it which is underwater. Therefore when it melts the part thats not in water then displaces the water and raises the sea.

I'm sure someone else could say all that gobble allot plainer and easier than I did.

[zimv20]

I'm sure someone else could say all that gobble allot plainer and easier than I did.
i can -- there is no direct relationship between weight and displacement. an object sitting on the sea floor displaces the same amount whether it's sitting there on its own accord or attached there.

[SlyHunter]

i can -- there is no direct relationship between weight and displacement. an object sitting on the sea floor displaces the same amount whether it's sitting there on its own accord or attached there.
An object sitting on the sea floor displaces the same mount whether its sitting there or floating except for the part that sticks up above the waters serface.

did a google search displacement is based on mass not wt. However if an object is sitting on the floor of the ocean only the part of the mass which is under water displaces any water.

[pseudobrit]

An object sitting on the sea floor displaces the same mount whether its sitting there or floating except for the part that sticks up above the waters serface.

He didn't say "sitting there or floating," he said "sitting there ... or attached there."

Which was what you appeared to be talking about in your original statement:

How about if the ice reached the bottom of the ocean and its weight was resting on the solid ground beneath the water and thus not adding their wt to the displacement of the surrounding water?

You appear to be thoroughly confused, have thoroughly confused everyone else, or both.

[zimv20]

An object sitting on the sea floor displaces the same mount whether its sitting there or floating except for the part that sticks up above the waters serface.

did a google search displacement is based on mass not wt. However if an object is sitting on the floor of the ocean only the part of the mass which is under water displaces any water.
yes, objects above the water line tend to not displace the water

[Frohickey]

You'd think the one thing this administration could get right is being able to talk to OPEC about the oil and gas industry.

You need to stop drinking the Kool-aid. The leftist mantra is that GWBush has a lot of clout in the oil industry, but as you can see, they can't even convince OPEC to maintain a set price for oil.

Actually, OPEC does not have a big stranglehold as you may think. If they set oil prices too high for a long enough period of time, industries will find other alternatives for oil. Not saying that we will suddenly change to non-petroleum for cars and such, but other uses of petroleum such as cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, etc. These will then drive demand down and prices will drop again.

OPEC can then go through the cycle again, and the next batch of products to use petroleum will have an urge to find alternatives. Keep this cycle going, and you will see the uses for oil diminish.

I just read an article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=509&ncid=753&e=1&u=/ap/20040413/ap_on_bi_ge/farm_scene) about making petroleum from pig*****.

Hmm... could that be why Muslims aren't forbidden from eating pigs? Eating pork and pork products would lead to pig farming (raising). Pig farming would lead to pig farming industry. Pig farming industry would lead to pig ***** to petroleum conversion. PIGS ARE THEIR COMPETITITON!!! :eek: :eek: :D

[SlyHunter]

He didn't say "sitting there or floating," he said "sitting there ... or attached there."

Which was what you appeared to be talking about in your original statement:



You appear to be thoroughly confused, have thoroughly confused everyone else, or both.
ok original question how is it that people say the seas will rise if global warming melts the ice if ice displaces more of the sea water than it would once its melted? Because ice is made up of air and water.

I did some research and became better informed because the question was asked and I wasn't sure of the answer.

The answer is if the ice that melts is on dry land it would raise the oceans.

Also if that ice were to reach the depths of the ocean so that part of it stood above the ocean but its wt rested on the sea bed then the ocean would also rise due to that ice block melting. ie in this case the ice in the water is already participating in the displacement of the water but the part of the ice above since its not in the water its mass is not participating in the displacement of the water and since the ice reaches the sea floor its wt is supported by solid matter and thus is also not displacing any water and therefore the part that is above the water would raise the water when it melts.

However ice that floating in water where none of its wt is being supported by a solid then the entire mass displaces the same amount of water (or less) than it would once it was melted and the water level would go down.

If all the ice melted I don't know which way the seas would go?

[Frohickey]

(on NPR the other day, they revealed the gas mileage of the model T -- it was either 21 or 28 mpg, i forget which. how sad that we haven't been able to improve much on that)

But that doesn't answer anything. How much did the Model T weigh? How much cargo can it hold while still maintaining 21-28MPG? How fast can it go while still maintaining 21-28MPG?

[Frohickey]

Today the price of a barrel of oil is $38 -- a huge increase in price. But the equivalent would be a $20 barrel -- a very low price indeed! (By the way, until the dollar's collapse, OPEC liked to keep oil in the $22 to $28 range.)

So who is making money with a low dollar and high oil prices? Refiners and oil importers. Even with the same margins, they can make more profit with higher oil prices.

If OPEC priced oil at $20 a barrel when the DOLLAR was exchanging for a particular amount... and OPEC is now pricing oil at $40 a barrel because the DOLLAR is exchanging for a lower amount, how is this any more profit or any price gouging?

If the exchange rate of the DOLLAR were to reverse course, the price of oil per barrel would reverse course, and the price of refined petroleum products would reverse course as well.

Domestic refineries get paid in DOLLARs, and pay for crude oil in DOLLARs, so they are not seeing any windfall profits.
Oil importers get paid in DOLLARs (by domestic refineries) and pay for crude oil in DOLLARs, so they are not seeing any windfall profits either.
Foreign refineries get paid in EUROs/YEN, exchanging it for DOLLARs before buying crude oil...

[Frohickey]

Our mayor is trying to raise taxes to buy a water company that's not for sale. But, she's so far unsuccessful. My taxes for state and local were the same, federals were lower.

Your mayor ought to be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. :mad:

I hate politicians who use eminent domain.

[Desertrat]

Count me as one who's dubious about the gas mileage of the Model T. For one thing, the compression had to be way low to use the 70-octane range of gasoline available. Next, the drag coefficient was just about that of a barn door...

Oil from shale was explored during the 1970s. The little granny lady in tenny-runners at USGS who cleans up place names for their topo maps created "Piezance" Creek in Colorado, where much of the exploration and testing occurred. At the time, the cost would have equated to $40/bbl of crude, or roughly five to eight times the then-current price.

Using palladium as a catalyst, BP and Shell are doing direct conversion of natural gas to gasoline, in Indonesia. (I guess the sales are local and to Australia.)

Gasoline can be produced from coal, but it's probably a $3/gallon plus tax sort of cost. However, we are said to have a 400-year supply of coal in the U.S.

'Rat

[SlyHunter]

Speaking of oil I was reminded of something today I had forgotten.
Wierd statistic.
We export over 50% of the oil we produce.
Now that sounds crazy considering the huge number (which escapes me at the moment) that we import. Until I found out why. Our oil refineries run at 100% and we produce more oil than we can refine. But we need more oil than we can refine so we have to export crude and import refined oil. Why we don't just build more refineries I don't know? Its not like we have to worry about environmentalists they can be built anywhere and we can take the oil to them. And this same report (pulling from memmory so sorry no links) stated that if we refined 100% of the oil we produced and used it first we would only need to import 10% of the oil we use.

[Frohickey]

The United States is the only major oil producing contry that still imports oil. We're the largest producer of crude oil in the world and 50% of all oil used in America is imported. Something is wrong with this economic model.

Edit: On the "we should be allowed to drill where there is oil, **** the animals" arguement. Would you say the same for Yellowstone? Yosemite? Why does the fact that this preserve is in the northern part of the world and isn't a pretty tourist attraction change things? The Alaskan reserve is estimated at 9 - environmentalist - and 61 - Oil companies - billion barrels. United States consumes 20 a day. At most we could supply ourself on this reserve alone for three days. Wouldn't reducing the 20 billion barrels a day consumed in the long run be more beneficial than sucking up every last ounce of the stuff?


GDP (2002 estimates) (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp)
US GDP is $10.45 trillion
China GDP is $5.989 trillion
Japan GDP is $3.651 trillion
India GDP is $2.664 trillion
Germany GDP is $2.16 trillion

Oil sumption (2001 estimates) (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_con)
US consumption is 19.7million barrels per day
Japan consumption is 5.4million barrels per day
China consumption is 4.9million barrels per day
Germany consumption is 2.71million barrels per day
Russia consumption is 2.38million barrels per day

Oil consumption per $GDP (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_con_gdp)
Iraq 7.93billion barrels per day per $1000 trillion
UAE 6.54billion barrels per day per $1000 trillion
Singapore 6.42billion barrels per day per $1000 trillion
Libya 5.45billion barrels per day per $1000 trillion
Saudi Arabia 5.05billion barrels per day per $1000 trillion
...
US 1.88billion barrels per day per $1000 trillion
...
Japan 1.47billion barrels per day per $1000 trillion
...
Germany 1.25billion barrels per day per $1000 trillion
...
China 0.81816billion barrels per day per $1000 trillion
...

We produce a lot with the oil that we use, as shown in the GDP numbers. If we were very inefficient with the oil that we use, we should be close to the top in oil consumption per $GDP. The US is #26! Thats pretty good with the amount of productivity that we put forth.

When you are #1 in the world in making egg omellets, you expect to be #1 in the world in egg consumption... and cheese, and ham, and onions, and cilantro, and chorizo, and spinach, and ...


Wherein the US Constitution did it allow the federal government to own and control large swatches of land? Where? The only thing I see is that is allowed for puchase and control is in Article I Section 8 Clause 17...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

The 10 square miles are already taken care off, I don't see any Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings in Yellowstone, Yosemite, etc.

[zimv20]

But that doesn't answer anything. How much did the Model T weigh? How much cargo can it hold while still maintaining 21-28MPG? How fast can it go while still maintaining 21-28MPG?
the thing that interests me is that it got that kind of mileage w/o them even trying. when we try today, we can make (european) 5-seaters that get 80mpg. VW has a 2-seater prototype that gets some 272 mpg. (both diesel, neither hybrid)

i'd like the US auto industry to try harder. i'd like the congress to force them.

[Frohickey]

Speaking of oil I was reminded of something today I had forgotten.
Wierd statistic.
We export over 50% of the oil we produce.
Now that sounds crazy considering the huge number (which escapes me at the moment) that we import. Until I found out why. Our oil refineries run at 100% and we produce more oil than we can refine. But we need more oil than we can refine so we have to export crude and import refined oil. Why we don't just build more refineries I don't know? Its not like we have to worry about environmentalists they can be built anywhere and we can take the oil to them. And this same report (pulling from memmory so sorry no links) stated that if we refined 100% of the oil we produced and used it first we would only need to import 10% of the oil we use.

I guess you have not seen the various red tape and rigamarole that refineries have to go through in order to operate, courtesy of environmentalists, and their political stooges in government, most of which do not have a degree in engineering, economics, or the sciences.

Mark my words, with the economy getting back up to speed, there will be rolling blackouts in California. No one learned their lesson. There are still people protesting the construction of power plants in California, and these are the relatively clean Natural Gas-burning power plants! :eek:

And, these are also the first ones to gripe about how expensive electricity has become!

I think that what should be done is people that protest or put red-tape in the path of power plant operation or construction should sign their name on a list. This list will be given to all of the power plant companies supplying power within the state, and these people will be charged more because of the obstacles they have placed.

[SlyHunter]

the thing that interests me is that it got that kind of mileage w/o them even trying. when we try today, we can make (european) 5-seaters that get 80mpg. VW has a 2-seater prototype that gets some 272 mpg. (both diesel, neither hybrid)

i'd like the US auto industry to try harder. i'd like the congress to force them.
Maybe the fact that they built it out of plywood had something to do with it? I heard back then vehicles were really flimsy and completly fell apart in a small minor fender bender.

[Frohickey]

the thing that interests me is that it got that kind of mileage w/o them even trying. when we try today, we can make (european) 5-seaters that get 80mpg. VW has a 2-seater prototype that gets some 272 mpg. (both diesel, neither hybrid)

i'd like the US auto industry to try harder. i'd like the congress to force them.

You need to get more of your paying buddies together to make the US auto industry try harder. These are industries that follow the elusive profit/dollar monster, and if you can guide them to where they can capture the profit monster, you can get them to do anything you want.

I don't want to see congress force anyone. The only thing congress can do is waste our money and ask the president to do something. The only thing the president can do is shoot people, or threaten to shoot people. Dead auto industry engineers and scientists don't work as good as live ones. Plus, they stink after a while. :p




I'm still trying to convince Apple that they should come up with bundled porn in their iBooks. But somehow, I can't convince enough of my buddies that its a good idea. If enough paying people think its a good idea, you can bet el Stevo will announce iPorn '04 at the next MacWorld Expo.

[Frohickey]

Count me as one who's dubious about the gas mileage of the Model T. For one thing, the compression had to be way low to use the 70-octane range of gasoline available. Next, the drag coefficient was just about that of a barn door...

'Rat

'Rat... where have ya been?

You left me minding the store while you took a siesta. Lucky for me SlyHunter came along. Been having fun tag-teaming the natives. ;) :D :p

[zimv20]

Been having fun tag-teaming the natives.
eww

[IJ Reilly]

Count me as one who's dubious about the gas mileage of the Model T. For one thing, the compression had to be way low to use the 70-octane range of gasoline available. Next, the drag coefficient was just about that of a barn door...

I don't doubt these figures, but keep in mind the Ts were good for only about 30 mph from a massive 20 hp power plant. I think it was the Sierra Club who brought up the gas mileage of the T vs. the current Ford fleet on the occasion of Ford's centennial last year. It may not be an entirely fair comparison, but it's still pretty startling to know how little progress has been made. It's even more startling when you consider the extent fuel economy has been backsliding over the last 20 years.

[takao]

Maybe the fact that they built it out of plywood had something to do with it? I heard back then vehicles were really flimsy and completly fell apart in a small minor fender bender.

actually VW Lupo ,Audi A2, and one Opel/Vauxhall get 80mpg and those cars look normal and drive just like other city cars, not very fast but thats not the point of this cars
all of them have a lot of magnesium,aluminium,and carbon fibre parts and aren't falling apart

the 275 mpg car of course was just a prototype

the first light wight streetcar - prototype which hit 80 mpg was a renault in 1986

[Desertrat]

Seems to me the fallacy is comparing a Model T to an SUV. And, many SUVs get better than 20 on the highway; the Ford Escort V6 is one. But the modern equivalent to a Model T is something like the low-end Kia, at, what, 35 or 40mpg? Which can keep up with other traffic? Which can enter a freeway without begging for permission?

Folks focus on mpg without regard for the safety aspect of "excess" horsepower needed for acceleration to safe speeds. The most danger I've found on an Interstate is a "safe" driver running at 45 or 50 mph.

One of the earlier "car hater" comments reminded me of back in the Hippie era, when some sincere soul advocated going back to farming with horses and mules. He couldn't understand why that would halve the amount of available arable land, nor why the output per acre would be less...

It's all well and good to worry about mpg, but trying to change things by legislative fiat would create more problems than ever. This is one area where I have faith in the marketplace. After all, it worked well in the 1970s. Even without the mandated CAFE, our Big Three changed from gas hogs to far more fuel efficient cars. We went from an average of 11mpg to near 20mpg without any legislation at all.

Frohickey, my Terlingua computer's hard drive shot craps. The result was that I got a lot more real-world work done. :) I'm back in Jawgia for a bit, which is why I'm back online and am current on I-10 gas prices.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Whether it's an entirely fair comparison or not, the point is we haven't made very much progress in terms of fuel efficiency over the last 90 years, and most of the progress we have made has been erased over the last 20 years. Terrible things can come from market forces. If it turns out that we could have anticipated worldwide energy shortages, and made no move to cushion ourselves from them, then the resulting negative impacts on our economy will be our own fault, just as it was in the '70s.

[Desertrat]

IJ, I'd say there's a bunch of improvement from the standpoint of fuel efficiency. Many cars on the street get more than double the T's gas mileage at more than twice the top speed of the T.

You gotta remember that "affordability" has always been part of the deal. That is, when you could drive around for around three cents per mile or less* for gas and oil, you could afford to drive pretty much where and when you wanted. As the price per mile rose, so then did the mpg. (And down went the value of an Olds Toronado.) Sure, there was a time lag, but that's the norm.

We've had high-mpg stuff around for quite a while. The VW diesel Rabbit got 50 to 60 mpg. The Honda Civic CRV is another 50 mpg critter that's been around, and was a tough competitor in SCCA sedan racing.

I imagine that the resale value of a lot of sub-25 mpg vehicles will decline as crude goes on toward $50 a barrel. I imagine a lot of commuters will move into the high-mpg critters at a pace reminiscent of the 1970s.

'Rat

* I took a '67 Camaro and put a 427 in it. 18 mpg at 70 mph. (No overdrive transmission in 1968, dangit, so my top speed was limited to the valve float at 150 mph.) Gas was around 24.9 at my usual fillemup. As gas prices rose, I moved to a sorta-warmed-up Lotus Elan, which upset the local Corvette world--but, hey, 30 mpg on the highway!

[IJ Reilly]

Well that's true, but what shocks me is the backsliding of average fuel economy over the past 20 years. No reason that needed to happen, IMO. Remember when we were talking about stagflation a few weeks back? This is what really concerns me. The '70s was a truly painful decade economically, and it was in large part, if not entirely, due to the oil shocks. Why we were so surprised by OPEC's ability to jerk us around and flatten our economy is a mystery to me. It was all in the cards. There's every reason to believe it could happen again. If there's a way to avoid a repeat of this kind of extended economic calamity, then I really think we ought to try.

[Frohickey]

I don't doubt these figures, but keep in mind the Ts were good for only about 30 mph from a massive 20 hp power plant. I think it was the Sierra Club who brought up the gas mileage of the T vs. the current Ford fleet on the occasion of Ford's centennial last year. It may not be an entirely fair comparison, but it's still pretty startling to know how little progress has been made. It's even more startling when you consider the extent fuel economy has been backsliding over the last 20 years.

How little progress??? The comparison is definitely unfair. It only compares mileage, not the total performance of the vehicle. Add cargo capacity, mileage, acceleration, speed, range, and new vehicles are much more improved compared to the Model Ts.

This simplistic comparison of mileage of the early vehicle to today's vehicle is genius on the part of the Sierra Club. They expect their simplistic comparison would be accepted by the 'average voter that is environmentally conscious'. If I were an average environmentally conscious voter, I would be incensed at the Sierra Club's belief that my intellectual and analytical abilities wouldn't be able to see past through their flawed comparison. :mad:

I think this just illustrates the Sierra Club's attitude that they are the intellectual elites, and the rest of us are unsophisticated dunderheads that should acquiese to them. Not a good sentiment to put forth if you want to attract people to your cause.

[Ugg]

How little progress??? The comparison is definitely unfair. It only compares mileage, not the total performance of the vehicle. Add cargo capacity, mileage, acceleration, speed, range, and new vehicles are much more improved compared to the Model Ts.

This simplistic comparison of mileage of the early vehicle to today's vehicle is genius on the part of the Sierra Club. They expect their simplistic comparison would be accepted by the 'average voter that is environmentally conscious'. If I were an average environmentally conscious voter, I would be incensed at the Sierra Club's belief that my intellectual and analytical abilities wouldn't be able to see past through their flawed comparison. :mad:

I think this just illustrates the Sierra Club's attitude that they are the intellectual elites, and the rest of us are unsophisticated dunderheads that should acquiese to them. Not a good sentiment to put forth if you want to attract people to your cause.

I am incensed that they would take me to be so unintelligent. Where are the figures including how much energy is required to build a car today compared to the miniscule amounts used in HF's day. Any intelligent person can tell that a Model T is not the Explorer today. What any intelligent person should also be able to figure out that over the lifetime of the vehicle, a car produced today that gets the same mileage as a Model T will have a much greater fuel usage due to increased fuel consumption during the manufacturing process. So not only has Detroit failed to substantially increase MPG they have indeed gone backwards.

Anybody who takes the SC to task should do so based on my arguments not on yours. Any fool who can't tell that vehicles have improved since the day of the Model T probably shouldn't be allowed to drive. Anyone who thinks that mileage is the sole factor in energy usage is also a fool.

[Frohickey]

There is no reason to have fuel efficiency be mandated by law. It will happen on its own time when fuel costs rise. Yes, there could potentially be a lag to when high mileage vehicles are available when the fuel costs rise dramatically, but that sounds like a market opportunity for car manufacturers who had the foresight to invest and develop high mileage vehicle technology.

The semiconductor industry started out using bipolar transistor technology. In this industry, performance is the key attribute/commodity that is desired by the consumer. When the performance of computer chips using bipolar technology started to stagnate because of power consumption, the enterprising small companies or even large companies that had the foresight to invest in CMOS technology succeeded. There was no legislation required that mandated companies invest in CMOS technology while we were in the midst of the bipolar era.

The market can take care of its own. You don't need the heavy hand of government to do it for you. The times that people say the market doesn't work are few and usually false, since there was a market distortion in effect, and this is usually legislatively mandated... guess what... by government. :eek:

[Frohickey]

I am incensed that they would take me to be so unintelligent. Where are the figures including how much energy is required to build a car today compared to the miniscule amounts used in HF's day. Any intelligent person can tell that a Model T is not the Explorer today. What any intelligent person should also be able to figure out that over the lifetime of the vehicle, a car produced today that gets the same mileage as a Model T will have a much greater fuel usage due to increased fuel consumption during the manufacturing process. So not only has Detroit failed to substantially increase MPG they have indeed gone backwards.

Anybody who takes the SC to task should do so based on my arguments not on yours. Any fool who can't tell that vehicles have improved since the day of the Model T probably shouldn't be allowed to drive. Anyone who thinks that mileage is the sole factor in energy usage is also a fool.

Maybe we should not only tack on the energy usage in the manufacture of the raw products such as steel, aluminum etc.
How about we tack on the energy usage of the robotic assembly tools?
How about we tack on the energy usage of the computers that were used to design the robotic assembly tools?
How about we tack on the energy usage of the tools used to create the computers that were used to design the robotic assembly tools?
How far do we go?
Maybe we should go all the way back to the energy used to create the Model T that was used to transport the woman pregnant with the child that would go on to create the tools to create the computers (to the hospital).

If the Sierra Club were to change their focus and engage their intellectual resources into making a better more fuel-efficient vehicle that lives up to their wishes, the whole world would be better off, and so would the Sierra Club members. Why are they not doing so?

If you think you can do a better job, do it. All I see is talk coming from the Sierra Club in this matter.

[Desertrat]

Ugg, I have no way to verify my opinion, but I'd bet that for a given weight of car, it takes less energy in today's world to build it than it did back in the days of the T. I do know that the energy needed for a ton of steel is about one-third of pre-WW II. And, many of the parts last much longer, now, so the energy in making replacements is less. Also figure that making the plastic parts needs less energy than steel.

In the 1940s/1950s, we figured some 40,000 miles to a valve job, and around 70,000 to a major overhaul. By the 1970s it was said by the Austin, Texas, Mazda dealership mechanics, "If a GLC needs more than a valve job at 100,000 miles, it's been abused."

Lotsa stuff goes into the energy cost of transportation...

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Maybe the fact that they built it out of plywood had something to do with it? I heard back then vehicles were really flimsy and completly fell apart in a small minor fender bender.

You heard, eh? The Model T ran on a steel frame.

My car, which makes 150 ft-lbs of torque at 1900 RPM, will go 115 mph easily and weighs in with 3000lbs of steel, has six airbags

and gets 50 mpg.

[zimv20]

Ugg, I have no way to verify my opinion, but I'd bet that for a given weight of car, it takes less energy in today's world to build it than it did back in the days of the T. I do know that the energy needed for a ton of steel is about one-third of pre-WW II. And, many of the parts last much longer, now, so the energy in making replacements is less. Also figure that making the plastic parts needs less energy than steel.

In the 1940s/1950s, we figured some 40,000 miles to a valve job, and around 70,000 to a major overhaul. By the 1970s it was said by the Austin, Texas, Mazda dealership mechanics, "If a GLC needs more than a valve job at 100,000 miles, it's been abused."

actually, you're making my point for me. w/ all the technological advances made in the past 50 years, i'd expect mileage to be higher.

but why is it not, really? imo, engineering. to me, engineering is about the balance of often competing factors. so to start, we've got: price, performance, efficiency, safety, features, quality.

i see the american auto companies focusing mainly on price, performance, features and safety. the others are secondary.

the focus on safety is partly because of regulation, partly because of customer demand.

i agree w/ frohickey that the market of gas prices should take care efficiency. except that the price at the pump doesn't reflect the true price of what it takes to get a gallon gas. add in the military/security costs of protecting our "national intersests," and a price of $6/gallon would fix the mileage thing in a hurry. absent that -- i say legislate it.

[pseudobrit]

Actually, OPEC does not have a big stranglehold as you may think. If they set oil prices too high for a long enough period of time, industries will find other alternatives for oil. Not saying that we will suddenly change to non-petroleum for cars and such, but other uses of petroleum such as cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, etc. These will then drive demand down and prices will drop again.

I'm glad you brought this up, because there's a catch in this market equation. You were good to metion the relationship between pricing and demand, but completely forgot about the supply.

OPEC doesn't make glass beads or sprockets that can be had for one price and can be cranked out as fast as the market demands, they pump oil from the ground, and it is a finite resource with variably expensive extraction costs.

If a particular well pumps oil that costs $30/bbl to extract, it shuts down before oil prices drop to $29.99/bbl. If it can pump it for $5, it's likely it would never shut down until it ran dry. We are quickly running dry wells that pump such "cheap oil."

That is a primary reason for rising prices of oil.

OPEC has an influence, but I see it as one of prematurely preparing the market for a time when oil will naturally (due to dry wells or market forces causing more expensive pumps to stay offline) only be extracted at OPEC's artificially lower rates.

OPEC can then go through the cycle again, and the next batch of products to use petroleum will have an urge to find alternatives. Keep this cycle going, and you will see the uses for oil diminish.

And this leads to my main point: Not only will "uses" (demand) diminish, but the supply will also. Going forward, it is the rate at which these two drop in relation to the other that will determine the price moreso than OPEC.

And here's one more thing I think you and I can agree on, Frohickey:

the government's heavy subsidation of the oil industry and the resulting artificially low prices have perverted the market for everything from automobiles to plastics. The government should wean the industry and the American market off the subsidies until prices reflect true market value.

[skunk]

it is a finite resource with variably expensive extraction costs.
And world oil production per capita has been in decline since 1979.

[Frohickey]

I'm glad you brought this up, because there's a catch in this market equation. You were good to metion the relationship between pricing and demand, but completely forgot about the supply.

OPEC doesn't make glass beads or sprockets that can be had for one price and can be cranked out as fast as the market demands, they pump oil from the ground, and it is a finite resource with variably expensive extraction costs.

And here's one more thing I think you and I can agree on, Frohickey:

the government's heavy subsidation of the oil industry and the resulting artificially low prices have perverted the market for everything from automobiles to plastics. The government should wean the industry and the American market off the subsidies until prices reflect true market value.

But you forget that the OPEC cuts in production is not one of supply. They have had past history of being able to sustain higher supply, so its not a lack of oil from the ground, but a contractual obligation of the cartel to limit supply. Its a market distortion.

I don't have a strong response to the OPEC cutting supply (which raises prices) (and encourages investigation in alternatives).

About the government subsidy of the oil industry, I assume that you mean the government leasing of public land for mineral extraction. Where is it written that government should own land exceeding 10 square miles, aside from seat of government, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and needful buildings? These lands should be in private hands, incurring property taxes for education. :eek: :p

[pseudobrit]

But you forget that the OPEC cuts in production is not one of supply. They have had past history of being able to sustain higher supply, so its not a lack of oil from the ground, but a contractual obligation of the cartel to limit supply. Its a market distortion.

But it's a market distortion that mirrors the eventual reality. At some point in the future, the supply will naturally be at the level that OPEC holds it artificially today. And after that, it will be even lower. In some ways, OPEC is doing us a favor by preparing the market for the coming lean years.

About the government subsidy of the oil industry, I assume that you mean the government leasing of public land for mineral extraction.

It's much more than that. Do a search for the real price of a gallon of gas.

[Frohickey]

And world oil production per capita has been in decline since 1979.

Not bad. World population has been growing, likely, its growing faster than oil production. That still means that there is increasing efficiency as well.

[Desertrat]

zim, the problem with "actually, you're making my point for me. w/ all the technological advances made in the past 50 years, i'd expect mileage to be higher." is that of cost. Yeah, you could use harder cast iron in the block and use chrome rings, but that ain't cheap. You can use stainless steel valves and hardened seats, but, again, they ain't cheap. We're back to affordability. Not everybody can afford a Mercedes.

I've rebuilt VWs, Chevys, English Fords, Porsches, BMWs, Toyotas and one Honda Civic; both street motors and race motors. From a normal-wear standpoint, I rate the BMW and Toyota over the others. I'd call Toyota the best, at least their 22R motor (I'm at over 280,000 miles on the original, unturned, crankshaft in my Toy 4WD PU). For parts costs and ease of work, I rate the Chevy the best. Generalizing, English and French stuff sucks.

Back in the 1970s, Ford started "reverse engineering" their cars. They'd survey the market for publicly-desired features and a sales cost in that sector of the market, and tell the engineers to build a car to meet those parameters. It was their way of coping with the competition, but it ain't the way to build a good car.

In the 1970s, an article in the Austin, Texas, "American-Statesman" stated that the cost of oil IN THE SHIP to the Saudis was $0.17 per barrel (Gravity flow all the way, from artesian wells whose output was at or over 20,000 bbl/day each). A more recent comment has their cost somewhere around $3, IIRC.

'Rat

[Sayhey]

Does this sum up Bush's economics?

[Desertrat]

Sayhey, while it's a portrayal of what's happening at the moment, it has zilch to do with any of Bush' policies...

Well, lemme recant a bit: The weaker dollar is caused, in part, by our very low federal discount rate. This causes two things: More exports from us with a reduction in our balance of payments deficit; and, higher prices on what we buy from other countries.

Bush could probably get Greenspan to raise the discount rate. This would of course wind up in reducing the price of oil and thus gasoline. It would also get more foreign investment into our Treasury notes and bonds, as well as into our stock market. This would lead to more consumption by the sellers of those fiscal items.

It would also kill the housing market, which has been a major source of disposable incomes for builders and suppliers and the realtor/mortgage folks. Those with VRMs would pay an extra $100 to $200 a month. It would also pretty much stop any corporate borrowing--already at a historical low, even at today's low interest rates--and thus stop corporate investment in new equipment for new hires.

I've commented before that about the only tool the government has in fighting any serious economic slump is reducing interest rates. That tool was already used long before Bush took office. Greenspan/Clinton left him a single-shot rifle with one empty cartridge.

'Rat

[Sayhey]

'Rat,

I thought it kind of encapsulated Bush's approach. Give the average guy a small income tax cut and let energy prices soar beyond belief. Did I miss something or isn't that exactly what has happened? Like most editorial cartoons I didn't expect nuance of economic theory.

[Desertrat]

The juxtaposition, and your comments, would have it that Bush is somehow tied to the rise in the price of gasoline. One could just as easily say, "Well, at least my tax cut lets you buy some gasoline."

Apropos of nothing at all, I noticed many more semis on I-10 this last week between west Texas and Tallahassee during daylight hours than on prior trips. The night time numbers appeared about the same. (A lot of truckers run at night, when there are fewer four-wheelers out there.)

I've been reading that the increased cost of diesel is really hurting independent truckers. I haven't kept current about increases in freight rates. I guess the easiest info-source might be UPS, which has a specific "fuel adjustment charge" in their billings.

'Rat

[Sayhey]

The juxtaposition, and your comments, would have it that Bush is somehow tied to the rise in the price of gasoline. One could just as easily say, "Well, at least my tax cut lets you buy some gasoline."
'Rat

Besides just being funny, I do think the cartoon is a comment on the government doing something that is only a token for the little guy and doing nothing about issues that greatly effect the average citizen. Do I think Bush made a decision that Gas prices should rise? No, but he and his administration made a conscious decision to do nothing about it. I could go into statements by those in his administration, Cheney for example, who think high gas prices are a very good thing, but the bottom line is that when it comes to energy policy the only policy Bush has is to let oil and gas companies do what ever they want.

As to freight prices, sorry, I can't help you. It's been too long since I've worked in trucking to help.

[IJ Reilly]

The weaker dollar is caused, in part, by our very low federal discount rate.

Only in very small part. The dollar was strong a year ago, when real interest rates were even lower. The major change in this mix is the out of control federal deficit.

[SlyHunter]

The juxtaposition, and your comments, would have it that Bush is somehow tied to the rise in the price of gasoline. One could just as easily say, "Well, at least my tax cut lets you buy some gasoline."

Apropos of nothing at all, I noticed many more semis on I-10 this last week between west Texas and Tallahassee during daylight hours than on prior trips. The night time numbers appeared about the same. (A lot of truckers run at night, when there are fewer four-wheelers out there.)

I've been reading that the increased cost of diesel is really hurting independent truckers. I haven't kept current about increases in freight rates. I guess the easiest info-source might be UPS, which has a specific "fuel adjustment charge" in their billings.

'Rat
I drive for a living over 100,000 miles per year.
I spend about 15 - 20 bucks a day on gas.
The economy is so great right now I had no problem getting the banks I service to pay me more to compensate for the increase in gas prices.

Trucking companies I hear are also making money like crazy so can pay independant truckers more. They have been trying to get the truckers at odds with each other, cutting each others rates and so forth to get the load but there are more loads than there are truckers so it hasn't worked out so great.

[zimv20]

The economy is so great right now I had no problem getting the banks I service to pay me more to compensate for the increase in gas prices.

nice illustration of what i call the Sample Size Problem

did it occur to you that the increase was due to good service you provide them? turnover is expensive.

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter

The economy is so great right now I had no problem getting the banks I service to pay me more to compensate for the increase in gas prices.


nice illustration of what i call the Sample Size Problem

did it occur to you that the increase was due to good service you provide them? turnover is expensive.
I wish that was true but to the people in the data center in Jacksonville who don't even know my name I am just another vendor who services a few of their banks. They increase the pay of all vendors to compensate for the gas calling it a Fuel Service Charge. Either I do my job right and on time or I don't do my job. There is no doing it better or worse than the next guy. Just right and wrong with no gray areas so there is no performance beyond the call or duty or anything like that. In fact we even get penalized if were early much less late.

[zimv20]

I wish that was true but to the people in the data center in Jacksonville who don't even know my name I am just another vendor who services a few of their banks. They increase the pay of all vendors to compensate for the gas calling it a Fuel Service Charge. Either I do my job right and on time or I don't do my job. There is no doing it better or worse than the next guy. Just right and wrong with no gray areas so there is no performance beyond the call or duty or anything like that. In fact we even get penalized if were early much less late.
thank you for completely missing my point.

given all the complexities of factors that determine employability, there is no way you can assert that your compensation adjustment is due to a better economy. your sample size is way too ****ing small. any causality is massively overshadowed by a great number of other factors. you may as well say it's due to the illinois state law requiring vehicles to have front license plates.

[Desertrat]

Sorry, IJ, but on the rise/fall of the dollar I disagree with you. As example, the last couple of days have seen the dollar strengthen a tad just on the expectation that Greenspan will have to raise rates because of the beginning of an inflationary cycle.

The federal deficit is a factor. The balance of payments deficit is a factor. But interest rates have to do with profit, which controls the movements of currencies. Right now, people like Soros are borrowing from us and from Japan and putting that money into Australian instruments. They are making some 3% interest, net, while they sleep. (Oversimplified example, of course, but that's been the "Japanese Game" for over ten years.) In essence, they're just "parking" cash in the expectation of a capital gain, and making a profit on the interest while doing so. (The Aussie $ has gained some 20% against the USD, this year, and their discount rate is around 4%.)

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

I don't understand your objections to my point. Interest rates were in fact lower a year ago then they are now, and the dollar was stronger. Much stronger. The only major change in the economy since then is the growth in the federal deficit. The other change in the economy is higher GDP growth, which would normally strengthen the dollar. I don't know, I guess I'm going to have to dig up an article by an economic explaining how uncontrolled deficit spending is seen abroad as an increased exposure to risk, and reduces the willingness of foreign capitalists to participate in the US economy.

[Desertrat]

IJ, maybe we're talking two different types of interest? I'm referring to the federal discount rate, the rate at which member banks borrow money. Roughly one percent, last time I looked. That's the rate that the big investors watch so carefully, every time Greenspan begins to mumble and obfuscate.

Edit: Yeah, 1.0%. Check out the Bloomberg site's rates info @ http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe so. The prime rate doesn't matter much to most people. Real interest rates, such as mortgages, are dependent on the market for credit. The Fed really doesn't have that much influence over these rates.

[ethernet76]

This is a little off topic, but the sea level won't rise is the poles melt. Don't believe me, try this.

Fill a glass up past the brim with ice. Make sure it's sticking out above the rim. Fill the glass ALL the way up with water. Let the glass sit until the ice melts. Notice that not a single drop of water spilled. Ice is less dense than water, thus, if the ice (which is mostly under water) melts, then the sea level will drop, not rise.

Actually, there's about a 2 mile layer of ice on Anartica that is located on land. You honestly think Antartica is big block of ice no land? There is osme land under there.

Go back to your junior high science and read the book.

[ethernet76]

And world oil production per capita has been in decline since 1979.

Are we talking per capita as in people who would consume gas or per capita in general. I think it'd be stupid to include those in countries such as india and china where the average person does not use gas on the same scale as those in the US or Europe.

[Desertrat]

ethernet76, I suggest you do a bit of study on China and its economy. One of the reasons for the ongoing increases in oil prices is the increasing demand for oil by China.

China's GDP growth of some 6+% per year is contributing to their high rate of demand for imported oil. (It's also causing inflationary pressures.) Just yesterday I ran across a chart showing China's GDP to be greater than that of Japan. (Was that in another thread, here? I'm losing track. :) )

For that matter, India's economy is growing (outsourcing, remember?) and their demand for oil is growing, as well.

In the FWIW department, in the middle-1970s, there was an oil tanker every eight miles, from the Persian Gulf to Japan. Now, add in an ever-growing number going to China.

'Rat

[skunk]

Are we talking per capita as in people who would consume gas or per capita in general. I think it'd be stupid to include those in countries such as india and china where the average person does not use gas on the same scale as those in the US or Europe.
So the oil is just for us, is it? Keep the third world in its place.

[numediaman]

So the oil is just for us, is it? Keep the third world in its place.

What do you mean "us"? Do you really think Bush really cares about the U.K.?

I think the next domino in the war against terrorism will be the invasion of Scotland in order to have access to those North Sea oil fields. I will support this war if it means we control St. Andrews and Carnoustie. ;)

[Desertrat]

skunk, I don't think he meant it that way. I took it that he's concerned about the bbl/per capita for the primary consumption-countries. I further think he's unaware of the numbers of vehicles in the less-developed nations...

'Rat

[skunk]

What do you mean "us"? Do you really think Bush really cares about the U.K.?
Of course not. But we've got Libya.

I think the next domino in the war against terrorism will be the invasion of Scotland in order to have access to those North Sea oil fields. I will support this war if it means we control St. Andrews and Carnoustie. ;)
North Sea Oil is running out. Didn't your fabled Intelligence tell you that? Or were you listening to Ahmed Chalabi again? :D

[skunk]

skunk, I don't think he meant it that way. I took it that he's concerned about the bbl/per capita for the primary consumption-countries. I further think he's unaware of the numbers of vehicles in the less-developed nations...

'Rat
Yes, I think you're right. On both counts. Silly me! ;)

[Desertrat]

Aw, numediaman, why Scotland? I imagine the Bush war-gamers have it all drawn up to invade California. There's all the offshore stuff that's in abeyance from drilling...Given California's existing laws, there wouldn't be as much armed resistance as in Iraq at present. California's gun owners would probably be Bush' Fifth Column.

Then, without Cali's contribution to national politics and media, there'd be little opposition to drilling in northern Alaska. War reparations would include diversion of the present natural gas importations from Canada, to other parts of the U.S.

Lessee, what else? I guess that imposing gas rationing of maybe two gallons per day per vehicle would free up supplies for the rest of the country. Closing federal social support offices would reduce the budget deficit...

(Just thought I'd throw my frivolous notions into this.)

:), 'Rat

[mactastic]

You need to stop drinking the Kool-aid. The leftist mantra is that GWBush has a lot of clout in the oil industry, but as you can see, they can't even convince OPEC to maintain a set price for oil.

Oh yeah? (http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/19/news/international/election_saudi/index.htm?cnn=yes)

You're the one on the kool-aid.

[Frohickey]

Oh yeah? (http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/19/news/international/election_saudi/index.htm?cnn=yes)

You're the one on the kool-aid.

You don't see it as reality right now do you? Seems that you are taking a double-dose of kool-aid. :eek:

[mactastic]

You don't see it as reality right now do you? Seems that you are taking a double-dose of kool-aid. :eek:

What don't I see as reality? That Dubya has an agreement to keep oil prices down basically contingent on his re-selection?

[Frohickey]

What don't I see as reality? That Dubya has an agreement to keep oil prices down basically contingent on his re-selection?

Based on hearsay.

[skunk]

Based on hearsay.
Oooh, that's rich

[numediaman]

Today's WH press briefing, care of Talking Points Memo:

QUESTION: Can you describe conversations between the White House and Prince Bandar about his essential promise to lower oil prices before the election?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you heard from Prince Bandar a few weeks ago about --


QUESTION: He didn’t talk specifically about the election.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- the most recent conversation that we had with him regarding oil prices. And he expressed his views out at the stakeout to you all that Saudi Arabia is committed to making sure prices remained in a range, I believe it’s $22 to $28 price per barrel of oil, and that they don’t want to do anything that would harm our consumers or harm our economy. So he made those comments at the stakeout and we’ve made our views very clear that prices should be determined by market forces, and that we are always in close contact with producers around the world on these issues to make sure that actions aren’t taken that harm our consumers or harm our economy.


QUESTION: There were no conversations specifically about the President’s reelection?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can ask Prince Bandar to --


QUESTION: But from the point -- I mean, conversations are obviously two ways.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- what his comments were. But the conversations we have are related to our long-held views that we have stated repeatedly publicly, that market forces should determine prices.


QUESTION: To follow up on that then, I would gather that the White House view is one of expectation that the Saudis would increase oil production between now and November.

MR. McCLELLAN: Our views are very well-known to Saudi Arabia. Prince Bandar made a commitment at the stakeout that I will let speak for itself. You all should look back to those remarks.


QUESTION: We’re missing the allegation here, which is that Prince Bandar and the Saudis have made a commitment to lower oil prices to help the President politically. Is that your --

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those comments to him. I can tell you that what our views are and what he said at the stakeout is what we know his views are, as well.


QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?


QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I’m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions --


QUESTION: Is there a deal?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- I wouldn’t speculate one way or the other. You can direct those questions to him, but I’m telling you --


QUESTION: I’m not asking you to speculate either. Do you have knowledge of such a commitment?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m telling you what our views are and what we've stated, and I'm telling you what I do know, which is that our position is very clear when it comes to oil prices and what our views are. And Prince Bandar spoke to you all just a few weeks ago out at the stakeout after meeting with some White House officials and expressed --


QUESTION: So you have no knowledge of such a commitment?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and expressed their view. I'm not going to try to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions to him.


QUESTION: The President is confident that the American elections are not being manipulated by the world's largest oil producer?

MR. McCLELLAN: Our view is that the markets should determine --


QUESTION: The market doesn't. It's a cartel.

MR. McCLELLAN: But our view is that that's what -- that the markets should determine prices. And that's the view we make very clear to producers around the world, including our friends in OPEC.

[SlyHunter]

I found this link on Drudge

Saudi Arabia says won't try to influence US election...
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004041914030002047120&dt=20040419140300&w=RTR&coview=
But I keep getting story not found.

[skunk]

I found this link on Drudge
You've obviously mistaken us for people who care.

[skunk]

Today's WH press briefing, care of Talking Points
Brilliant interview. Nice to see them squirm.

[Desertrat]

Stipulating there is some sort of "deal", the Saudis are gonna have to pump like crazy to knock $10/bbl off the price of oil--and that's just to get to the high end of the "deal".

Note that for the best part of ten years, our administrations and the Saudis have been in agreement about an oil price of some $25/bbl, +/- a tad is in the best interests of both consumers and producers. This was publicly stated by Clinton around mid-1995, if I have the year correctly remembered.

If you'll recall, Chavez of Venezuela was the first to beat the drum to get crude prices up; he needed the money very badly because of his economic policies and because he wanted to put hickeys on the U.S.

The increasing world demand--i.e., "the marketplace"--is driving the price of crude upwards. This naturally raises the cost of gasoline, particularly with our shortage of crude stocks and refined products going in to this last winter. Early, more heating oil was needed than expected, so refining to gasoline declined a bit. Then, the later mildness of late winter has led to more driving and thus greater demand during a time of the extra costs of the EPA mandated specific blends at extra costs. A bit of this, a bit of that, and Voila! Higher prices!

IOW, the notion of any deal where the Saudis help Bush is quite unrealistic. They can't. Even if they had some deal, it's about as useful as King George III's "right" to visit California. And people in the awl bidness ain't stoopid about demands and pricing. That's for sure their area of expertise.

'Rat

[SlyHunter]

Bob Woodward went on Larry King last night to set the record straight. "What I say in the book is that the Saudis hoped to keep oil prices low during the period before the election, because of its impact on the economy." Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan, also on the same program, said that characterization was accurate. He said he hoped that the oil prices would stay low because that benefits the U.S. economy as well as the international economy. He also said that every President since Carter asked him to keep the prices down.


http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

[SlyHunter]

When adjusted for inflation in 2004 dollars, the highest price for gasoline was $2.99 a gallon in March 1981, EIA said. European drivers face much higher gasoline costs than in the United States, with prices in some countries around $5 a gallon.


http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/64283|top|04-19-2004::18:05|reuters.html

For those who think gas is at the highest price ever.

[Neserk]

. European drivers face much higher gasoline costs than in the United States, with prices in some countries around $5 a gallon.

That is because the government in European Countries tax the heck out of gas... which I'm not entirely against provided I have reasonable modes of public transportation that exists in Europe and not the United States... comparing apples and oranges to compare the two...

[Desertrat]

Neserk, the total/total/total cost of my '85 Toyota is about $0.13 per mile for its 283,000 miles. The direct cost, right now, for reasonably-level Interstate travel is $0.08 cents per mile at today's gas prices.

What alternative mode of travel is suggested?

:), 'Rat

[zimv20]

What alternative mode of travel is suggested?

the big cost factor you're not taking into account -- because you don't live in the city -- is parking. those who drive to the chicago loop and park in a garage can expect to pay $20-26/day.

and of course the density makes public trans more economical than automobiles.

[Desertrat]

No argument, zim, but most folks get to suggesting "alternative modes" without mentioning such factors. Also, over half the country does NOT live in cities with that sort of cost problem.

What I've seen from proponents of high-tax gasoline is a certain lack of knowledge of rural needs, or the needs of those who live long distances from notable shopping opportunities.

Example: I'm 85 miles from a "real" grocery, lumber or hardware store. 150 miles from a Chevy dealer and 240 miles from a Toyota dealer. Some 70% of the population within 20 miles of me is below the poverty level, which leads to car-pooling and, "While you're there, would you get me some...?".

[Frohickey]

No argument, zim, but most folks get to suggesting "alternative modes" without mentioning such factors. Also, over half the country does NOT live in cities with that sort of cost problem.

What I've seen from proponents of high-tax gasoline is a certain lack of knowledge of rural needs, or the needs of those who live long distances from notable shopping opportunities.

Example: I'm 85 miles from a "real" grocery, lumber or hardware store. 150 miles from a Chevy dealer and 240 miles from a Toyota dealer. Some 70% of the population within 20 miles of me is below the poverty level, which leads to car-pooling and, "While you're there, would you get me some...?".

Maybe what is needed is higher taxes for urban users of gasoline, and lower taxes for rural users of gasoline.

[Neserk]

Neserk, the total/total/total cost of my '85 Toyota is about $0.13 per mile for its 283,000 miles. The direct cost, right now, for reasonably-level Interstate travel is $0.08 cents per mile at today's gas prices.

What alternative mode of travel is suggested?

:), 'Rat


:confused:

[zimv20]

i get what you're saying. i am a proponent of higher gas prices. my only great suggestion is higher mileage vehicles. if the price of gas doubles, but so does the mileage, to the consumer, it's a wash. but consumption has been halved, given constant miles driven.

obviously, this is an oversimplification. my target price is $5/gallon, though i'm not naive enough to suggest it hit that overnight. more like over, say, a 7 to 10 year period. if everyone knows it's coming, it's easier to adjust (manufacturers could design and make the vehicles, consumers can plan their purchases).

extra gas taxes could pay for public trans, R&D, and rebates for early adopters of the technology.

[Neserk]

No argument, zim, but most folks get to suggesting "alternative modes" without mentioning such factors. Also, over half the country does NOT live in cities with that sort of cost problem.


I've read and reread my post... no mention of "alternative modes."


What I've seen from proponents of high-tax gasoline is a certain lack of knowledge of rural needs, or the needs of those who live long distances from notable shopping opportunities.


You read too much into my statement. What I was saying was that *IF* we had public transportation *like* they do in Europe *then* I wouldn't be against taxing the heck out of gas. For better or for worse, our public transporation sucks (and personally I can't use it because it literally makes me sick) and with a country as large as the US it would be very hard to get. I can't even get to LA from just outside of LA County in a reasonable amount of time. Philly had better PT. I could go the same distance *almost* as fast on a train as I could in a car, assuming there were no major traffic delays. If there were the train was faster. Motion sickness was another issue.

[mactastic]

Neserk, the total/total/total cost of my '85 Toyota is about $0.13 per mile for its 283,000 miles. The direct cost, right now, for reasonably-level Interstate travel is $0.08 cents per mile at today's gas prices.

What alternative mode of travel is suggested?

:), 'Rat

'Rat, obviously you fall outside of the usefulness of mass transit. Mass transit systems only function in areas at or in excess of about 10DU/acre (Dwelling Units per Acre). Most urban areas fall into this catagory, but suburbia has been poorly designed for anything other than the automobile, and not terribly well for that even. Until cities are willing to look very seriously to the barriers to housing and the reasons housing gets built at low densities farther and farther out there will be continuing traffic congestion, city cores that decay and have to be peroidically rebuilt, the pollution associated with millions of cars idling on the freeway for some portion of their daily travel period, insufficient tax revenue to provide police and fire protection, and a host of other problems.

[takao]

hm for my traintravel which i have to take every few weeks home from my university i pay
11,80 € (including 10% tax) per 185 km (if i get 5 friedns together i can get a group ticket where verybody has to pay 7€)
thats perhaps 14 $ for 114 miles
0,14 cent per mile
of course i pay less than other train users (student) but it is still cheap (at least for me)

i would have to pay around 13+ € for gasoline for the same distance if i would drive a 34 MPG car ...but it would go up if there is bad weather because of snow (you know this is a track in the alps) and of course there is a car tax too ;) depending on the horsepower your car has ... but we get 1st class streets in exchange for that of course

for me as a student a car is too expensive.. to have a car as a student is a privilege..

[Desertrat]

Neserk, have you read of the problems with mass transit discovered after the Watts riots? The aerospace companies around LA sorta threw open their doors for a hiring effort for folks from Watts. They then discovered the average commute time was about two hours, each way.

A couple of things I've noticed in comparing mass transit in different cities: In those which are relatively long and narrow (SanFran and Manhattan, e.g.) it's fairly simple. In those which have hills and winding streets and are rather round in shape (Austin, Texas) it's awkward at best.

Another physical problem is that of peak use vs. off-peak. Large capacity buses are needed for some two hours in morning and evening. They're overly costly, off-peak, but many transit systems haven't gone to off-peak use of smaller, more fuel-efficient van-type vehicles. (I'm not sure of the numbers for the per-mile aspect of capital investment.)

Factors of psychological resistance to the whole deal of higher fuel cost and more mass transit are those of stopping off for some shopping on the way home, and the happy-hour crowd. Collectively, those groups probably have as many votes as the proponents of change.

'Rat

[blackfox]

.
A couple of things I've noticed in comparing mass transit in different cities: In those which are relatively long and narrow (SanFran and Manhattan, e.g.) it's fairly simple. In those which have hills and winding streets and are rather round in shape (Austin, Texas) it's awkward at best.

I understand you point Desertrat, but I am not sure that the long/narrow description is the best...I have lived in Austin and agree that it is awkward, although light-rail would have served the older central part of the city well...I now live in Portland,OR and it is also a round, rolling hill city and has excellent public transit...as does Chicago (another round city)...just playing devils advocate...

Another physical problem is that of peak use vs. off-peak. Large capacity buses are needed for some two hours in morning and evening. They're overly costly, off-peak, but many transit systems haven't gone to off-peak use of smaller, more fuel-efficient van-type vehicles. (I'm not sure of the numbers for the per-mile aspect of capital investment.)

This is an excellent point, I honestly have never considered it...thanks

Factors of psychological resistance to the whole deal of higher fuel cost and more mass transit are those of stopping off for some shopping on the way home, and the happy-hour crowd. Collectively, those groups probably have as many votes as the proponents of change.

True, but this varies city to city...Portlanders, for example have a highly developed transit system and those demographics you mentioned by and large use and enjoy transit for its' environmental friendliness, cost and convenience...so there is hope. In Texas it is a hard sell, as the vote for light rail in Austin a few years ago can attest to...in Houston...forget it.

On a side note, I have many fond memories of Terlingua coming and going from Big Bend...nice to see someone from there...

[IJ Reilly]

What I've seen from proponents of high-tax gasoline is a certain lack of knowledge of rural needs, or the needs of those who live long distances from notable shopping opportunities.

Obviously, the needs of rural America are different than urban America, but not quite so different as you might think. I live on the outskirts of Los Angeles, in an adjacent rural/urban county of roughly one million people. Yet nobody in this county has the ability to take a train to Los Angeles International Airport, about 70 miles away (we don't have a regional airport of our own). If you're willing to change three times, you can get to within a few miles of the airport, but you still can't get there. It's nuts. Of course nobody in Los Angeles County can get to the airport by train, either. Sporting or entertainment events? Same problem. Even if these trains stop near the venues (only one that I know about), they don't run after 10-11 PM. In short, a car is just about the only way to get to these important destinations. To anyone who's been exposed to the European system, the way we do mass transportation in the US is unthinkably dumb.

[SlyHunter]

To anyone who's been exposed to the European system, the way we do mass transportation in the US is unthinkably dumb.
Because of politics.

In Florida great idea light rail from the airport to I drive with possible link to Disney. Disney stated they would pay for a large part of it but only if it went from the airport straight to disney and none of it even financed thru other methods went to I drive (international drive where wet & wild, Universal studios, and most of our tourist hotels are at). Orlando demanded a light rail from downtown Orlando to I drive or they were going to be against it. Then there was some talk about running it down I-4 corridor from kissimee to Orlando completly bypassing the airport.

People don't use logic. Locals don't need light rail we wouldn't ride it anyhow. We don't ride the bus except for the ones who have no choice in the matter. The goal was to lighten the load on I-4 thus it would've been smart to do a circle from airport to i drive to disney and back to the airport again. Car rental companies were against it (tourist wouldn't need to rent cars), Orlando was against it (wouldn't bring any tourists to their town). Etc. And so we don't have light rail.

Everybodys selfish individual wants and or needs stopped something that could of been a good thing for everyone.

[Frohickey]

hm for my traintravel which i have to take every few weeks home from my university i pay
11,80 € (including 10% tax) per 185 km (if i get 5 friedns together i can get a group ticket where verybody has to pay 7€)
thats perhaps 14 $ for 114 miles
0,14 cent per mile
of course i pay less than other train users (student) but it is still cheap (at least for me)

i would have to pay around 13+ € for gasoline for the same distance if i would drive a 34 MPG car ...but it would go up if there is bad weather because of snow (you know this is a track in the alps) and of course there is a car tax too ;) depending on the horsepower your car has ... but we get 1st class streets in exchange for that of course

for me as a student a car is too expensive.. to have a car as a student is a privilege..

It all depends on what you want to spend your money on or not.
To some, they would rather take mass transit and ask for rides. For others, they want to have their own method of transportation. Its good to be able to choose. Choice is good.

[Frohickey]

Obviously, the needs of rural America are different than urban America, but not quite so different as you might think. I live on the outskirts of Los Angeles, in an adjacent rural/urban county of roughly one million people. Yet nobody in this county has the ability to take a train to Los Angeles International Airport, about 70 miles away (we don't have a regional airport of our own). If you're willing to change three times, you can get to within a few miles of the airport, but you still can't get there. It's nuts. Of course nobody in Los Angeles County can get to the airport by train, either. Sporting or entertainment events? Same problem. Even if these trains stop near the venues (only one that I know about), they don't run after 10-11 PM. In short, a car is just about the only way to get to these important destinations. To anyone who's been exposed to the European system, the way we do mass transportation in the US is unthinkably dumb.

Couldn't you get a few million of your friends and family to pony up $100 a piece? You could make a kick-@ss mass transit system. :p

[Frohickey]

Because of politics.

In Florida great idea light rail from the airport to I drive with possible link to Disney. Disney stated they would pay for a large part of it but only if it went from the airport straight to disney and none of it even financed thru other methods went to I drive (international drive where wet & wild, Universal studios, and most of our tourist hotels are at). Orlando demanded a light rail from downtown Orlando to I drive or they were going to be against it. Then there was some talk about running it down I-4 corridor from kissimee to Orlando completly bypassing the airport.

People don't use logic. Locals don't need light rail we wouldn't ride it anyhow. We don't ride the bus except for the ones who have no choice in the matter. The goal was to lighten the load on I-4 thus it would've been smart to do a circle from airport to i drive to disney and back to the airport again. Car rental companies were against it (tourist wouldn't need to rent cars), Orlando was against it (wouldn't bring any tourists to their town). Etc. And so we don't have light rail.

Everybodys selfish individual wants and or needs stopped something that could of been a good thing for everyone.

Could have been a good thing, certainly not enough to offset the bad things that everyone had in mind as to the effects of constructing the light rail. I don't see anything wrong with the way things turned out.

Maybe the way it was proposed was totally wrong. I'm sure that Disney would have been for it, as well as the car rental companies and Orlando as well, if the light rail system that was built is privately owned (jointly) and operated as a for-profit enterprise.

Mass transit, at least in the United States, have been turned into municipal services that at best, manage to barely operate out of the red.

[zimv20]

Mass transit, at least in the United States, have been turned into municipal services that at best, manage to barely operate out of the red.
which systems have you used and what did you think of them?

[Neserk]

which systems have you used and what did you think of them?


I know you weren't asking me, but...

Grand Rapids (Michigan) Bus system (got on the wrong bus and ended up completely lost) In retrospect that may be partially related to the motion sickness I experience on public transportation. Oh, I was about to graduate from high school at the time.

Philadelphia trains from the 'burbs into the city. I didn't like that part but the part from the stopping and starting to (gee its been a long time, can't remember what it was called) but the part that took you right to the airport was pretty cool. (college)

Amtrak from the Suburbs of Philly to NYC. That was awesome! of course I was on my way to Israel via JFK International so I was very exicted. (graduate school)

NYC subway: oye! I almost threw up from the motion sickness... (graduate school)

DC (can't remember the name) was pretty cool. Again, from the outskirts into the city. I "surfed" because it was SRO. I could actually balance myself w/o hanging on (which was all but impossible do to my height :rolleyes: ow! my arms!). (college)

Tried to use in Southern CA but it doesn't go to where I need to go (ie into the city w/o taking 2 hours or having 7 changes). (recently)

[Frohickey]

which systems have you used and what did you think of them?

Lets see... RTD over in the Los Angeles area... which turned into the MTA.
Muni over in the San Francisco area, BART in the Bay area.
CalTrain over in the Bay area as well

I thought that the short haul runs were not as attractive as the long haul runs. Only reason Muni is attractive is because San Francisco hasn't gotten around to paving San Francisco Bay to turn it into a giant parking lot.

The inflexibility and inconvenience of mass transit is its biggest Achilles heel. You end up wrapping your schedule around the mass transit schedule, and if that is not possible, you end up waiting and wasting your time. Plus, there is the occassional schedule-snafu.

The first company to make safe (>99.999% safe) Star Trek™ transporter technology will make a lot of money. :D [That is, until the military/covert surveillance agencies find out the extraordinary military applications of such a technology. :eek:]

[zimv20]

Lets see... RTD over in the Los Angeles area... which turned into the MTA.
Muni over in the San Francisco area, BART in the Bay area.
CalTrain over in the Bay area as well
haven't tried anything in LA (badly designed city). i thought the BART was great, Muni was good for the couple times i tried it.

despite its shortcomings, the chicago system does do a pretty decent job. nyc also has a nice system. london's tube is fantastic.

there are certain factors that make a city's pub trans indispensible. chicago/nyc/london are among those cities. though the systems may be dirty, late or noisy, what's the alternative? 1.5 million people ride chicago's CTA every day; can't imagine what it'd be like if even half of them decided to jump in cars.

[IJ Reilly]

The profitability arguments against public transit are of course total red herrings. Transportation systems lose money, period. None are even remotely profitable without subsidies of public funds. The airlines are a perfect example. Even before they became beneficiaries of direct, massive infusions of public dollars after 9-11, they operated in a highly subsidized environment. If you don't believe me, ask yourself when was the last time an airline built its own airport, or created its own air traffic control system. The trucking industry? Don't make me laugh -- when was the last time a trucking company built an interstate highway? And no, these highways are not paid for out of gas taxes. Most of the costs of building and maintaining the local and interstate roadways falls to general funds.

It's all a matter of priorities. Long ago, it was decided that roadway transportation networks were more worthy candidates for expenditures of public dollars than other transportation methods. That is why we have the current system in place, and that reason alone -- and not because roads pay for themselves and the alternative do not.

[Frohickey]

The profitability arguments against public transit are of course total red herrings. Transportation systems lose money, period.

...

People can walk then. At least this way, shoe manufacturers can earn a living providing a desired product and service.

[skunk]

...

People can walk then. At least this way, shoe manufacturers can earn a living providing a desired product and service.
Obviously not in cities designed around motor transport.

[mactastic]

...

People can walk then. At least this way, shoe manufacturers can earn a living providing a desired product and service.

Typical Frohickey solution. Toss the baby out with the bathwater.

[zimv20]

People can walk then.
actually, i walk quite a bit. nice thing about (many) cities -- most goods and services are w/in walking distance.

nearest:
bar/restaurant - 1 minute
drycleaners - 2 minutes
grocery - 4 minutes
yoga studio - 2 minutes
UPS store - 2 minutes
bus stop - 2 minutes
train - 10 minutes
live theater - 3 minutes
movie theater - 15 minutes
mailbox - 2 minutes
drug store - 4 minutes
hardware store - 10 minutes
bank - 6 minutes
big park - 8 minutes
library - 10 minutes

and i get to live on a quiet, tree-lined street

[mactastic]

actually, i walk quite a bit. nice thing about (many) cities -- most goods and services are w/in walking distance.

nearest:
bar/restaurant - 1 minute
drycleaners - 2 minutes
grocery - 4 minutes
yoga studio - 2 minutes
UPS store - 2 minutes
bus stop - 2 minutes
train - 10 minutes
live theater - 3 minutes
movie theater - 15 minutes
mailbox - 2 minutes
drug store - 4 minutes
hardware store - 10 minutes
bank - 6 minutes
big park - 8 minutes
library - 10 minutes

and i get to live on a quiet, tree-lined street

But can you walk to the beach? :D

[skunk]

But can you walk to the beach? :D
Does the bank of the Thames count? At low tide?
I'm also 5 minutes from 2,200 acres of Richmond Park, complete with 600 deer. Difficult choice. :D

[zimv20]

But can you walk to the beach? :D
could, yeah, it's about 2 miles. it's < 10 minutes to the bus that'll take me there :-)

[mactastic]

could, yeah, it's about 2 miles. it's < 10 minutes to the bus that'll take me there :-)

Sorry I said beach, I meant ocean. Technically even little girly-man lakes have beaches. ;)

[zimv20]

Sorry I said beach, I meant ocean. Technically even little girly-man lakes have beaches. ;)
based on your proposal, i've started a petition to change the name from "Great Lakes" to "Girly-Man Lakes"

i call a body of water "big" when i can't see the opposite shore. even if it's not very salty :-)

[IJ Reilly]

Typical Frohickey solution. Toss the baby out with the bathwater.

Or to divert the discussion.

[mactastic]

based on your proposal, i've started a petition to change the name from "Great Lakes" to "Girly-Man Lakes"

Ok, but it has to be pronounced with a terrible Austrian accent...

[IJ Reilly]

i call a body of water "big" when i can't see the opposite shore. even if it's not very salty :-)

So what do you call them at night? (I'm going to suggest "wet.")

[takao]

actually, i walk quite a bit. nice thing about (many) cities -- most goods and services are w/in walking distance.and i get to live on a quiet, tree-lined street

nearest:
bar/restaurant - 1 minute i can beat that with 3 bars within 30 seconds ;-)
drycleaners - 2 minutes - never needed that ;)
grocery - 4 minutes - you mean supermarket ? 2-3 minutes
yoga studio - 2 minutes - never needed that ;)
UPS store - 2 minutes - not available here
bus stop - 2 minutes - 30 seconds for the one 30 for a different line in the other direction,and another 4 lines in 2 minutes distance
train - 10 minutes - 10-15 minutes
live theater - 3 minutes - ahh got me there i wasn't in a theather for years
movie theater - 15 minutes - 5 minutes
mailbox - 2 minutes - you mean 'post office'(10 min) beneath or where you put your postcards etc in ? (1 minute)
drug store - 4 minutes - hm never needed one but i think 7 minutes (in the shopping mall)
hardware store - 10 minutes - there is one in the shopping mall for both computer and other hardware
bank - 6 minutes - 3 minutes 2 banks
big park - 8 minutes - 30 seconds
library - 10 minutes - hmmm i i have to look that up but does a museum (5minutes) with a rembrand count too ?

but i don't live in a tree lined street sadly enough.. but the police headquarters is across the street :rolleyes:

sorry couldn't resist but i really like my student-flat in innsbruck (150.000 people)

[zimv20]

library - 10 minutes - hmmm i i have to look that up but does a museum (5minutes) with a rembrand count too ?
absolutely. nice. my nearest rembrandt is about 45 minutes by train (including the walks).

i call a rembrandt 'big' when i can't see entire frame. wait -- what?

[skunk]

absolutely. nice. my nearest rembrandt is about 45 minutes by train (including the walks).

i call a rembrandt 'big' when i can't see entire frame. wait -- what?
Well I've got a Calder mobile in my sitting room :D

[IJ Reilly]

Well I've got a Calder mobile in my sitting room :D

I didn't know Calder made mobiles. Mine's a Motorola.

[skunk]

I didn't know Calder made mobiles. Mine's a Motorola.
:D

[ethernet76]

In your glass example the ice above the water is still sitting on the water thus displacing the water and thats why it does not rise. Most of the ice in the Artic is sitting on the bottom of the water or situated in a way in which its weight is not being supported by the water and therefore is not displacing the water but would be if it melted.


However here is a valid argument. Global warming creates melting ice which in turn gets evaporated by the heat back up into the air which comes down in rain which cools the planet back off and thus it is a natural cycle. plus these people keep overlooking the fact that after taking into account that the sun went up 1 degree in temperature (which man kind did not make happen) there is no global warming.

I stand very confused. Please explain to me how the scientists were able to get their temperature calculations to the nearest degree. I thought the sun was 10,000,000 degrees celcius. So 10,000,001 doesn't seem like it's going to make that much difference...

[skunk]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter

In your glass example the ice above the water is still sitting on the water thus displacing the water and thats why it does not rise. Most of the ice in the Artic is sitting on the bottom of the water or situated in a way in which its weight is not being supported by the water and therefore is not displacing the water but would be if it melted.
Which planet do you come from?