U.S. Eyeing Ways to Boost Gas Supplies

[Thanatoast]

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is considering removing environmental requirements for a multitude of gasoline blends as one way to increase supplies of gasoline and fight soaring prices, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans said in an interview with The Associated Press.

link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040526/ap_on_go_pr_wh/evans_interview_1)

The first thing about this article that caught my eye was the title. I'm not really surprised that the administration's first thought is to boost supply rather than to curb consumption, but it's still disappointing.

Promises for boosting supply have already been received by us from the Saudis. Prices have continued to rise anyway due to instability in the region and a downward sloping supply curve. I think that this should be clear to everyone: Gas prices will never be lower than they are today. Prices will only rise from this point on. There may be as much play as 25 cents in either direction, but I suspect the days of sub $2 a gallon gas are gone.

I find it short-sighted of the administration to push for loosening environmental standards (a favorite tactic) when the best way to lower prices across the spectrum is to reduce domestic demand. With China an up and coming economy, oil supplies which are already being pumped dry at near capacity will become more scarce, and more expensive.

If Bush were a good leader, he'd be looking for alternative ways of keeping the business of the nation moving. Investing in renewable technologies, rather than non-renewable resources which will soon reach their limit, is a much smarter plan, and will cause less trouble in the long (and short) run. The Bushies, who claim to be for free-market competition, certainly show no signs of wanting any competition for the oil and gas industries, which (gasp!) might actually lead to lower, more competitive prices, and in the long run a more efficient economy.

[zimv20]

i'm wondering, if gas averaged $3/gallon, how everyone here would change their transportation habits. more public transport? more walking/biking? buying a higher mileage vehicle (and what would that target mileage be)?

[dopefiend]

i'm wondering, if gas averaged $3/gallon, how everyone here would change their transportation habits. more public transport? more walking/biking? buying a higher mileage vehicle (and what would that target mileage be)?

It wouldn't change habits at all....

Its already pretty close to $3

[Backtothemac]

I have changed my ways. Sold my mini-van that got 12 to the gallon, and my Probe GT that got about 15. Now my wife is in an accord getting 25 in the city, and I am in a Golf getting 24. Both are over 30 on the highway. Once we are in our house we are going to buy two Prius's.

I have had it with gas prices, and people friggin wasting fuel.

One of the greatest quotes ever was "I believe in freedom, and individual rights. Up to the point that the individual starts to operate at the expense of society."

That is what the SUV has become. An expense on society.

[blackfox]

Well, I am not sure how the price of a barrel of oil converts into domestic gas prices here at the US pumps, but oil prices (per barrel) now at about $40, are about as much as they were briefly during the first gulf war invasion (Oct. 1990), and probably for the same reason, a disruption in normal supply channels. Currently, prices have jumped about 10% since an April 24th failed attack on an Iraqi offshore oil terminal, and the killing of oil workers in Saudi Arabia the following week. Various other attacks on oil infrastructure (mostly in Iraq) have also destabilized production, or at least threatened to. The possibilities of future attacks have added a "risk premium" of about $4 to $8 a barrel, according to traders. OPEC has been called upon to increase production, but mostly to calm the market and make more money with the inflated prices. It should also be noted that Americans spend a smaller % of their income on energy, with inflation taken into account, and gas prices remain lower than they were in the 1980's. It should be mentioned, however, that some wages have not kept pace with inflation, so gas may be proportionately more expensive to these individuals.

So, although I do not see gas prices being 77 cents a gallon again (remember late '98 and early '99), it is a volatile market, and if production fears can be allayed, we will see prices drop down considerably, perhaps back to $30 a barrel or less. It has been noted that the considerable demand of the US and of China, may keep oil prices at these levels ($30), but that translates into about 70-80 cents less per gallon, (if memory serves). There are also the developing suppliers/distributions around the Caspian, in countries ending with -istan, and Venezuela, which depending on politics will contribute to supplies in the short to mid-term...

I do agree that this is a prime time for the US to re-assess its' energy policy, but I do not see that happening with Bush and Co.
In fact, it is destined to be a rather painful and expensive transition away from oil dependency, as it requires a complete overhaul of our energy infrastructure and a retrofitting of most machinery (eg cars)...still, it happening is enevitable...

(Thanks to the NYT, for most of the info in my first paragraph)

[mactastic]

It wouldn't change habits at all....

Its already pretty close to $3

Where are you at?? I thought I was in pretty much the most expensive market, and I paid $2.41/gallon this morning. And as far as the $3/gallon goes, I think zim's speculating what would happen if the national average hit $3/gallon. Seeing as how the national average is just over $2 now, there's still a long way to go before it hits $3. And that would make my gas cost about $3.40/gallon or so.

[dopefiend]

People will still continue to buy trucks, sports cars, ect. even if gas prices average $3.

Seeing as how the national average is just over $2 now, there's still a long way to go before it hits $3

Cool site I found --> http://198.6.95.31/ Check out that graph! :eek: Thats a pretty insane slope. Makes it seem that it won't be long until $3 if trends continue.

[LethalWolfe]

Americans love our cars and our cheap gas. IMO the first Pres to take a hard stand *against* doing everything w/in reason to keep US gas prices low will be hated and not get relected (assuming it's a stance taken during the first term). I hear b*tching and whinning about the high gas prices left and right, but I hear relative few people going, "gee I think I need to get a car that gets better milage" or "Gee I guess I better change my driving habbits." It's more like, "Why isn't the government doing something about these super-hi gas prices?"

It's going to be long, hard, ugly road to change American, and Americans, in this regard.

Anyway, adjusted for inflation gas prices now are still much cheaper than they were during the energy crisis periods of the '70s.


Lethal

[Dont Hurt Me]

adjusted for inflation gas is cheap but cars have turned into SUVs and get half the mpg they did say 10 years ago. its time Govt used a little of that power to get the automakers back on track in building non gas guzzling machines. Reagon years and the Bush years is why we forgot all about energy. Bush has been horrible when it comes to oil and other sources of energy. why not close all those stupid loop holes for trucks, suvs and cars instead of the game they play with automakers. what happened to making the automakers increase mpg on vehicles? cheap gas made them forget all about it. 70's revisited and what has the U.S. learned? not one thing. here we go again.

[zimv20]

the national average is just over $2 now, there's still a long way to go before it hits $3
...which works out to be a 50% increase. in any market, that's a big jump. i think it would change a lot of behavior. in the past two weeks, i've seen two nightly news reports on buying trends for higher mileage cars (hybrids were highlighted).

i do relatively little driving, plus it's a high mileage diesel, so i fill up every 10 weeks or so. i don't see that behavior changing too much, as i am pretty good about walking places and/or taking public trans.

[Voltron]

Those who can afford SUV's and the gas prices that go with them help increase demand for gasoline and can end up pricing the market too high for those who work bottom level job even tho they drive economy cars. Something I do worry about in the Middle East. Can a Democracy or a Capitilistic system actually work where a resource is limited like in their case water. Where under a free market enterprise it could be priced so high that those on the bottom can't afford to survive even if they are gainfully employed. I also worry about stuff like this where gas is concerned. Our gas prices are at the rates that they are and almost everyone is already at 100% capacity. We here in the US need to build more refineries even if it means relaxing environmental rules, and drill for oil in Alaska. Nobody really knows how much oil is there for we aren't allowed to use modern testing techniques to find out.

I said I wasn't a very good libertarian.

I believe most people who drive SUV's do so because they are more likely to walk away from an accident. In fact they are more likely to be able to drive away from an accident. While the one they had the accident with ends up in the morgue because they weren't rich enough to afford an SUV. Problem is these SUV drivers start driving with no fear. Run that red light, no problem worse that will happen is I might get my paint scratched. Thus making the road a much more dangerous place than it use to be.

Allot of people who drive SUV's are really incapable of handling a vehicle of that size. They park taking up 2 spaces where a more capable driver can squeeze it in to one space. They take up two lanes of a road down the center of Cocoa village because the lanes are real narrow. If they are incapable of driving these things between the lines then they shouldn't be driving them.

Yes there are trucks out on the road but those are what I would call a necessary evil for without them our economy would ground to a halt. Without SUV's it would simply be a minor inconvienience for a few individuals.

However in a free society how do you prevent free will. SUV's are considered trucks and anybody is legally allowed to own a truck.

[IJ Reilly]

Where are you at?? I thought I was in pretty much the most expensive market, and I paid $2.41/gallon this morning. And as far as the $3/gallon goes, I think zim's speculating what would happen if the national average hit $3/gallon. Seeing as how the national average is just over $2 now, there's still a long way to go before it hits $3. And that would make my gas cost about $3.40/gallon or so.

This morning I paid $2.55 for premium in LA. We are close to the "magic number" of $3.00/gallon because any small disruption in refining capacity this summer will tack on another 25%, easily. How many summers have we been through lately without a refinery shut-down, for one reason or another? In California at least, none that I can recall recently. Yes, I think three buck gas is inevitable, no matter what OPEC does, because the real squeeze is coming from the refiners, who aren't interested in building more capacity. And why should they, when they can rake in the dough just by raising the price?

FWIW, I decided to downsize my car a couple of years ago because the trend was clear even then. I now drive one the smallest cars on the American road, I drive it only about 5,000 miles/year, and I'm not a lead-foot. I also use my bike for around-town errands whenever I can, if only because I can use the exercise.

[mactastic]

We're close to a $3 gallon of gas here in California, and you are probably correct that we will see prices peak at or over that number at some point this summer, but most of the rest of the country is much farther away from it than we are. A $3 gallon of gas here in the Golden State won't be half the problem a national average of $3/gallon will be.

[zimv20]

It wouldn't change habits at all....

Its already pretty close to $3
what about $4? $5? at what point will you change your habits?

[IJ Reilly]

The first of those $3.00 gas price signs will be an important psychological event, even if they're not widespread and the prices don't stick. The pattern over the last few years has been quick jumps up three notches in price, then drifting down two, much more slowly. I'm predicting, that by the end of this summer, $2.50 will look cheap. If I did a lot of driving, I'd be planning accordingly.

[zimv20]

Cool site I found --> http://198.6.95.31/ Check out that graph! :eek: Thats a pretty insane slope. Makes it seem that it won't be long until $3 if trends continue.
assuming there's nothing funky going on w/ that site (even *I* can afford a domain name :-) it's interesting to see that diesel prices have remained fairly steady. looks like my investment in a diesel car is paying off in ways other than high mileage.

[IJ Reilly]

Some shift in consumer habits, however small, appears to underway. I also noticed in my paper this morning ads for rebates as high as $5,000 on the big SUVs.

$2.36 a Gallon? Honey, I Shrunk the SUV

The high cost of gasoline — which averaged $2.36 per gallon in Los Angeles County on Wednesday — priced him out of the market for a bigger sport utility vehicle. With six cylinders instead of eight, the smaller 4Runner could cost Sanchez as much as $720 per year less than the Chevrolet Tahoe or GMC Yukon he had wanted to buy.
...
Sales of the largest SUVs dived last month from the previous April, according to research firm Autodata Corp., which tracks sales nationwide: Ford Expeditions dropped 34%, Lincoln Navigators were down 25%, and Chevrolet Suburbans drew 21% fewer buyers.

Overall SUV sales continue to climb, up 2.5% last month over the previous April, largely due to the soaring popularity of smaller, more fuel-efficient SUVs. Sales of Saturn's Vue rose 59%, Chevrolet's Blazer jumped 55%, and Ford's Escape rose 49%.
...
At that price for gas, and based on 15,000 miles a year of stop-and-go city driving at the Environmental Protection Agency's estimated city mileage, it would cost about $2,600 for fuel to drive the largest sport utility vehicles, including Chevrolet's biggest Suburban and Tahoe models.
...
"I wasn't as concerned about the gas mileage the last time I bought a car," the 59-year-old Marina del Rey resident said. "It was not in the forefront of my consciousness as it is today."

High prices at the pump are also leading more motorists to buy gas-electric hybrid cars, according to market analyses by Toyota and Honda, which make the two most widely available models.

At Toyota of North Hollywood one recent morning, Shane Ross and his wife took turns cradling their new baby as they discussed the automaker's Prius hybrid with a salesman. The car had initially seemed too expensive to the 33-year-old Ross, who has three children, but now he is considering buying one.
...
Jesse Toprak, director of pricing and market analysis for the online research firm Edmunds.com, said consumers have been concerned about gasoline prices since last summer, when the usual seasonal spike in prices failed to subside.
...
His customers are not rejecting SUVs altogether, Nicholas said, but they are increasingly choosing the half-ton Suburban over the three-quarter-ton version, or moving from the Suburban to the Tahoe, which has several models with a smaller engine.
...
Raul Gutierrez, a father of two from Eagle Rock, had been considering buying a Ford Expedition or a Toyota Sequoia, both large SUVs that the EPA rates at about 14 miles to the gallon in city driving.

Last Friday, on the day that the nationwide average cost of self-serve regular gasoline hit $2.06 a gallon and California averaged $2.32, Gutierrez decided to buy a Toyota Sienna minivan, which is rated at 19 miles to the gallon in city driving.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cars27may27,1,5684314.story

[mactastic]

The first of those $3.00 gas price signs will be an important psychological event, even if they're not widespread and the prices don't stick. The pattern over the last few years has been quick jumps up three notches in price, then drifting down two, much more slowly. I'm predicting, that by the end of this summer, $2.50 will look cheap. If I did a lot of driving, I'd be planning accordingly.

I certainly don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'm thinking more nationally than locally. Imagine what happens if the national average hits $3/gallon and stays there for more than a few months. We'll be paying $3.50/gallon out here if that happens, but more importantly it will put a serious damper on our economy, not to mention the world economy. Everything becomes more expensive if gas prices go up like that. Products will rise in cost across the board from food to durable goods. Wages will have to rise just to allow people to stay even in purchasing power. And all because we can't seem to find the collective will to do something about the efficiency of our energy use, particularly our vehicles.

[zimv20]

if the eventual reward is less congested roads, higher use of public trans, and smaller vehicles, i'm all for it

[mactastic]

if the eventual reward is less congested roads, higher use of public trans, and smaller vehicles, i'm all for it

Sadly I don't think any of those will happen. At least not as a result of higher gas prices. Roads won't become less congested unless people start to move back into high density city living instead of commuting from suburbia. And that takes years of planning and foresight by cities, as well as a tax structure that encourages housing as opposed to businesses within city limits.

Higher use of public transit would help relieve some of the congestion on the roads, but that also takes foresight not only by cities, but by regional authorities. It also requires a huge capital outlay, not something easily gotten in these tough economic times for state budgets. Sure the areas that already have a decent public transit system will probably see increased ridership, but that's only the major cities and some forward-thinking towns. Regional conflicts and poor planning tend to make it very difficult to put an efficient public transit system in.

Smaller vehicles? Maybe, but if hybrid technology can increase mileage while still keeping the SUVs rolling off the assembly lines people will still buy them. Not everyone can use a small car. I know I can't. I kept my little car for as long as I could, but there came a point where it just wasn't an option anymore.

[IJ Reilly]

if the eventual reward is less congested roads, higher use of public trans, and smaller vehicles, i'm all for it

Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. I'm all for these things, but as we learned the hard way once already, reducing energy consumption without causing widespread economic damage requires a gradual and well-planned weaning off of dependance, not a sharp price shock. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the decade of '70s -- a lot of necessary changes occurred, but trust me, the way it came down really sucked.

[Backtothemac]

Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. I'm all for these things, but as we learned the hard way once already, reducing energy consumption without causing widespread economic damage requires a gradual and well-planned weaning off of dependance, not a sharp price shock. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the decade of '70s -- a lot of necessary changes occurred, but trust me, the way it came down really sucked.

I agree 100%. I remember the long, long lines to get gas, and stations actually having signs that said no gas till monday, and it was a thursday.

The problem is consumption. Period. We have to change our habits as a society. It would do us some good. I just bought a new house, and there are two a/c's, but there is so much insulation that the energy bill averages about 90$ per month. I also bought a bike so that I could ride the mile up to the store for small items that we may need from time to time.

[zimv20]

I agree 100%. I remember the long, long lines to get gas, and stations actually having signs that said no gas till monday, and it was a thursday.
i do remember, and i say let's bring it back. that'll change consumer demand in a hurry.

it'll suck, yeah, but i think it's the kick in the butt the collective drivers of this country need.

[IJ Reilly]

I agree 100%. I remember the long, long lines to get gas, and stations actually having signs that said no gas till monday, and it was a thursday.

Yeah, red flag-green flag. Those were the days....

We're not having to endure shortages, but these could yet happen. Still, I was thinking more of the decade of stagflation. We need to start asking ourselves if our economy can digest sharply higher energy prices over a sustained period of time, along with huge budget deficits and the rising interest rates that will be required to float the federal debt and snuff out inflation. Some of the key elements of '70s economic debacle are coming into place again.

[IJ Reilly]

i do remember, and i say let's bring it back. that'll change consumer demand in a hurry.

it'll suck, yeah, but i think it's the kick in the butt the collective drivers of this country need.

Not worth it, sorry. I don't think we need to go through another decade of pain like the '70s when the majority of the hurt was felt by working-class people who either lost their jobs or became downwardly mobile. The infrastructure isn't in place to give many people alternatives.

[Backtothemac]

Well reality is that everything in our economy revolves around energy. Our sales have slowed dramatically over the last two months. Why? People have less money. We need serious changes made.

[mactastic]

Yeah it's not like the current prices for gas have actually hurt me financially yet. But I have less disposable income these days, and that means that while the oil compaines profits are doing great the rest of our economy will be suffering.

[Backtothemac]

Yeah it's not like the current prices for gas have actually hurt me financially yet. But I have less disposable income these days, and that means that while the oil compaines profits are doing great the rest of our economy will be suffering.

Unless demand has risen because more commerce is taking place. That could be possible as well.

[skunk]

Yeah it's not like the current prices for gas have actually hurt me financially yet.
You should try living over here....$6.60/Imperial gallon (can't remember the conversion to US gallons).
I guess we're just more used to it. :eek: :D :rolleyes: :mad:

[mactastic]

You should try living over here....$6.60/Imperial gallon (can't remember the conversion to US gallons).
I guess we're just more used to it. :eek: :D :rolleyes: :mad:

No thanks. I like the sun too much. :p Not that you Brits aren't lovely people, but I hear the surfing there is not so good.

[skunk]

No thanks. I like the sun too much. :p Not that you Brits aren't lovely people, but I hear the surfing there is not so good.
Oh, I hear Cornwall is pretty good. Not that I surf. :p

PS It was a LOVELY day today. It only rained in some places. :D

[blackfox]

Well, I can't say how significant this might be, but the US War Machine also needs oil, does it not? So interruption of oil supplies and refinery capabilities in the region due to the US invasion of Iraq, brought by the chaos of toppling Iraqs' government, willful sabotage, and "terrorist" attacks to infrastructure throughout the region, which would not have happened if the US had not entered the region, coupled with increased demand by the US for its' military needs and the exploitation of the volatility of the region by OPEC (as they have increased supply to cash in on higher prices, which is understandable from a profit-perspective)...brings us to our current gas prices (along w/increased demand from China).

This is not meant to imply that the US was necessarily wrong to invade Iraq, although I do believe it was, at least in the way it was implemented. The point is that this is a predictable outcome of such a scenario...and will most likely be temporary, although it may exist as long as the US maintains a military presence in the ME...

One last point...It is interesting to speculate what US energy interests are profiting by the current high prices of oil, and/or what oversight is being levied on Iraqi oil production profits...

[skunk]

One last point...It is interesting to speculate what US energy interests are profiting by the current high prices of oil, and/or what oversight is being levied on Iraqi oil production profits...
I don't suppose there ARE any profits. The costs of production so far are in excess of $110 billion, aren't they? :rolleyes:

[blackfox]

I don't suppose there ARE any profits. The costs of production so far are in excess of $110 billion, aren't they? :rolleyes:
You know what I mean, you smart a**...besides my implied point was that US taxpayers both have to pay for the War AND higher gas prices...Private US companies/contractors can just make money...(I am sure this is not lost on your big British brain...)

:D

[IJ Reilly]

You should try living over here....$6.60/Imperial gallon (can't remember the conversion to US gallons).

An Imperial Gallon is five quarts, a US Gallon is four -- and a Spanish Galleon is a ship.

BTW, the last time I was over, I don't remember seeing any petrol stations metering in gallons. All liters, which makes it ever so much cheaper.

[Neserk]

You should try living over here....$6.60/Imperial gallon (can't remember the conversion to US gallons).
I guess we're just more used to it. :eek: :D :rolleyes: :mad:

As a nation you are less dependant on Gas/Oil. You have a much better public transportation system, too. And you are considerably smaller. Plus the difference in price comes from taxation so the money you spend on gas is going right back into the country.

[Voltron]

Well reality is that everything in our economy revolves around energy. Our sales have slowed dramatically over the last two months. Why? People have less money. We need serious changes made.


WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy grew at a 4.4 percent annual rate in the first quarter of this year, slightly faster than previously thought and fresh evidence that the recovery possessed good momentum as it headed into the current quarter.

The increase in gross domestic product from January through March reported by the Commerce Department on Thursday marked an improvement from both the 4.2 percent pace first estimated for the quarter a month ago and the 4.1 percent growth rate registered in the final quarter of 2003.

The nation's payrolls, which had been posting lackluster gains, expanded by a sizable 288,000 in April on top of a hefty increase in March, leading some economists to believe that the long awaited for recovery in the labor market was finally coming about.

Consumers, whose spending accounts for roughly two-thirds of all economic activity in the United States, increased their spending in the first quarter at a 3.9 percent rate. That was slightly stronger than previously estimated and up from a 3.2 percent growth rate in the fourth quarter.

Businesses boosted spending on equipment and software in the first quarter at a 9.8 percent rate. While that was less brisk than first estimated and down from a 14.9 percent growth rate in the fourth quarter, it still represented a sizable advance.

Stronger inventory-building by businesses in the first quarter added 0.75 percentage point to the GDP, compared with a 0.27 percentage-point gain first estimated. That marked the largest contribution to GDP from inventories since the third quarter of 2002 and was a key reason why first-quarter GDP was revised upward.
http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/thumbnails//ECONOMY.sff_NYET258_20040525114048.jpg
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040527/D82R03N80.html

[Ugg]

As a nation you are less dependant on Gas/Oil. You have a much better public transportation system, too. And you are considerably smaller. Plus the difference in price comes from taxation so the money you spend on gas is going right back into the country.

Have you ridden British Rail or the London Underground in the last few years? Although it is more extensive than the US system, it is in a mess thanks to Maggie. Die Bahn, the German Federal Railway has been asked to bid on the running of the system as the Brits are having a heck of a time. Also, fewer interstates and many quaint medieval towns make driving in the UK and in Europe in general a huge challenge add to that the millions of people crammed into small places and the only real advantage is that SUVs become a huge disadvantage. I believe that Blair is being urged to reduce the percentage of tax on petrol. I believe the US gas tax is a per gallon figure so it remains constant if prices rise unlike in the US. Maybe Tony means to pay for the war with the excess!

High oil prices affect everyone equally.

[Thanatoast]

...While this is good news, it really is only in relation to the last few years of Bush mismanagement. In the last quarter of 2000, which the administration says was the beginning of the recession, more jobs were created. Even if you dismiss that, there's still the problem that Bush has spent more money than that amount of economic growth will pay for. He's still running us into the ground. I consider this good news, but by no means a victory.

[mactastic]

Not to mention those economic numbers are from before the gas prices started to be felt widely.

And even so, once again corporations are doing great while the consumer gets screwed, and someone points that out as good news!

[Backtothemac]

Voltron, with all due respect. I don't care what a graph shows. What I care about is that I am a top 10 salesman every month, and average over 55 sales a month. This month, I am top 10, with only 38. So, unless everyone in our company suddenly forgot how to sell, the economy is suffering. People are not spending money. At least not here in Alabama.

[pseudobrit]

People are not spending money. At least not here in Alabama.

You can't spend what you don't have.

[zimv20]

You can't spend what you don't have.
actually, you can, and consumer debt has hit record levels

[Backtothemac]

You can't spend what you don't have.

WORD my man WORD! We need serious governmental reform in Alabama. Our state is screwed beyond belief, and it is the fat cats in Montgomery that are screwing us blind.

[pseudobrit]

actually, you can, and consumer debt has hit record levels

First a "jobless recovery" and now a moneyless spending increase.

[skunk]

First a "jobless recovery" and now a moneyless spending increase.
Kinda matches the principle-less administration, the enemy-less war and the clueless rhetoric.

[Voltron]

While this is good news, it really is only in relation to the last few years of Bush mismanagement. In the last quarter of 2000, which the administration says was the beginning of the recession, more jobs were created. Even if you dismiss that, there's still the problem that Bush has spent more money than that amount of economic growth will pay for. He's still running us into the ground. I consider this good news, but by no means a victory.
Mainly to feed the war machine which I believe is necessary and therefore warrants feeding. My stock is feeling the pinch from this war and I don't like it either but that doesn't mean the war isn't necessary and thus that is the price I myself pay and our country at large has paid in order to finish this war of removing not only Saddam but his followup self appointed heirs as well.

[skunk]

Mainly to feed the war machine which I believe is necessary and therefore warrants feeding. My stock is feeling the pinch from this war and I don't like it either but that doesn't mean the war isn't necessary and thus that is the price I myself pay and our country at large has paid in order to finish this war of removing not only Saddam but his followup self appointed heirs as well.
Oh, they are the "heirs to Saddam" now, are they? I thought they were "foreign terrorists".

[mactastic]

Oh, they are the "heirs to Saddam" now, are they? I thought they were "foreign terrorists".

They're one and the same don'tcha know? Foreign terrorists come from Iraq, and if we hadn't invaded they all would have gone back there. (Because that's where they're all from, right Sly? Iraqi = Terrorist?)

[LethalWolfe]

Have you ridden British Rail or the London Underground in the last few years? Although it is more extensive than the US system, it is in a mess thanks to Maggie. Die Bahn, the German Federal Railway has been asked to bid on the running of the system as the Brits are having a heck of a time. Also, fewer interstates and many quaint medieval towns make driving in the UK and in Europe in general a huge challenge add to that the millions of people crammed into small places and the only real advantage is that SUVs become a huge disadvantage. I believe that Blair is being urged to reduce the percentage of tax on petrol. I believe the US gas tax is a per gallon figure so it remains constant if prices rise unlike in the US. Maybe Tony means to pay for the war with the excess!

High oil prices affect everyone equally.


I haven't been in London for an extended period of time sense 4 years ago and even in public transpo has gone down hill there I feel fairly confident saying that even on its worst day (strikes no counting) public transpo in London is significantly better than anything in the US.


Lethal

[Desertrat]

Lotsa factors entering into the energy-cost stuff. China's rising demand is part. MidEast instability is part. Our over-consumption is part. Economics 101 never quits.

But of a barrel of oil, half goes to transportation fuel. Diesel for trains and trucks; av-fuel, and then diesel and gasoline for personal vehicles. The rest goes into the petrochemical industry; much of it is plastics--with one example being your computer equipment.

We have supply problems, as well. Strikes in west Africa. Total screwup, politically, in Venezuela. And the Saudis are about the only OPEC country which can actually increase its output further; most other Gulf states are maxxed out.

Then you get into the local problems in the U.S., with some nineteen different "boutique" gasolines mandated by EPA. These are tailored to specific metropolitan areas, and it's illegal to bring in other gasolines if there is any supply glitch.

The oil companies which are actually making more profits, right now, are those which are vertically integrated from field to refinery. Most have to buy oil in the open market, and work by contract. These long-term contracts are at lower prices than the spot market, but have escalation clauses.

I just drove from Terlingua to Ft. Worth; thence to Nashville, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Atlanta and then through Augusta and on back down to Thomasville. Most gas prices east of west Texas were around $1.90 for regular unleaded, going on down to mostly in the $1.85 +/- $0.03 in Tennessee and Georgia.

'Rat

[Sayhey]

Lowest price for regular in SF is about $2.37 a gallon. I've got an idea - why don't we make a secret deal with the Saudi government so they can rip us off now and drop the price before the election? Sounds like a winner to me! :eek:

[IJ Reilly]

I haven't been in London for an extended period of time sense 4 years ago and even in public transpo has gone down hill there I feel fairly confident saying that even on its worst day (strikes no counting) public transpo in London is significantly better than anything in the US.

I last drove in London two years ago -- and believe me, you're much better off riding the tube. Outside of London, now that's a different story.

[Desertrat]

Sayhey, I saw a TV "bit' with a guy from some California department who stated that the incremental cost for the gasoline blends used there cost some ten cents per gallon more to refine. Then, California's tax is some ten cents higher than other states. Knock off that extra 20 cents, and you're down to comptetitive with much of the rest of the country.

'Rat

[wwworry]

I am shocked no one has brought up the deal Bush had with the Saudis before the start of the Iraq war as quoted in Bob Woodward's new book.

Did Saudis assure Bush on oil prices?
Report says prince pledged re-election support (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4779686/)
In an interview that aired Sunday on CBS, Woodward, a Washington Post editor, said that Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, had promised President Bush that the Saudis would cut oil prices before November to ensure the U.S. economy was strong on election day. Woodward is the author of the new book "Plan of Attack" on Bush's preparations for the Iraq war.

I am also shocked that no one has mentioned the new $100,000 tax break that is only for vehicles that weigh more than 6000 pounds. SO that the tax break pays for almost all of the cost of the heaviest least efficient SUVs.

I thought you were all well read! ;)

[Desertrat]

wwworry, that tax break is not new. I disrecall when it was passed, but it goes back over fifteen years.

Congress didn't want folks to write off luxury cars for business purposes. So, only $13,000 of a Lexus or Mercedes sedan could be written off. However, they exempted vehicles over 6,500 pounds GVW, which could be written off 100%.

This led to 4WD Suburbans with the 454 CID motor and 4-door one-ton duallie pickemups.

Still, it's a writeoff only for commercial-use vehicles. (I grant a lot of folks cheat on the use, buying one in the name of their business and then using it to commute, etc.)

I'm guessing that Congress added the $100,000 number due to inflation, although I know of no passenger-type vehicles meeting the 6,500-pound rule AND costing much over $40,000. Well, I guess the Hummer, but there just aren't enough of them around to matter in a 300-million-car population. And how many Hummers are commercial-use?

'Rat

[mcfudd]

link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040526/ap_on_go_pr_wh/evans_interview_1)

I think that this should be clear to everyone: Gas prices will never be lower than they are today. Prices will only rise from this point on. There may be as much play as 25 cents in either direction, but I suspect the days of sub $2 a gallon gas are gone.

This could not be more true. As promised, Bush has delivered to the people who bankrolled his $100 million 2000 election war-chest.

The oil companies are seeing record profits, Halliburton is swimming in gravy from all of the Iraq contracts it has, and Bush's buddies in Saudi Arabia are benefiting from $40+ per barrel oil prices.

Add to this China's and other developing nations thirst for oil and you have a serious problem.

The bright side to all of this is: we may now see a serious push into mass producing vehicles that consume alternative fuels -- and perhaps fuel cell autos available to the public by the end of the decade.

Not so much because carmakers want to do this, but because consumers will demand it. Toyota is already going strong on this trend. They have many new gas/electric models in the works.

[Voltron]

I am shocked no one has brought up the deal Bush had with the Saudis before the start of the Iraq war as quoted in Bob Woodward's new book.

Did Saudis assure Bush on oil prices?
Report says prince pledged re-election support (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4779686/)


I am also shocked that no one has mentioned the new $100,000 tax break that is only for vehicles that weigh more than 6000 pounds. SO that the tax break pays for almost all of the cost of the heaviest least efficient SUVs.

I thought you were all well read! ;)
After Kerry brought up his quote he came on air on several channels and stated he did not mean he thought or knew that Bush had a secret deal with the Saudis. No more than any other president. Meaning that Saudis always try to keep oil low prior to an election for all presidents Democrats and Republicans.

[wwworry]

After Kerry brought up his quote he came on air on several channels and stated he did not mean he thought or knew that Bush had a secret deal with the Saudis. No more than any other president. Meaning that Saudis always try to keep oil low prior to an election for all presidents Democrats and Republicans.

You're logic does not follow. What Kerry says does not at all affect whatever deal Bush had. The only other time a deal like this was made was before the first Gulf war with the first Bush, but in the first Gulf War it was not timed for the election; it was timed for the conclusion of the war.

'Rat, (6000 lbs. not 6500lbs.)
wwworry, that tax break is not new. I disrecall when it was passed, but it goes back over fifteen years.

Congress didn't want folks to write off luxury cars for business purposes. So, only $13,000 of a Lexus or Mercedes sedan could be written off. However, they exempted vehicles over 6,500 pounds GVW, which could be written off 100%.

What is new is that they JUST LAST YEAR raised the deduction limit to $100,000 from $25,000. It was originally for trucks. Now looking at the numbers, what trucks cost $100,000 and fall into the weight limits? - Huge luxury SUVs, the Denali, the Escalade, the Excursion, the Yukon, the Suburban.

Do you think they wrote that break to account for future cars? No they wrote it for what exists now - the biggest most expensive, least efficient SUVs (which also, coincidentally ;) ;), have the higest profit margins for the auto industry).

People are not stupid. If a real estate agent (who uses a vehicle to drive clients around but hardly needs towing capacity or a zillion cup holders) has the choice between a car with a partial deduction and a monster SUV with a full deduction the agent will choose the monster SUV.
one of many links (http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/biz_tips/20030403a1.asp)
Even though these vehicles produce bigger gas bills, some business people may find the choice easy. When you compare either the existing or proposed tax incentives to the paltry $7,660 initial deduction allowed for cars and smaller SUVs or the stingy $2,000 for fuel-efficient hybrid cars, you and your accountant may wonder the same thing: Have you driven a Hummer lately?

$2,000 for hybrids
$100,000 for monster SUVs

stupid

[Desertrat]

Hey, I've been writing the occasional letter on this issue to various Congressheeple since long before the big SUVs came on the market. At the time of the original passage, there were no SUVs of the required GVW--which then was 6,500 pounds.

The origin, IMO, was a mixed bag. The Democrats didn't want folks writing off luxury cars for business. The Republicans and the Democrats both went along with the farm/ranch/construction lobby for the heavy-duty work trucks.

Soccer moms and the carmakers did the rest...

'Rat

[skunk]

At the time of the original passage, there were no SUVs of the required GVW--which then was 6,500 pounds.

The origin, IMO, was a mixed bag. The Democrats didn't want folks writing off luxury cars for business. The Republicans and the Democrats both went along with the farm/ranch/construction lobby for the heavy-duty work trucks.
'Rat
I'm kinda surprised that you can't tell the difference... :rolleyes:

[Desertrat]

"I'm kinda surprised that you can't tell the difference..." is a bit too subtle.

???

'Rat

[skunk]

"I'm kinda surprised that you can't tell the difference..." is a bit too subtle.

???

'Rat
It can't be impossible to differentiate between an SUV and a farmer's truck. Seems fairly elementary. Why can't the IRS do this?

[Desertrat]

It's not up to IRS. They can only do what Congress has authorized or ordered.

Congress probably phrased it along the lines of "vehicle" and "having a GVW of..." Ergo, loophole.

This sort of stuff goes on all the time. Toyota, et al, used to ship mini-pickups to the U.S. without the beds in place. The beds were shipped separately. The "imported car parts" ploy was to evade the 20% import duty.

'Rat

[wwworry]

I'm all for work trucks (though if you're smart and plan ahead you can get it all delivered). But when a dentist calls his Escalade a "work truck" and the GOP goes along with it then it's time to call - "corruption".

[Voltron]

Jay Saunders, an energy analyst at Deutsche Bank, said that US refineries were unlikely to spend more capital because they had earmarked $20bn (£10.9bn) to upgrade plants for stricter emissions laws, leaving them with little money to expand capacity.

Mr Saunders said: "It's going to cost more to make gasoline. They will want to wait a few years to see their money back before spending more funds." Douglas Terreson, an energy analyst at Morgan Stanley, said the oil companies' conservative view of oil prices was another factor determining future capacity growth.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1085944410599&p=1012571727085

[IJ Reilly]

I'm all for work trucks (though if you're smart and plan ahead you can get it all delivered). But when a dentist calls his Escalade a "work truck" and the GOP goes along with it then it's time to call - "corruption".

Call it what you will, but I'd settle for calling it stupid tax, energy and environmental policy.

[Desertrat]

voltron, you saved me the trouble of posting that. :D

IJ, how much tax, energy and environmental policy from Congress has really made sense?

Back in the Carter era, the joke was, "Heard about the Polish energy policy?" "No; what is it?" "Aw, about like ours." Energy policy? What energy policy? About the closest to "good" is that Bush got the SPR filled--important, to some degree, yes, but overall a triviality.

'Rat

[takao]

i guess it will take another 10 years etc. to get this energy/fuel saving attitude mroe widespread in the US...

here if you buy a new car you get comments like "nice car ! .. how much liter for 100 km ?" the question about HP is getting unimportant...

the family of a friend bought a new vauxhall eco-tec diesel which gets 52 MPG on mixed city/highway traffic and it's a nice family car and not some small mini-car

diesel sales increase 10% _every year_
current marketshare 71+ % of all new sold cars.... guess why hybrid cars are far away from a breakthrough here...30 mpg is considered as too much for a new car..

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, how much tax, energy and environmental policy from Congress has really made sense?

In recent years? Not much. But that would be my point.

[zimv20]

diesel sales increase 10% _every year_
current marketshare 71+ % of all new sold cars....
did i read that right? 71% of all new cars are diesel? that's huge!

btw, a diesel hybrid makes much more sense to me than a gasoline hybrid...

[IJ Reilly]

btw, a diesel hybrid makes much more sense to me than a gasoline hybrid...

Hmm, I'm no engineer, but I believe the virtue of diesel engines is their efficiency in continuous operation. Stop and start them constantly and I think you lose the advantage of diesel.

[skunk]

Hmm, I'm no engineer, but I believe the virtue of diesel engines is their efficiency in continuous operation. Stop and start them constantly and I think you lose the advantage of diesel.
Maybe so, but you gain the possibility of running them on vegetable oil...

BTW, isn't this really the answer to the fossilized hydrocarbon fuel crisis? Grow your own bio-diesel?

[zimv20]

Hmm, I'm no engineer, but I believe the virtue of diesel engines is their efficiency in continuous operation. Stop and start them constantly and I think you lose the advantage of diesel.
ooh, i think you may be right there. never mind!

still, i'd like to see the US adopt the kind of pro-diesel stance that europe has. but the "technologically advanced" US continues to weaken diesel (through sulfur-content reducing laws) in favor of cheap, subsidized gas. oy ve!

[takao]

did i read that right? 71% of all new cars are diesel? that's huge!

btw, a diesel hybrid makes much more sense to me than a gasoline hybrid...

11 years ago it was about 25% of new cars sold
for germany it's only about 43%(1992 it was about 15%)

and 60% of the people who want to buy a used car are searching for a diesel...

and for next years there is again an increase in diesel marketshare expected..(next 3 years in germany about 15 percent)
and for austria the 80% barrier is expected...

[Voltron]

The oil companies are seeing record profits, Halliburton is swimming in gravy from all of the Iraq contracts it has, and Bush's buddies in Saudi Arabia are benefiting from $40+ per barrel oil prices.



Once again ... Halliburton was awarded this services contract under the Clinton administration. In the 1990s the Army wanted to get outside help handling the logistics associated with actions overseas. That's when the Army came up with LOGCAP, the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program. Halliburton first won the competitive bid for LOGCAP in 1992. It lost the contract in 1997. Who was president in 1997? Someone named Bill Clinton. Halliburton was out, but Clinton needed help with his logistics efforts in Bosnia. Who did he turn to? Halliburton? He gave another contract to Halliburton with NO COMPETITIVE BIDDING. Halliburton then won the competitive bidding process again in 2001. So .. which party seems to favor Halliburton? In 1992 and in 2001, under Republican presidents, Halliburton wins competitive bids for LOGCAP. In 1997, under a Democratic president, Halliburton gets the contract without a bid.

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

[Desertrat]

zim, explain something to me, please. You said:

"but the "technologically advanced" US continues to weaken diesel (through sulfur-content reducing laws) in favor of cheap, subsidized gas."

What do you mean when you say "weaken"? (By the way, SO2 is bad stuff. Low-sulfur crude is more valuable per barrel than sulfurous crude; removing sulfur from diesel is definitely a clean-air benefit.)

In what way is gasoline "subsidized" over diesel? They both come from crude oil. They both go through a refining process, albeit that of gasoline is more complex.

And right now, diesel is running some 25 to 30 cents per gallon cheaper than regular unleaded.

'Rat

[zimv20]

What do you mean when you say "weaken"?
i'm referring to congress, every now and then, requiring lower sulfur content in diesel. it's an environmental move (yes, SO2 is bad), but sulfur helps lubricate the engine. so i end up buying an additive to put the sulfur right back in. this is a symptom of the larger issue -- diesel technology is misunderstood in this country.

for the modern, much cleaner diesel, i think it's a superior technology to gasoline. and as was pointed out by takeo (sp?), 71% of new car sales in europe have diesel engines (awaiting confirmation on that figure). i think such a move in the US would be beneficial, as the (greatly) increased average mpg for cleaner diesels overcomes the harm of increased SO2 output. that's where i'm coming from.


In what way is gasoline "subsidized" over diesel?
i didn't mean to imply a relationship between the two. because the cost to the consumer doesn't, imo, reflect the true cost of obtaining it, i call it subsidized. i'm referring to both gas and diesel.


And right now, diesel is running some 25 to 30 cents per gallon cheaper than regular unleaded.

yeah, i've been paying around $1.80/gallon for diesel for a year now, while gas has gone from $1.50 to $2.40.

[takao]

and as was pointed out by takeo (sp?), 71% of new car sales in europe have diesel engines (awaiting confirmation on that figure).

takao ;)

71% of sales in austria are diesel
http://www.statistik.at/cgi-bin/pressetext.pl?INDEX=2004000687
(german)
http://www.oeamtc.at/netautor/pages/resshp/anwendg/1108020.html
on end of side you can see the statistik for 2003 with diesel percentage for every region of austria

for whole europe the diesel percentage is something like 40+ percent
france,belgium etc. have high percentages too

and something stated in the second link too:
"since spring this year only diesel without sulfur is available in austria"

and something which often is forgotten: with less fuel consumption because of switching to diesel there is less CO2 emissions...

[Neserk]

Personally, I would like to incentives for me to live close enough to my work to walk. It would be simple. The people in charge help me (a poor teacher) with a down payment on a modest home within 2 blocks of a school. In return, I walk to school, live in the neighborhood I work in, and get a buy a house sooner than later.

I realize that wouldn't work for everyone, but as a teacher I work in neighborhoods so doesn't make sense for me to be able to walk to work?

Here is the only problem. One is not hired by a school, but by a district. So I could set this all up on my own (not the payment part) and then be transferred too far to walk. So, there would have to be a guarantee that for X amount of years I wouldn't be transfered.

[zimv20]

71% of sales in austria are diesel
[...]
for whole europe the diesel percentage is something like 40+ percent
france,belgium etc. have high percentages too
takao - thanks for the clarification

[Desertrat]

Yeah, Neserk, certainly some variety of that idea has always struck me as a Good Thing.

Back when I was a renter, I always tried to live as close as feasible to where I worked. Or, if I really liked where I was living, I looked for work in a nearby location. Way too many people never calculate the $$$ cost of their commuting...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Way too many people never calculate the $$$ cost of their commuting...

In dollars, or to their psyche and family life. I've never been happier about my commute -- down the hall, make a right. Normally, I don't even need to drive it.

[Neserk]

In dollars, or to their psyche and family life. I've never been happier about my commute -- down the hall, make a right. Normally, I don't even need to drive it.

I've been there. My first job out of college was a nanny. I had a BA in psychology, Bush Sr. was President, and you needed a MA to do the job of a BA :rolleyes: (de ja vu!)

I worked 10 hours a day in the home plus 2 hours of commuting (round trip) That was a very, very long day. I got paid next to nothing, too. My biggest joy (besides the baby) was when Clinton was elected and my employer was wishing for Bush :p Nothing like being 22 and being right when your know-it-all employer is 30something and wrong!

As a teacher my longest commute is 20 minutes (if I get lost :rolleyes: ) and my work day is about 7 hours.

[zimv20]

I've never been happier about my commute -- down the hall, make a right.
yeah, i got tired of my "having to go downstairs" commute, so i set up an airport network and now i can check work emails and server status (i.e. start billing) from my ibook while still in bed.

if everything checks out -- back to sleep :)

life is grand

[IJ Reilly]

yeah, i got tired of my "having to go downstairs" commute, so i set up an airport network and now i can check work emails and server status (i.e. start billing) from my ibook while still in bed.

if everything checks out -- back to sleep :)

life is grand

Getting paid to sleep? Yeah, I guess that would be pretty close to perfect.

[zimv20]

Getting paid to sleep? Yeah, I guess that would be pretty close to perfect.
i should have mentioned that the billing stops when the work does. so, no, the sleep is pro bono. errrr....

[IJ Reilly]

i should have mentioned that the billing stops when the work does. so, no, the sleep is pro bono. errrr....

Okay, now I'm not so envious. I have do actual work in my home-office if I want to get paid. I hope you guys know how much money you're costing me.

[zimv20]

I hope you guys know how much money you're costing me.
believe me, i know

[IJ Reilly]

believe me, i know

That's right, you're the Demi-God. I'm just a regular. :D

[Desertrat]

Trying to get back on topic...:D And tie y'all's comments to fuel...

For a number of years, my job* involved little interaction with others. I could have done the work at home, but for "The system". Now, with all the communications technology, there is even less justification for many people to drive to some office when they mostly communicate from there by telephone or email to other people in the same building.

Sure, it's not "all office jobs", but I'd bet there'd be enough to notably reduce the amount of traffic at rush-hour.

'Rat

* State agency; design and cost estimating for dam/reservoir projects

[zimv20]

That's right, you're the Demi-God. I'm just a regular. :D
<zeus-like voice, with reverb>
THAT'S RIGHT. NOW GET ME A SANDWICH.
<normal voice, a little sing-songy, no reverb>

[IJ Reilly]

<zeus-like voice, with reverb>
THAT'S RIGHT. NOW GET ME A SANDWICH.
<normal voice, a little sing-songy, no reverb>

Get your own sandwich. You'll have to get out of bed first.

[zimv20]

Get your own sandwich. You'll have to get out of bed first.
if only... if only wi-fi supported snacks... <sniff>

[skunk]

if only... if only wi-fi supported snacks... <sniff>
Have you TRIED an Airport sandwich? They're AWFUL! :D

[zimv20]

aaaand scene