Gas price warning

[meazza]

i noticed the price of gas going down.. its now at 1.06$ a litre canadian down from 1.11$... this is much better for the oil companies than if it went up to lets say 1.50$ a litre

the reason, people now all of a sudden see gas as affordable again and think twice about buying those econoboxes... what happens, people all of a sudden buy all kinds of gasoline because they feel comfortable with the price which means more profits for the oil companies...

well consumers will always be on the losing end

[RkFast]

i noticed the price of gas going down.. its now at 1.06$ a litre canadian down from 1.11$... this is much better for the oil companies than if it went up to lets say 1.50$ a litre

the reason, people now all of a sudden see gas as affordable again and think twice about buying those econoboxes... what happens, people all of a sudden buy all kinds of gasoline because they feel comfortable with the price which means more profits for the oil companies...

well consumers will always be on the losing end

454633[/snapback]

 

If you think the energy situation is over because gas came down three cents, yet is still higher than ever, and then go out and drop a ton of cash on a Himmer and consequently find yourselv screwed, then thats not the big, bad oil companies !@#$ing you over...thats you being a clueless moron.

[Alaska Darin]

If you think the energy situation is over because gas came down three cents, yet is still higher than ever, and then go out and drop a ton of cash on a Himmer and consequently find yourselv screwed, then thats not the big, bad oil companies !@#$ing you over...thats you being a clueless moron.

454655[/snapback]

Gas prices are not higher than ever but rant on. Himmer?

[Mark VI]

 

In economist Thorstein Veblen's 1904 text,  "Theory of The Business Enterprise", he noted that the oil industry is more or less the favorite whipping boy of the press and politicians and the general public, to be blamed whenever socially or politically expedient.

 

And Veblen was no friend of the oil industry.

451435[/snapback]

 

John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil still controlled 84% of the industry then. It was a few years later that Teddy Roosevelt finally got around to enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which eliminated monopolies and promoted free trade.

 

Veblen also taught at the University of Chicago, a university that was well funded by Rockefeller.

 

No friend of the oil industry ? hmmm...

[RkFast]

Gas prices are not higher than ever but rant on. 

454937[/snapback]

 

Youve payed over $3/gal. in AK before Katrina?

[meazza]

If you think the energy situation is over because gas came down three cents, yet is still higher than ever, and then go out and drop a ton of cash on a Himmer and consequently find yourselv screwed, then thats not the big, bad oil companies !@#$ing you over...thats you being a clueless moron.

454655[/snapback]

 

i didnt say i was the one doing that

i said thats how consumers react to these situations

[Alaska Darin]

Youve payed over $3/gal. in AK before Katrina?

455182[/snapback]

It's called absolute dollars. Gasoline was far more expensive in the 1970s than it is today but I guess the concept is difficult to understand.

 

The fact is, we are now paying for overindulging and the largesse we had in the 1990s when gasoline remained flat for nearly 8 years. Instead of forging ahead with better technology, Americans continue to buy gas guzzling road hogs and move further from where they work. Then they whine because the commodity finally adjusts. The party had to end someday, as has been warned over and over again.

 

Someone else will fix the problem. They always do.

[RkFast]

I understand the concept. And drive a car that gets 33 mpg. And bike over 3,000 miles annually.

 

But youre unfair over the other stuff. And this is where government SHOULD step in and do more, something you abhor.

[Alaska Darin]

I understand the concept. And drive a car that gets 33 mpg. And bike over 3,000 miles annually.

 

But youre unfair over the other stuff. And this is where government SHOULD step in and do more, something you abhor.

455625[/snapback]

I don't abhorr it when it comes to fundamental infrastructure. The government could be doing alot but instead it continues to concentrate on periphery, to the delight of the Hot Pockets consuming masses.

 

We're reaping exactly what we've sown.

[RkFast]

I dont think its the public as much as its everyone fron the oil men, to the AFL/CIO to the auto makers lobby that prevents every administration from doing what it did in the late 60s and 70s. That is, tell the auto makers to make a car a lot more fuel efficient and less polluting, or else.

[Alaska Darin]

I dont think its the public as much as its everyone fron the oil men, to the AFL/CIO to the auto makers lobby that prevents every administration from doing what it did in the late 60s and 70s. That is, tell the auto makers to make a car a lot more fuel efficient and less polluting, or else.

456167[/snapback]

Without apathy, lobbyist's power is greatly diminished.

[Fan in Chicago]

I dont think its the public as much as its everyone fron the oil men, to the AFL/CIO to the auto makers lobby that prevents every administration from doing what it did in the late 60s and 70s. That is, tell the auto makers to make a car a lot more fuel efficient and less polluting, or else.

456167[/snapback]

 

So you think it is possible for the car makers to make Humvees, Ford Explorers, Toyota Landcruisers to give 35+ mpg, if the adminstration told them to ?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

So you think it is possible for the car makers to make Humvees, Ford Explorers, Toyota Landcruisers to give 35+ mpg, if the adminstration told them to ? 

456734[/snapback]

 

I forget what models they are, but aren't the new hybrid SUVs being released for the '06 model year getting about 30+?

 

People keep missing the obvious fact: the market drives the standards, not the government. Does everyone really think Detroit's fuel-efficiency craze of the late-70's and early-80s was due to the government saying "Thou shalt make high-MPG cars!" Or did it have to do more with OPEC's policies in the '70s and the resulting popularity of Japanese pieces of crap?

[RkFast]

I forget what models they are, but aren't the new hybrid SUVs being released for the '06 model year getting about 30+?

 

People keep missing the obvious fact: the market drives the standards, not the government.  Does everyone really think Detroit's fuel-efficiency craze of the late-70's and early-80s was due to the government saying "Thou shalt make high-MPG cars!"  Or did it have to do more with OPEC's policies in the '70s and the resulting popularity of Japanese pieces of crap? 

456962[/snapback]

 

True enough. But thats just chicken vs. egg stuff. Maybe it was the OPEC deal and the rise in foreign car popularity that came first. The point is that back then the Government had the balls to tell the auto makers to get with the program. It came right out and said "You have a few years to get your fuel economy and emissions to a drastically lower level...and you have to do it with less polluting and lower octane fuel to boot.....like it or not." Something like that would NEVER happen today.

[Fan in Chicago]

True enough. But thats just chicken vs. egg stuff. Maybe it was the OPEC deal and the rise in foreign car popularity that came first. The point is that back then the Government had the balls to tell the auto makers to get with the program. It came right out and said "You have a few years to get your fuel economy and emissions to a drastically lower level...and you have to do it with less polluting and lower octane fuel to boot.....like it or not." Something like that would NEVER happen today.

457330[/snapback]

 

Whoa Nelly !

As CTM said, the fuel efficiency craze was a result of very high gas prices (higher than today in real dollars). I kind of agree that mandating a certain average fleet spec for mpg may help but that only drives companies to change the balance between SUVs and hybrids for example. This issue is very complex and I am not sure anyone has done a full study yet. But think about it this way, not knowing the number of miles driven by vehicle class, there is no sure way of reducing gasoline consumption by mandating a fleet mpg spec. If Toyota produces one hybrid Prius with mpg =60 and one highlander with mpg =20,they get an average fleet mpg of 40. But if the Highlander is driven for 100 miles a day and the Prius only 10, real weighted mpg = 21.3 What have we achieved ?

 

I agree with emission specs which happen primarily due to govt. mandates so no arguments there.

 

Lower octane ? What are you talking about ? When lead was taken out, the refining industry had to re-adjust their production to get equivalent octane without TEL (tetra ethyl lead ?). Also car manufacturers changed their compression ratios to make cars efficient without lead (good anti-knock properties). But this was also an emissions play and not a mpg play.

 

Even today, fuel specifications are getting more stringent with diesel trending to 50 ppm sulfur and gasoline that may end up with 10 ppm sulfur but this is what refineries have to do to make these ultra low polluting fuels. This has nothing to do with conserving fuel, which will continue to be driven by the overall state of the economy and the supply-demand balance of oil-derived products.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Even today, fuel specifications are getting more stringent with diesel trending to 50 ppm sulfur and gasoline that may end up with 10 ppm sulfur but this is what refineries have to do to make these ultra low polluting fuels. This has nothing to do with conserving fuel, which will continue to be driven by the overall state of the economy and the supply-demand balance of oil-derived products.

457558[/snapback]

 

Which I'm sure has absolutely no effect on prices. Refineries should be able to make low-sulfur fuels from a given barrel of oil for the same cost as otherwise.

[RkFast]

Whoa Nelly !

As CTM said, the fuel efficiency craze was a result of very high gas prices (higher than today in real dollars). I kind of agree that mandating a certain average fleet spec for mpg may help but that only drives companies to change the balance between SUVs and hybrids for example. This issue is very complex and I am not sure anyone has done a full study yet. But think about it this way, not knowing the number of miles driven by vehicle class, there is no sure way of reducing gasoline consumption by mandating  a fleet mpg spec. If Toyota produces one hybrid Prius with mpg =60 and one highlander with mpg =20,they get an average fleet mpg of 40. But if the Highlander is driven for 100 miles a day and the Prius only 10, real weighted mpg = 21.3 What have we achieved ?

 

I agree with emission specs which happen primarily due to govt. mandates so no arguments there.

 

Lower octane ? What are you talking about ? When lead was taken out, the refining industry had to re-adjust their production to get equivalent octane without TEL (tetra ethyl lead ?). Also car manufacturers changed their compression ratios to make cars efficient without lead (good anti-knock properties). But this was also an emissions play and not a mpg play.

 

Even today, fuel specifications are getting more stringent with diesel trending to 50 ppm sulfur and gasoline that may end up with 10 ppm sulfur but this is what refineries have to do to make these ultra low polluting fuels. This has nothing to do with conserving fuel, which will continue to be driven by the overall state of the economy and the supply-demand balance of oil-derived products.

457558[/snapback]

 

Again, Im not speaking about WHY the government mandated the change. Im speaking strictly about the fact that in the 70s, the government went ahead and mandated big, big changes in both emissions standards and fuel efficiency. Then threw in the double whammy of changing the laws regarding fuel. Radical change was mandated by the government with very much of a "Do it or Else" mentality. And thats something you wont see today. Sure...small changes in efficiency standards and what not will take place. But not like what was seen back in the 70s....the unions, oil companies and auto manufactureres wont allow it. THEY run the show now.

 

As far as the fuel thing goes, correct me if Im wrong, you obviously know more than me on the subject, but octane levels after the removal of tetraethyl lead didnt come back UP until several years later, no?

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

If the government wants to get involved it should encourage higher mpg through tax breaks and investment into research for alternative fuels. They can also raise fuel taxes to lower consumption and spur people to look at hybrids.

 

Toyota has invested tons into hybrids and is bringing more and more hybrid models to market. US automakers have been much slower and will see their market share tumble further. GM is particularly at risk. Once they stop the Employee pricing, their market share will probably dip below previous levels. GM seems to have missed the memo on rising fuel cost projections.

[Fan in Chicago]

Which I'm sure has absolutely no effect on prices.  Refineries should be able to make low-sulfur fuels from a given barrel of oil for the same cost as otherwise. 

457575[/snapback]

 

Au contraire, marginal cost of taking out 1 ppm of sulfur increases dramatically the lower the end spec. It was okay until 500 ppm diesel but getting it to 50 ppm and lower is much much harder. Add to this another complexity - this product has to be sent through existing pipelines which have been used for high sulfur stuff for decades. These products pick up sulfur along the way and what started off as 50 ppm at the refinery can be well above that level at the back end. So to compensate, either build new pristine pipes (expensive), clean up the existing pipes (too much opportunity cost of an idles pipeline) or produce lower than required spec product (see first sentence).

[Fan in Chicago]

If the government wants to get involved it should encourage higher mpg through tax breaks and investment into research for alternative fuels.  They can also raise fuel taxes to lower consumption and spur people to look at hybrids.

 

 

457687[/snapback]

 

Tax breaks are okay to get a technology off the ground but not a very efficient use of money in the long run. After all the tax money is coming from the end user !