Oil at 109/barrel

[Lyion]

I was agreeing with you, you twat.

Lyion has, for a long time now, claimed that it's all the fault of those evil environmentalists that have prevented the altruistic oil companies from building new refineries.

My point was that that was complete bullshit, that the oil companies obviously had no interest in building new refineries, as proven by the fact that had they wanted to, they COULD have, given their political clout.

Ergo, they haven't wanted to, which is in complete agreement with your previous post.

Try for some reading comprehension next time, K?

-Arlos

No, I said that was part of the cause.

The lack of refineries is more so due to a lack of competition and the overall huge cost and difficulty in getting government permission to build them. I don't solely blame your stinky hippie socialist kindred for that, since it's more red tape and cost and the fact less refineries means more money for big oil, as Tikker pointed out. Whether you admit it or not a lot of the red tape is due to pandering from environmentalists. Heck, we can't even build a fucking wind turbine in view of the Kennedy mansion. We sure as hell aren't getting permission for refineries.

The environmentalists are more so keeping us from drilling and using the vast oil reserves we have. Thus, we are dependent on the speculators and overseas oil wells, and the mounties to the north.

The simple fact is many progressives want gas at 5+ dollars a barrel because it fits their agenda which they put above everything else, and while fucking the average American lowers consumption via draconian means.

The whole oil argument is maddening because the fundamentals do not support 109/barrel oil price but there's not a goddamn thing we can do. There isn't a thing government can do, either. The Dems came into office promising a fix for gas prices and they haven't even suggested a single thing.

[Arlos]

Oh please. I have yet to see, anywhere, any such commentary that it is part of the "Liberal Agenda" to get gas prices up to $5 a gallon. Do I have any sympathy for people that bought SUVs that get 10 miles to the gallon and now have to pay 75 bucks to fill the tank? Hell no. But that doesn't mean I don't fully realize what vast economic impact such high gas prices have. Inflation across the board, including higher food prices, less discretionary spending, etc. etc. etc.

As you well know, I've been pushing for massive investment into Biodiesel for ages now. Whether that's hemp or field grass is fine, as neither take anywhere near the energy to produce that corn does. Hell, fire up the algae farms too. I've also been for investment in public transit, since it would cut traffic congestion (sitting in traffic = biggest waste of time for the average citizen), cut pollution and cut fuel usage, but that's another issue entirely.

But to claim some black-helicopter-esque conspiracy theory about liberals wanting everyone to pay 5, 10 or whatever a gallon is patently absurd and ridiculous.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

It doesn't take much looking to see many liberals have long desired high gas prices. It will be the catalyst to persuade Americans to abandon their SUVs and minivans, take mass transit, produce less consumer goods and services, and stop emitting those evil greenhouse gases.

Actions speak louder than words. If you vote against drilling in ANWR, want gas taxed more, want to suspend business tax breaks for Oil companies solely due to them being oil companies, plop huge tariffs on good ethanol from Brazil while promoting shit US corn based ethanol, and don't allow more nuclear power or ready alternative fuel sources gas will continue to be easily speculated up and up and we'll continue to be at the whims of the markets until the next private energy epiphany, which probably won't be in America due to the current legislative branch's isolationism mentality.

[Arlos]

*YAWN*

SUVs are idiotic and wasteful. People have every right to have them, but don't expect sympathy when it costs a fuckton to operate because they're a tank. Modern minivans frequently are just as fuel effecient as most cars. I have no beef with them, I just wouldn't own one personally. More mass transit IS good, for a vast number of reasons. I can't think of anyone who wants to see the economy recess and produce fewer goods, and even the Southern Baptists have come out in support of cutting greenhouse emissions and fighting global warming, so the push is getting pretty universal, which is all to the good.

ANWR is ecologically fragile and highly sensitive, and the oil companies have shown by their results throughout Alaska that they cannot begin to be trusted to not fuck the place up. Besides, even if development started now, it'd be 2015 before production got anywhere, and even then, last I read it has maybe 6 month's worth of supply. It's not worth it, not when there's other options (such as, you know, biodiesel, which is almost certainly cost-viable now that diesel fuel runs $4 a gallon) available.

I can't remember the last time I heard anyone, anywhere, even here in Liberalville call for raising gas taxes. Nice invention from thin air, but stop pulling shit out of your ass.

If ANY company were making 30+ billion in PROFIT I would argue that they don't even begin to need tax BREAKS. Put some of that profit back into the company for development, don't expect Mr & Mrs Middle Class to fund it. How fucking retarded can you get?

Nuclear power has its own set of serious issues, including waste that is lethally dangerous and has million+ year half lives, and we have no way of getting rid of it. That's just the tip of the iceberg too. Why not actually, you know, make use of the vast coal reserves we have, just force the modern pollution equipment, so that it doesn't dump the CO2 and mercury into the atmosphere. Technology exists, as Gaazy can confirm.

As for Brazilian ethanol, I thought the point was to REDUCE our foreign dependencies. Shouldn't we thus create our OWN ethanol? Sure, as a short term measure we can import some (though theirs frequently comes at the expense of hacking down huge swaths of rainforest, which is rather counterproductive), but we need to ramp up our OWN production, which we are perfectly capable of doing, especially if we stop trying to use such a energy-expensive crop such as Corn to generate it.

You advocate tax breaks for the disgustingly wealthy, the destruction of large areas of unspoiled environment, further enrichment of oil companies, expansion of a process that generates some of the most toxic waste known to man, and use invented "liberal agenda items" that exist nowhere but in the fevered recesses of your demented psyche to argue your case.... Hmmm, is it any wonder I reject pretty much every thing you call for, and call you on your completely fictional inventions? I think not...

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

Or how about, America?

Since it's just North, Central, and South America...

<derail>

Well, that'd be lovely if it weren't for that whole pesky continent below us that actually *is* South America o.O

</derail>

[Harrison]

That still wouldn't change anything if we called Canada+USA+Mexico "America" as a country.

Continent names wouldn't change.

[Gypsiyee]

well then, why not just keep it north america and do it australia style!

[Zanchief]

well then, why not just keep it north america and do it australia style!

Because apparently Harrison has become a land grubbing imperialist all of a sudden.

[ClakarEQ]

Ethanol will have just as bad an impact to the environment that oil does today, it will shift from air to water is all. No not exactly the same issues but the severity of the issues will be very similar. In fact just this emerging market is already creating troubles? Biodesiel is not the answer, a band-aid perhaps, and a bad one at that. The only solution IMO is wind, sun, and water and none of those really speak to the combustion engine or "cars" let alone all the things we consume that have some oil base (like your hand lotion, toothpaste, plastics, etc).

ANWR from what I know, and that isn't much, since Chevron will not nor does it plan to tell anyone what if found when it drilled there. You probably know there is a well there already, it's capped is all. So Chevron won't cough up the goods on what they found however geologists "claim" that even if all of ANWR was mined of all its oil, it would be 5% (iirc) of our yearly consumption.

Point is ANWR and what it holds is only known by Chevron and they aren't sharing. Any statements made by anyone not employed by chevron is fiction and guess work at best, including the geologists that think it only holds 5% of a years consumption.

I think too many folks in our nation have put themselves on a pedestal thinking they are better then anyone else, we are better than the rest of the world. In reality we are one of the most selfish nations known to mankind, we take what we want, we use what we want, we consume more than any other country and produce less and less. You care not for your fellow man and only for yourself and that mentality has a global price tag. Watch and wait, you will see how loudly our voices get at China and India in the next few decades and all that these countries are doing is following the example we put in place, you see it is ok for us, but not for them.

I think it is time we reap what we have sown, stop bitching about gas and oil, start riding your bike to work.

/bunch of ramblings

[Evermore]

It doesn't take much looking to see many liberals have long desired high gas prices. It will be the catalyst to persuade Americans to abandon their SUVs and minivans, take mass transit, produce less consumer goods and services, and stop emitting those evil greenhouse gases.

Please post what you are basing this statement on.

[Tikker]

SUVs are idiotic and wasteful.

come drive your piece of shit audi here in the middle of winter and tell me that SUV's are idiotic and wasteful

you'll appreciate all the SUV's that tow you out of snow drifts and laugh at your impractical little car

[Tossica]

It doesn't take much looking to see many liberals have long desired high gas prices. It will be the catalyst to persuade Americans to abandon their SUVs and minivans, take mass transit, produce less consumer goods and services, and stop emitting those evil greenhouse gases.

Please post what you are basing this statement on.

No kidding. What a giant crock of bullshit, lie. I am embarassed for you Lyion.

[Arlos]

Actually, Tikker, my car has all-wheel-drive. Snow and ice don't scare me, unless you're talking feet of snow that hasn't been cleared at all, in which case the vast majority of SUVs on the market (which are 2wd themselves) are fucked too.

Still, you're right, SUVs aren't idiotic in ALL applications, though I would argue that land boats like the Suburban or luxury versions like the Escalade certainly are. Plus, I doubt even you could argue that 95% of people who buy SUVs will never actually take them into an environment where they are actually useful. You people who live in the frozen tundra are, obviously, an exception. Ma and Pa average US citizen hardly need a 10 mpg land yacht to transport their 1.8 children on (at worst) rainy roads. Can we agree on that, hmm?

-Arlos

[Evermore]

but but what about the bling factor?

[Tikker]

Plus, I doubt even you could argue that 95% of people who buy SUVs will never actually take them into an environment where they are actually useful. You people who live in the frozen tundra are, obviously, an exception. Ma and Pa average US citizen hardly need a 10 mpg land yacht to transport their 1.8 children on (at worst) rainy roads. Can we agree on that, hmm?

-Arlos

I agree

90% of folks who buy vehicles don't use them to their potential

ps

i'm betting you don't have winter tires anyway, and would just over drive your low clearance audi into a snowbank anyhoo

[Phlegm]

A lot of the rise for oil recently can be attributed to the weak dollar. It looks like the Fed will likely drop the interest rate again so the dollar will be even weaker. As it is now, the dollar is at an all time low against the yen and the euro.

BTW, due to this weakness, gold just went over a thousand dollar an ounce.

[Harrison]

Whenever I see a hummer, escalade, navigator, denali, or anything of that nature. I have the overwhelming urge to find out where they park and slash their tires.

Especially if it has "rims" and it's lowered.

[Phlegm]

Who get rich from high gas price?

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Motorists may may fume when forking over $3 a gallon at the local service station, but as it turns out, your local filling spot makes chump change from a gallon of gas.

So exactly who is getting rich?

Oil traders: Often blamed for pushing up prices, traders don't necessarily benefit from the high price of crude or gasoline, they profit from how much the price changes. Traders can get rich - as long as they bet correctly on whether prices will rise or fall.

An investment bank makes money when oil prices go from $95 to $100 a barrel if it bet the price will rise - or $100 to $95 if it bet the price will fall - not on the difference between production cost and trading price.

"If you wanna keep your job, you gotta be more right than wrong," said John Kilduff, an energy analyst at the trading firm MF Global in New York, explaining how traders make their money.

Gas stations: A surprisingly small amount goes to the guy who runs the station.

Most service stations are independently owned and operated and take in between 7 and 10 cents for every gallon they sell, according to the Energy Information Administration.

That 7 to 10 cents going to the gas station isn't even profit. Out of that, station owners still have to pay leases, workers, and other expenses - leaving them with a profit of just a few cents. For the service stations, most profit comes from selling coffee, cigarettes, food and other amenities.

These calculations are based off of EIA's most recent numbers, when gas was $3.04 a gallon. Gasoline hit another record nationwide average of $3.27 a gallon Thursday.

Taxes: The government takes about 40 cents right off the top, with about 18 cents going to the feds. State taxes vary widely, but the national average is about 22 cents a gallon. Most of this money is used to build and maintain roads.

Transportation: Getting the gas from refineries to service stations via trucks or pipelines - and the cost of storing it in large tanks - eats up another 23 to 26 cents per gallon.

Refining: About 24 cents a gallon goes to refining companies like Valero Sunoco or Frontier that specialize in turning crude oil into gas. Some companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips produce and refine crude oil.

Profits for refiners have been squeezed lately because the price they pay for oil has risen so much faster than the price they can sell the gas for. This helps explain why Big Oil companies -like Exxon, which actually buys more crude oil than it produces - haven't seen their profits rise as much as the price of oil.

Crude oil: This is the most expensive part of a gallon of gas. $2.07 from every gallon of gas goes to producers of crude like Chevron, BP, and smaller outfits like Anadarko and Marathon, or national oil companies controlled by countries like Saudi Arabia, Mexico or Venezuela.

Crude currently trades around $110 a barrel, but breaking down the money in that barrel of oil is tough. Exploration and production costs, royalty payments - all a big part of $110 a barrel oil - vary widely country by country and project by project.

"It's difficult to generalize, there's a whole spectrum of costs," said Ron Planting, an economist with the American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade group.

They can range from $1 a barrel to produce crude in Saudi Arabia to over $70 a barrel to find, develop and pump oil in the deep water Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of Algeria, said Ann-Louise Hittle, an oil analyst with the energy consultants Wood Mackenzie.

EIA estimates it costs U.S. oil companies an average of about $24 a barrel to find, develop and produce oil worldwide, but that doesn't include costs like transportation, administration, or income taxes - which can be substantial. While Exxon made over $40 billion in 2007, a 60% increase from 2004, it paid over $100 billion in taxes and royalties.

Nonetheless, $40 billion - or any of the record profits seen by most oil companies over the last few years - is certainly a lot of money, and it has put Big Oil in lawmaker's cross hairs.

[Tuggan]

and what kind of milage does your awd audi get arlos? awd is quite inefficient for driving to and from work, in california, where in your case im quite sure have to go way out of your way to find diverse enough road conditions to justify wasting the gas for your awd.

unless you drive an econo gas friendly tiny car, i don't really see how you can have such a high and mighty bullshit attitude about what people choose to drive.

[Arlos]

i'm betting you don't have winter tires anyway, and would just over drive your low clearance audi into a snowbank anyhoo

Of course I don't have winter tires. Winters here rarely get below 5C, and I don't go up to Tahoe often enough to justify buying a spare set of snow tires. If I lived where you do, with nothing but the stray caribou to block the wind straight from the north pole, then damn straight I'd get a set. Even without them though, I'm reasonably confident I'd be OK. I learned to drive on snow & ice in eastern Washington for 2 years, where it gets to -30C to -35C on occasion, and did it in a 78 Ford Grenada with crap non-snow tires cause I was broke as fuck and couldn't afford different sets.

As for what mileage I get, it's in the mid-20s. Remember, I have an A4, and it's got a 1.8L 4 cylinder (just with a turbo). So it's not like I've got some huge gas guzzling V8 in there. Also remember Audi's Quattro system is designed for road driving, not off-road, so it's set up for efficiency on pavement. BIG difference between that kind of system and the low-geared off-road 4WD that you're going to find in a Jeep, which IS what you're thinking of with regard to 4WD being inefficient. Still, my AWD is great for cornering, dealing with inequal traction between the 4 tires like you get on a road with snow/ice/water, etc. I just wouldn't take it on a rutted dirt road on a bet. Anyway, do I get the mileage of something like a Prius, of course not. But I get far better mileage than a useless land yacht, that's for sure.

-Arlos

[Harrison]

I learned to drive on snow & ice in eastern Washington for 2 years, where it gets to -30C to -35C on occasion, and did it in a 78 Ford Grenada with crap non-snow tires cause I was broke as fuck and couldn't afford different sets.

Uphill both ways in the dark during a blizzard?

[Tikker]

As for what mileage I get, it's in the mid-20s. Remember, I have an A4, and it's got a 1.8L 4 cylinder (just with a turbo).

and yet you don't get any better mileage than my jeep

I get 23-26 mpg depending on whether or not I'm towing a trailer~

[Arlos]

No, cause I lived in the real world. In the real world I was, as I said, broke as fuck at the time, and it was the only car I had, so I HAD to use it if I wanted to get groceries, etc. Ordinary snow and ice weren't so bad. It was freezing rain, where you come out and your car is under a solid 3/4" inch shell of unbroken ice, and the roads are covered in the same wet ice that were the worst. On those days, you pretty much just didn't drive until something was done about the roads. (that's even apart from how you managed to get into the car, considering the key hole was under ice, and they didn't have remote unlocking systems yet).

And Tikker, I probably do a shitload more city driving than you do, and have to deal with far worse traffic. Both of which have big-time negative impacts on gas mileage. (that and I tend to be a bit lead-footed coming off of stop signs & traffic lights, which is a personal rather than vehicular foible). If I'm doing actual open highway driving, that mileage shoots up to 30-something, depending on the terrain. (going to Tahoe for example, it's less, cause I'm going rather sharply uphill most of the way once I get past Sacramento). What kind of mileage would you be getting if you were driving around downtown Toronto all the time, and going through rush hour traffic?

-Arlos

[Eziekial]

According to my car's computer i'm averaging 18.9 MPG and I think that's just fine considering it's the ultimate driving machine.

[Tuggan]

As for what mileage I get, it's in the mid-20s. Remember, I have an A4, and it's got a 1.8L 4 cylinder (just with a turbo). So it's not like I've got some huge gas guzzling V8 in there. Also remember Audi's Quattro system is designed for road driving, not off-road, so it's set up for efficiency on pavement. BIG difference between that kind of system and the low-geared off-road 4WD that you're going to find in a Jeep, which IS what you're thinking of with regard to 4WD being inefficient. Still, my AWD is great for cornering, dealing with inequal traction between the 4 tires like you get on a road with snow/ice/water, etc. I just wouldn't take it on a rutted dirt road on a bet. Anyway, do I get the mileage of something like a Prius, of course not. But I get far better mileage than a useless land yacht, that's for sure.

-Arlos

no, instead you have a completely impractical and equally useless turbo charged all wheel drive performance vehicle that contributes to the problem just as much. get off the high horse. at least these "useless land yacht" have the option of some utility and function.

i also think mid 20s is rather optimistic, unless you spend 95% of your time on a traffic free expressway where you maintain 55 the whole time.