gas prices- a deeper look
GAWKY
04-02-2008, 12:03 PM
Good article from BusinessWeek:
"They see speculation in the market, I see decline in global inventories. I don't think this is a big surprise, that we've had a jump in price when there has been a decrease in crude inventories."— Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, Bloomberg News, Mar. 5, 2008
"It should be obvious to you all that the [gasoline] demand is outstripping supply, which causes prices to go up." — President George W. Bush, Associated Press, Mar. 5, 2008
One wonders if verifiable facts ever get in the way of this administration's statements on issues that are critical to the average American's wellbeing. After all, last time I checked, when politicians are elected to public office, or appointed, as is Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman, they must take an oath to the American people before assuming their new positions. How can they forget a sacred oath so quickly? Were they daydreaming when they took it, so it never meant anything to begin with? Maybe it's just another promise you have to make to get into office: When you're securely incumbent you can ignore even solemn oaths you took.
Obviously, the two quotes that led this article came from discussions concerning the current high price for oil on the futures market. Bodman appears to be protecting the speculators in oil, as opposed to looking after the interests of all Americans. President Bush, apparently, has never talked to the Energy Dept.'s Energy Information Agency to see whether gasoline demand is actually up. More troubling, the writer of that particular Associated Press article obviously didn't look up the EIA's numbers to verify the President's assertions. They weren't accurate.
1. There Is No Shortage
Gasoline reserves on hand are at the highest levels since the early 1990s, which is remarkable considering the nation's refineries have been cutting back on the production of gasoline because their margins have declined. In fact, average gasoline reserves on hand have risen since this past October, while oil reserves in this country have gone up virtually every week this year—and only fog in the Houston Ship Channel that kept oil tankers from unloading their crude one week kept it from being every week.
In the same Bloomberg article that quotes from Bodman's CNBC appearance on Mar. 4, he also said that it was thanks to ethanol that the gasoline problem isn't even worse. He then added that the fact that making ethanol is forcing up prices of other farm commodities, including hog and chicken feed, is "nowhere near as important as trying to relieve pressure on [gasoline] supplies."
Of course, there is no pressure on gasoline supplies in this country as of today, but Bodman's statement must have made eyes roll among the executives at Pilgrim's Pride PPC; the Pittsburg, (Tex.) poultry producer announced 1,100 layoffs on Mar. 13, closing one processing plant and 6 of their 13 distribution centers because their company's outlay for chicken feed went up $600 million last fiscal year and was on track to increase by another $700 million this year.
Here's the scorecard, in case you missed it. There's no shortage of gasoline or oil in the U.S. today, and we have near-record reserves on hand. Meanwhile the Congressional mandate for ethanol has jacked up the price of chicken feed for Pilgrim's Pride, which is the U.S.'s largest processor of chickens and turkeys—by $1.3 billion. And that's for just one company processing chicken. This is what passes for acceptable to our Energy Secretary?
2. Demand Is DOWN, Yet Prices Are UP
Just so we can all get on the same page, here are the verifiable facts on oil supplies, production, and gasoline demand.
In January of this year, the U.S. used 4% less petroleum than we did a year ago. (Oil demand was down 3.2% in February.) Furthermore, demand has been falling slowly since July of last year. Ronald Bailey of Reason Online has pointed out that worldwide production of oil has risen 2.5% in the first quarter, while worldwide demand has grown by only 2%. Production is expected to increase by 3.3% in the second quarter, and by as much as 4.1% by the third quarter. The net result is that the U.S. daily buffer for oil production against demand, which was a paltry 1.5 million barrels as recently as 2005, is now up to 3 million barrels in excess capacity today.
So what is going on here? Why would our Energy Secretary say there's a supply and demand problem when none exists? Why would he say that speculators have little or nothing to do with the incredibly high price of oil and gasoline, when it's clear they do? President Bush—a former oilman—gives the ever-growing demand for gasoline as the primary reason prices are so high, yet that notion can be dispelled with one minute of research. That's the problem with rhetoric; it rarely matches the facts.
3. Speculation is Up, and the Dollar Is Down
On the same day the President and our Energy Secretary made those foolish comments, no less an authority than ExxonMobil (XOM) Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson was quoted by Marketwatch as saying, "The record run in oil prices is related more to speculation and a weakening dollar than supply and demand in the market." He added, "In terms of fundamentals, fear of supply reliability is overblown."
As for the speculators, in 2000 approximately $9 billion was invested in oil futures, while today that number has gone up to $250 billion. Now, if any publicly traded company had an additional $241 billion put into its stock in the same period, its stock would rise out of sight too—even if the company was not worth anywhere near that amount of market capitalization.
Moving on to the weak U.S. dollar as a primary cause for skyrocketing oil prices—there is ":some": truth in that statement. But consider this: The dollar has depreciated 30% against the world's currencies since 2002, while the price of oil has gone up 500%. So is it the weak dollar that has caused a 550% increase in the price of oil, or is it the extra $241 billion worth of speculation? You can make the call on that one.
Possibly just to ensure oil prices don't respond to real-world market conditions, Goldman Sachs (GS) forecast on Mar. 7 that turbulence in the oil market could cause oil to spike as high as $200 a barrel. This flies in the face of all known information—but then again, Goldman Sachs is the world's biggest trader of energy derivatives, and its Goldman Sachs Commodities Index is a widely watched barometer of energy and commodities prices.
What Is Washington Thinking?
Rounding out the list of experts discussing our oil and gasoline situation is , head of San Antonio (Tex.) Valero Energy (VLO). He spoke in San Diego a week after those comments from Goldman Sachs, the President, and Secretary Bodman. Believe it or not, Klesse said poor margins may cause Valero to sell one-third of its refinery operations; he stated that poor margins in recent months had caused planned refinery expansions—which would have produced 500,000 more barrels per day—to be canceled. Moreover, according to a report from Reuters on Mar. 11, 2008, Klesse recently released the information that gasoline production has been curtailed in response to slowing demand.
Imagine that: Refiners cut gasoline production, yet gasoline reserves have grown to their largest since late 1992. So much for "surging demand."
Klesse also called for the government to start imposing a tariff on imported gasoline to protect U.S. refiners' profits. Protectionism? As famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith correctly said, "In America, the only respectable form of socialism is socialism for the rich."
Which takes us back to the original question: Why is Washington doing everything it can to convince us there is a shortage when there isn't one? After all, the only people they're protecting are those heavily invested in oil futures—and that's to the detriment of all other Americans.
We're Paying for What?
When it became undeniable that poor decision-making by company executives had put a respected 85-year-old U.S. institution in financial peril, why did the Federal Reserve rush in to save investment bank Bear Stearns (BSC)? Of course, we need to restore confidence in our financial institutions, but why protect the personal assets of those who were responsible for the mess? Both the corporation's officers and its board members should contribute their personal assets toward saving the bank they put in the ditch—the bank all of us are going to pay to bail out.
Instead, the Bush administration is protecting those responsible for creating yet another speculative bubble in oil futures, and is protecting investors in the ethanol industry—much to the detriment of food-processing companies such as Pilgrim's Pride. And the net result of all this is that the prices of crude and gasoline rise ever higher thanks to a "shortage" that does not exist, while food costs are soaring thanks in part to the ethanol mandate.
The Federal Reserve lowers interest rates, but the cost of mortgages goes up six weeks in a row—and last month Bank of America (BAC) credit-card holders started being charged more than 24% interest on new purchases.
This is what they call "Republican Prosperity?" Ronald Reagan was both right and wrong when he said, "Government is not the solution, government is the problem." And government is still the problem. Instead of a fair and open market they gave us a free-for-all marketplace with no regulations at all, which lately these "bubble boys" have sent south for all of us.
One would guess that Washington missed the obvious: Protect all U.S. consumers and you're also protecting business expansion.
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/apr2008/bw2008041_945564.htm
"They see speculation in the market, I see decline in global inventories. I don't think this is a big surprise, that we've had a jump in price when there has been a decrease in crude inventories."— Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, Bloomberg News, Mar. 5, 2008
"It should be obvious to you all that the [gasoline] demand is outstripping supply, which causes prices to go up." — President George W. Bush, Associated Press, Mar. 5, 2008
One wonders if verifiable facts ever get in the way of this administration's statements on issues that are critical to the average American's wellbeing. After all, last time I checked, when politicians are elected to public office, or appointed, as is Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman, they must take an oath to the American people before assuming their new positions. How can they forget a sacred oath so quickly? Were they daydreaming when they took it, so it never meant anything to begin with? Maybe it's just another promise you have to make to get into office: When you're securely incumbent you can ignore even solemn oaths you took.
Obviously, the two quotes that led this article came from discussions concerning the current high price for oil on the futures market. Bodman appears to be protecting the speculators in oil, as opposed to looking after the interests of all Americans. President Bush, apparently, has never talked to the Energy Dept.'s Energy Information Agency to see whether gasoline demand is actually up. More troubling, the writer of that particular Associated Press article obviously didn't look up the EIA's numbers to verify the President's assertions. They weren't accurate.
1. There Is No Shortage
Gasoline reserves on hand are at the highest levels since the early 1990s, which is remarkable considering the nation's refineries have been cutting back on the production of gasoline because their margins have declined. In fact, average gasoline reserves on hand have risen since this past October, while oil reserves in this country have gone up virtually every week this year—and only fog in the Houston Ship Channel that kept oil tankers from unloading their crude one week kept it from being every week.
In the same Bloomberg article that quotes from Bodman's CNBC appearance on Mar. 4, he also said that it was thanks to ethanol that the gasoline problem isn't even worse. He then added that the fact that making ethanol is forcing up prices of other farm commodities, including hog and chicken feed, is "nowhere near as important as trying to relieve pressure on [gasoline] supplies."
Of course, there is no pressure on gasoline supplies in this country as of today, but Bodman's statement must have made eyes roll among the executives at Pilgrim's Pride PPC; the Pittsburg, (Tex.) poultry producer announced 1,100 layoffs on Mar. 13, closing one processing plant and 6 of their 13 distribution centers because their company's outlay for chicken feed went up $600 million last fiscal year and was on track to increase by another $700 million this year.
Here's the scorecard, in case you missed it. There's no shortage of gasoline or oil in the U.S. today, and we have near-record reserves on hand. Meanwhile the Congressional mandate for ethanol has jacked up the price of chicken feed for Pilgrim's Pride, which is the U.S.'s largest processor of chickens and turkeys—by $1.3 billion. And that's for just one company processing chicken. This is what passes for acceptable to our Energy Secretary?
2. Demand Is DOWN, Yet Prices Are UP
Just so we can all get on the same page, here are the verifiable facts on oil supplies, production, and gasoline demand.
In January of this year, the U.S. used 4% less petroleum than we did a year ago. (Oil demand was down 3.2% in February.) Furthermore, demand has been falling slowly since July of last year. Ronald Bailey of Reason Online has pointed out that worldwide production of oil has risen 2.5% in the first quarter, while worldwide demand has grown by only 2%. Production is expected to increase by 3.3% in the second quarter, and by as much as 4.1% by the third quarter. The net result is that the U.S. daily buffer for oil production against demand, which was a paltry 1.5 million barrels as recently as 2005, is now up to 3 million barrels in excess capacity today.
So what is going on here? Why would our Energy Secretary say there's a supply and demand problem when none exists? Why would he say that speculators have little or nothing to do with the incredibly high price of oil and gasoline, when it's clear they do? President Bush—a former oilman—gives the ever-growing demand for gasoline as the primary reason prices are so high, yet that notion can be dispelled with one minute of research. That's the problem with rhetoric; it rarely matches the facts.
3. Speculation is Up, and the Dollar Is Down
On the same day the President and our Energy Secretary made those foolish comments, no less an authority than ExxonMobil (XOM) Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson was quoted by Marketwatch as saying, "The record run in oil prices is related more to speculation and a weakening dollar than supply and demand in the market." He added, "In terms of fundamentals, fear of supply reliability is overblown."
As for the speculators, in 2000 approximately $9 billion was invested in oil futures, while today that number has gone up to $250 billion. Now, if any publicly traded company had an additional $241 billion put into its stock in the same period, its stock would rise out of sight too—even if the company was not worth anywhere near that amount of market capitalization.
Moving on to the weak U.S. dollar as a primary cause for skyrocketing oil prices—there is ":some": truth in that statement. But consider this: The dollar has depreciated 30% against the world's currencies since 2002, while the price of oil has gone up 500%. So is it the weak dollar that has caused a 550% increase in the price of oil, or is it the extra $241 billion worth of speculation? You can make the call on that one.
Possibly just to ensure oil prices don't respond to real-world market conditions, Goldman Sachs (GS) forecast on Mar. 7 that turbulence in the oil market could cause oil to spike as high as $200 a barrel. This flies in the face of all known information—but then again, Goldman Sachs is the world's biggest trader of energy derivatives, and its Goldman Sachs Commodities Index is a widely watched barometer of energy and commodities prices.
What Is Washington Thinking?
Rounding out the list of experts discussing our oil and gasoline situation is , head of San Antonio (Tex.) Valero Energy (VLO). He spoke in San Diego a week after those comments from Goldman Sachs, the President, and Secretary Bodman. Believe it or not, Klesse said poor margins may cause Valero to sell one-third of its refinery operations; he stated that poor margins in recent months had caused planned refinery expansions—which would have produced 500,000 more barrels per day—to be canceled. Moreover, according to a report from Reuters on Mar. 11, 2008, Klesse recently released the information that gasoline production has been curtailed in response to slowing demand.
Imagine that: Refiners cut gasoline production, yet gasoline reserves have grown to their largest since late 1992. So much for "surging demand."
Klesse also called for the government to start imposing a tariff on imported gasoline to protect U.S. refiners' profits. Protectionism? As famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith correctly said, "In America, the only respectable form of socialism is socialism for the rich."
Which takes us back to the original question: Why is Washington doing everything it can to convince us there is a shortage when there isn't one? After all, the only people they're protecting are those heavily invested in oil futures—and that's to the detriment of all other Americans.
We're Paying for What?
When it became undeniable that poor decision-making by company executives had put a respected 85-year-old U.S. institution in financial peril, why did the Federal Reserve rush in to save investment bank Bear Stearns (BSC)? Of course, we need to restore confidence in our financial institutions, but why protect the personal assets of those who were responsible for the mess? Both the corporation's officers and its board members should contribute their personal assets toward saving the bank they put in the ditch—the bank all of us are going to pay to bail out.
Instead, the Bush administration is protecting those responsible for creating yet another speculative bubble in oil futures, and is protecting investors in the ethanol industry—much to the detriment of food-processing companies such as Pilgrim's Pride. And the net result of all this is that the prices of crude and gasoline rise ever higher thanks to a "shortage" that does not exist, while food costs are soaring thanks in part to the ethanol mandate.
The Federal Reserve lowers interest rates, but the cost of mortgages goes up six weeks in a row—and last month Bank of America (BAC) credit-card holders started being charged more than 24% interest on new purchases.
This is what they call "Republican Prosperity?" Ronald Reagan was both right and wrong when he said, "Government is not the solution, government is the problem." And government is still the problem. Instead of a fair and open market they gave us a free-for-all marketplace with no regulations at all, which lately these "bubble boys" have sent south for all of us.
One would guess that Washington missed the obvious: Protect all U.S. consumers and you're also protecting business expansion.
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/apr2008/bw2008041_945564.htm
'97ventureowner
04-02-2008, 12:57 PM
I found it interesting to note on one of our local radio programs this morning they were talking about gas prices, and the announcer said that when Clinton took over the White House in '93 gas was going for $1.19/gal. and when he left office in early '01 it was $1.31/gal. When G.W. Bush took over in "01 it was $1.31/gal, and now today 4/08 it is $3.31/gal. i guess that's what you get when you have an "oil man " in the White House .
BNaylor
04-02-2008, 04:29 PM
From what I read Congress recently grilled 5 oil company executives and their reply was yes we have very high profits (net) but deserve it, acceptable and inline with other industries...something to that effect. :rolleyes: The AP carried the story. For example ExxonMobil made 40 billion in net profits alone. Congress is wondering why the oil companies should continue to get billions of dollars in tax breaks. The oil company investments argument doesn't hold water since they have not built any new refineries to keep up with demand and they are dropping the ball on the supply issue. As far as demand Americans are consuming a crap load of more gasoline versus the last decade with the SUV revolution which IMO really got going well after Clinton left office. Also, OPEC doesn't listen to anybody let alone G.W.
I understand that truckers nationwide protested the high cost of diesel yesterday.
I understand that truckers nationwide protested the high cost of diesel yesterday.
'97ventureowner
04-02-2008, 04:42 PM
I heard on the news yesterday that the oil companies are supposed to devote some of their profits towards renewable energy sources. While Exxon-Mobil had $40 billion in profits, they only set aside $10 million towards this.:screwy:
Also I thought I read somewheres recently that the SUV craze really took off shortly after the first Gulf War in 1991. People saw the vehicles that were used during the war and vehicle manufacturers quickly followed suit in producing vehicles to meet the demand.
Also I thought I read somewheres recently that the SUV craze really took off shortly after the first Gulf War in 1991. People saw the vehicles that were used during the war and vehicle manufacturers quickly followed suit in producing vehicles to meet the demand.
BNaylor
04-02-2008, 05:29 PM
I heard on the news yesterday that the oil companies are supposed to devote some of their profits towards renewable energy sources. While Exxon-Mobil had $40 billion in profits, they only set aside $10 million towards this.:screwy:
Also I thought I read somewheres recently that the SUV craze really took off shortly after the first Gulf War in 1991. People saw the vehicles that were used during the war and vehicle manufacturers quickly followed suit in producing vehicles to meet the demand.
I don't know about that Tom. That doesn't sound right. They weren't that popular in the 90s as they are today or since 2000 which IMO was the prolific year for SUV sales. Back in 1994-1995 only a few of us on my block had them. I had a '94 Isuzu Rodeo 4X4 bought for off-roading and fun not to drive as a family/passenger car or daily driver. :shakehead
Back in 2000 there were more than 50 sport-utility vehicle nameplates fighting for consumers' minds and monies. Even more today. SUV sales in the first 8 months of 2000 was approximately 3.45 million-units annualized rate which was double the sales of all SUVs back in 1995. I hate to see what the figure(s) has been for the past 7 years.
Also I thought I read somewheres recently that the SUV craze really took off shortly after the first Gulf War in 1991. People saw the vehicles that were used during the war and vehicle manufacturers quickly followed suit in producing vehicles to meet the demand.
I don't know about that Tom. That doesn't sound right. They weren't that popular in the 90s as they are today or since 2000 which IMO was the prolific year for SUV sales. Back in 1994-1995 only a few of us on my block had them. I had a '94 Isuzu Rodeo 4X4 bought for off-roading and fun not to drive as a family/passenger car or daily driver. :shakehead
Back in 2000 there were more than 50 sport-utility vehicle nameplates fighting for consumers' minds and monies. Even more today. SUV sales in the first 8 months of 2000 was approximately 3.45 million-units annualized rate which was double the sales of all SUVs back in 1995. I hate to see what the figure(s) has been for the past 7 years.
'97ventureowner
04-02-2008, 09:43 PM
I "wracked my brains" trying to remember where I heard it and the only place that came to mind was yesterday morning's CNN Headline news. I think thy were doing a report on the oil companies' CEOs grilling in Congress. The more I thought about it they probably said something on the order that the SUV craze began shortly after the first Gulf War, with people seeing the vehicles that were being used there and stories by returning soldiers. Although the War might have been the catalyst for the interest in SUVs, like you said, they really didn't take off in sales for a few more years,(late '90s/early 2000s.)
The way the report was presented could lead one to believe the craze started in the early to mid '90s when in actuality it was still in it's infancy,( later 'fueled' <pun intended> by fairly low gas prices of the era.)
The way the report was presented could lead one to believe the craze started in the early to mid '90s when in actuality it was still in it's infancy,( later 'fueled' <pun intended> by fairly low gas prices of the era.)
ericn1300
04-02-2008, 11:09 PM
It's not the SUV's that are the problem, it's the pickups. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/business/yourmoney/09count.html
I'm glad to see diesel going up faster than gas maybe we will see less of those noisey, smell diesel pickups on the road
I'm glad to see diesel going up faster than gas maybe we will see less of those noisey, smell diesel pickups on the road
03cavPA
04-03-2008, 04:37 AM
Absolutely. I love paying more for goods that have been transported by diesel powered vehicles. It just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. Yeah, we need to get rid of all those turbodiesel cars, too. :rolleyes:
How did the truckers' protest go? Haven't heard much about it.
How did the truckers' protest go? Haven't heard much about it.
YogsVR4
04-03-2008, 10:58 AM
So if I can summarize.
Once GW leaves office gas prices are going to drop.
Demand is claimed to be down, though http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html shows otherwise. Not to mention China and India are moving up the usage scale faster then a mofo.
Profits for oil companies are bad. Though their margins are even less then other industries - such as entertainment, software, precious metals. When are they getting called to the mat for having a higher profit margin. Lest we forget that many people have pensions, 401Ks and othe retirement money tied into the energy industry. We certainly don't want those people making any money.
People have the choice of what vehicle they want to own. Gas guzzler or not. Not the suppliers fault someone chooses to get 12 miles to the gallon.
Tax breaks are a good thing. I'd like more of them. Raise taxes on a company and watch rates go up. Welfare is a bad thing, the government shouldn't hand them any money, but I'm all for letting them keep their own (but I'm that way about everyone - keep your own money).
Don't get me wrong, I want cheaper gas, but there is no way that an act of congress is going to make it happen. The oil companies are a private business and ever single time government tries to put in price controls, prices skyrocket or the product becomes more scarce. It happened in the seventies with gas and it can happen again.
The last thing I'd like to mention is that the biggest profiteer in Big Oil is BIG GOVERNMENT! The single largest piece of the money paid per gallon is TAX!! If the senate really wanted to lower the price of oil, reduce the tax burden.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Once GW leaves office gas prices are going to drop.
Demand is claimed to be down, though http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html shows otherwise. Not to mention China and India are moving up the usage scale faster then a mofo.
Profits for oil companies are bad. Though their margins are even less then other industries - such as entertainment, software, precious metals. When are they getting called to the mat for having a higher profit margin. Lest we forget that many people have pensions, 401Ks and othe retirement money tied into the energy industry. We certainly don't want those people making any money.
People have the choice of what vehicle they want to own. Gas guzzler or not. Not the suppliers fault someone chooses to get 12 miles to the gallon.
Tax breaks are a good thing. I'd like more of them. Raise taxes on a company and watch rates go up. Welfare is a bad thing, the government shouldn't hand them any money, but I'm all for letting them keep their own (but I'm that way about everyone - keep your own money).
Don't get me wrong, I want cheaper gas, but there is no way that an act of congress is going to make it happen. The oil companies are a private business and ever single time government tries to put in price controls, prices skyrocket or the product becomes more scarce. It happened in the seventies with gas and it can happen again.
The last thing I'd like to mention is that the biggest profiteer in Big Oil is BIG GOVERNMENT! The single largest piece of the money paid per gallon is TAX!! If the senate really wanted to lower the price of oil, reduce the tax burden.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
'97ventureowner
04-03-2008, 12:07 PM
I highly doubt prices will drop much at all once G.W. leaves office, especially on the points you touched on concerning India and China, (along with other developing countries and their newer demands - something we didn't really have in the equation a decade ago.)
People have the choice of what vehicle they want to own. Gas guzzler or not. Not the suppliers fault someone chooses to get 12 miles to the gallon.
In a way the supplier can be at fault. They can change what they produce to get more miles per gallon, as will happen in the future as the CAFE is increased. It has to start somewhere and i thin k the manufacturers should be nudged a little more to start producing more efficient vehicles and those that can run on alternate fuels. Maybe if this happens the oil companies will take note and devote more profits into researching alternate/renewable energies supplies like they are supposed to.
The last thing I'd like to mention is that the biggest profiteer in Big Oil is BIG GOVERNMENT! The single largest piece of the money paid per gallon is TAX!! If the senate really wanted to lower the price of oil, reduce the tax burden.
Just the other day our new county executive approached the county legislature and asked them to let a law enacted 2 years ago which requires a renewal at the end of May, capping the tax on fuel to $2.00/gal. This was enacted when prices were around $2.35 to $2.50 /gal and would cap the tax at $2.00/gal ( 8% county tax rate = 0.16 cents /gal.) Back then they didn't think the price would go that much higher so soon and enacted it as a form of a small tax relief, because if the price went higher the county tax would be capped at 0.16 cents. New information recently came out that our county has lost over 10.5 million dollars since the cap took effect and the price went a lot higher quicker than anticipated. That has created a shortfall in the county budget and when the new budget is approved for the next fiscal year it would be expected that our property taxes would increase to make up for the loss. Our county executive asked that the current law be allowed to "sunset" when it expires and then take the additional tax revenues generated when the cap is lifted and gas is taxed on the county level at the full 8%/gal, and apply it towards property tax relief so our property taxes will not increase next year. You should have heard the outpouring of comments related to this. Most seem against it but I think they don't realize that if we lift the cap then the additional revenue will offset any increase in our property taxes. What would they rather do, pay .03 to .05 cents (est.) more at the pump now and less property tax next year, or keep the cap on ,(to me the price of gas will still continue to increase so adding a few cents now really doesn't seem that bad,) and pay a lot more in property taxes next year? I vote for letting the cap expire and pay less in property tax as a result. I think our county needs to do a better job at educating the public as to the ramifications of lifting the cap versus keeping it on.
People have the choice of what vehicle they want to own. Gas guzzler or not. Not the suppliers fault someone chooses to get 12 miles to the gallon.
In a way the supplier can be at fault. They can change what they produce to get more miles per gallon, as will happen in the future as the CAFE is increased. It has to start somewhere and i thin k the manufacturers should be nudged a little more to start producing more efficient vehicles and those that can run on alternate fuels. Maybe if this happens the oil companies will take note and devote more profits into researching alternate/renewable energies supplies like they are supposed to.
The last thing I'd like to mention is that the biggest profiteer in Big Oil is BIG GOVERNMENT! The single largest piece of the money paid per gallon is TAX!! If the senate really wanted to lower the price of oil, reduce the tax burden.
Just the other day our new county executive approached the county legislature and asked them to let a law enacted 2 years ago which requires a renewal at the end of May, capping the tax on fuel to $2.00/gal. This was enacted when prices were around $2.35 to $2.50 /gal and would cap the tax at $2.00/gal ( 8% county tax rate = 0.16 cents /gal.) Back then they didn't think the price would go that much higher so soon and enacted it as a form of a small tax relief, because if the price went higher the county tax would be capped at 0.16 cents. New information recently came out that our county has lost over 10.5 million dollars since the cap took effect and the price went a lot higher quicker than anticipated. That has created a shortfall in the county budget and when the new budget is approved for the next fiscal year it would be expected that our property taxes would increase to make up for the loss. Our county executive asked that the current law be allowed to "sunset" when it expires and then take the additional tax revenues generated when the cap is lifted and gas is taxed on the county level at the full 8%/gal, and apply it towards property tax relief so our property taxes will not increase next year. You should have heard the outpouring of comments related to this. Most seem against it but I think they don't realize that if we lift the cap then the additional revenue will offset any increase in our property taxes. What would they rather do, pay .03 to .05 cents (est.) more at the pump now and less property tax next year, or keep the cap on ,(to me the price of gas will still continue to increase so adding a few cents now really doesn't seem that bad,) and pay a lot more in property taxes next year? I vote for letting the cap expire and pay less in property tax as a result. I think our county needs to do a better job at educating the public as to the ramifications of lifting the cap versus keeping it on.
J-Ri
04-04-2008, 03:57 PM
It's not the SUV's that are the problem, it's the pickups. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/business/yourmoney/09count.html
I'm glad to see diesel going up faster than gas maybe we will see less of those noisey, smell diesel pickups on the road
I disagree, pickups are not the problem. The problem is the idiots that choose these vehicles. I'm not saying all SUV owners don't need what they drive, some may need it, but a lot of SUV drivers would be able to do everything they need to do in a compact car. Almost all SUVs could be replaced with a mini van. I know there's the occasional trailer puller SUV, but most are just a "status symbol" Pickups, on the other hand, are more frequently used for hauling stuff. Although they get the same mileage, they are needed for some purpose (usually, I do know there are pickup drivers that don't need a truck). I wish cops would start cracking down on moving violations for big vehicles. Pull them over for 5 MPH over the speed limit, touching the centerline, rolling a stop sign, etc. IMO, that would be by far the best way to keep people from buying one if they're only going to be used for people transportation.
I'm glad to see diesel going up faster than gas maybe we will see less of those noisey, smell diesel pickups on the road
I disagree, pickups are not the problem. The problem is the idiots that choose these vehicles. I'm not saying all SUV owners don't need what they drive, some may need it, but a lot of SUV drivers would be able to do everything they need to do in a compact car. Almost all SUVs could be replaced with a mini van. I know there's the occasional trailer puller SUV, but most are just a "status symbol" Pickups, on the other hand, are more frequently used for hauling stuff. Although they get the same mileage, they are needed for some purpose (usually, I do know there are pickup drivers that don't need a truck). I wish cops would start cracking down on moving violations for big vehicles. Pull them over for 5 MPH over the speed limit, touching the centerline, rolling a stop sign, etc. IMO, that would be by far the best way to keep people from buying one if they're only going to be used for people transportation.
ericn1300
04-04-2008, 05:37 PM
Pickups, on the other hand, are more frequently used for hauling stuff.
Most Pickups are used for hauling less than 5% of the time and and could be rented on those occasions and still cost less than owning one. With my 96 Pontiac sedan and utility trailer I can haul 3 times the weight of a 1/2 ton pickup and 50% more than a one ton and it gets 25/33 mpg the rest of the time.
I wish cops would start cracking down on moving violations for big vehicles. Pull them over for 5 MPH over the speed limit, touching the centerline, rolling a stop sign, etc.
Amen brother. One of the first thing you learn in driving classes to get your CDL is to center your vehicle in the lane. Whish more prople would learn to do that.
Most Pickups are used for hauling less than 5% of the time and and could be rented on those occasions and still cost less than owning one. With my 96 Pontiac sedan and utility trailer I can haul 3 times the weight of a 1/2 ton pickup and 50% more than a one ton and it gets 25/33 mpg the rest of the time.
I wish cops would start cracking down on moving violations for big vehicles. Pull them over for 5 MPH over the speed limit, touching the centerline, rolling a stop sign, etc.
Amen brother. One of the first thing you learn in driving classes to get your CDL is to center your vehicle in the lane. Whish more prople would learn to do that.
'97ventureowner
04-04-2008, 10:52 PM
...And how many SUVs do you see flying down the highway doing 80 to 85 m.p.h.? I guess those drivers don't care what gas costs or what their m.p.g. is.:screwy:
72chevelleOhio
04-05-2008, 07:14 PM
my 96 Pontiac sedan and utility trailer I can haul 3 times the weight of a 1/2 ton pickup and 50% more than a one ton
Are you sure about that? :cwm27:
Who cares if its safe or not? :eek:
Are you sure about that? :cwm27:
Who cares if its safe or not? :eek:
ericn1300
04-05-2008, 08:39 PM
Are you sure about that? :cwm27:
Who cares if its safe or not? :eek:
350 tounge weight 3500 gross trailer weight max, 4 wheel disc brakes. safer than having the fat mother in law in the back seat chewing on me.
Who cares if its safe or not? :eek:
350 tounge weight 3500 gross trailer weight max, 4 wheel disc brakes. safer than having the fat mother in law in the back seat chewing on me.
BNaylor
04-07-2008, 01:03 PM
...And how many SUVs do you see flying down the highway doing 80 to 85 m.p.h.? I guess those drivers don't care what gas costs or what their m.p.g. is.:screwy:
When I'm on the open roads or interstates quite a bit of them. Many of which are Expeditions, Tahoes, Yukons (Denali) and other typical gas guzzler SUVs. Difference is they are getting way less than 20 mpg (most likely 10-15) while I'm getting over 25 mpg at those speeds which is common or legal now in the Southwest U.S. and in West Texas. I luv looking at their faces when they have to fill up though. :lol: I imagine their credit card debt is ridiculous. :shakehead Typical American decadence. Sad! :twak:
$4 or more per gallon may be a reality this summer as a nationwide average. :rolleyes:
When I'm on the open roads or interstates quite a bit of them. Many of which are Expeditions, Tahoes, Yukons (Denali) and other typical gas guzzler SUVs. Difference is they are getting way less than 20 mpg (most likely 10-15) while I'm getting over 25 mpg at those speeds which is common or legal now in the Southwest U.S. and in West Texas. I luv looking at their faces when they have to fill up though. :lol: I imagine their credit card debt is ridiculous. :shakehead Typical American decadence. Sad! :twak:
$4 or more per gallon may be a reality this summer as a nationwide average. :rolleyes:
J-Ri
04-07-2008, 03:07 PM
Most Pickups are used for hauling less than 5% of the time and and could be rented on those occasions and still cost less than owning one. With my 96 Pontiac sedan and utility trailer I can haul 3 times the weight of a 1/2 ton pickup and 50% more than a one ton and it gets 25/33 mpg the rest of the time.
You got a source on that 5%? I hear 80% of statistics are made up on the spot :biggrin: I would have thought it was higher than that... but I suppose it varies by area. Out here there are relatively few "shiny" pickups.
What we need is some sort of registration and insurance discount for pickups that are driven less than X miles per year. I know several people that have them to pull a boat/camper and drive it all the time because they can't afford a seperate expense for a car.
I've pulled 2,500-3,000 lbs with my Beretta and it still got better mileage (17 opposed to 8 or less) than my truck and with a more comfortable ride. And that was 70-80MPH most of the way. If it weren't for my stomach knotting up every time I hit the draft off a big rig, I'd even say it was an enjoyable drive.
You got a source on that 5%? I hear 80% of statistics are made up on the spot :biggrin: I would have thought it was higher than that... but I suppose it varies by area. Out here there are relatively few "shiny" pickups.
What we need is some sort of registration and insurance discount for pickups that are driven less than X miles per year. I know several people that have them to pull a boat/camper and drive it all the time because they can't afford a seperate expense for a car.
I've pulled 2,500-3,000 lbs with my Beretta and it still got better mileage (17 opposed to 8 or less) than my truck and with a more comfortable ride. And that was 70-80MPH most of the way. If it weren't for my stomach knotting up every time I hit the draft off a big rig, I'd even say it was an enjoyable drive.
'97ventureowner
04-07-2008, 03:33 PM
What we need is some sort of registration and insurance discount for pickups that are driven less than X miles per year. I know several people that have them to pull a boat/camper and drive it all the time because they can't afford a seperate expense for a car.
Check with your insurance company as many do offer a discount for yearly mileage under a certain amount. I've relegated my '94 C1500 to "yard horse" duties including picking up mulch, compost or topsoil for my property. Hauling big purchases home from the big box home centers, or taking a load of trash ( items too big for regular weekly trash pickup) to the transfer station. I mainly use the truck from April to October/November, then store it for the winter months. My insurance company drops my premium to a very small monthly charge to keep something on it so I don't have to turn in my plates every year and then get new ones the following year. NY runs a 2 year registration cycle and keeping some insurance on it while it's not being used keeps the plates current. I just call them when I take it off the road for the winter and the clock starts ticking for 6 months following that and automatically gets reinstated to regular insurance coverage at the end of those 6 months unless if I call them sooner to reinstate it earlier.
Even id\f you use your truck year 'round but don't put a lot of miles on it , there should be a lower premium for it. Make sure your truck is rated for the lowest possible mileage per year that you travel.Call your agent and find out if i is and if not let them know you don't put a lot of miles on it and see if a lower premium is available for that reason.
Check with your insurance company as many do offer a discount for yearly mileage under a certain amount. I've relegated my '94 C1500 to "yard horse" duties including picking up mulch, compost or topsoil for my property. Hauling big purchases home from the big box home centers, or taking a load of trash ( items too big for regular weekly trash pickup) to the transfer station. I mainly use the truck from April to October/November, then store it for the winter months. My insurance company drops my premium to a very small monthly charge to keep something on it so I don't have to turn in my plates every year and then get new ones the following year. NY runs a 2 year registration cycle and keeping some insurance on it while it's not being used keeps the plates current. I just call them when I take it off the road for the winter and the clock starts ticking for 6 months following that and automatically gets reinstated to regular insurance coverage at the end of those 6 months unless if I call them sooner to reinstate it earlier.
Even id\f you use your truck year 'round but don't put a lot of miles on it , there should be a lower premium for it. Make sure your truck is rated for the lowest possible mileage per year that you travel.Call your agent and find out if i is and if not let them know you don't put a lot of miles on it and see if a lower premium is available for that reason.
J-Ri
04-07-2008, 04:56 PM
Thanks, I'll do that. I need something where I can call and get insurance for a day at a time... I've used it 2 times so far this year, because of snow. Unless I need to pull something big I probably won't drive it until the next snowfall.
ericn1300
04-08-2008, 06:33 PM
You got a source on that 5%? I hear 80% of statistics are made up on the spot :biggrin: I would have thought it was higher than that... but I suppose it varies by area. Out here there are relatively few "shiny" pickups.
80%??? seems low. my stats are 100% made up:grinno: I wasn't talking about country boys with toys or construction workers, it was an observation made of all the pickups in bumper to bumper commuter traffic on the freeway with one person, no load and no mud on them.
my brother was visiting me when i lived in Cali for awhile and noticed the lack of pickups around town. he tosses his empty beer cans in the back of other parked pickups while driving around.
80%??? seems low. my stats are 100% made up:grinno: I wasn't talking about country boys with toys or construction workers, it was an observation made of all the pickups in bumper to bumper commuter traffic on the freeway with one person, no load and no mud on them.
my brother was visiting me when i lived in Cali for awhile and noticed the lack of pickups around town. he tosses his empty beer cans in the back of other parked pickups while driving around.
BNaylor
04-10-2008, 10:43 AM
I wasn't talking about country boys with toys or construction workers, it was an observation made of all the pickups in bumper to bumper commuter traffic on the freeway with one person, no load and no mud on them.
Then you'll hate driving in Texas and New Mexico. Too many here on the roads. And most with no 4WD either. :screwy:
Also, the NBS (New Body Style) GM trucks/suvs are assembled in Arlington and I believe the Toyota Tundra or the Tacoma in San Antonio.
Then you'll hate driving in Texas and New Mexico. Too many here on the roads. And most with no 4WD either. :screwy:
Also, the NBS (New Body Style) GM trucks/suvs are assembled in Arlington and I believe the Toyota Tundra or the Tacoma in San Antonio.
ericn1300
04-11-2008, 09:40 PM
Then you'll hate driving in Texas and New Mexico. Too many here on the roads. And most with no 4WD either. :screwy:
And I heard another quote on the radio today, "pickup owners that have never even been close enough to the barn to smell the manure, let alone ever to have to muck a stall". Been there, done that so I had to LMFAO
The commuters can control their costs through a variety of programs available but food costs will continue go up just as long as they hold out for the privilege of driving alone in a 3x4 cabin with a 4x8 empty cargo space behind them.
By the way I own two pickups, an 81 GMC and a 50 GMC, both with about 130k. I just choose a more economical ride when I need to go to town for a loaf of bread.
And I heard another quote on the radio today, "pickup owners that have never even been close enough to the barn to smell the manure, let alone ever to have to muck a stall". Been there, done that so I had to LMFAO
The commuters can control their costs through a variety of programs available but food costs will continue go up just as long as they hold out for the privilege of driving alone in a 3x4 cabin with a 4x8 empty cargo space behind them.
By the way I own two pickups, an 81 GMC and a 50 GMC, both with about 130k. I just choose a more economical ride when I need to go to town for a loaf of bread.
YogsVR4
04-14-2008, 09:09 AM
I drive a Titan like a bat out of hell. 12 mpg. No complaints from me.
I've even had people comment how I must hate to fill my tank. I just want to laugh in their face :lol: and say that I'm sorry that they're to stupid to get a job that pays enough to where the price of gas is immaterial. :lol:
I drive my VR4 for fun so every cent I pay for gas is entertainment related. The same goes for the motorycycles, Delorean and boat. Its amazing how many people complain about the price, but drive around 'just for fun'.
:popcorn:
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
I've even had people comment how I must hate to fill my tank. I just want to laugh in their face :lol: and say that I'm sorry that they're to stupid to get a job that pays enough to where the price of gas is immaterial. :lol:
I drive my VR4 for fun so every cent I pay for gas is entertainment related. The same goes for the motorycycles, Delorean and boat. Its amazing how many people complain about the price, but drive around 'just for fun'.
:popcorn:
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
BNaylor
04-14-2008, 02:44 PM
I drive a Titan like a bat out of hell. 12 mpg. No complaints from me.
I've even had people comment how I must hate to fill my tank. I just want to laugh in their face :lol: and say that I'm sorry that they're to stupid to get a job that pays enough to where the price of gas is immaterial.
Oh wow 12 mpg? :rolleyes: Only in America! :shakehead You can have fun with your gas guzzler while I laugh all the way to the bank and my IRA account. There is more to life then being a slave to some vehicle like a pickup truck or SUV unwisely used as a daily driver. To boot most Americans are in debt to their eyeballs driving them and anyone can get one regardless of your income. :eek:
With my discretionary income or any income leftover for entertainment and hobby purposes I have fun racing my GTP and Honda MX bike which have no bearing on the rising price of gas since they are used infrequently as off road vehicles and use race gas. Plus the savings pays for the mods. :wink:
:popcorn:
I've even had people comment how I must hate to fill my tank. I just want to laugh in their face :lol: and say that I'm sorry that they're to stupid to get a job that pays enough to where the price of gas is immaterial.
Oh wow 12 mpg? :rolleyes: Only in America! :shakehead You can have fun with your gas guzzler while I laugh all the way to the bank and my IRA account. There is more to life then being a slave to some vehicle like a pickup truck or SUV unwisely used as a daily driver. To boot most Americans are in debt to their eyeballs driving them and anyone can get one regardless of your income. :eek:
With my discretionary income or any income leftover for entertainment and hobby purposes I have fun racing my GTP and Honda MX bike which have no bearing on the rising price of gas since they are used infrequently as off road vehicles and use race gas. Plus the savings pays for the mods. :wink:
:popcorn:
Oz
04-14-2008, 05:31 PM
Oh wow 12 mpg? :rolleyes: Only in America! :shakehead You can have fun with your gas guzzler while I laugh all the way to the bank and my IRA account. There is more to life then being a slave to some vehicle like a pickup truck or SUV unwisely used as a daily driver. To boot most Americans are in debt to their eyeballs driving them and anyone can get one regardless of your income. :eek:
With my discretionary income or any income leftover for entertainment and hobby purposes I have fun racing my GTP and Honda MX bike which have no bearing on the rising price of gas since they are used infrequently as off road vehicles and use race gas. Plus the savings pays for the mods. :wink:
:popcorn:
Words of Wisdom. QFT
With my discretionary income or any income leftover for entertainment and hobby purposes I have fun racing my GTP and Honda MX bike which have no bearing on the rising price of gas since they are used infrequently as off road vehicles and use race gas. Plus the savings pays for the mods. :wink:
:popcorn:
Words of Wisdom. QFT
YogsVR4
04-15-2008, 03:10 PM
Oh wow 12 mpg? :rolleyes: Only in America! :shakehead You can have fun with your gas guzzler while I laugh all the way to the bank and my IRA account. There is more to life then being a slave to some vehicle like a pickup truck or SUV unwisely used as a daily driver. To boot most Americans are in debt to their eyeballs driving them and anyone can get one regardless of your income. :eek:
With my discretionary income or any income leftover for entertainment and hobby purposes I have fun racing my GTP and Honda MX bike which have no bearing on the rising price of gas since they are used infrequently as off road vehicles and use race gas. Plus the savings pays for the mods. :wink:
:popcorn:
You must have missed the part where I scoff at anyone who's income is so low that they have to be worried about the price of gas :lol: I could tripple my milage, save every cent and it would be lucky to be even come close to one tenth of one percent of my income. Quite a few people are in this boat to begin with. It also has nothing to do with debt (which far to many people are in for other reasons). People need to live within their means. Those who buy something they can't afford to run shouldn't e a reason to limit my choices.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
With my discretionary income or any income leftover for entertainment and hobby purposes I have fun racing my GTP and Honda MX bike which have no bearing on the rising price of gas since they are used infrequently as off road vehicles and use race gas. Plus the savings pays for the mods. :wink:
:popcorn:
You must have missed the part where I scoff at anyone who's income is so low that they have to be worried about the price of gas :lol: I could tripple my milage, save every cent and it would be lucky to be even come close to one tenth of one percent of my income. Quite a few people are in this boat to begin with. It also has nothing to do with debt (which far to many people are in for other reasons). People need to live within their means. Those who buy something they can't afford to run shouldn't e a reason to limit my choices.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
72chevelleOhio
04-16-2008, 02:11 AM
I could tripple my milage, save every cent and it would be lucky to be even come close to one tenth of one percent of my income. .
When I bought my '02 chevy Z71 silverado, I spent about $130 a month in gas driving EVERYWHERE. Today if I drive all around I spend just shy of $600. I always pay with a card and save all my receipts, I'm not just pulling numbers out of the air. Who cares about your income level? The last time I checked that extra $470 a month could buy a lot of stuff........:2cents:
When I bought my '02 chevy Z71 silverado, I spent about $130 a month in gas driving EVERYWHERE. Today if I drive all around I spend just shy of $600. I always pay with a card and save all my receipts, I'm not just pulling numbers out of the air. Who cares about your income level? The last time I checked that extra $470 a month could buy a lot of stuff........:2cents:
BNaylor
04-16-2008, 11:35 AM
You must have missed the part where I scoff at anyone who's income is so low that they have to be worried about the price of gas :lol: I could tripple my milage, save every cent and it would be lucky to be even come close to one tenth of one percent of my income.
I guess a lot of people in this country or even our friends abroad would not find that comment funny especially when they have to pay for higher gas prices caused by the millions of other Americans with a similar attitude. It doesn't matter what your income is but savings makes good sense to me. :grinyes:
:rolleyes:
With all due respect to you Yogs what do plan on doing converting it to a Honda Civic. :uhoh:.....:lol:
I guess a lot of people in this country or even our friends abroad would not find that comment funny especially when they have to pay for higher gas prices caused by the millions of other Americans with a similar attitude. It doesn't matter what your income is but savings makes good sense to me. :grinyes:
:rolleyes:
With all due respect to you Yogs what do plan on doing converting it to a Honda Civic. :uhoh:.....:lol:
ericn1300
04-16-2008, 07:04 PM
You must have missed the part where I scoff at anyone who's income is so low that they have to be worried about the price of gas :lol: I could tripple my milage, save every cent and it would be lucky to be even come close to one tenth of one percent of my income.
Your posting exemplifies why wealth is not a good measurement of a persons worth. You shine the light brightly on the fact that no matter how much money some people have they just ain't worth shit.
Your posting exemplifies why wealth is not a good measurement of a persons worth. You shine the light brightly on the fact that no matter how much money some people have they just ain't worth shit.
Oz
04-16-2008, 07:43 PM
You must have missed the part where I scoff at anyone who's income is so low that they have to be worried about the price of gas :lol: I could tripple my milage, save every cent and it would be lucky to be even come close to one tenth of one percent of my income. Quite a few people are in this boat to begin with. It also has nothing to do with debt (which far to many people are in for other reasons). People need to live within their means. Those who buy something they can't afford to run shouldn't e a reason to limit my choices.
"I earn, there for I am"...
"I earn, there for I am"...
Steel
05-11-2008, 06:31 PM
Absolutely. I love paying more for goods that have been transported by diesel powered vehicles. It just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Yeah, we need to get rid of all those turbodiesel cars, too.
How did the truckers' protest go? Haven't heard much about it.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, but if not, you (and ericn1300) should be less ignorant about diesels. Most diesel pickups you see on the road are actually used for their intended purpose of heavy duty hauling and pulling. Modern diesels are clean as a whistle, I bet you've passed countless VW TDI's and not even realized they were oil burners (and getting 50 MPG too). Theres a reason why engines in industry and ~50% of the cars in europe are diesel: they're simply more efficient. Most of your goods that have been transported by truck or rail - diesel. You can't blame the type of engine for the fuel prices, of course prices on EVERYTHING are going to go up if fuel has been going out of control. And I don't understand how diesel climbs so much faster than gasoline, even though it's a less processed fuel.
If i could afford to buy one, I'd be sporting a Jetta TDI right now. It would sure make the 50 mile round trip to school and 90 mile round trip to work a lot less painful seeing as how my protege wagon only gets ~27MPG.
Yeah, we need to get rid of all those turbodiesel cars, too.
How did the truckers' protest go? Haven't heard much about it.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, but if not, you (and ericn1300) should be less ignorant about diesels. Most diesel pickups you see on the road are actually used for their intended purpose of heavy duty hauling and pulling. Modern diesels are clean as a whistle, I bet you've passed countless VW TDI's and not even realized they were oil burners (and getting 50 MPG too). Theres a reason why engines in industry and ~50% of the cars in europe are diesel: they're simply more efficient. Most of your goods that have been transported by truck or rail - diesel. You can't blame the type of engine for the fuel prices, of course prices on EVERYTHING are going to go up if fuel has been going out of control. And I don't understand how diesel climbs so much faster than gasoline, even though it's a less processed fuel.
If i could afford to buy one, I'd be sporting a Jetta TDI right now. It would sure make the 50 mile round trip to school and 90 mile round trip to work a lot less painful seeing as how my protege wagon only gets ~27MPG.
ericn1300
05-11-2008, 08:02 PM
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, but if not, you (and ericn1300) should be less ignorant about diesels. Most diesel pickups you see on the road are actually used for their intended purpose of heavy duty hauling and pulling. Modern diesels are clean as a whistle, I bet you've passed countless VW TDI's and not even realized they were oil burners (and getting 50 MPG too). Theres a reason why engines in industry and ~50% of the cars in europe are diesel: they're simply more efficient. Most of your goods that have been transported by truck or rail - diesel. You can't blame the type of engine for the fuel prices, of course prices on EVERYTHING are going to go up if fuel has been going out of control. And I don't understand how diesel climbs so much faster than gasoline, even though it's a less processed fuel.
If i could afford to buy one, I'd be sporting a Jetta TDI right now. It would sure make the 50 mile round trip to school and 90 mile round trip to work a lot less painful seeing as how my protege wagon only gets ~27MPG.
Only 27 mpg in a cramped, low end, Mazda? Pitiful. My American made Pontiac 4 door sedan gets 33 mpg, 25 in town, as it goes zoom zoom past you. As far as the Jetta, the interest cost on the loan and the increased insurance cost will eat up any savings in fuel you may be envisioning.
"It is a known fact that diesel engines are much more expensive than gas engines. If we try to consider the overall benefits offered by gas engine, many would not hesitate to choose a gas engine over diesel engine"
http://www.dieselvsgasvehicles.com/
More Californians Killed By Diesel Pollution Than Homicide
Governor Announces Major Diesel Cleanup Investment; New Report Tracks Diesel Death by Region, Los Angeles Tops Diesel-Related Deaths http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/more-californians-killed-by-diesel-pollution-than-homicide.html
If i could afford to buy one, I'd be sporting a Jetta TDI right now. It would sure make the 50 mile round trip to school and 90 mile round trip to work a lot less painful seeing as how my protege wagon only gets ~27MPG.
Only 27 mpg in a cramped, low end, Mazda? Pitiful. My American made Pontiac 4 door sedan gets 33 mpg, 25 in town, as it goes zoom zoom past you. As far as the Jetta, the interest cost on the loan and the increased insurance cost will eat up any savings in fuel you may be envisioning.
"It is a known fact that diesel engines are much more expensive than gas engines. If we try to consider the overall benefits offered by gas engine, many would not hesitate to choose a gas engine over diesel engine"
http://www.dieselvsgasvehicles.com/
More Californians Killed By Diesel Pollution Than Homicide
Governor Announces Major Diesel Cleanup Investment; New Report Tracks Diesel Death by Region, Los Angeles Tops Diesel-Related Deaths http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/more-californians-killed-by-diesel-pollution-than-homicide.html
72chevelleOhio
05-11-2008, 09:11 PM
More Californians Killed By Diesel Pollution Than Homicide
I'd say someone's moving numbers, that sounds like B.S...
The smoke is "bad" but nothing close to a gas engine. The exhaust from a gas engine reeks, burns my eyes, and hurts to breathe. Diesel's don't (with the exception of a pulling truck or tractor), the newer the "better"..
Modern diesels are clean as a whistle
Cleaner, no spit! :p
'07 Emissions for heavy duty on-highway diesels (aka big trucks, 18 wheelers, big rigs whatever you want) state "no black smoke" the stack ("tailpipe") stays clean...with 2010 Emissions they should be putting cleaner air out the exhaust then they take in the air filter.
I'd say someone's moving numbers, that sounds like B.S...
The smoke is "bad" but nothing close to a gas engine. The exhaust from a gas engine reeks, burns my eyes, and hurts to breathe. Diesel's don't (with the exception of a pulling truck or tractor), the newer the "better"..
Modern diesels are clean as a whistle
Cleaner, no spit! :p
'07 Emissions for heavy duty on-highway diesels (aka big trucks, 18 wheelers, big rigs whatever you want) state "no black smoke" the stack ("tailpipe") stays clean...with 2010 Emissions they should be putting cleaner air out the exhaust then they take in the air filter.
ericn1300
05-11-2008, 10:05 PM
I'd say someone's moving numbers, that sounds like B.S...
The smoke is "bad" but nothing close to a gas engine. The exhaust from a gas engine reeks, burns my eyes, and hurts to breathe. Diesel's don't (with the exception of a pulling truck or tractor), the newer the "better"..
The numbers ain't moving in the direction of your point of view.
For the same load and engine conditions, diesel engines spew out 100 times more sooty particles than gasoline engines http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=36089
The smoke is "bad" but nothing close to a gas engine. The exhaust from a gas engine reeks, burns my eyes, and hurts to breathe. Diesel's don't (with the exception of a pulling truck or tractor), the newer the "better"..
The numbers ain't moving in the direction of your point of view.
For the same load and engine conditions, diesel engines spew out 100 times more sooty particles than gasoline engines http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=36089
72chevelleOhio
05-12-2008, 12:34 AM
The numbers ain't moving in the direction of your point of view.
Your numbers are from April of 2000....Since then there has been major changes in emissions requirements of heavy duty diesel engines.
The first is the introduction of an EGR system in '03.
The next was requiring significant software changes to pre '03 engines or fines were paid. Also the required ultra low sulfer fuel introduction.
Now in '07 we have the next level of EGR with the no soot law.
Next will be the "air cleaner" engine in 2010.
Like I said the newer the "better"...
EPA (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/highway-diesel/)
Beginning with the 2007 model year, the harmful pollution from heavy-duty highway vehicles will be reduced by more than 90 percent
Emission breakdown (http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.php)
Your numbers are from April of 2000....Since then there has been major changes in emissions requirements of heavy duty diesel engines.
The first is the introduction of an EGR system in '03.
The next was requiring significant software changes to pre '03 engines or fines were paid. Also the required ultra low sulfer fuel introduction.
Now in '07 we have the next level of EGR with the no soot law.
Next will be the "air cleaner" engine in 2010.
Like I said the newer the "better"...
EPA (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/highway-diesel/)
Beginning with the 2007 model year, the harmful pollution from heavy-duty highway vehicles will be reduced by more than 90 percent
Emission breakdown (http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.php)
03cavPA
05-12-2008, 07:05 AM
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, but if not, you (and ericn1300) should be less ignorant about diesels.
OF COURSE it's sarcasm. It was referencing the comment made about being glad the price of diesel might keep the pickups at home.
Save the "ignorant" remarks. I'm well aware of the economies and tech specs for diesels. :rolleyes:
I added a smilie in the original for ya. :tongue:
OF COURSE it's sarcasm. It was referencing the comment made about being glad the price of diesel might keep the pickups at home.
Save the "ignorant" remarks. I'm well aware of the economies and tech specs for diesels. :rolleyes:
I added a smilie in the original for ya. :tongue:
-Davo
05-13-2008, 07:48 AM
My sources tell me that demand is up, supply is down, thanks to China and India.
YogsVR4
05-13-2008, 10:04 AM
I'm just enjoying reading all the news articles playing the blame game for the prices. There is a stunning lack of thought or research being used by the news media today.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
BNaylor
05-13-2008, 08:04 PM
:shakehead
Supposedly this the first time in history gasoline use of China, India, Russia, and the Middle East will exceed that of U.S. consumption. So what is wrong with that picture? IMO it means that the U.S. is using way too much and not doing enough about it as usual to conserve. We created this monster.
Recently, the Saudis told the current administration that they will not increase oil production and that the westernized countries must suffer the consequences of their own making. Congress's passage (both House and Senate) of a bill to stop adding oil to the strategic reserves when the price of a barrel of oil is over $75 will be worthless. Of course, the current administration opposes the bill. :runaround: The strategic reserves is around 700 million barrels which would only be a 1-2 month supply. See link below.
The United States consumes just under 21 million barrels of oil a day, according to the Energy Department.
“When the President meets with King Abdullah on Friday, we cannot settle for a smile, or a handshake, or even a glimpse into his soul,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York. “We need a commitment to pump more oil. If Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries do not substantially increase production, we in Congress will block their lucrative arms deals.”
Both the President and Vice President Dick Cheney have called on the Saudis to increase their output of oil.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/business/14oil.html
Supposedly this the first time in history gasoline use of China, India, Russia, and the Middle East will exceed that of U.S. consumption. So what is wrong with that picture? IMO it means that the U.S. is using way too much and not doing enough about it as usual to conserve. We created this monster.
Recently, the Saudis told the current administration that they will not increase oil production and that the westernized countries must suffer the consequences of their own making. Congress's passage (both House and Senate) of a bill to stop adding oil to the strategic reserves when the price of a barrel of oil is over $75 will be worthless. Of course, the current administration opposes the bill. :runaround: The strategic reserves is around 700 million barrels which would only be a 1-2 month supply. See link below.
The United States consumes just under 21 million barrels of oil a day, according to the Energy Department.
“When the President meets with King Abdullah on Friday, we cannot settle for a smile, or a handshake, or even a glimpse into his soul,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York. “We need a commitment to pump more oil. If Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries do not substantially increase production, we in Congress will block their lucrative arms deals.”
Both the President and Vice President Dick Cheney have called on the Saudis to increase their output of oil.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/business/14oil.html
03cavPA
05-14-2008, 06:54 AM
“When the President meets with King Abdullah on Friday, we cannot settle for a smile, or a handshake, or even a glimpse into his soul,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York. “We need a commitment to pump more oil. If Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries do not substantially increase production, we in Congress will block their lucrative arms deals.”Chuck Schumer is a jackass. If they don't get arms from us, they'll get them elsewhere. Yeah, let's rattle our saber and send them packing to China to acquire arms. :banghead:
Maybe it's time to start with a smarter energy program here at home. Cheap oil is history and we're behind the curve on alternatives and responsible use.
The one thing we DO have as a bargaining point is --- FOOD. We can still provide lots of it to the world. If we really want to be hardassed about it, it's time to put the screws to the hungry masses. China, India, Russia, and especially the ME, will be hard pressed to use that oil to quell the riots that will break out when their people are starving.
Dunno, though, should we be starving out the masses just so we can still enjoy our inefficient energy wasteful lifestyle here at home?
Maybe it's time to start with a smarter energy program here at home. Cheap oil is history and we're behind the curve on alternatives and responsible use.
The one thing we DO have as a bargaining point is --- FOOD. We can still provide lots of it to the world. If we really want to be hardassed about it, it's time to put the screws to the hungry masses. China, India, Russia, and especially the ME, will be hard pressed to use that oil to quell the riots that will break out when their people are starving.
Dunno, though, should we be starving out the masses just so we can still enjoy our inefficient energy wasteful lifestyle here at home?
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025