GM will cap gas prices for buyers in California, Florida

[Itsme]

GM will cap gas prices for buyers in California, Florida

By Dee-Ann Durbin
ASSOCIATED PRESS

2:25 p.m. May 23, 2006

DETROIT – General Motors Corp. will cap gas prices at $1.99 per gallon for customers in California and Florida who buy certain vehicles by July 5, the automaker said Tuesday.

The offer is good for 2006 and 2007 model year vehicles. In California, eligible vehicles are the Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban sport utility vehicles and Impala and Monte Carlo sedans; the GMC Yukon and Yukon XL SUVs; the Hummer H2 and H3 SUVs; the Cadillac SRX SUV; and the Pontiac Grand Prix and Buick LaCrosse sedans. In Florida, eligible vehicles are the Impala, Monte Carlo, Grand Prix and LaCrosse.

To take part, customers must buy or lease an eligible vehicle between May 25 and July 5 and enroll in the OnStar vehicle diagnostic service, which automatically runs checks on the vehicle and sends e-mail notices to owners each month. The diagnostic service is free for the first year; after that, it's part of a package that costs $16.95 per month.
Each month for one year, GM will give drivers a credit on a prepaid card based on their estimated fuel usage. Fuel usage will be calculated by the miles they drive, as recorded by OnStar, and the vehicle's fuel economy rating.

GM will credit drivers the difference between the average price per gallon in their state and the $1.99 cap. The credits can be used through December 2007. Consumers wouldn't get any credits if gas prices fall below $1.99.

Customers can go to a company Web site, fuelprotection.com, starting Thursday to calculate their potential savings.

GM said a California resident who buys a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe and drives 1,000 miles per month would get an estimated $103.75 monthly credit, based on the current average premium fuel price of $3.65 per gallon, GM said. A Florida resident who drives a 2006 Buick LaCrosse about 1,000 miles per month would get an estimated monthly credit of $60 based on the current premium fuel price of $3.19.

GM spokeswoman Deborah Silverman said GM picked California and Florida in part because the company wants to increase sales in those states. California is a big market for SUVs, Silverman said, while mid-size sedans are top sellers in Florida. California also has some of the highest gas prices in the nation, she said.

Silverman said GM will see how successful the program is before deciding whether to expand it to other states.

GM's newly redesigned full-size SUVs like the Tahoe have been big sellers this spring despite rising gas prices, and GM wants to keep that momentum going. In the first four months of this year, Tahoe sales were up 36 percent. The rebate could help older, slower-selling SUVs like the Hummer H2, which saw sales fall 19 percent in the same period.

GM's car sales were down 12 percent through April. While some cars have bucked that trend – Pontiac Grand Prix sales were up 24 percent – the rebate could help stragglers like the Buick LaCrosse, which saw sales fall 21 percent.

After years of watching customers focus on their deals instead of their vehicles, GM has been cutting back on incentive spending in favor of lower overall pricing. In April, the company lowered per-vehicle incentives by 26 percent to $2,836, the biggest drop of any U.S. automaker.

Silverman said the new program isn't straying from GM's strategy. The automaker has always said it would continue to use targeted incentives to focus on particular vehicles or regions, she said.

GM shares rose 4 cents to close at $24.48 on the New York Stock Exchange.

[gwilks98]

very creative. My luck would be that I would enroll and then the new flying electric car would be invented the next month.

[bachviet]

Time to buy a H2. :woohoo: :P

[Cheesypuff]

seriously! **** THEM!!! we're in the middle of a gas shortage, and they're encouraging people to CONSUME more gas (with suv's mind you)? how American of them...lets give them a break for using up our ****ING GAS!!!

[Airencracken]

seriously! **** THEM!!! we're in the middle of a gas shortage, and they're encouraging people to CONSUME more gas (with suv's mind you)? how American of them...lets give them a break for using up our ****ING GAS!!!

:stupid:

What most gas guzzler owners don't understand is that they create their own high gas prices by creating artificial demand.

Fcuking GM retards.

[DarkFury]

Same song... second verse...

Seems that gas has become the new politics of G|A. :shrug:

[Airencracken]

Same song... second verse...

Seems that gas has become the new politics of G|A. :shrug:

Well, gas is an important issue.

[Jeffbx]

They don't care about gas... they care about selling cars.

They're getting hammered by imports in CA (always have), so they're taking a creative approach in getting more sales out there. An irresponsible approach, but creative nonetheless.

I'd be tempted to jump on this if they offered it here in MI (on one of the sedans), but I doubt they would. Too many employee sales.

[OC]

How completely ridiculous. :disa:

[clutchy]

seriously! **** THEM!!! we're in the middle of a gas shortage, and they're encouraging people to CONSUME more gas (with suv's mind you)? how American of them...lets give them a break for using up our ****ING GAS!!!


we're not in a gas shortage... the reason the gas companies are making so much money is because of the market rate and the way do their books. it'll be less next year.

[Airencracken]

Either way it's still artificial demand.

[clutchy]

Either way it's still artificial demand.

and there's the correct answer.

just like housing prices were fluffed up through artificial demand...

[LegendKiller]

we're not in a gas shortage... the reason the gas companies are making so much money is because of the market rate and the way do their books. it'll be less next year.


Yes, but the oil market rate is set by the supply and demand of a somewhat finite supply resource with an almost infinite demand function.

Lawmakers should automatically raise taxes to a flat 3.00 on gas, let GM swallow that pill and see how long they offer this rebate. However, that won't happen, they pander too much to the foolish masses and the companies who provide the goods to those masses.

I have no sympathy for anybody who complains about gas prices when they drive anything that gets less than 22mpg, at the least. They are the ones causing the problems. However, society as a whole is paying for their greed, thank you very much to those who cannot be responsible, we appreciate the extra burden you place upon society.

[rajatQ2]

If we can't compete with Japanese engineers, we'll throw money at the problem and pretend it doesn't matter.

At a time when customers are trying to conserve fuel, at a time when even the president wants to reduce dependency on oil, and the oil market is unstable, General Motors is enacting a program to help customers waste fuel.

Please tell me that this is not completely absurd! If you buy one of GMs Biggest SUVs, your fuel price will be capped at $1.99 a gallon. If you spend more than $1.99 per gallon, GM will reimburse you for the difference. Mileage is unlimited.

GM is a company that has failed to innovate across decades. They have completely failed to pay attention to customers needs, and instead tried to define customers buying habits by making big, ugly SUVs and associating the waste with a glamorous lifestyle. They make cars with 4, 5, 6, and even 7 liter engines for today's market. Are they designing cars for a different planet?

GM is a disgrace to American engineering, and now this. While Japanese carmakers are innovating in hybrid and fuel-cell autos, GM is paying people to drive its ****ty cars.

I will never, ever again buy an American car.

[DarkFury]

I will never, ever again buy an American car.

So does that mean you won't buy a Foreign car that's made in America too? :D



j/k :D


What about American cars made by Foreigners? I guess nobody wants to complain about vehicles like the Nissan Armada, Toyota Sequoia, Toyota LandCruiser, Range Rover, and other SUVs that are Foreign made... They must get "satisfactory" gas mileage I suppose?

Also, I guess nobody pays attention to the GM cars on this deal that get 28+ MPG like the Monte Carlo and others that use the same platform (one of them actually gets around 31 MPG) or that FURD makes hybrids like the Escape. I guess you only blindly see the SUVs or something.

Does an American 4 cylinder engine get that much worse gas mileage than a Foriegn one? Does a Foreign 8 cylinder engine get much better gas mileage than an American one? :shrug:

[cheapie]

Lawmakers should automatically raise taxes to a flat 3.00 on gas


what??? that's insanity! why should we all be penalized for other people's poor habits? maybe put a bigger gas guzzler tax on those that suck up the fuel.


but again, much of the problem isn't that there is short supply of crude. speculation, bottlenecks in the refining process, gvt regs, and increased margins on the product have been major reasons for the increase.

[Airencracken]

I have no sympathy for anybody who complains about gas prices when they drive anything that gets less than 22mpg, at the least. They are the ones causing the problems. However, society as a whole is paying for their greed, thank you very much to those who cannot be responsible, we appreciate the extra burden you place upon society.

:stupid:

[cheapie]

so you guys have no sympathy for families, small and large business owners, truck drivers, school systems, and municipal transit systems?

[Airencracken]

Cheapie, you know as well as I do that LK and I are talking about excess. Please don't try and drag the level of debate down by attacking a straw man.

[cheapie]

that's exactly my point AC. a flat $3 tax would dramatically hurt the people i mentioned.

[Airencracken]

Oh, I don't agree with the flat $3.00 tax. That'd kill me, however I do agree with a higher gas guzzler tax and a way to close several of the loopholes associated with SUV type vehicles and "business".

[Jeffbx]

If we can't compete with Japanese engineers, we'll throw money at the problem and pretend it doesn't matter.

How is this an engineering problem? It's a shift in demand. Consumers used to buy big, heavy SUVs & demand has dropped sharply. This, for the most part, is GM trying to keep their numbers up across the board, and at the same time get new customers in weak markets.


Please tell me that this is not completely absurd! If you buy one of GMs Biggest SUVs, your fuel price will be capped at $1.99 a gallon. If you spend more than $1.99 per gallon, GM will reimburse you for the difference. Mileage is unlimited.

Same deal if you buy a family sedan - and I would jump on this in a second, given the chance. Sounds like a good deal - I'm driving a Grand Prix anyway.


GM is a company that has failed to innovate across decades. They have completely failed to pay attention to customers needs, and instead tried to define customers buying habits by making big, ugly SUVs and associating the waste with a glamorous lifestyle. They make cars with 4, 5, 6, and even 7 liter engines for today's market. Are they designing cars for a different planet?

Innovation on styling is a HUGE problem with GM. They're too scared to change their designs radically for fear of losing repeat customers.


GM is a disgrace to American engineering, and now this. While Japanese carmakers are innovating in hybrid and fuel-cell autos, GM is paying people to drive its ****ty cars.

I will never, ever again buy an American car.

Again, not an engineering issue - a management issue. Management is too scared to shift too rapidly. This is why Ford is failing as well, and Daimler Chrysler is burying them both.

[Airencracken]

I do still like the C6 vette though, and it's fairly fuel efficent.

[surfer]

I'm gonna trade in my Civic Hybrid for one of those Hummers!

[rajatQ2]

I guess nobody wants to complain about vehicles like the Nissan Armada, Toyota Sequoia, Toyota LandCruiser, Range Rover, and other SUVs that are Foreign made...
Also, I guess nobody pays attention to the GM cars on this deal that get 28+ MPG like the Monte Carlo and others that use the same platform (one of them actually gets around 31 MPG) or that FURD makes hybrids like the Escape. I guess you only blindly see the SUVs or something.

Does an American 4 cylinder engine get that much worse gas mileage than a Foriegn one? Does a Foreign 8 cylinder engine get much better gas mileage than an American one? :shrug:


You're missing my point. It is irresponsible of GM to push their large SUVs with gas subsidies. It only encourages waste. That's why i dislike GM.

As americans, we were getting to a point where car buyers actually consider gas mileage when choosing a car. Subsidies like this are backward progress.

And isn't the Furd escape using hybrid technology developed by japanese ?

[LegendKiller]

what??? that's insanity! why should we all be penalized for other people's poor habits? maybe put a bigger gas guzzler tax on those that suck up the fuel.


but again, much of the problem isn't that there is short supply of crude. speculation, bottlenecks in the refining process, gvt regs, and increased margins on the product have been major reasons for the increase.


I have stated before that I am more than willing to give businesses a break, provided their vehicles are used 100% for business. None of this 50/50 BS. You want a massive truck? Haul crap in it or get rid of it. Want that large panel van, deliver news papers, not 1 gallon of milk.

The best way to eliminate inefficient use is to make it so damn expensive that nobody wants to use it. Look at europe, they have highly developed mass transit systems because it costs so dang much to buy gas. Most of their cars are small and fuel efficient.

Besides, think of it this way. If you travel less, you can afford more expensive goods, if the businesses just passed the tax onto the consumer. A natural balance will be found where the people who *NEED* it will pass the buck to those who don't, which won't be using it anyway. Thus, consumption overall drops and the price effect nets out. It's just that people will have to get used to taking a bus or train, or ride-sharing.

If you need to commute, live closer. If you need to haul a lot of kids around, buy a fuel efficient minivan.

It's time for this country to wake up and smell their carbon monoxide.

You can blame the oil hikes on "speculation" or whatever you want. It's high for a reason, that's because the supply and demand is at a higher equalibrium.

People will say that the market is "well supplied". Yes, that is true, it's well supplied for the given price level, at the S-D equalibrium. However, if it were more well supplied, then that equalibrium would be lower.

Furthermore, toss in the fact that oil = risk. Political, environmental, economical, weather, wars...etc. An oil barrel today, delivered tomorrow, in a more risky environment, will naturally cost more. Companies hedge against this using futures, creating a more efficient market.

People don't want to look at themselves as the cause of the market issues, therefore the blame it on boogeymen, such as speculators. When, in fact, our per-capita gas consumption is a multiple of any other country. Some say you need to look at it relative to GDP, sure, that would explain it. However, that doesn't give us a get-out-of-jail free card to consume what we want, we should be efficient in our allocation of resources.


The fact of the matter is that oil is scarce and is controlled by those who own a scarce resource. They supply the market to prop up the price in the long-term. Even if they provided it at a cheaper price, it would only mean we would use it up faster, which would then mean going to oil-sands/shale, which costs a heck of a lot more to process (profitable at $100/barrel +).

Add in the fact that we have over 2BN people in 2 countries that are developing and those people are driving more cars...etc. Then, we have natural disasters, political turmoil, and ME unrest, you get a lot of supply problems and a geometrically increasing demand quotient.

Then, finally, you get the stupid SUV/V8 "I gotta have a big richard" quotient, where people think that only real men drive something larger than a 4 or 6. These people are the true wastrels of society, since they add nothing with their additional consumption, other than to further entice further wastrel behavior.

So what do I say? I say that unless you can absolutely prove you will use it for business, face a 20% add-on tax for anything over I6. Then, hammer them at the pump with a $3 flat tax/gal.

Want that $25k 300C, ok...fine...Pay $5k gas tax up-front, then get hammered every time you go to the pump. Once somebody shells out $2000 more per year with that tax & gets hammered up front $5k, AND has to pay the base gas costs, you will see American stupidity decrease rapidly.

It's about time that those who use and abuse the most face the consequences of their actions.

[Airencracken]

yeah the es-cape's hybird stuff is toyota based.

[InfiniteNothing]

I have an idea. It involves a siphon and a suburban.

[Airencracken]

:lmfao:

:stupid:

And where's the link :hmm:

[cheapie]

lk....dude.....comparing europe to us isn't exactly apples to apples. saying that if your commute is long you should live closer is NOT really tangible to many people with the cost of housing in many places that people work. you should realize that being in the dc area now.

also, much of europe is urban and it's much easier for them to have/use mass transit systems. i can drive 10 hours and still be in michigan. if i do that in GB i'll be three countries away. well....i guess it's an island so i'd be somewhere wet but you get my point.

and as far as freight, it's virtually impossible to guarantee that you'll have a full load, ESPECIALLY with JIT production. believe me, companies would like nothing better than to do that but it's pretty much impossible. i could expound because this is my industry.

we're kind of in a bind right now. hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles are very immature and the value story is exceptionally weak right now.

as a matter of fact, i'm in a meeting right now with a vehicle OEM discussing contractual matters regarding our hybrid system. we are the leader in the market (md-hd hybrid electric drivetrain systems) and it going to be pretty painful for all parties involved until the technology matures. and combined with the fact that the fuel is now more expensive because of the way it has to be processed, and the fact that trucks will be about $10k more as of jan 1 due to an emissions change by the gvt (which will result in lower fuel economy), fleets are really feeling it. if something isn't done fairly quickly, i'm guessing it's going to substantially impact consumer prices.

anyhoo...i hate the idea of artificially changing the buying habits of american consumers. why should the gvt get more of my money just because i want to buy an suv?

however, i am ALL in favor of anything we can do to bring new technologies to market that will be fully viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine.

[Airencracken]

Normally I'm with you cheapie, I don't like the gov't dictating what people should and should not buy/do. However, since someone buying an SUV affects other citizens and the gov't it's self (security issues, etc) it helps to offset the secondary socital costs that inefficent vehicles generate.

I'm sure that the cost will be passed to the consumer soon.

[cheapie]

well...i have no faith that the extra taxes would actually offset the costs. it will just disappear or go toward funding some other war. :rolleyes:

[Airencracken]

well...i have no faith that the extra taxes would actually offset the costs. it will just disappear or go toward funding some other war. :rolleyes:

Good point.

So we need campaign finance reform, tax reform, regime change, anything else?

[LegendKiller]

totally agree, since they are always stealing our $$


No, you are stealing your $$.

[kiisprincess]

totally agree, since they are always stealing our $$

STOP NEFFING JOHNNY!:disa:

[LegendKiller]

lk....dude.....comparing europe to us isn't exactly apples to apples. saying that if your commute is long you should live closer is NOT really tangible to many people with the cost of housing in many places that people work. you should realize that being in the dc area now.

Indeed, being in the DC area now, I live 10mi from where I work and I rideshare with the guy who is in the cube next to me. It's nice since we use the HOV lane, cut our gas and tolls in half. My wife drives to the local metro station and takes that downtown to her job (or will hopefully if she gets it).



also, much of europe is urban and it's much easier for them to have/use mass transit systems. i can drive 10 hours and still be in michigan. if i do that in GB i'll be three countries away. well....i guess it's an island so i'd be somewhere wet but you get my point.


Yes, much of europe is developed. HOwever, when they do need to go cross countries or long distances they normally take the train. When I was over there for 3 months in 2 different occasions we took a car 1 time, all other times it was the train or a tour bus. Furthermore, their stores and everything else are packed and stacked, avoiding urban sprawl, they have to since they don't have much land to work with and need to still have farms and such. However, their gas situation shows how efficient use of taxes can cut down on wasteful driving.



and as far as freight, it's virtually impossible to guarantee that you'll have a full load, ESPECIALLY with JIT production. believe me, companies would like nothing better than to do that but it's pretty much impossible. i could expound because this is my industry.


I have a friend who is an independant freight broker, he says everything is going OK, just pass the charge onto the next guy.



anyhoo...i hate the idea of artificially changing the buying habits of american consumers. why should the gvt get more of my money just because i want to buy an suv?

however, i am ALL in favor of anything we can do to bring new technologies to market that will be fully viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine.

I normally hate taxes, since they cause deadweight loss. However, in cases such as these, where consumers are largely blissfully ignorant while driving their V8's, I take exception. Especially considering oil-based alternatives cause so much environmental problems. I am far from a tree hugger, but we, as Americans, need to start rationalizing our effects instead of sacrificing the future for current consumption.

It's just like smoking or any other tax, you cause a lot of damage when driving a lot and you should pay for that damage. Personally, I think it should be slotted into the R&D for alt-fuels and transportation. I mean, directly slotted to fund, not "this goes into a slushy pool and then gets 50% crapped out on the other side". I mean, "If we get $10bn from taxes, 10bn goes into allocation to R&D". Unfortunately that won't ever work until the voters get some backbone and people start standing up to stupid consumers.

[DarkFury]

You're missing my point. It is irresponsible of GM to push their large SUVs with gas subsidies. It only encourages waste. That's why i dislike GM.

As americans, we were getting to a point where car buyers actually consider gas mileage when choosing a car. Subsidies like this are backward progress.

And isn't the Furd escape using hybrid technology developed by japanese ?
And I too think that you are missing mine...

They didn't ONLY offer the discount to the SUVs... they offered the discount on gas to certain markets where they felt sales were soft.

You and a few others here singled out the SUVs that were part of the deal... and of course, GM wants to move those cause it doesn't profit them to have them sitting on their lots unsold. Now... have they said that they are ramping up production of SUVs to fulfill the "extra demand" given this new program? Did you expect GM to just destroy all of those vehicles and take a loss on them? :shrug: They just wanna move the ones that they have that just aren't moving otherwise.

I have no fond love of GM either... but I don't hate them otherwise... and honestly I see this as a move for them to clear excessive stock. Now granted it would be SILLY of them to keep churning out big SUVs considering the current price of gas... but yet there are still a few folks out there that will buy them. Not that there is as many of those folks as there were say... 5 to 10 years ago.

BTW... maybe you should look at this: http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/fuel_index.html

So you can pretty much cut GM some slack... as they did make an effort to produce a lineup of fuel efficient vehicles. Like I said before, other foreign manufactuers make fuel inefficient vehicles, yet they don't draw the ire that domestics do, but I guess they are "better" because many of them price those cars out of the range of common middle class folks huh?

[DarkFury]

Want that $25k 300C, ok...fine...Pay $5k gas tax up-front, then get hammered every time you go to the pump. Once somebody shells out $2000 more per year with that tax & gets hammered up front $5k, AND has to pay the base gas costs, you will see American stupidity decrease rapidly.

It's about time that those who use and abuse the most face the consequences of their actions.
You really do like taking digs at my car... yet you don't know what the HELL you are talkin' about when you refer to it.

The $25K 300... (NOT THE 300C) has a V6 engine that gets marginally better gas mileage than the $35K 300C which has a fuel efficient V8 engine. The 300Cs fuel economy is not that bad.... especially considering other cars out there that are WAY worse.

Hell, you could complain about the Viper that has a V10 that gets like 8 to 10 MPG... yet you don't... probably because it costs like $80K and nobody really wants to spend that much money on what amounts to a "weekend pleasure car".

Getting 20 MPG is not abuse in the least... so get off that high horse there. Please show me the full sized passenger cars that get 22+ MPG in the City, cause I sure don't see too many of those...

Here... look at what Edmunds.com lists: http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/ViewTypeModels/category=type/attribute=sedan/category2=subtype/attribute2=large

2006 Audi A8 Large Sedan
City: 15-17 mpg
Hwy: 21-24 mpg

2006 Bentley Arnage Large Sedan
City: 10 mpg
Hwy: 14 mpg

2006 BMW 7 Series Large Sedan
City: 15-17 mpg
Hwy: 23-25 mpg

2006 Buick Lucerne Large Sedan
City: 17-19 mpg
Hwy: 25-28 mpg

2006 Cadillac DTS Large Sedan
City: 17 mpg
Hwy: 24-25 mpg

2006 Cadillac STS Large Sedan
City: 17 mpg
Hwy: 24-26 mpg

2006 Chevrolet Impala Large Sedan
City: 18-21 mpg
Hwy: 27-31 mpg

2006 Chrysler 300 Large Sedan
City: 17-21 mpg
Hwy: 24-28 mpg

2006 Ford Crown Victoria Large Sedan
City: 17 mpg
Hwy: 25 mpg

2007 Mercedes-Benz S-Class Large Sedan
City: 16 mpg
Hwy: 24 mpg

2006 Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG Large Sedan
City: 12 mpg
Hwy: 19 mpg

and the list goes on...
[/quote]

I don't see ANY of these cars getting 22+ MPG in the city... so are you saying that we can't drive Large sedans either? And I can justify the need for a "large sedan"... versus an SUV (which I don't own... my truck is "special purpose" and not a daily driver.)

So bottom line.. get off this notion that 22 MPG is the "magic number" or at least pick some other vehicle to try to make your points.. cause the 300C certainly ISN'T the worst in it's class when it comes to gas mileage.

[hapoo]

isn't GM going backrupt?

[clutchy]

yes, they're selling off their gmac financing right now...

[cheapie]

Indeed, being in the DC area now, I live 10mi from where I work and I rideshare with the guy who is in the cube next to me. It's nice since we use the HOV lane, cut our gas and tolls in half. My wife drives to the local metro station and takes that downtown to her job (or will hopefully if she gets it).

good for you! seriously. i think many/most people in highly urbanized areas could do that. but it's not a viable option for everyone.





Yes, much of europe is developed. HOwever, when they do need to go cross countries or long distances they normally take the train. When I was over there for 3 months in 2 different occasions we took a car 1 time, all other times it was the train or a tour bus. Furthermore, their stores and everything else are packed and stacked, avoiding urban sprawl, they have to since they don't have much land to work with and need to still have farms and such. However, their gas situation shows how efficient use of taxes can cut down on wasteful driving.

i agree about urban sprawl. it bothers me as well. especially since we're chopping into beautiful parts of the country that we'll never get back once they're turned into strip malls or golf courses. :2far: but i'm not sure how the taxes necessarily turn into chopping down on wasteful driving.




I have a friend who is an independant freight broker, he says everything is going OK, just pass the charge onto the next guy.

i mean no offense to your buddy but that's not an accurate picture. if he works for a mid-large carrier then he has much more pull. additionally, if he's doing NEMA freight they are probably liking it. but the vast majority of fleets are made up of 6 or fewer trucks and they have a tiny margin, usually around 2%. if the price fluxuates 10%...boom...it's gone.



I normally hate taxes, since they cause deadweight loss. However, in cases such as these, where consumers are largely blissfully ignorant while driving their V8's, I take exception. Especially considering oil-based alternatives cause so much environmental problems. I am far from a tree hugger, but we, as Americans, need to start rationalizing our effects instead of sacrificing the future for current consumption.

It's just like smoking or any other tax, you cause a lot of damage when driving a lot and you should pay for that damage. Personally, I think it should be slotted into the R&D for alt-fuels and transportation. I mean, directly slotted to fund, not "this goes into a slushy pool and then gets 50% crapped out on the other side". I mean, "If we get $10bn from taxes, 10bn goes into allocation to R&D". Unfortunately that won't ever work until the voters get some backbone and people start standing up to stupid consumers.

i agree to a certain extent. however, i kind of feel that this is an artificial problem. the actual amount of crude available isn't really getting low is it? i know demand is up, but so is supply. but of course not as much as demand.

part of the problem is that the oil companies are making record profits while this is going on. if they were saying, "hey. we're all in this together. we need the extra coin to fix the problem. you can be assured that we're not screwing you. and since you have no alternative at present, we are not going to gouge you just because we can" then i would have far less of a problem with it then i do.


just sayin'...

[LegendKiller]

You really do like taking digs at my car... yet you don't know what the HELL you are talkin' about when you refer to it.

The $25K 300... (NOT THE 300C) has a V6 engine that gets marginally better gas mileage than the $35K 300C which has a fuel efficient V8 engine. The 300Cs fuel economy is not that bad.... especially considering other cars out there that are WAY worse.

Hell, you could complain about the Viper that has a V10 that gets like 8 to 10 MPG... yet you don't... probably because it costs like $80K and nobody really wants to spend that much money on what amounts to a "weekend pleasure car".

Getting 20 MPG is not abuse in the least... so get off that high horse there. Please show me the full sized passenger cars that get 22+ MPG in the City, cause I sure don't see too many of those...

Here... look at what Edmunds.com lists: http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/ViewTypeModels/category=type/attribute=sedan/category2=subtype/attribute2=large

2006 Audi A8 Large Sedan
City: 15-17 mpg
Hwy: 21-24 mpg

2006 Bentley Arnage Large Sedan
City: 10 mpg
Hwy: 14 mpg

2006 BMW 7 Series Large Sedan
City: 15-17 mpg
Hwy: 23-25 mpg

2006 Buick Lucerne Large Sedan
City: 17-19 mpg
Hwy: 25-28 mpg

2006 Cadillac DTS Large Sedan
City: 17 mpg
Hwy: 24-25 mpg

2006 Cadillac STS Large Sedan
City: 17 mpg
Hwy: 24-26 mpg

2006 Chevrolet Impala Large Sedan
City: 18-21 mpg
Hwy: 27-31 mpg

2006 Chrysler 300 Large Sedan
City: 17-21 mpg
Hwy: 24-28 mpg

2006 Ford Crown Victoria Large Sedan
City: 17 mpg
Hwy: 25 mpg

2007 Mercedes-Benz S-Class Large Sedan
City: 16 mpg
Hwy: 24 mpg

2006 Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG Large Sedan
City: 12 mpg
Hwy: 19 mpg

and the list goes on...


I don't see ANY of these cars getting 22+ MPG in the city... so are you saying that we can't drive Large sedans either? And I can justify the need for a "large sedan"... versus an SUV (which I don't own... my truck is "special purpose" and not a daily driver.)

So bottom line.. get off this notion that 22 MPG is the "magic number" or at least pick some other vehicle to try to make your points.. cause the 300C certainly ISN'T the worst in it's class when it comes to gas mileage.[/QUOTE]



ROFL, so you, to justify your wasteful purchase, only can point your finger and say "Look at those $60,000+ cars, so many people own them and they are so much more wasteful than mine, so I am justified!!!!" So many people own an A6 or Bently or Mercedes S or BMW 7!!

Please, instead of pointing the finger elsewhere, recognize your wasteful behavior and say "I could do better", instead of making excuses. This is what America needs to do, recognize that they are wasteful, that they have allowed themselves to be victims of their own wastefulness, and NOT point fingers at everybody else.

Furthermore, do you actually need a large sedan? Do you need one with a V8+? Do you actually NEED a car that weighs 2 tons and then has to have a huge engine to drive it? Or could you "settle" for something a little less wasteful? Of course you could, but you would prefer to show your swinging richard to everybody! "Look at me, I am a man who can afford to be wasteful in this world, like other wasteful people, I am a man!"

If your car is 35k, then they should automatically slap a 7k tax on it, sorry I didn't bother looking up your ohhh so impressive car, I am sure it stung you that I really didn't care what the price was, just that my point on taxing it to hell and back was more important.

I can't stop you from being stupid about your purchases, the impacts they have on the environment, and the borrowing you are doing from the future. However, I can try to make others aware of what the future will bring. It is up to them to be smart, and open minded enough, to actually think about buying that V6 instead of a V8.

And as far as saying no large sedans can get good mileage, if you actually *STOPPED* buying them that way and demanded a more fuel efficient lineup, then perhaps detroit and others would do so. However, in your blissful glee to purchase something more wasteful than the next guy, all you do is encourage more wastefulness and greed on the makers behalf.

Keep in mind that every pedal push, every wasteful acceleration, and every purchase doesn't just affect *YOU* but it also affects your children and their children. If you don't care about that, then there isn't much point to discussing with you, since you are egocentrical and care little about anything outside of yourself.




part of the problem is that the oil companies are making record profits while this is going on. if they were saying, "hey. we're all in this together. we need the extra coin to fix the problem. you can be assured that we're not screwing you. and since you have no alternative at present, we are not going to gouge you just because we can" then i would have far less of a problem with it then i do..

As I have stated many times, it isn't that the oil companies are getting windfall profits like never before, their margins, as a %, are staying the same or nearly so. It is *NOT* the oil companies that set the market price.

[Cheesypuff]

we're not in a gas shortage... the reason the gas companies are making so much money is because of the market rate and the way do their books. it'll be less next year.


sorry for the error...what I really meant to say is a gas crisis! Our gas prices would all be solved if gas companies would open their refineries. They knowingly don't open thier refineries so hike up gas prices. anways...with that aside. screw them for encoraging people to consume more gas! consume consume consume. That seems to be the song of the day.

[OC]

screw them for encoraging people to consume more gas! consume consume consume. That seems to be the song of the day.It really is a damn shame that no one talks about conservation.

[cheapie]

sheesh LK. ease up man.

[LegendKiller]

It really is a damn shame that no one talks about conservation.

Why talk about conservation when we aren't forced to, afterall, this is America, we are free to be as wasteful as we want!? Silly guy...

[DarkFury]

isn't GM going backrupt?
Yeah.. but that's mostly due to the fact that they are paying SO much in retired employee benefits that it is pulling them under.

Retired GM employees used to get full medical insurance free of charge... but lately GM has been going head-to-head with the union about restructuring the retirement package. Of course a bunch of GM retirees are really nervous right now because GM is talking about making them pay for their own medical insurance now. (My next door neighbor is a former GM employee and he is definitely worried about this... per a conversation I had with him the other day.)

[DarkFury]

ROFL, so you, to justify your wasteful purchase, only can point your finger and say "Look at those $60,000+ cars, so many people own them and they are so much more wasteful than mine, so I am justified!!!!" So many people own an A6 or Bently or Mercedes S or BMW 7!!

Please, instead of pointing the finger elsewhere, recognize your wasteful behavior and say "I could do better", instead of making excuses. This is what America needs to do, recognize that they are wasteful, that they have allowed themselves to be victims of their own wastefulness, and NOT point fingers at everybody else.

Furthermore, do you actually need a large sedan? Do you need one with a V8+? Do you actually NEED a car that weighs 2 tons and then has to have a huge engine to drive it? Or could you "settle" for something a little less wasteful? Of course you could, but you would prefer to show your swinging richard to everybody! "Look at me, I am a man who can afford to be wasteful in this world, like other wasteful people, I am a man!"

If your car is 35k, then they should automatically slap a 7k tax on it, sorry I didn't bother looking up your ohhh so impressive car, I am sure it stung you that I really didn't care what the price was, just that my point on taxing it to hell and back was more important.

I can't stop you from being stupid about your purchases, the impacts they have on the environment, and the borrowing you are doing from the future. However, I can try to make others aware of what the future will bring. It is up to them to be smart, and open minded enough, to actually think about buying that V6 instead of a V8.

And as far as saying no large sedans can get good mileage, if you actually *STOPPED* buying them that way and demanded a more fuel efficient lineup, then perhaps detroit and others would do so. However, in your blissful glee to purchase something more wasteful than the next guy, all you do is encourage more wastefulness and greed on the makers behalf.

Keep in mind that every pedal push, every wasteful acceleration, and every purchase doesn't just affect *YOU* but it also affects your children and their children. If you don't care about that, then there isn't much point to discussing with you, since you are egocentrical and care little about anything outside of yourself.

LK... your "blind rage" just amazes me.

You have so much hate/anger/jealousy/whatever in your heart that you will flail out an anyone who doesn't see it "your way".

I've already responded to you in a previous post that YES, I do need a large sedan. I don't feel comfortable driving/riding in most mid-sized or compact vehicles. NOW GIT THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!!!!

Now.. that being said, I provided a list of "large sedans" to you and showed you that for the class... the MPG of mine is in line or ahead of others just like it. Yet you are still COMPLAINING!!!! Look at the ENTIRE list... I see other cars in the $24K - $40K range and NONE of them get 22+ MPG. It didn't matter if they cost $25K or if they cost $350K they still got roughly 15 to 21 MPG in the city. So give it a break and get over yourself.

Also in a previous thread.. I told you.. I DON'T DRIVE AS FAR as you probably do, therefore I can afford to have the car that I have. If I were in a much larger city, then I might not be able to keep the truck (cause it does burn a bit more fuel as a "daily driver" yet I don't use it as such.) however the car is still fine... and I haven't complained once about paying $3.00 a gallon other than complaining about the companies who are raking in extreme profits on the FEAR of rising prices and not actual usage/shortage.

So step off man... you still barkin' up the wrong tree here. :2far: You just want to keep being mad and spewing your venom just because you don't agree with my POV.

I can't stop you from being "hateful in general", however you make it sound like the 1 1/2 - 3 MPG difference between the V6 and the V8 really makes that much of a difference based on my personal driving habits (under 30 miles a day). I guess if it were up to you, all vehicles would be four bangers huh? :pfft:

Either way, you can just ignore what I have to say cause you'll never agree with it... I can already see that. My only point is... stop waggin' your pitiful finger at me whenever you want to raise a point and be glad that I don't drive an H2 (which I don't even want nor need..) Besides you are SUCH a hypocrite crying in the other thread about the H1 going away... and that is such a "toy of the rich" which burns a ton more gas than my 300C ever will.


Better yet, why don't you just tell everyone... "Give up your cars... and only use Public transportation"... for our kids. Yeah... you'd give up your car wouldn't you for the kids right? :D

[clutchy]

sorry for the error...what I really meant to say is a gas crisis! Our gas prices would all be solved if gas companies would open their refineries. They knowingly don't open thier refineries so hike up gas prices. anways...with that aside. screw them for encoraging people to consume more gas! consume consume consume. That seems to be the song of the day.


it's the environmentalist's that haven't allowed the expansion of the gas supply for the last X amount of years and that's the cause of the crisis.


here's my solution

100 new nuclear plants
massive investment in ethanol with a mandate for a viable alternative in 5 years( I want results!)
ANWR open it up.

this will open the door for electric cars, ethanol percentage based vehicles, and some new oil. I just want more options, right now we don't have any. These stupid hybrids aren't worth the premium you pay for them...

i'm for responsible use of the environment while still trying to conserve. None of my vehicles get less than 20mpg city, scooter and motorcycle get 45/80. and all my vehicles get around 30mpg on the freeway some more.

also, i fully defend people's ability to drive what they want. Everything in this world is connected and i'm not going to elevate gas over any other social issue. they all need some serious thought...

suggested reading: The Wilding of America Charles Derber

[cheapie]

it's the environmentalist's that haven't allowed the expansion of the gas supply for the last X amount of years and that's the cause of the crisis.


here's my solution

100 new nuclear plants



NIMBY! :heh:

[LegendKiller]

LK... your "blind rage" just amazes me.

You have so much hate/anger/jealousy/whatever in your heart that you will flail out an anyone who doesn't see it "your way".


I guess that the old adage applies, if you can't logically argue a position, minimize it be calling it extremist and hatred. Good one! :thumbdown



I've already responded to you in a previous post that YES, I do need a large sedan. I don't feel comfortable driving/riding in most mid-sized or compact vehicles. NOW GIT THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!!!!

And as I said then, I am 6'2" with a *REALLY* bad knee (2 massive knee surgeries with titanium screws and plates) and I can deal with it, in fact it's actually pretty painless. I guess some people can't "take one for the team" and deal with their issues on their own, rather than screwing everybody else at the same time.



Now.. that being said, I provided a list of "large sedans" to you and showed you that for the class... the MPG of mine is in line or ahead of others just like it. Yet you are still COMPLAINING!!!! Look at the ENTIRE list... I see other cars in the $24K - $40K range and NONE of them get 22+ MPG. It didn't matter if they cost $25K or if they cost $350K they still got roughly 15 to 21 MPG in the city. So give it a break and get over yourself.

And as I stated before, you are assuming that those sedans *HAVE* to get that gas milage. They don't, but they do because people like you aim for the V8 rather than a more reasonable engine, which can be made even more economical by weight considerations *AND* better designs. However, you prevent the economic motivation of that, due to your unrestrained egocentricism.



Also in a previous thread.. I told you.. I DON'T DRIVE AS FAR as you probably do, therefore I can afford to have the car that I have. If I were in a much larger city, then I might not be able to keep the truck (cause it does burn a bit more fuel as a "daily driver" yet I don't use it as such.) however the car is still fine... and I haven't complained once about paying $3.00 a gallon other than complaining about the companies who are raking in extreme profits on the FEAR of rising prices and not actual usage/shortage.

Again, it's not the oil companies. It's amazing how little people listen but would rather point to everybody else, if you actually listened and learned to what I have posted in the past, perhaps you would understand the true nature of the beast. However, some people refuse to acknowledge the effect they have on their own lives and they would rather blame others for their own mistakes.



So step off man... you still barkin' up the wrong tree here. :2far: You just want to keep being mad and spewing your venom just because you don't agree with my POV.

Frankly, I am not barking up the wrong tree. *YOU* are responsible for your actions, people like *YOU* are responsible for the situation we are in. Your POV, according to all known and logical and reasonable data points that you *ARE* wrong. HOwever, it is your problem that you cannot see that. I can present factual data all day counting everything you have said (and I have) and you still don't listen. So what it comes down to is that you refuse reality and blame others, which isn't that surprising.



I can't stop you from being "hateful in general", however you make it sound like the 1 1/2 - 3 MPG difference between the V6 and the V8 really makes that much of a difference based on my personal driving habits (under 30 miles a day). I guess if it were up to you, all vehicles would be four bangers huh? :pfft:

If it were up to me all vehicles with anything larger than an I/V6 would be taxed prohibitively, 20-30% for non-business vehicles and then they would pay a "pump penalty" of another $3/gal or so. You don't NEED anything larger for consumer use. If you want it, pay for your consumerism to make up for the damage you are doing.



Either way, you can just ignore what I have to say cause you'll never agree with it... I can already see that. My only point is... stop waggin' your pitiful finger at me whenever you want to raise a point and be glad that I don't drive an H2 (which I don't even want nor need..) Besides you are SUCH a hypocrite crying in the other thread about the H1 going away... and that is such a "toy of the rich" which burns a ton more gas than my 300C ever will.

My finger may be pitiful, at least it has logic and proof backing it. I can understand why you want to defend yourself, if you didn't you might have to acknowledge some of the things I have said. Be defensive about it, but in the end, you are only fooling yourself.



Better yet, why don't you just tell everyone... "Give up your cars... and only use Public transportation"... for our kids. Yeah... you'd give up your car wouldn't you for the kids right? :D

As I have stated, I rideshare, my wife takes the metro. Heck, she went to FL today and I dropped her off at the metro station in Falls Church rather than driving all of the way to Reagan. We did that in our I4 Accord BTW, which also fit enough luggage for a 2-week trip (you know women...), and 2 people that are 6'+, AND stuff I was bringing into work.

Amazingly, that I4 was also able to get to a speed greater than 70, something that people think only V8's can do.

I guess I consider myself successful if I leave as minimal of an impact on society and the environment as I can throughout my life. Other's define successful as making the biggest imact they can.

Only time will tell who is correct.

[LegendKiller]

it's the environmentalist's that haven't allowed the expansion of the gas supply for the last X amount of years and that's the cause of the crisis.

It is one small part of the cause of the crisis (which I don't think there is one, yet). There are many causes, which I have outlined (and others have ignored) ad nauseum.


here's my solution

100 new nuclear plants
massive investment in ethanol with a mandate for a viable alternative in 5 years( I want results!)
ANWR open it up.

I completely agree with the nuke plants. I have a friend who is a nuke in the navy and the things he has explained, its amazing how we haven't adopted a good nuclear policy. Heck, one of the biggest problems with reactors is the degredation of the pipes and other metals in the vessel over time. However, there was a news report a couple days ago that researchers in San Diego might have solved (or mitigated) the problem, which is a *HUGE* step in making rectors MUCH more save.

However, ANWR is not the answer. If we were to drill for oil anywhere, we might as well invest the time and money into a real long-term and viable source, such as the oil shale or oil sand fields in Ca and the western US. It's cost prohibabitive, but much more viable than ANWR. I also think it's rediculous we aren't drilling in the fields off of FL while China just bought rights from Cuba to do so. Huge problems there...


I defend people's rights to drive anything they want also. However, I also think their use of a good should be more aligned with the consequences of that use. Tax the hell out of that V8, you don't need it, it's wasteful, so pay for that.

[cheapie]

lk...you said
it's not the oil companies that are raking in extreme profits. did you really mean this? haven't you seen the earnings reports and executive compensation stories? i know you're thinking about how the commodities markets work and that their windfall is influenced by oil futures but still....the oil companies ARE definitely raking it in and it's pissing people off.

i think you are being a bit harsh with your comments regarding people only "needing" a v6. from the day they were invented a car has been more than simply a means of transportation. it something that many people enjoy and identify with. it's a bit silly to claim that people should only buy what they need. how boring. it's not in our nature to do so. we don't do it with clothes, food, lodging, entertainment, etc. how can you expect people to do it with their vehicles.

and of course i'm not advocating that everyone should buy a hummer. but to say that the current fuel situation is my fault if i drive anything other than the bare minimum is a bit....mean.


I also think it's rediculous we aren't drilling in the fields off of FL while China just bought rights from Cuba to do so. Huge problems there...


how can they sell rights to oil that is in international waters? or is it in cuba's territory? if it is in international waters, can we still do so?

[LegendKiller]

lk...you said that are raking in extreme profits. did you really mean this? haven't you seen the earnings reports and executive compensation stories? i know you're thinking about how the commodities markets work and that their windfall is influenced by oil futures but still....the oil companies ARE definitely raking it in and it's pissing people off.


I follow the oil companies quite closely and I do look at their financials. It's not just about futures, but also about how accounting works. It's also about economies of scale, it takes the same amount of overhead to see the byrpoducts of a $40 barrel as it does an $80 barrel, thus your revenues outstrip the equivalent costs, raising your profitability. If you look at their % profitability it hasn't changed much from before.

If my company sold something that cost $40 yesterday and costs $80 today, and I sold it for $60 yesterday and $120 today, then I haven't done anything but double what I charge for something that cost me double to buy. Furthermore, a doubling in profits with a doubling of costs gets you *NOWHERE*, you will still make the same % profit.

People are so focused on absolute dollars, but absolute dollars mean absolutely nothing if you can't put it in perspective.

Take for example Vonage. Somebody could say "Hey, vonage is IPO'ing at $17, thats a great deal since it's cheaper than XY company at $20". Well, does Vonage have a good P/E ratio, what is their profit margin (hah!)? What is ther P/BV, or their EPS. Give me a relative measurement of what they are worth, then I can tell!

Or take Intel. People say "Wow, intel's stock price sucks, it's so far below AMD, buy AMD!". Who gives a crap about stock price? If that's all that mattered, then we would invest in AMD. However, AMD P/E is 45, Intel is 14. This means that AMD is *WAY* overvalued, despite having a "stronger" stockprice. It also means Intel is way *UNDER* valued, so buy intel instead.

Absolute numbers don't mean crap!


As far as compensation. I absolutely *HATE* the levels of executive compensation, I have never been a fan of unconstrained compensation. There used to be a time that CEO's made only a multiple of a janitor. Now, they are making a hundred multiples and it is disgusting.

Heck, when I worked at my old job, I saw that the CEO was making $20M a year with another $20M in options outstanding. I equated that to 400 Financial Analysts. Now, nobody on this earth can tell me that *ONE* person contributes more than FOUR HUNDRED experienced analysts making 50k/yr. and then another 400 in one-time compensation.

Let alone some oil exec making $150M. Yeah, some fat bald guy is worth 3,000 financial analysts, WTFE!



i think you are being a bit harsh with your comments regarding people only "needing" a v6. from the day they were invented a car has been more than simply a means of transportation. it something that many people enjoy and identify with. it's a bit silly to claim that people should only buy what they need. how boring. it's not in our nature to do so. we don't do it with clothes, food, lodging, entertainment, etc. how can you expect people to do it with their vehicles.

If you look at my whole argument, and not one point, I argue that they don't *NEED* something larger than a V6, but they *WANT* it. They should pay for that want, since it also has a greater social impact. They should do this by paying higher taxes to clean up the damage they are doing.

If I want to get a C6 ZO6 at some point (I would love to) I'd have no problem shelling over a lot more guzzler tax, it's because I recognize my decision is wasteful and I should pay for that. Some people do not have the capacity to admit their shortcomings and their errors and pay for those, so they deny and shift blame.



how can they sell rights to oil that is in international waters? or is it in cuba's territory? if it is in international waters, can we still do so?

We split the area with Cuba, they can sell rights out to their area, which is territorial waters. Amazingly, Cuba opened up the bidding to US companies, but due to our political stupidity, we barred companies from bidding.

China gets more oil, we get none!

[cheapie]

ok. but what i don't like is people like df that presumably don't live in a huge house or waste tons of resources flying back and forth but have a scarlet letter attached to them when in reality they may be doing far less damage to the planet than the guy that is developing everything in sight, turning farmland into parking lots, flying private jetc, etc. but drives a v6 accord. :shrug:

[LegendKiller]

ok. but what i don't like is people like df that presumably don't live in a huge house or waste tons of resources flying back and forth but have a scarlet letter attached to them when in reality they may be doing far less damage to the planet than the guy that is developing everything in sight, turning farmland into parking lots, flying private jetc, etc. but drives a v6 accord. :shrug:

I certainly agree. However, a small amount of unrestrained consumerism by the rich, while not evenly distributed, is not a reason for evenly distributed unrestrained consumerism by a huge middle class population.

It seems "unfair" for rich people to use more, but a lot less of them are using more. It does seem unfair, but it should not be used as an excuse.

[OC]

it's the environmentalist's that haven't allowed the expansion of the gas supply for the last X amount of years and that's the cause of the crisis.A typical conservative knee-jerk reaction. There have been no new refineries built because, largely, oil companies don't want to build them.

From here: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_25/b3888039_mz011.htm?campaign_id=search

Oil execs argue that bigger means stronger. "Consolidation has given companies the financial strength and technological capabilities to take on bigger risks," says John Browne, CEO of BP, the former British Petroleum. Trouble is, there's little evidence that they're doing so. Far from raising money to pursue opportunities, oil companies are paying down debt, buying back shares, and hoarding cash. Exxon Mobil Corp., for instance, earned record profits in 2003 and ended the year with nearly $11 billion in cash. It then piled on an additional $5 billion in cash in the first three months of 2004.

The conservatism of the supermajors is possible only because all of them behave pretty much the same. Mergers, by reducing the number of companies, helped stamp out diversity of opinion. No major has broken ranks by trying to snag a big share of the available deals. If one did, others might have to follow suit -- or be shut out of opportunities and eventually run out of oil. Rather than developing new fields, oil giants have preferred to buy rivals -- "drilling for oil on Wall Street." While that makes financial sense, it's no substitute for new oil.

If megamergers are part of the problem, why did the government O.K. them? In part because standard antitrust doctrine doesn't address the problems they pose. Trustbusters at the Federal Trade Commission focused on "downstream" problems, forcing the merging companies to spin off refineries and gas stations where they overlapped. But except for Arco's Alaska fields, they left their "upstream" operations of oil E&P intact on the grounds that the companies were too small to affect the world price of oil. Says former FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky, who signed off on several mergers: "Exxon and Mobil accounted worldwide for 4% of reserves. No one has brought a successful antitrust case where the combined share was 4%.... It wasn't a close call."

But the oil industry is more complicated than the government understood. Contrary to antitrust theory, the big oil companies have strong institutional incentives to hold back somewhat on development of new oil wells, even if that limits their profit potential. Their risk-averse shareholders reward them for consistent results and big dividends. "CEOs are listening to what institutional shareholders want," says Lehman's Crandell. "Production growth is a secondary goal, if it's a goal at all."

And from here:

There was a tremendous flap during 2004 over Shell's downgrading of oil reserves. Those of us who used to work for Shell were particularly surprised; typically Shell was overly cautious about almost everything. I have no private sources of information from inside the major oil companies. Mostly, I try to evaluate what they do, not what they say. For instance, an editorial in the June 21, 2004, issue of Business Week complained that the 30 percent increase in oil prices induced only a tiny increase in company exploration budgets. Similarly, U.S. refineries are running close to capacity, but no new refineries have been built since 1976. Oil tanker ships are fully booked, but outdated tankers are being retired faster than new ones are being built. Instead, the industry seems to be hoarding cash, buying back stock, and paying out dividends. What is going on? Why don't higher prices and increasing demand encourage investment? Suppose, for a moment, that the premise of this book is correct: We have already found most of the oil. Drilling for the few leftovers yields neither fun nor profit. Should the major oil companies drill a string of dry holes just to keep the editors of Business Week happy? If, as I claim, world oil production is about to decline, then there is no point in adding refineries or increasing the size of the tanker fleet.

The major oil companies are not saying publicly that the oil game is over. If there were attractive prospects available, companies would be clawing their way over one another to get the drilling rights.

In short - ever hear of peak oil? We've either already hit it or we will hit it within this decade. Adding production capacity will accomplish nothing.



ANWR open it up.

Why? At best, ANWR will provide only 9% of the US's oil per year.

From here: http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm

Assuming an optimistic scenario in which the mean expected technically recoverable oil in the entire coastal plain (not just the 1002 area) - 10.3 billion barrels - could be completely recovered (i.e. ignoring market pricing) the EIA estimates production of 600 million barrels a year. In comparison, US daily consumption is 18.5 million barrels a day, or 6,752 million barrels a year. Thus in this scenario ANWR, once on tap, would provide less than 9% of US annual usage

We could save far more than 9% if we had the balls to actually engage in conservation as a nation.


this will open the door for electric cars, ethanol percentage based vehicles, and some new oil. I just want more options, right now we don't have any. These stupid hybrids aren't worth the premium you pay for them...

You could buy an electric car today if you really wanted to. Granted, the selection isn't that great, but they're available. Real, highway-capable ones too, in addition to several city-only models. The problem is that people refuse to be convinced that an electric car can meet the vast majoirty of their vehicle needs. That's the real problem that needs to be addressed.

As for more options - what exactly do you want? We've had cars that get 40mpg or more available in this country for a long time now, well before hybrids hit the scene. Ethanol has two dirty little secrets - we can't possibly grow enough of it to replace gasoline and diesel, and it only has about 75% the energy content of gasoline. This means that a vehicle running on ethanol will only get about 75% the fuel economy (MPGs) than a car with a same-size gasoline engine. E85 isn't much better. Would you settle for that to get ethanol? Would you be happy to get 22.5 mpg where before you got 30? I'm really asking here, and it's fine if your answer is yes.


also, i fully defend people's ability to drive what they want.That's your choice, but I don't. The US has 5% of the world's population, but uses 25% of its energy. We need to fix this, and that includes getting rid of our gas guzzlers.

[cheapie]

You could buy an electric car today if you really wanted to. Granted, the selection isn't that great, but they're available. Real, highway-capable ones too, in addition to several city-only models. The problem is that people refuse to be convinced that an electric car can meet the vast majoirty of their vehicle needs. That's the real problem that needs to be addressed.

As for more options - what exactly do you want? We've had cars that get 40mpg or more available in this country for a long time now, well before hybrids hit the scene. Ethanol has two dirty little secrets - we can't possibly grow enough of it to replace gasoline and diesel, and it only has about 75% the energy content of gasoline. This means that a vehicle running on ethanol will only get about 75% the fuel economy (MPGs) than a car with a same-size gasoline engine. E85 isn't much better. Would you settle for that to get ethanol? Would you be happy to get 22.5 mpg where before you got 30? I'm really asking here, and it's fine if your answer is yes.

That's your choice, but I don't. The US has 5% of the world's population, but uses 25% of its energy. We need to fix this, and that includes getting rid of our gas guzzlers.


a couple of points. hybrids are here. but they don't really make much sense financially. the various threads here have hashed that out ad nauseum.

as far as ethanol, nobody cares what their mpg is. they care how good their mp$ is. that's pretty much the only reason anyone tracks it. if ethanol was $.25/gallon, nobody would give a rat's behind if it was only 50% as efficient as gas. :shrug:

i would love to buy a hybrid. but with 3 kids, i'm not sure what's available. the lexus SUV? i don't have that kind of coin...for now.

[LegendKiller]

There have been no new refineries built because, largely, oil companies don't want to build them.

If refineries were to blame, then why is oil so high?

To put it another way, if we were to reduce the number of juicers making orange juice, would juice become more expensive or oranges?



In short - ever hear of peak oil? We've either already hit it or we will hit it within this decade. Adding production capacity will accomplish nothing.

I also disagree on "peak oil". Peak oil is nothing more than an artificial barrier projected by artificial supply and demand functions. If more oil were *actually* needed at the right price, then the oil would be found. If that price were too cheap, then it wouldn't be.

Take for example the haydays of the 1990's when oil was cheap. There was no motivation to find more, thus nobody did. this reduced the number of finds because of the reduced R&D.

Now, take the known holes, apply advanced (and expensive) extraction capabilties that are *JUST NOW* becoming economical at 60+/barrel, and you get oil that keeps up with artificial supply/demand equilibriums.

Then, add in Oil Shale and Oil Sands, which are currently prohibitively expensive, but which will also become economical once the price of extraction catches up with the profit from production, and you get further maintenance of production.

Add in the fact that oil shale and other oils can be produced from algae and you get a renewable "non renewable" source. It just costs more.

"Peak" oil also assumes a decrease in production. This assumes that production cannot be found elsewhere, which is addressed above. It also assumes a precipital fall, which is prevented by inginuity, increased efficiency, use of technology, and economics relating to all of that.

If it currently costs $100/barrel to extract oil from oil shale, then nobody is going to do it. However, once oil hits $110/barrel, they will do it to make their $10/barrel profit.

Current estimates are that oil shale and oil sands would provide many times the middle-east in oil capacity, providing us enough hydrocarbons for a few hundred years, at current usage, worldwide. But again, it'll cost you *A LOT* to buy it.

As far as Ethanol, we need to advance the technology to squeeze more energy out of corn, or switch more land to sugar cane production like Brazil.



That's your choice, but I don't. The US has 5% of the world's population, but uses 25% of its energy. We need to fix this, and that includes getting rid of our gas guzzlers.

Yes, we have 5% of the world's population, but we also are the worlds largest economy and that economy requires energy to power it, so regardless, we will always be the largest consumer, as long as we are the largest economy.

That being said, we can and should consume less, in regards to our *CONSUMER* consumption in every day lives.


a couple of points. hybrids are here. but they don't really make much sense financially. the various threads here have hashed that out ad nauseum.

as far as ethanol, nobody cares what their mpg is. they care how good their mp$ is. that's pretty much the only reason anyone tracks it. if ethanol was $.25/gallon, nobody would give a rat's behind if it was only 50% as efficient as gas. :shrug:

i would love to buy a hybrid. but with 3 kids, i'm not sure what's available. the lexus SUV? i don't have that kind of coin...for now.


Accord for one...

[OC]

a couple of points. hybrids are here. but they don't really make much sense financially. the various threads here have hashed that out ad nauseum.Ok... Not sure why you're directing this at me. I know hybrid are available now. My point is that hybrids aren't the only game in town.


as far as ethanol, nobody cares what their mpg is. they care how good their mp$ is. that's pretty much the only reason anyone tracks it. if ethanol was $.25/gallon, nobody would give a rat's behind if it was only 50% as efficient as gas. :shrug:You have a point there. I do wish people cared though.


i would love to buy a hybrid. but with 3 kids, i'm not sure what's available. the lexus SUV? i don't have that kind of coin...for now.Why do you want to buy a hybrid when you just said they don't make sense financially, and why do you want an SUV?

[cheapie]

Ok... Not sure why you're directing this at me. I know hybrid are available now. My point is that hybrids aren't the only game in town.

You have a point there. I do wish people cared though.

Why do you want to buy a hybrid when you just said they don't make sense financially, and why do you want an SUV?


:heh: cuz that's the only 5 passenger hybrid out there. and i mentioned the hybrid thing to you because you said

[quote]You could buy an electric car today if you really wanted to. Granted, the selection isn't that great, but they're available. Real, highway-capable ones too, in addition to several city-only models. The problem is that people refuse to be convinced that an electric car can meet the vast majoirty of their vehicle needs. That's the real problem that needs to be addressed./quote]

;)

[OC]

If refineries were to blame, then why is oil so high?I dunno. How about you tell us? You seem to be the only voice of authority on this subject around here.

You need to learn to pick your battles. First you rip DarkFury a new one for choosing to buy a gas guzzler, then you lay into me for... what, exactly? Having a position that doesn't support blindly pursuing more oil? When you shoot at both sides you start looking like a egomaniac.

[LegendKiller]

I dunno. How about you tell us? You seem to be the only voice of authority on this subject around here.

You need to learn to pick your battles. First you rip DarkFury a new one for choosing to buy a gas guzzler, then you lay into me for... what, exactly? Having a position that doesn't support blindly pursuing more oil? When you shoot at both sides you start looking like a egomaniac.

I am not picking any "side", except for one of data, logic, and reason. If you feel that I am attacking you, that certainly wasn't my intent, as you and I can have pretty dang good discussions with absolute civility, since we both can bring reasonable points into the dicussion that can be proven or disproven. That is all I was attempting to do with you, not "ripping" or anything such.


1. It is not reasonable to continue with our current consumption levels just for "fun" or to buy a stupidly wasteful car.

2. On the flip side of that is that we are not going to run out of gas, it's just going to be a heck of a lot more expensive. I don't agree with peak oil, since it just doesn't logically make sense in light of all of the other resources and known fact of economics and geological information. It seems to me to be a position used by many to get people to "wake up", when in fact, it is asleep itself.

3. The "punishment" that should be borne by wasteful people is due to the environmental and economical impact of their decisions. If you use more, which causes it to be more expensive, then you should be "punished" for ruining it for everybody else. Furthermore, since you are using more, it costs society billions to fix pollution or find remedies for your massive consumerism, thus you should bear the disproportionate amount of your disproportionate consumption.

It's reasonable to ask those who cost society the most to bear the most cost, is it not?

of course, those who cost society the most refute that logic by pointing at the shadow causes for their own misdeeds (nefarious oil companies and shadow organizations), when, in fact, it is the finger pointers who should be looking in the mirror while pointing the finger.

However, if society cannot look inwardly, to judge and moderate themselves, then somebody has to do it for them. Normally I hate "nanny states" as much as the next libertarian, but I also hate short-term consumerism that is ruining the future of this country.

A moderate position must be found, but in many instances we cannot leave it up to the egocentric consumers of this, or many other countries, to find that moderation, since they are ill equipped to deal with their own shortcomings.

[DarkFury]

I guess that the old adage applies, if you can't logically argue a position, minimize it be calling it extremist and hatred. Good one! :thumbdown


And as I said then, I am 6'2" with a *REALLY* bad knee (2 massive knee surgeries with titanium screws and plates) and I can deal with it, in fact it's actually pretty painless. I guess some people can't "take one for the team" and deal with their issues on their own, rather than screwing everybody else at the same time.


And as I stated before, you are assuming that those sedans *HAVE* to get that gas milage. They don't, but they do because people like you aim for the V8 rather than a more reasonable engine, which can be made even more economical by weight considerations *AND* better designs. However, you prevent the economic motivation of that, due to your unrestrained egocentricism.


Again, it's not the oil companies. It's amazing how little people listen but would rather point to everybody else, if you actually listened and learned to what I have posted in the past, perhaps you would understand the true nature of the beast. However, some people refuse to acknowledge the effect they have on their own lives and they would rather blame others for their own mistakes.


Frankly, I am not barking up the wrong tree. *YOU* are responsible for your actions, people like *YOU* are responsible for the situation we are in. Your POV, according to all known and logical and reasonable data points that you *ARE* wrong. HOwever, it is your problem that you cannot see that. I can present factual data all day counting everything you have said (and I have) and you still don't listen. So what it comes down to is that you refuse reality and blame others, which isn't that surprising.


If it were up to me all vehicles with anything larger than an I/V6 would be taxed prohibitively, 20-30% for non-business vehicles and then they would pay a "pump penalty" of another $3/gal or so. You don't NEED anything larger for consumer use. If you want it, pay for your consumerism to make up for the damage you are doing.


My finger may be pitiful, at least it has logic and proof backing it. I can understand why you want to defend yourself, if you didn't you might have to acknowledge some of the things I have said. Be defensive about it, but in the end, you are only fooling yourself.



As I have stated, I rideshare, my wife takes the metro. Heck, she went to FL today and I dropped her off at the metro station in Falls Church rather than driving all of the way to Reagan. We did that in our I4 Accord BTW, which also fit enough luggage for a 2-week trip (you know women...), and 2 people that are 6'+, AND stuff I was bringing into work.

Amazingly, that I4 was also able to get to a speed greater than 70, something that people think only V8's can do.

I guess I consider myself successful if I leave as minimal of an impact on society and the environment as I can throughout my life. Other's define successful as making the biggest imact they can.

Only time will tell who is correct.

Wah wah... I'm still gonna lump everything you say into the "Whatever man" category as you willl continue to single me out when you want to rant on these issues. I pointed out some facts for you on "large sedans".. and guess what, the car manufacturers still make them. Now is your crusade against "SUVs and Large Sedans"... sure seems like it.

As far as the oil companies... I still don't know where you are coming from there on me. I have clearly stated that "profit motive" moves the prices upward more than actual demand... and that as of right now, people driving these vehicles will still pay even in an artificially high price point which primarily profits the oil companies... and that is my only arguement with it. But again... whatever...

My opinion still hasn't changed and yes, I'm glad that YOU don't make the rules as to what I can and will drive. Life sure would be pretty boring under your standards. Do you also complain about people who "drive for fun" burning gas needlessly? Hell if you gonna complain about one... then complain about them all. Don't be such a hypocrite.

Oh well...that is all... carry on with your previously mentioned "save the gas" ways if that makes you feel more like a "responsible person". :wavey: I personally haven't "screwed anyone" over in my choice of vehicles and just because YOU feel that I have doesn't make that a true statement. So whatever mang. It's not my fault that you live in D.C. where life in general is WAY more expensive than out here in the Midwest... where folks HAVE to take the metro rather than face $25+ parking in the D.C. area. Maybe one day, everyone will need to be on public transportation rather than private cars.. but that day isn't today.

I can live with my decisions... you just go live with yours, either way, I'd kindly appreciate it if you would quit making referrences to me everytime you want to start a debate on this topic. There are plenty of worse targets out there for you to attack... but then again you probably just enjoy the argument for lack of any other response. :shrug:

[LegendKiller]

Wah wah... I'm still gonna lump everything you say into the "Whatever man" category as you willl continue to single me out when you want to rant on these issues. I pointed out some facts for you on "large sedans".. and guess what, the car manufacturers still make them. Now is your crusade against "SUVs and Large Sedans"... sure seems like it.

I have stated many times that my position is not one of class, but engine size and general fuel economy, whether that be a SUV with a V10 or a car with a V10, both are just as wasteful. You can attempt to pigeonhole the argument with whatever means you want, but that doesn't lessen the argument in a logical sense, but it does allow those who have no logical counter to minimize it.


My opinion still hasn't changed and yes, I'm glad that YOU don't make the rules as to what I can and will drive. Life sure would be pretty boring under your standards. Do you also complain about people who "drive for fun" burning gas needlessly? Hell if you gonna complain about one... then complain about them all. Don't be such a hypocrite.

Why would it be boring? There are plenty of nice cars with I6's. Furthermore, I never put a prohibition on large engines, I just said that people should pay a whole crapton for them, to align the societal costs to the actual costs. But hey, if you want to further justify your actions by pigeonholing rather than substantial debate, that finger-ear relation works well to let you sleep, so more power to ya!



Oh well...that is all... carry on with your previously mentioned "save the gas" ways if that makes you feel more like a "responsible person". :wavey: I personally haven't "screwed anyone" over in my choice of vehicles and just because YOU feel that I have doesn't make that a true statement. So whatever mang. It's not my fault that you live in D.C. where life in general is WAY more expensive than out here in the Midwest... where folks HAVE to take the metro rather than face $25+ parking in the D.C. area. Maybe one day, everyone will need to be on public transportation rather than private cars.. but that day isn't today.

So, justfication takes a new tact. We only use the metro because it's cheaper. Well shucks, I guess my new company should just toss out that *FREE* parking I get. That raise I also got, I guess that's just spent on paying for parking, $13/day, where my wife works. Dang, that hurts so damn much that I am forcing her to ride the Metro....

Silly me, I work my arse off to get through various levels of education, achieved moderate career and financial success, only to have my plans of massive short-term wasteful consumerism to be foiled by parking costs. DANG! I might as well move to the midwest, take a paycut in line with reduced COL, so I can buy my wasteful car.

Guess what? Even if I lived in the MW, like I have previously, I would still do what I do now. Right now, I could afford almost any car I wanted, within reason, yet, I find ride-sharing with my co-worker so much better. Yet another pigeonhole shot down eh?



I can live with my decisions... you just go live with yours, either way, I'd kindly appreciate it if you would quit making referrences to me everytime you want to start a debate on this topic. There are plenty of worse targets out there for you to attack... but then again you probably just enjoy the argument for lack of any other response. :shrug:

Funny, I never mentioned your name. Perhaps you just identify with the certain group responsible. If you have the need to defend yourself because of that, then how is it my problem?

[DarkFury]

Once again... "WHATEVER MANG"....



Funny, I never mentioned your name. Perhaps you just identify with the certain group responsible. If you have the need to defend yourself because of that, then how is it my problem?

You might as well have with this quote:


Want that $25k 300C, ok...fine...Pay $5k gas tax up-front, then get hammered every time you go to the pump. Once somebody shells out $2000 more per year with that tax & gets hammered up front $5k, AND has to pay the base gas costs, you will see American stupidity decrease rapidly.


You don't have to mention a name... all you have to say is 300c or HEMI and everyone around here knows who you are talking about.

Even a blind man can see that.

[MikeD]

http://fightphotos.com/boxextras/images/etc3.jpg

[smeakim]

So here is what I propose
<Sarcasm>

1. Ban all race car driving (even with going with an ethanol blend like indy they still waste the fuel and pollute the environment)

2. Ban all private planes unless they are carrying full capacity.

3. Ban all fast food because people getting fatter causes more fuel to be burned when driving, flying, and anything else requiring gas.

4. Make all golf courses require people to walk 18 holes because of the waste in electricity for electric carts and those carts that are gas is just a waste

5. Allow everyone to work at home then we don't have to waste our money trying to get someplace because we have to live far away to own a home

6. Get rid of newspapers and we can read everything online because then carriers don't have to deliver the papers

7. Ban all gas lawn mowers and we can all buy a goat or use manual push mowers like in the past

8. Ban leaf blowers and weed whackers that use gas

9. Ban traffic helicopters because they are just stupid anyway since they serve the same purpose as someone on the ground

10. Ban all letters and send everything by e-mail or electronically and we can get rid of most all residential delivery of packages

11. I almost forgot we can have all student stay home to save on bussing costs and the other costs with running a school. They can all get an education online.

</Sarcasm>

11. I almost forgot we can have all student stay home to save on bussing costs and the other costs with running a school. They can all get an education online. I moved this out becuase that is a good idea beucase I work in this industry. :-)

[LegendKiller]

Once again... "WHATEVER MANG"....
You might as well have with this quote:
You don't have to mention a name... all you have to say is 300c or HEMI and everyone around here knows who you are talking about.
Even a blind man can see that.

Next time I "rant", I will try to make it a little more unclear so as not to make you uncomfortable and feel like you are being singled out. How about "non-specific large quad vulcanized rubber and steel belted wheel clad conveyance with a octagonally configured hemispherical combustion chamber that weighs two gross tons and made by a subsidiary of a former American auto company now owned by a European company located in southern Germany in the province of Swabia which was severely bombed in WW2 and was formerly known as company X-Y until original co-founder Y replaced X in "X-Y" after his daughter Mercedes"

I wouldn't want to be non-pc. :)

[OC]

So here is what I propose
SNIP

1 - Absolutely. Let's start with NASCAR.
2 - Let's expand that to include anything that gets less than 20mpg per person.
3 - I'm for that. Eat locally produced food instead.
4 - Instead, let's ban golf. It's an elitist waste of real estate.
5 - Excellent idea.
6 - Ditto. Let's do the same thing with magazines.
7 - Ban gas models, yes. Use electric models instead.
8 - See above.
9 - Get rid of the meteorologists too and you have a deal.
10 - Online education rocks.
11 - See above.

[clutchy]

A typical conservative knee-jerk reaction. There have been no new refineries built because, largely, oil companies don't want to build them.

From here: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_25/b3888039_mz011.htm?campaign_id=search

Oil execs argue that bigger means stronger. "Consolidation has given companies the financial strength and technological capabilities to take on bigger risks," says John Browne, CEO of BP, the former British Petroleum. Trouble is, there's little evidence that they're doing so. Far from raising money to pursue opportunities, oil companies are paying down debt, buying back shares, and hoarding cash. Exxon Mobil Corp., for instance, earned record profits in 2003 and ended the year with nearly $11 billion in cash. It then piled on an additional $5 billion in cash in the first three months of 2004.

The conservatism of the supermajors is possible only because all of them behave pretty much the same. Mergers, by reducing the number of companies, helped stamp out diversity of opinion. No major has broken ranks by trying to snag a big share of the available deals. If one did, others might have to follow suit -- or be shut out of opportunities and eventually run out of oil. Rather than developing new fields, oil giants have preferred to buy rivals -- "drilling for oil on Wall Street." While that makes financial sense, it's no substitute for new oil.

If megamergers are part of the problem, why did the government O.K. them? In part because standard antitrust doctrine doesn't address the problems they pose. Trustbusters at the Federal Trade Commission focused on "downstream" problems, forcing the merging companies to spin off refineries and gas stations where they overlapped. But except for Arco's Alaska fields, they left their "upstream" operations of oil E&P intact on the grounds that the companies were too small to affect the world price of oil. Says former FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky, who signed off on several mergers: "Exxon and Mobil accounted worldwide for 4% of reserves. No one has brought a successful antitrust case where the combined share was 4%.... It wasn't a close call."

But the oil industry is more complicated than the government understood. Contrary to antitrust theory, the big oil companies have strong institutional incentives to hold back somewhat on development of new oil wells, even if that limits their profit potential. Their risk-averse shareholders reward them for consistent results and big dividends. "CEOs are listening to what institutional shareholders want," says Lehman's Crandell. "Production growth is a secondary goal, if it's a goal at all."

And from here:

There was a tremendous flap during 2004 over Shell's downgrading of oil reserves. Those of us who used to work for Shell were particularly surprised; typically Shell was overly cautious about almost everything. I have no private sources of information from inside the major oil companies. Mostly, I try to evaluate what they do, not what they say. For instance, an editorial in the June 21, 2004, issue of Business Week complained that the 30 percent increase in oil prices induced only a tiny increase in company exploration budgets. Similarly, U.S. refineries are running close to capacity, but no new refineries have been built since 1976. Oil tanker ships are fully booked, but outdated tankers are being retired faster than new ones are being built. Instead, the industry seems to be hoarding cash, buying back stock, and paying out dividends. What is going on? Why don't higher prices and increasing demand encourage investment? Suppose, for a moment, that the premise of this book is correct: We have already found most of the oil. Drilling for the few leftovers yields neither fun nor profit. Should the major oil companies drill a string of dry holes just to keep the editors of Business Week happy? If, as I claim, world oil production is about to decline, then there is no point in adding refineries or increasing the size of the tanker fleet.

The major oil companies are not saying publicly that the oil game is over. If there were attractive prospects available, companies would be clawing their way over one another to get the drilling rights.

In short - ever hear of peak oil? We've either already hit it or we will hit it within this decade. Adding production capacity will accomplish nothing.

the oil companies would love to create more production, but since the environmentalists make it so difficult they just buy eachother... makes sense to me. and why not, when they're hampered the price of oil skyrockets and they rake it in...


Why? At best, ANWR will provide only 9% of the US's oil per year.

From here: http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm

Assuming an optimistic scenario in which the mean expected technically recoverable oil in the entire coastal plain (not just the 1002 area) - 10.3 billion barrels - could be completely recovered (i.e. ignoring market pricing) the EIA estimates production of 600 million barrels a year. In comparison, US daily consumption is 18.5 million barrels a day, or 6,752 million barrels a year. Thus in this scenario ANWR, once on tap, would provide less than 9% of US annual usage

because 9% is a big honkin step in the right direction. why do you want to save it? there's nothing up there.


We could save far more than 9% if we had the balls to actually engage in conservation as a nation.

who wants to conserve? that's not fun at all. If we can create the capacity we might as well...


You could buy an electric car today if you really wanted to. Granted, the selection isn't that great, but they're available. Real, highway-capable ones too, in addition to several city-only models. The problem is that people refuse to be convinced that an electric car can meet the vast majoirty of their vehicle needs. That's the real problem that needs to be addressed.

they're not good enough, and they're too expensive. The only place i've noticed with electric hookups is walmart, and i don't shop there sooo....


As for more options - what exactly do you want? We've had cars that get 40mpg or more available in this country for a long time now, well before hybrids hit the scene. Ethanol has two dirty little secrets - we can't possibly grow enough of it to replace gasoline and diesel, and it only has about 75% the energy content of gasoline. This means that a vehicle running on ethanol will only get about 75% the fuel economy (MPGs) than a car with a same-size gasoline engine. E85 isn't much better. Would you settle for that to get ethanol? Would you be happy to get 22.5 mpg where before you got 30? I'm really asking here, and it's fine if your answer is yes.


ethanol is a renewable resource, last time i checked oil was not. I don't think i'd be happy with the decreased mileage, but if fuel was cheaper and i knew i was doing something good for the planet i could stomach it.


That's your choice, but I don't. The US has 5% of the world's population, but uses 25% of its energy. We need to fix this, and that includes getting rid of our gas guzzlers.

doesn't matter, we're a superpower... we really should start acting like one again or china is going to fly right past us laughing at us and thanking our enviro-commies...while they destroy their environment and pollute the worlds air.


my point with all of this is that we need a transitional solution (ethanol). One that won't cost too much so that we can get people to adopt the solution and then slowly bring about the change. I'm not going to go out and splooge 25K on a hybrid to save 10mpg and i'm not going to drive some piece of **** metro/fit/deathbox.


1 - Absolutely. Let's start with NASCAR.
2 - Let's expand that to include anything that gets less than 20mpg per person.
3 - I'm for that. Eat locally produced food instead.
4 - Instead, let's ban golf. It's an elitist waste of real estate.
5 - Excellent idea.
6 - Ditto. Let's do the same thing with magazines.
7 - Ban gas models, yes. Use electric models instead.
8 - See above.
9 - Get rid of the meteorologists too and you have a deal.
10 - Online education rocks.
11 - See above.


WTF? since you don't like nascar ban it? you're such a (was going to call you a name and decided not to) I really can't believe some of the stuff you spew out. What don't you get about land of the FREE? I wish you'd look a little beyond your agenda and focus on something real and substantive, the more looney your comments are the less impact they'll have... bring it out of the theoretical and suggest something that the core of america can live with and transition to.


online educ sucks btw.

[DarkFury]

Next time I "rant", I will try to make it a little more unclear so as not to make you uncomfortable and feel like you are being singled out. How about "non-specific large quad vulcanized rubber and steel belted wheel clad conveyance with a octagonally configured hemispherical combustion chamber that weighs two gross tons and made by a subsidiary of a former American auto company now owned by a European company located in southern Germany in the province of Swabia which was severely bombed in WW2 and was formerly known as company X-Y until original co-founder Y replaced X in "X-Y" after his daughter Mercedes"

I wouldn't want to be non-pc. :)
Heh... yeah... go with that. :rolleyes:


Still... better yet, just continue the "SUV bashing" that ya'll love so much... pretty much they've earned your scorn WAY more than most average large automobiles.... especially when there is only the driver traveling who is commuting.

[OC]

Wow, where to begin...


since the environmentalists make it so difficultKnock off the ad hominem attacks and back it up with facts.


I wish you'd look a little beyond your agenda and focus on something real and substantive, the more looney your comments are the less impact they'll haveThat's rich, considering the rest of what you just said. Consider: If ANWR can only provide 9% of our existing oil needs, that also means it'll be completely gone in just over 11 years. When it's gone, we'll be even worse off than we are now. Despite what you apparently choose to believe, oil is a finite resource.


why do you want to save it?As I said, I'd much rather we focus on conservation.


they're not good enoughDefine "good enough".


ethanol is a renewable resourceAnd just how much do you think we can actually produce? What do we do after this "transition" you mentioned?


who wants to conserve? that's not fun at all.:gle:


doesn't matter, we're a superpowerSo that justifies being irresponsible with the use of our planet's resources?

To summarize: You don't like the environment, or at least the people that care about the environment; you want more oil; you don't like electric cars or hybrids; you don't like small cars. Yet, judging by your comment "splooge 25K on a hybrid to save 10mpg", you want high fuel economy. How do you suppose we get there from here? Do you have anything to offer besides ethanol?

You're the one that needs to focus on something real and substantive. Attitudes like yours are why so much of the rest of the world despises us today - consume, consumes, consume, and act like am entitled bully while we're doing it. Rest assured that looney comments like yours will go ignored by people who give a damn about this planet and our future.

[smeakim]

WTF? since you don't like nascar ban it? you're such a (was going to call you a name and decided not to) I really can't believe some of the stuff you spew out.

Did you miss the implied sarcasm? Take a deep breath it was meant as a joke.

[clutchy]

Knock off the ad hominem attacks and back it up with facts.

ok, no new refineries or nuclear plants since the 1970's.


That's rich, considering the rest of what you just said. Consider: If ANWR can only provide 9% of our existing oil needs, that also means it'll be completely gone in just over 11 years. When it's gone, we'll be even worse off than we are now. Despite what you apparently choose to believe, oil is a finite resource.

Uh, i think i just finished telling you that oil was a finite resource and the future is ethanol if we continue on internal combustion. here it is
ethanol is a renewable resource, last time i checked oil was not.

are we saving ANWR for a rainy day or something? 9% is huge so i wouldn't call it an *only* 9%.


As I said, I'd much rather we focus on conservation.

so would I, but you can't force people to conserve doing so would make you, everyone say it with me, a fascist


Define "good enough".

too expensive, not enough places with available refueling stations. not mainstream.


And just how much do you think we can actually produce? What do we do after this "transition" you mentioned?

hopefully i would think we'd be able to produce enough. Atleast enough to lower our dependence on oil and free ourselves from mexico, canada, and the middle east. After the transition we continue to improve the process and hopefully get all cars to run completely on ethanol. This process takes a lot of infrastructure so it can't happen overnight.


So that justifies being irresponsible with the use of our planet's resources?

no justification just answers, you can't force people to conserve. I'd also prefer to maintain our position at the top of the world. I have no interest in ceding our power to someone else.


To summarize: You don't like the environment, or at least the people that care about the environment; you want more oil; you don't like electric cars or hybrids; you don't like small cars. Yet, judging by your comment "splooge 25K on a hybrid to save 10mpg", you want high fuel economy. How do you suppose we get there from here? Do you have anything to offer besides ethanol?

You're the one that needs to focus on something real and substantive. Attitudes like yours are why so much of the rest of the world despises us today - consume, consumes, consume, and act like am entitled bully while we're doing it. Rest assured that looney comments like yours will go ignored by people who give a damn about this planet and our future.

I do like the environment and i try to conserve where i can, i'm too broke to waste fuel. I combine trips, i drive a motorcycle when i can. I pick up trash when i find it, i recycle and have been doing so for over ten years. However, i believe in responsible use of the environment not alarmist protectionism.

I do want more oil.

I do like electrics and hybrids, but they haven't matured yet.

I don't like deathboxes. I have a '91 accord, and a '99 maxima. I wouldn't call those big cars. I'm not sure there is anything but ethanol, alteast not that i know of. I don't really care how many mpg's ethanol cars get as long as it's cheaper burns clean and gets us away from oil dependence.

you know i really could care less what the world thinks of us, they're just jealous because they don't have the power and influence to do what we do; and i think my attitude and behavior is pretty mainstream.
:thumbdown: to you sir.


Did you miss the implied sarcasm? Take a deep breath it was meant as a joke.


i got your joke, however having a little more experience with OC leads me to believe he was not joking.

I appreciated your try at lightening the mood. :pfft:

[OC]

so would I, but you can't force people to conserve doing so would make you, everyone say it with me, a fascistHmm. I wonder what it says about you that, while you claim to be in favor of conservation, you call someone else who is also in favor of conservation a fascist.

Do you think I want to hold a gun to people's heads? Do you think I want to resort to punishing those who waste resources? What about simply teaching people the value - a value you claim to have yourself - of reducing waste? You say you recycle and you conserve whenever you can. If this is true, I imagine you think it would be a good thing if more people did the same. Would you be in favor of showing other people the benefits of recycling and conservation? I'd be willing to bet you would be.

This is something you yourself are in favor of, yet I'm a fascist for supporting it.

You might notice that you hadn't bothered asking how I'd go about encouraging conservation. Instead, you assumed the worst and resorted to a baseless attack to try to make your position look more valid. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Thanks for reminding me of the kind of person you are. I had almost forgotten.

[clutchy]

Hmm. I wonder what it says about you that, while you claim to be in favor of conservation, you call someone else who is also in favor of conservation a fascist.

Do you think I want to hold a gun to people's heads? Do you think I want to resort to punishing those who waste resources? What about simply teaching people the value - a value you claim to have yourself - of reducing waste? You say you recycle and you conserve whenever you can. If this is true, I imagine you think it would be a good thing if more people did the same. Would you be in favor of showing other people the benefits of recycling and conservation? I'd be willing to bet you would be.

This is something you yourself are in favor of, yet I'm a fascist for supporting it.

You might notice that you hadn't bothered asking how I'd go about encouraging conservation. Instead, you assumed the worst and resorted to a baseless attack to try to make your position look more valid. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Thanks for reminding me of the kind of person you are. I had almost forgotten.

heh, alright.

it's just that you seem so militant about it, saying that you'd start by banning a motorsport that millions of people love just because it's wasteful.

I do share conservation with other people, but i do it in a friendly way. Although if they're friends i yell at them...

I don't support SUV's of any kind, but that doesn't mean i'm going to try and impose my will on other people. I'll make it known that i disagree and try to convince them there are better ways, but i'd never go for legislation and i wouldn't go about banning stuff.


so you'll of course pardon my error, i mistook you for a shrill environmental kook. we may have the same views on certain issues, but i believe our tactics/methods are in stark contrast...

[Got Apex Moderator]

Too much arguing, not enough discussing.

Let's try to keep it more civil next time.


- GAM