Oh, the irony: Gas prices may hit $3.00 a gallon this summer

[Paragon]

Boy, would I love to see Bush try to explain that to the "kick their ass and take their gas" crowd. :D

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml

Click on "Gas Prices Rising" under "CBS News Video"

[MercutioATC]

1. Honestly., the best thing that could happen to this country is $4/gal gas

We're the innovators of the world, but we don't innovate without economic incentive. Give me $4/gal gas and I'll give you alternative energy use...

[VOX]

3. I agree wholeheartedly...

I hate like hell to foment any suffering, and our oil-dependent society *will* suffer, but if it makes things eventually change for the better...

[alarimer]

17. NO WAY

A lot of people would be laid off if gas got that high. Maybe you can afford it but I certainly can't. I would lose my job because my employer would have to cut costs.

[OhioStateProgressive]

34. it might be bad for peope living today

but it will ensure life lasts beyond our own generation

people worrying too much about their own present lives at the expense of future people is just as selfish as anything else

[PatGund]

54. While I see your point....

....If I get laid off, it effects not just me, but my ability to support my daughter. And since my job forces me to live 125 miles away from my daughter, anything much past $2 a gallon forces me to only visit once or twice a month rather than every weekend.

And, before you ask, I drive a fuel-efficant Saturn, and not some mega SUV.

[OhioStateProgressive]

57. i understand

I don't want to sound like I support the idea of people getting laid off

but in all honesty, for the long term viability of this country and this planet, this won't be a bad thing

I hope any problems that happen do not hinder your ability to be with your daughter:)

[regnaD kciN]

68. Leaving off the notion of gas-price gouging...

...economist Andrew Tobias came up with a good idea many years ago: raise the tax on gas high enough that we would be paying something like $4/gallon, while simultaneously cutting other taxes by an equal amount to make up for it. (In other words, this wouldn't be a case of Evil Liberal Big Government raising taxes, but merely reassigning them.)

Result: People would be at about the same place they are now in terms of current tax burden, but would have a real incentive to lower their taxes in the future by reducing their fuel use.

[Oggy]

4. $6.20 / gal

In the UK. With that comes much more fuel efficent cars, although there has been a worringly large increase in the number of SUV's in the last few years. I suspect but don't know without researching it, that the SUV's sold here are probably more efficent than the ones sold in the US.

I do have a question for you though. If the technology is already here, and more efficent cars (and smaller ones) are used in Europe etc, isn't it a case of consumer choice/pressure being needed to change things rather than innovation on its own?

[MercutioATC]

5. To answer, no. It's money-driven...

If you're a pure free-market person, I really have no answer, because I've found most free-market philosophies to be short-term. I seriously think that there are alternatives to a petroleum-based economy and that it would behoove us to stop thinking in the short-term and realize that we have in an interest in developing a long-range strategy which depends on renewable energy.

The funny thing is that the technology exists now. We don't even have to speculate. Give us 10 years and we could eliminate our foreign oil dependence....if we chose to do so. Once we get an administration that's not beholden to oil interests, we have amazing possibilities.

[Oggy]

7. I agree

With both your statements there. Without regulation short term gain always seems to win over long term sense. A sign of corporate and human greed IMO. I work for a company that encourages Energy Efficiency in the home and in transport, and the main way we operate ( other than grant allocation ) is to educate the public on how these changes save them money (greed), not on how "we have in an interest in developing a long-range strategy which depends on renewable energy.". This is thankfully starting to change, and renewables are becoming a factor in our work.

What is extremely important for the world is your last statement. For all the pro's and con's of the US system, it is the world leader. What ever you do certainly reflects how we follow. So 2004 is not only of major significance to you and the next 4 years, but also to us in the UK. With Bush out things I believe will improve here, if you don't get him out ( a scary prospect ) we will continue to follow the bush administrations whims.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. My consumer choice

was to purchase a Geo Prizm which gets about 36 mpg. I have a commute of 100 miles per day over low mountains, so anything that is efficient is important. It is interesting to note that said Prizm is a 1990 model with over 160,000 miles on the engine. The choice for fuel efficiency is there-people just have to make that choice.

[gumbybob13]

53. Ever hear of Pogue?

Nelson Pogue back in 1933 invented a carb for cars that could reach 100mpg or even more..... We've had the technology for years, but the oil companies probably bought the patents for them never to be released. Check the link below....

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/cree/pioneer/People/21b.htm

[GOPBasher]

6. Ditto

You took the words right out of my mouth. The more gas costs, the less we'll use, which will decrease our consumption of fossil fuels and decrease our emissions.

[RC]

9. Do you really want $4 a gal gas?

This would include diesel and jet fuel also. The cost of everything would go up. It would kill many businesses. The cost of living would go way up. Not good till we get the wholesale export of American jobs over seas under control.
It would be better to remove bu$h&co (read the fascists in congress also), jail them for their war and other crimes and restore sanity to our energy policy.

[4dsc]

16. The one person stated

that price increases will effect the US consumer in ways they haven't seen before.. This will be an eye opener to the waste society we live in. Its time is long past..

[Zero Gravitas]

29. Yes I Do

Especially if it is just for this summer. Bitter medicine? yes. But it might just cure the morans of their fixation on Bush* as a Great Leader. Once Bush is toast the world will be a much better place, whether a gallon of gas costs $5 or $1.

[Toots]

50. Remember virtually every thing you buy arrives by truck

Almost all goods in the US are moved by truck at different points of their history. If freight costs go up so does the objects cost. Inflation anyone. It is gunna really roar in the next few months. I predict at least a two percent increase in inflation withing three months.

[Zero Gravitas]

72. I understand

still the world will be a better, safer place with Bush out of the White House even if it takes $5 a gallon gasoline to do it.

[libview]

24. I guess you don't have much of a commute, do you?

[OneTwentyoNine]

40. Hah,it would be business as usual

And Halliburton and the rest of the Oil thugs would make billions heaped upon billions off of everyone. If your a rich bastard it wouldn't make a shit bit of difference anyway--I doubt that $4.00 per gallon would hurt Pigboy in the least. All it would do is make the poorer that much poorer and most likely result in massive layoffs.

David

[Birthmark]

2. If gas = $3.00/gal...

...then election = ABB.

[moondust]

8. The White House fantasy team

was surely counting on $1.00 a gallon by election time with all that cheap Iraqi oil they were going to get.

[ClintonTyree]

10. Are the oil producing nations..............

ganging up on Bush to get the little dictator out of Washington?

[ClintonTyree]

11. Shrub...............

is siphoning off mega barrels to "replenish the strategic reserve". That's one of the reasons they give for prices going up now. I saw that little tidbit on CBS evening news. They said $3.00 a gallon during the summer is almost assured. This is going to get Shrubs dick caught in a big wringer around election time.

[Nihil]

13. Or ...

... (given the exceptionally short memories of most Americans) maybe
it just gives Bu$h the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone:
Not only does he get to re-fill the "strategic reserve" while the mere
mortals cough up more per gallon, it means he can *drop* the price in
late September or early October in order to win back any wavering Rep
petrol-heads.

Nihil

[DrBB]

14. Caused by massive debt and the weak dollar

...at least that's what I heard some expert say recently. Actually, now that I think of it, it was Robert Rubin on our Boston NPR call-in show, The Connection ("some expert" indeed!). The theme of the show was his recent dire warnings about our debt and balance of payments crises. One of the side effects was a weak dollar, which would lead to sharply higher gas prices, he said.

52. I did a more complete analysis

The high price of energy is related to a cycle created by low interest rates where people buy huge homes and huge SUV, which eat more energy--as well as the weak dollar, as you cited.

[phillybri]

15. I'd actually like to see it...I'll ride a bike to work...

Can you even imagine how pissed people would be at Shrub????

That is one of the few things that could ensure a Democratic landslide...

[alarimer]

18. you people are very smug

You must all be rich because you sound like a bunch of jerks. What about all the people (millions and millions) who will lose their jobs or who won't be able to buy food? It will make the Great Depression look like a picnic. You all make me sick; you apparently have no compassion at all for how this will affect people. Forget buying gas for the car- people will die because they won't be able to cool their homes either. But I guess as long as it saves oil, that's okay. yes it would be nice if we could all afford a Toyota Prius. Face it though, it will take a long while to convert the economy to one less dependent on oil. In the meantime, people will suffer like never before. And we may not survive as a nation.

[hatrack]

19. We survived civil war, the Depression, Hitler, Communism & Carrot Top

We will also survive $3.00/gallon gas - assuming it gets that high this summer.

[Logansquare]

23. LOL-Survivors of Carrot Top, "The almost-greatest generation"

.

[demodewd]

56. $4

If it takes $4 a gallon to survive Bush I'm all for it.

[htuttle]

21. You don't need an expensive Prius to save money on gas

There are a lot of options that are cheaper (bicycles, scooters, even motorcycles, plus mass transit, etc...). I'm riding a cheap scooter to work at 108MPG. Sure, it's cold as HELL riding it in Wisconsin in winter, but I bundle up and I'm getting used to it, and spend less than $1 every two weeks on gasoline.

You are right, in that we are woefully unprepared as a society to deal with expensive oil. That is called 'PAYING THE PIPER HIS DUE'. A LOT of people have been urging us to prepare for DECADES for post-petroleum life, but were mostly ignored and ridiculed.

Now we all get to pay for the arrogance of our leaders, and the apathy of our population. Of course it sucks, but there's little that can be done about it at this point, other than working extra hard to deal with the post-cheap-petroleum world.

Where we are really going to get hit isn't in paying to get to work, or cooling or heating our houses. It's going to be FOOD where were really get hurt. That's going to hurt a LOT, and a lot of people around the world will die.

[dpibel]

28. And Your Quick and Ready Solution Is. . .?

Are you confusing the messenger with the message?

Observing that something will happen is quite different from causing it to happen. It seems as if you think that, as long as people don't discuss $3/gal. gas, it won't happen. It will happen whether we talk about it or not. It will happen whether or not there is political fallout for the Fierce Warrior Chieftain.

Sure, not everybody can afford a Prius. But if you can afford a Ford F250 or an SUV, you can sure afford a Geo.

You're stating the standard American complaint, which is going to become increasingly common: "Well, sure I contributed to the problem. But you can't expect me to pay the consequences. As a matter of fact, you should feel sorry for me."

Just to anticipate the binary argument: I'm not reveling in suffering. I am blaming the victim, but only to the extent that the victim has participated in his/her own victimization.

Sure, Americans have been programmed to consume as if they live in an infinite world. But there's a willfulness to it: "Donchew tell me I can't drive a truck. Donchew tell me not to drive to the store four times a day. Donchew tell me to ride a bus. Donchew tell me to turn down the heat." Americans act as if defending their comfort exempts them from reality. "If there's not enough oil in the world, then I'd have to ramp down my all-important lifestyle. That would be bad. Therefore, there's enough oil in the world, and don't tell me there's not."

Gnashing teeth over the suffering that will result from high oil prices doesn't change anything. The time to change was a long time ago, and Americans chose not to. It's been a helluva dance. But that damn piper's sitting there with his hand out.

[Heddi]

36. You say:

Sure, not everybody can afford a Prius. But if you can afford a Ford F250 or an SUV, you can sure afford a Geo.

What about families that CAN'T afford a Prius OR a Ford F250 OR an SUV OR a Geo.

You are talking like all americans are rich and oil guzzlers by choice and they're the only ones that would be affected by higher gas prices.

I can't blame a poor family for driving a 1983 Crown Vic that gets 10mpg if that's all they can afford. I'm not willing to tell them to suffer because of assholes who use natural resources like they're quickly replenishable.

Not EVERYONE can bike to work. Not EVERYONE can motorcycle to work. Not EVERY city in America has public transportation.

The people who will be MOST affected are the people who are barely scraping by as it is.

It may be feasable, in a city where there is at least adequate public transportation, for someone (to whom public trans is their only option) to pay a current fare of $1.00 each way, but it's not necessarily feasable for them to pay $3.00 each way, especially if they're working poor and can barely afford the $1.00 fare to begin with.

Not every American is consumer-driven, oil-using louses. There are many people who have no option BUT to drive. BUT to heat their houses with oil.

There are Americans who have no option BUT to work in the transportation industry.

I"m not willing to say "Well, because alot of Americans are gas-guzzlers, then EVERYONE deserves to suffer and lose their jobs, pay more for products, pay more for gas, be unable to heat their house in the winter, etc"

THe people who will be punished the MOST are the people who can LEAST afford to be punished. The working-poor and poor will be devistated by this the most. They don't deserve to be punished b/c of rich assholes who own 3 hummers.

[NickB79]

65. The last paragraph says it all to answer your questions

"Gnashing teeth over the suffering that will result from high oil prices doesn't change anything. The time to change was a long time ago, and Americans chose not to. It's been a helluva dance. But that damn piper's sitting there with his hand out."

It doesn't matter what ANYONE here thinks about $3/gal gasoline prices. It is not a matter of if, but when. If we're lucky enough to have a few years remaining before it hits, we might be able to improve our country to be less oil-dependant. But even with a few years to prepare, the preparations will still be woefully inadequate. We are still decades away from significant alternative fuel sources that could replace oil as an energy source.

It sucks that the poor will have to suffer for the sins of the rich, but that might be what it takes to wake up this nation to the damage that has been done. We don't seem to have learned from the oil shortage of the 70's, so maybe something even more severe will shock our nation enough to pick up where we left off in the 70's for fuel efficiency.

[trogdor]

75. Except they're not called Geos any more.

They're Chevys. GM made that change to hide the fact that they're cheap foreign cars while being able to say, "we do SO sell small cars!"

Notice they don't make the Prizm anymore. Prizm was a Toyota made in the USA. Most imported Chevys are now being made by Suzuki in Japan or Daewoo in Korea. They're all crap.

My choice if I had to make one? VW Golf/Jetta TDI. 49 MPG on a diesel that'll probably run for decades. The Big Three won't touch it, although I think they could if they wanted to.

[Zero Gravitas]

30. not smug

those millions and millions will suffer under Bush's rule anyway. These people don't give a crap about ordinary people anyway, why do you think they don't care about the deficit or jobs being exported? But amazingly millions and millions have been deluded into thinking that Bush is 'on their side' when he isn't. These rising gas prices are the direct result of Bush's reckless policies and if the consequences of htose policies start to take effect before Election Day then so much the better. The world will be a better place for it.

[DrWeird]

31. mm hmm.

You must be very concerned about the impoverished.

Tell me, what kind of SUV do you drive?

[Sir_Shrek]

20. Flipside of that argument...

For one, $3.00 a gallon will definitely not be popular with anyone. Think of the hit businesses will take. Sure, some of us may be able to ride a bike...businesses and shipping companies won't have that luxury.

Secondly, I think something like that will only bring ANWR back into the political fold. Folks aren't going to wait for alternative fuels and sources to be developed. Even gas/electric hybrid is still beyond the financial reach of many. Be prepared for increasing debates on the feasibility of ANWR if this comes true.

[htuttle]

22. ANWR has enough oil to fuel America...

...for about 3-5 days.

Whether we tear it up or not, we're still stuck in the same situation.

[noonwitch]

25. It will not happen in an election year

Bush and his friends in the oil companies will find some way to keep it from going too high. If gas is $3 a gallon, Bush will not get elected.

[htuttle]

26. Actually, it just struck me how they might plan on avoiding that

Bush has been topping off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve all year.

How much you wanna bet he dumps the whole thing onto the consumer market next Summer/Fall to drive the gas price down?

Sure, the military will scream about it being dumped into the consumer market, but Bush didn't listen to them before invading Iraq, why would he start listening now?

[rucky]

35. Yep...relative deprivation

an October surprise would be $1.50/gallon gas. And we'll be soooo grateful for the 50% reduction.

[regnaD kciN]

69. It won't matter by then...

Sure, people will appreciate the price drop, but so much else is riding on fuel prices, that the damage to the economy (higher inflation and unemployment) will already be done -- and a quick drop like that in oil prices won't have an effect on the economy as a whole until after the election is over.

[revcarol]

27. Fuel prices ALREADY affecting the price of food.

The poor, the unemployed,seniors who only have Social Security are the ones who will suffer most....not good, folks.

And we're not through winter.

[Mairead]

32. There's no irony--the invasion and massacre wasn't about more gas

it was about more PROFITS. It was about making sure that we weren't forced into creating a cheaper transportation solution in good time.

[Heddi]

33. This would not be good

Sure, there are many people who drive that could take alternate transportation instead---riding a bike, motorcycle, scooter, taking a bus, walking, etc.

But there are many people who can't do that.

A single mother with 2 children can't bike her kids to daycare no matter how much she wants.

It's very dangerous riding a bike on major streets, which at least in my situation, would be needed to get back and forth between school and work.

I live in Seattle, and there are ALOT of bike riders, but my school is 10 miles away. I'm in class from 6pm - 9pm. It would be totally unfeasable for me to ride to school and home from school, especially since I get home from work in just enough time to grab my books, get back in the car, and drive to school.

The cost of public transportation would increase as well. $1.25 each way for a bus fare isn't bad, and I take the bus at every single opportunity where taking the bus is practical. But I couldn't afford paying $2.50 each way.

I would imagine that elementary and high-schools would impose 'gas fees' if the price of gas got that high to offest the price of busses.

The gas prices raising wouldn't stop ALL people from driving---it would stop those that can barely afford to drive now with gas prices the way that they are. And those are the people that absolutley cannot afford to stop driving.

They're the single-parent or working-class two parent households who are having a hard time making ends meet as it is. The people that logistically HAVE to have 2 cars so that both parents can work.

There are many parts of this country where biking is NOT an option. Where taking a bus is more of a problem than not taking a bus---I had a job interview on the East Side of Seattle---but from where I live, I'd have to switch busses 4 times each way. I'd have to leave my house two hours early and get home two hours later and that just does not work for my schedule.

It's not that I'm addicted to my car and love to drive---I hate driving and wish that public transportation was more accessable to the places that I need to go. Again, when I lived on the other side of Seattle, we never used our car except to drive to ikea, or pick up large amounts of something (buying a couch, or lumber, etc).

When I lived in South Carolina, there was NO bus service---well, busses that came MAYBE once an hour and only serviced very very limited parts of town. Unlike seattle, only about 10% of Charleston was serviced by Public Transportation.

How are people that work 20 miles from their home supposed to get to where they need to go? Again, biking or scooters or moto's aren't always an option if you're towing kids back and forth, or if you work out of your car.

Many jobs would be lost in the transportation industry as well. Consumer prices would go up to offset the cost of transporting X product to Y city.

Airlines would lay MORE people off, and Airline flights would become MORE expensive.

Yes, higher gas prices would do alot TO this country, but it would be devistating to people who can't afford to take alternative means of transportation, and to people who can't afford to not shop at one store over another to show "personal responsibility in shopping". As much as we hate to admit it, there ARE people whose only outlet for shopping is Walmart. Whose only outlet for transportation are cars. Whose only access to heating is through oil. Whose only jobs is working as truck drivers or airline attendants. Whose only way of making a living is through cheap(er) gas prices.

[ProfessorGAC]

37. I Don't See It Happening

That close to an election? It would destroy the consumer economy in a heartbeat and the consumers already rebel at $2. They'll use their oil co. contacts to prevent that because that would be political death.
The Professor

[Zero Gravitas]

39. They can't control the supply though

IF the dollar is weak and the oil producers cut back production, then there is not much they can do about it, is there?

[ProfessorGAC]

42. They'll Subsidize the Oil Companies B4 They Let It Happen

And, right now, i can't see the Saudi's wanting to get on the wrong side of the U.S. They've already ducked the heat. Why would they want to introduce scrutiny where none exists.

I think they can do SOMETHING, even if it's a bad long term idea, before they let the whole charade come crashing down.
The Professor

[On the Road]

38. If That Happens,

we could be in a full 1970s-style energy crisis by election day. Would be bad news for the economy and even worse news for Bush.

Somehow, I think the administration will intervene in oil prices to prevent that from happening. On the other hand, if they start to be denominated in Euros, who knows how difficult that will be?

[OneTwentyoNine]

41. Blamed Clinton when it hit $1.70 here in summer of 2000....

Clinton and the Dems were labeled as "Not having a energy policy",so we absolutely need a Repig in the WH.

Now,if it climbs to $3.00 this summer I guess it will be blamed as the "Price of Freedom!!"

God what shit....


David

[bobbieinok]

43. It WON'T be mentioned in the media

Unlike the 24/7 screaming on talk shows and by the republicans in congress during 2000.

I heard a late nite music/talk show then directed to truck drivers. The constant message was 'Clinton and Gore and the democrats don't care a bit about you; vote Bush and republican for people who care about the cost of gas.'

[Hammie]

44. Actually it is kick their ass and take their oil.

If we could get Iraq's oil fields to actually produce, and keep the pipelines in one piece, we would be stealing oil, not gas.

If your hinting that the war in Iraq is about getting Iraqi oil, then you're a bit of a dolt. We could have gotten all the Iraqi oil, any time we wanted, by buying it. The Bush administration might be evil, but they are not idiots. Nobody goes to war to steal something that they could just buy. There are any number of plausible reasons why we went to war, stealing Iraqi oil isn't one of them.

You also seem to be under the impression that the volatility of gas prices is due primarily to the world price of crude oil. Unsurprisingly, that too is complete bravo sierra. It is due primarily to the plethora of environmental regulations that have accomplished two things that foster price instability. One is lack of capacity. The other is regional markets. In Northern California, where I live, it has been decades since any new refining capacity has been added. I believe that Chevron added some reforming units in the 80's, but some other refineries have gone offline. This is mostly due to the extreme difficulty in getting regulatory approval, not to mention the inevitable lawsuits from various environmental groups. Not only is capacity fixed, the various formulations required in different regions by environmental regulations don't mean that gas can't always be shipped from where it is plentiful to where it is scarce.

Not only is the supply of gasoline inelastic, the demand is too. The only way to reduce one's consumption of gas is to drive less or use a more fuel efficient vehicle. Neither one is very practical in the short term. Consequently when the supply becomes short, usually in the summer due to vacation driving, the price has to really jump high to force demand in-line with supply.

To add insult to injury, as surely as night follows day, the legislators and other govt. officials, who caused the shortage in the first place, will be assailing the evil oil companies for ripping off the poor helpless consumer.

Did we talk about who gets hurt by this? As always it is the lower income people who tend to have older, less fuel efficient vehicles not to mention far less disposable income with which to cover their increased fuel costs. For the well to do, or the young and healthy, it is no big deal. Ride your bike to work, drink less French wine and more Chilean wine, vacation in Hawaii instead of Tahiti, you'll adapt. The less affluent, or the ill, have harder choices. The extra money that goes to transportation is that much less money they have for heating, air-conditioning, food, medication, etc.

How about who benefits? Yep, Bush's pals in the oil industry. They didn't create the situation, but those spikes in the price of gas generate real profits that go straight into the pockets of the oil barons. So go ahead.. root for $3/gal gasoline, that'll be a $1.5/gal of profit for Bush and Cheney's good friends to use delivering a nice thorough spanking to whoever our guy ends up being this fall.

Me, I'll be rooting for a new refinery so that the oil companies can spend their time at each others throats, and out of my pocket.

Hammie out.

[dawgman]

45. Just curious, Have you ever been inside an oil refinery?

I have worked in several. They are NOT something of which someone would want more. They are dirty polluted dangerous places. Even with existing environmental regulations the communities that are near them are plagued by the awful smells and worse things such as polluted ground water and soil.

In the long term, adding refineries is not practical. The amount of oil being extracted from the ground is about to lessen not increase. The existing refineries are more than adequate for the ever lessening supply of crude (oil production has gone down the last three years and there aren't any indications that it is going to go back up any time soon). It would be foolish to build new refineries at incredible expense when those that exist are not usually running at full speed, nor do they have to be in order to keep up with their supply of crude.

The Age of Oil is coming to an end.

[Art_from_Ark]

58. Interesting observations, dawgman

They remind me of an oil refinery on the island of Hokkaido, Japan. During the Magnitude 8.0 earthquake a few months ago, one of the holding tanks caught fire. The news programs interviewed local residents, who took the opportunity to complain about previous fires at the complex, as well as the foul smell and other pollution problems.

[Hammie]

59. And I lived near them too.

It is true that they don't smell very good sometimes. Not as bad however as the stockyards near my uncles house, nor Mt. Milpitas (a dump) near where I live now, nor indeed the garlic fields of Gilroy when the wind is out of the south.

Dangerous? Maybe it is because they are so old. A new one might be much safer.

As far as whether it is a poor investment, that isn't my problem. This is still a, mostly, free country. If a private entity wishes to make what I, or you, consider a foolish investment, that is their right. If an oil company wants to invest their profits in a refinery that lowers my fuel costs by increasing competition among oil companies, I'm all for it. I might even be able to save enough to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle.

Oh, by the way, the Sun is running out of fuel. The age of solar power is coming to an end.

[dawgman]

61. What a ridiculous, asinine statement.

"the Sun is running out of fuel. The age of solar power is coming to an end." If you really think that is an appropriate counter-argument you are a fool. Way to use good logic. The sun won't run out of fuel for millions of years. We will run so low on oil so as to make the energy input to output ratio negative within probably 50 years at most.

Refineries are dangerous because of the types of chemicals that are use and the type of reactions that must take place. THey are not dangerous because of age, they are dangerous because danger is the nature of the beast.

"As far as whether it is a poor investment, that isn't my problem. This is still a, mostly, free country. If a private entity wishes to make what I, or you, consider a foolish investment, that is their right. If an oil company wants to invest their profits in a refinery that lowers my fuel costs by increasing competition among oil companies, I'm all for it."

Do you really believe that an oil company building refineries would save you money? Who do you think would pay for the new facilities? Not you the consumer, I'm sure. The oil companies would just eat the cost for the chance to provide savings to you. That sounds very magnanimous, even for an industry as benevolent as the energy people. That makes alot of sense.

[Hammie]

70. This is probably a waste of electrons

I know that oil will be used up before the sun will go out. Anyone older than 5 could probably make the same prediction. The point is that both will occur so far in the future, that changing my behavior now because of it is stupid.

I have a masters degree in chemical engineering. I am fairly familiar with the process of refining petroleum. I actually work in semiconductor processing which uses far more dangerous chemicals than any refinery. The chemicals in a refinery aren't that hazardous. The hazard is presented by the huge quantity. The idea that no progress has been made in 20 years in standards and materials of engineering that would make a new plant safer than an old plant is stupid. In my own industry, there have been numerous advances in technology and standards related to safety. Why is petroleum refining different?

Last but not least, the contention that competition doesn't increase supply and lower prices, even to the point that some plants will actually operate at a loss, is beyond stupid to the point of willful blindness to how the world actually works. Why do you suppose you can now buy a DVD player for less than $100? Is it because of the benevolence of electronics manufacturers? It is because of competition. Perhaps you could explain why competition wouldn't work in the case of petroleum refining when is clearly works in other capital intensive industries like steel, automobiles, and semiconductors?

[dawgman]

73. Do you really believe that the end of the supply of cheap easy to access

oil is that far off in the future? You make a wonderful ostrich. Depending on who you listen to(environmentalist or the good ol' US gov't), there is between 0 and 20 years of EASY to access oil. After that time have fun. $3 will seem like a present memory. There will always be oil somewhere, in some form. Unfortunately, it will NOT be cost efficient, or energy efficient for much longer. Oil is a finite, non-renewable resource. You need to grasp that fact.

The reason we can have DVD players for under $100 dollars is because they are made by outsourced slave (I realize that they are paid, this is hyperbole for the sake of argument. I also refuse to believe that $.20 a day is a fair wage) labor and sold by stores like Wal-Mart. Are you really a free market guy? You must make tons of money to think that way, are you Keynesian or Chicago school? Or don't you know?

The main reason I don't think additional refineries would make the price of gasoline go down is the ever decreasing supply of oil and the ever increasing demand for it. Competition over a dwindling resource doesn't make the price go down, nothing does. Like I said, I have worked in refineries all over the wester US, mostly in Anacortes, Bellingham, Moses Lake, (was just tank farm last I was at that one), several in Montana, and I have worked along the Alyeska pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to the terminal in Valdez. In all my travels I have yet to see one of them operating at full strength. This was due to a lack of supplied crude, not some grand conspiracy on the part of the major oil corporations to keep the price of oil products artificially high.

[Bandit]

74. You have a Masters Degree in Engineering and you make

a statement like that? The reason CD players are below $100. is not because of competition it is because of countries using slave labor and having NO Labor Protections No labor laws makes for very cheap labor indeed. Also no environmental laws or any restrictions on Industry. We can compete in the US if we did away with all Protections also. You want unsafe meat fine. You want unsafe water fine. You want unsafe vehicles and drunk drivers delivering goods fine. It is not a matter of competition it is a matter of Safety and Protection for the people and the planet. If you don't wish for those things to be, then we could "compete". A "Masters Degree" I believe you, Honest.

[dawgman]

76. Some info about refineries.

Threats posed at each stage of the oil lifecycle include:
Extraction: Occupationally-related fatalities among workers in the oil and gas extraction processes are higher than deaths for workers from all other US industries combined. Oil well workers risk injury and chronic disease from exposure to chemicals such as cadmium, arsenic, cyanide, lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Oil Transport: Many leaks and spills occur in developing nations where pipeline and oil rig safety regulations are inadequately enforced, posing particularly high threats to local environments and human communities.

Refining: Refinery workers' health is threatened through accidents and from cancer (leukemia), associated with exposure to petroleum by-products such as benzene. Again, these threats are even greater in developing nations and poor communities where labor, safety, emissions standards and environmental laws are lacking or weakly enforced.
Combustion: Chemical and particulate air pollution are related to heart and lung disease (chronic obstructive lung disease and asthma) and premature death. Acid rain leaches lead, copper and aluminum into drinking water and climate change caused by excess carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are associated with more extreme weather events and the spread of infectious diseases.

http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/oilpress.html

www.med.harvard.edu/chge/oilreportex.pdf
Oil Refining

• Oil, by-products and chemicals used in the refining process
cause chemical, thermal, and noise pollution.

• Oil refining affects the health and safety of refinery workers
through accidents and from chronic illness (e.g., leukemia)
associated with exposure to petroleum and its by-products
(e.g., benzene).

• Petroleum refineries present major health hazards for human
communities living near refineries, and for marine and terres-
trial ecosystems where they are situated.

• Gasoline and many of its additives can lead to acute and
chronic toxicity, and is associated with some types of cancer.

• Groups at high risk for exposure to gasoline and its additives
include: employees in the distribution, storage and pumping of
gasoline; people living near refineries, transfer and storage
facilities, and service stations; automobile drivers who pump
their own gas; people who live in houses with attached
garages; and those whose drinking water has been contaminat-
ed with gasoline.

Combustion: Air Pollution

• Gas flaring at the point of extraction is a source of air pollu-
tion.

• The additives and products of oil combustion, VOCs, NOxs,
SOxs, CO, CO2, PM-10s, PM-2.5s and Pb (definitions below),
have numerous environmental and human health impacts.

• Chemical and particulate air pollution are related to heart
and lung disease (chronic obstructive lung disease and asthma)
and premature death.

• NOxs and VOCs combine to form ground level ozone (O3)
or photochemical smog.

• This reaction is temperature-dependent; thus warming
increases the formation of photochemical smog and may
reverse gains made in attaining ground level ozone standards.

• Subsequent to the 1970 Clean Air Act, the US has made sub-
stantial efforts towards controlling air pollution. However,
studies demonstrate that even allowable levels of many of the
pollutants result in significant negative health effects.
Combustion: Acid Rain

• Acids formed from oxides of nitrogen (NOxs) and sulfur
(SOxs) acidify all forms of precipitation.

• The anticipated recovery of acidified soils appears to be a
longer, more protracted process than originally projected, as
the depletion of minerals (calcium and magnesium) persists
even after correction of soil acidity.

• Calcium and magnesium deficiencies in soils harm plants
and animals.

• Acidification leaches lead, copper and aluminum into drink-
ing water.

• NOxs from oil combustion (along with sewage and fertiliz-
er runoff) cause eutrophication of lakes, estuaries and marine
coasts.

• Eutrophication (excessive nitrogen and phosphorus) con-
tributes to harmful algal blooms in inland waters and coastal
"red tides" that contaminate seafood, and leads to biologically
unproductive "dead zones".

Combustion: Climate Change

• Over the past 150 years, human activities - including the
combustion of fossil fuels and land clearing - have altered the
levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases; the most important
being carbon dioxide.

• CO2 levels are now greater than they have been for 420,000
years and they are rising.

• Land surfaces and the deep ocean are warming, altering
Earth's ice cover, accelerating the hydrological (water) cycle
and changing global weather patterns.

• Droughts are becoming more severe and persistent, adding
to the depletion of fresh water supplies in water-stressed areas,
and increasing the vulnerability of agricultural resources.

• Melting of permafrost threatens the integrity of northern lat-
itude pipelines.

• Warming and the accompanying extreme weather events
threaten health, forests and marine coastal ecosystems.

Compounds
NOxs - Oxides of Nitrogen
SOxs - Oxides of Sulfur
H2S - Hydrogen Sulfide
CO - Carbon Monoxide
CO2 – Carbon Dioxide
PM-10s - Particulate matter with
a diameter of 10 microns or less
PM-2.5s - Particulate matter with
a diameter of 2.5 microns or less
Pb – Lead
PAHs - Polycyclic Aromatic






http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:7EQEP6F91n4J:www.med.harvard.edu/chge/oilreportex.pdf+environmental+impact+refineries+oil+harvard&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[dawgman]

77. Where are ya, Hammie?

[Paragon]

46. I know, Hammie - I was using their phrase.

I've seen it on message boards, t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc...

[CMT]

47. Gas prices is something alot of people can identify with and

feel the pinch of (even though higher gas prices would be great for conservation) and it would hurt Bush and resurrect the whole Bush is in bed with the oil and gas industry thing.

[LifeDuringWartime]

48. Toyota Prius

i'd get one if i had the money…



calculator for how much gas money you'd save if you had one:

http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2004/prius/key_features/fuel_cost_sav_calc.html


Mileage Estimates (mpg city/highway/combined): 60/51/55

49. I think you are right

There is also an awful "glitch" in the way energy prices are calculated as part of reported inflation numbers. I did quite a bit of research on this.

Don't forget, the Bush tax break allows the rich to deduct the price of fuel-hungry SUVs. This increases demand in a huge way for all of us, as a society,for many years to come.

Dan

[gumbybob13]

51. THat's amazing, but.....

Whatever happened to this story?!?!?!?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/09/bush/

[NickB79]

66. What does that have to do with oil prices?

"Aug. 9, 1999 | A sworn affidavit by Texas Gov. George W. Bush insisting he had no discussions about a state investigation into a political contributor's funeral home business has been contradicted by the company's own lawyer."

WTF? Did I miss something here?

[bigtree]

55. Same in the first Gulf War

The American death-count from that first Gulf war was 346 total from all causes, out of 511,000 troops deployed from August 1990 to February 1991.

The nation's reward for the blood and sacrifice of our men and women in the armed forces in that Gulf war was a further decrease in production by the Mideast oil giants under OPEC- the group which controls around half the world's oil trade. That resulted in the doubling of U.S. oil prices from $20 a barrel to $40 (slightly more than we pay now), and the fostering of a crippling recession.

As the National Security Strategy of 1991 stated, "Economies around the world were affected by the volatility of oil prices and the disruption of economic ties to countries in the Gulf. Egypt, Turkey and Jordan were particularly hurt."

Oil profits for industry CEO's and administration shareholders must have soared. No sacrifice there.

[GURUving]

60. Watch gas prices weekly here

http://www.gaspricewatch.com

[gasperc]

62. $1.67 today in detroit

bit of a shocker I must say WTF, 15% increase in 2 days

[lotteandollie]

63. Buy gas futures

since you are so sure it will hit $3.00 a gallon. Heck, if it hit $2.00 and you mortgaged the house, you could probably retire. Email us all from the Bahamas in a year.

[mac56]

64. Is it possible this is disinformation?

Rove et al put out the word that gas may climb to $3 a gallon this summer? Then when it doesn't.....Shrub looks like he's actually doing something, and is a big hero?

Just a working theory...:tinfoilhat:

[regnaD kciN]

67. Not just irony...

The price of oil (not just gas, but heating and industrial uses) has a huge effect on the economy. Both Presidents Ford and Carter were turned out of office based on an inflationary economy fueled (pun intended) by the 1974 and 1979 OPEC price hikes. And one of the contributing factors to the supposed "economy in recovery" over the last quarter was the drop in gas prices from around $2.00 during Gulf War II to the $1.35 it was near the end of 2003.

It should also be noted that the current prices are coming at a time of year when, historically, gas prices tend to fall. They normally only start going up as summer approaches. If we're seeing a climb in fuel prices at this time of year, it may be truly ugly by July.

And, if rising oil prices create their usual effects, and cause the supposedly-resurgent economy to slip back into the doldrums by Labor Day, Bush is toast.

[PATRICK]

71. How much

profit will be siphoned away from each individual to Bushco and his reselection? More than you will contribute to the Dem?

[dmkinsey]

78. Rock Head Republican

at work,at opening of the war, SWORE we'd have dollar a gallon gas and was nearly giddy.
Gotta ask him Monday when that buck gas is 'posed to arrive.