TheGreatGodPan on 19/4/2006 at 02:18
Those oil companies must be really stupid not to realize earlier they could make all that money by raising gas prices. I would have been charging these prices back in the 19th century if I was boss. Then the other oilmen would be smacking themselves in the head, saying "DOH! Why didn't I think of that?"
Jonesy on 19/4/2006 at 03:01
Quote:
The price of oil has gone up considerably due to the gas companies hitching up the prices and the threat of war with Iran.
See, it's more than likely not the former but the latter that's the root of this. War is a nasty business, and companies dislike loosing vital oil wells and fields to airstrikes. So I highly doubt that oil companies which are trying so hard to avoid losing said fields are going to purposely raising the prices. Doing so would suddenly make war with Iran attractive to good ol' Dubya and his reality denying doublethink administration. Also, it would make alternatives to oil more likely to get off the ground.
Why we're looking under a bird's ass in Alaska for a few barrels of oil when we control a country with one of the largest untapped reserves on the planet is beyond me. :erm:
Starrfall on 19/4/2006 at 04:16
Quote Posted by Stitch
Not to pick on you specifically as you and your coworkers are doing your best to minimize gas consumption, but the fact is we always have a choice.
I still think that at this moment in time, a certain level of consumption (and I think it's not overly low) is guarunteed. (Mostly by Rug Burn) There's only so far you or I or anyone can reduce energy use. It might vary, but until alternatives are easier to get, gas will be bought because plenty of people don't have (reasonable) options, and it'll be bought despite increases in price (mostly by Rug Burn).
I also think the whole thing you said about growing up on cheap gas is a main reason
why there's a level of certain consumption.
Azal on 19/4/2006 at 04:41
Quote Posted by Ultraviolet
I also had concerns that such action could harm smaller gas companies, resulting in a monopoly shared between Exxon and Mobil (wait is that a bi-opoly? :P) and a raise in gas prices right back to where they were.
Given that Exxon and Mobil merged into one company back in December 1998, the term "monopoly" is more appropriate than duopoly.
In short, this is a very old email that has just had the fuel prices altered to current values and nothing else before being forwarded by all the same twats who keep sending me Nigerian scams and bullshit chain emails like this one.
I hope you did the decent thing and sent it straight to the trash.
Quote Posted by Frikkinjerk
They've even intentionally sunk ships as an excuse to jack up prices.
And I hear that the boards of directors for nuclear power companies eat children after sacrificing their hearts to satan.
I'm joining the chorus and calling bullshit on this.
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Oil has been rendered entirely unnecessary by modern technology, which makes the numerous wars fought in its name even more terrible.
And vaccinations and anitbiotics have been made entirely unnecessary by spending your entire life inside an hermetically sealed bubble sucking on sterilised water and processed protein pap.
Alternatives may exist, but at what price? Retooling old energy plants, building new ones, etc is currently an insurmountable financial burden.
Certainly using sweet, sweet nuclear and tasty ethanol based power is far better than nasty, icky petroleum, but the price of petrol is not yet high enough to make it worth peoples' while to convert.
Ultraviolet on 19/4/2006 at 04:46
Quote Posted by Azal
I hope you did the decent thing and sent it straight to the trash.
I don't forward anything without investigation. That's why it's here.
SD on 19/4/2006 at 10:34
Quote Posted by Azal
Alternatives may exist, but at what price?
Well, there's a chance we might have to roll back some of those tax breaks for the rich.
Apart from that, the only obstacles to clean fuel and renewable energy sources fulfilling the bulk of our energy needs are the vested interests that control our governments.
tungsten on 19/4/2006 at 11:28
Quote Posted by Azal
Alternatives may exist, but at what price? Retooling old energy plants, building new ones, etc is currently an insurmountable financial burden.
Quote:
Top world oil consumers 2004 in million barrels per day
1) United States 20.7
2) China 6.5
3) Japan 5.4
4) Germany 2.6
5) Russia 2.6
6) India 2.3
7) Canada 2.3
8) Brazil 2.2
9) South Korea 2.1
10) France 2.0
11) Mexico 2.0
from (
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables3_4.html) EIA
Quote:
population now
1 World 6,446,131,400
2 China 1,306,313,812
3 India 1,080,264,388
4 European Union 456,953,258
5 United States 295,734,134
6 Indonesia 241,973,879
7 Brazil 186,112,794
8 Pakistan 162,419,946
9 Bangladesh 144,319,628
10 Russia 143,420,309
11 Nigeria 128,771,988
12 Japan 127,417,244
13 Mexico 106,202,903
14 Philippines 87,857,473
15 Vietnam 83,535,576
16 Germany 82,431,390
17 Egypt 77,505,756
18 Ethiopia 73,053,286
19 Turkey 69,660,559
20 Iran 68,017,860
21 Thailand 65,444,371
22 France 60,656,178
23 United Kingdom 60,441,457
from (
http://www.photius.com/rankings/population/population_2005_0.html) CIA world fact book
I'll leave it to you to make the barrel oil per capita calculation.
The snippet from your post makes me think that countries like Japan or Europe are much richer than the USA - at least they can afford this
expensive alternative. Or in other words: it's not really more expensive but it takes an effort in the beginning.
The oil consuption of the US is just way off the scale. Of course the long range thoughts circle around the problem that we do not want to let other countries follow the path we took (the dirty but cheap industrialisation). Imagine China and India with an oil consumption/person like the US!!
My point is, the US can afford to (slowly) change their policy/consumption like Europe does/did. Without that, it will be even harder to tell China and India not to take our path.
Rogue Keeper on 19/4/2006 at 12:12
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Well, not all plastics are manufactured from crude oil, either.
Wide range of plastics with different properties are result of oil cracking, and further thermal and chemical modification. We can return to surpassed way of making plastics from gassificated coil, resins derived from vegetable matter, furfural from oat hulls, seed oils, starch derivatives... But I'm afraid such plastics would lack the variability of use as those made of crude oil have. You can't use most of your valuable agricultural soil for "growing plastics". And besides recyclation of used plastic products, are there any other options.
Quote:
Oil has been rendered entirely unnecessary by modern technology, which makes the numerous wars fought in its name even more terrible.
Wrong, because that "modern technology" is usually dependent on oil itself. Modern industrial world has been built on a big pillar called petrochemistry and it still stands on it pretty firmly. Our agriculture can produce so much food and feed so many stomachs, because is largely industrialized. Full transformation will take several decades... at least. In the end, post-fossil society can find a way how to live without fossil fuels, but it will have to learn to live without many smaller or bigger advantages and conveniences which we take now as natural and guaranteed.
Everybody likes to placate himself that "progressive technologies will help us survive somehow", but nobody can be certain if the technology proves really efficient in a large scale and what problems connected with use of that technology may eventually kill it. Nearly all modern industrial technologies are offspring of the oil order, afterall. The depths of this planet do not contain any other similarly versatile resource. Dealing with this fact will be a major task of this century. So far we are dealing with it more with threats and armament.
MsLedd on 19/4/2006 at 19:53
In the meantime, while you guys figure out how to solve this problem (message me when you get it sorted, kthx), I've found (
http://autos.msn.com/everyday/gasstations.aspx?zip=&src=Netx) THIS to be extremely helpful lately, with the per gallon price of gas fluctuating greatly day-to-day. Just put in your (US - sorry) zip code and it'll tell you who's got the lowest prices on gas. Obviously, it's not an up-to-the-minute report, but it's a good guide.
Every little bit helps :)
RyushiBlade on 19/4/2006 at 21:02
I use that MSN gas pricing list too, but
check the date of the price. Often what they post as the cheapest price is only cheap because it hasn't been updated in two or three days.
It seems there is another reason for rising gas prices:
Quote:
The energy bill that Congress passed last year and other government rules affecting the blending of gasoline are contributing to the jump in gasoline prices, former Exxon Mobil Corp. chairman Lee Raymond said yesterday evening at a forum at Columbia University.
The legislation, signed by President Bush in August, failed to provide liability protection for refiners that add MTBE to gasoline, requiring them to switch to ethanol by May. That switch was poorly timed, forcing refiners, distributors and gas stations to empty their tanks and creating ``an apparent shortage of gasoline,'' he said.
The full article can be found (
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=anyqjgVUZvAM&refer=us) here.
(For those who are lazy: It basically says gas prices are high because on the energy bill Congress passed, forcing a (higher?) ethanol content in gasoline, and because oil refineries along the coast are still not yet all fully up and running. As well as worry over future supplies (Iran). )
