 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / April 2006<rolleyes> Here we go again....
Received one of those "gas boycott," e-mails today in the in-box (reproduced below for your reading displeasure (with the "forward this to x number of people," and other nonsense snipped) if you are so inclined). Some points that whomever authored this missed: 1. Exxon and Mobil merged in 1998 (See: http://tinyurl.com/lpn5z), so they are calling for a boycott on one company and calling it two. 2. Increased demand at the other gas stations will cause their prices to go up even more (I hope they didn't actually think that people not using ExxonMobil were going to forgo buying gas completely...) 3. Unless people actually reduce their consumption of gas, this idea won't work. And the only way to reduce consumption of gas it to park the cars. Any points that I missed as to why this "boycott," silliness won't work... <copy of E-mail received> GAS WAR - an idea that WILL work This was originally sent by a retired Coca Cola executive. It came from one of his engineerbuddies who retired from Halliburton. It' S worth your consideration. Join the resistance!!!! I hear we are going to hit close to $4.00 a gallon by next summer and it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come down? We need to take some intelligent, united action. Phillip Hollsworth offered this good idea. <snip> Here's the idea: For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit. But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do! Now, don't wimp out at this point.... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people. </copy of E-mail received> > Any points that I missed as to why this "boycott," silliness won't > work... Because you can't increase availability of a diminishing resource by boycotting companies associated with that resource? -Dave >> Any points that I missed as to why this "boycott," silliness won't >> work... > > Because you can't increase availability of a diminishing resource by > boycotting companies associated with that resource? There is no diminishing resource. There is a constriction on production at the refinery level. The oil companies have reduced refinery capacity on purpose as their documents from the 1990s outline that they would not see higher gasoline profits unless they did something to reduce refinery capacity. There is more known oil right now than we know what to do with it. The only thing that _may_ be in diminishing in supply is maximum profit oil. If you're willing to live with just a healthy profit, at current oil prices there are vast amounts of oil available. >>> Any points that I missed as to why this "boycott," silliness won't >>> work... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There is no diminishing resource. There is a constriction on production > at the refinery level. (snip) <rolleyes> Here we go again... The impending oil crisis is not about running out of oil. The impending oil crisis is about production PEAKing, meaning that we are extracting it from the ground as fast as possible, REGARDLESS of what technology or financial resources are thrown at the problem. Oil will still be available hundreds of years from now. But, when production slows down, while demand is increasing, there will be a breaking point where IT WON'T MATTER THAT OIL IS STILL AVAILABLE. In over-simplified terms, if the price of gasoline was $100/Gallon U.S. tomorrow, would it matter that the remaining supplies of oil might last to the 25th century? Would it REALLY?!? My point was, oil is soon to be a diminishing resource based on two different factors. First, production will decrease. Then, price will increase to the point where it is simply not available to most people. Will a boycott of certain oil companies do anything to affect this one way or the other? When pigs fly. -Dave >>>> Any points that I missed as to why this "boycott," silliness won't >>>> work... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the ground as fast as possible, REGARDLESS of what technology or financial > resources are thrown at the problem. You should not be so quick to snip. I wrote: The only thing that _may_ be in diminishing in supply is maximum profit oil. That's it, the most profitable, Jed fired his shotgun bubblin' crude type oil. There are vast sources of oil profitable at US $40 a barrel. The ability to "get it out of the ground fast enough" is just a question of building the bandwidth. In any case, the problem in the USA isn't the crude oil, it's making crude oil into gasoline. Big oil has systematically reduced capacity because it was over capacity of turning crude into gasoline that gave us the cheap prices a decade ago. The oil company memos and documents show this. They did something about it and reduced capacity. Now prices are high. This is what happens when regulation and NIMBY stand in the way of new competition entering the marketplace. > Oil will still be available hundreds of years from now. But, when > production slows down, while demand is increasing, there will be a breaking > point where IT WON'T MATTER THAT OIL IS STILL AVAILABLE. There is so much oil in alberta and south america we could keep going full tilt for the next century. The difference is that it's not quite as easy to use. It's profitable to turn into gasoline at US $40 a barrel with existing technology. The oil sands in Alberta are producing quite well for what little infastructure has been built for it. > In over-simplified > terms, if the price of gasoline was $100/Gallon U.S. tomorrow, would it > matter that the remaining supplies of oil might last to the 25th century? > Would it REALLY?!? It doesn't have to be, because there are vast reserves of oil that are available and profitable at price points far below todays prices. They are not being exploited because they aren't as profitable. We are not running out of oil, we are not running out of producable oil, production capability is being strained because that is what is _most profitable_ for the oil companies. But it's the gasoline side where another purposeful constriction of capacity is causing the price at the pump to rise in the USA. > My point was, oil is soon to be a diminishing resource based on two > different factors. We are _swimming_ in oil. Peak oil is a fraud. It's simply more profitable to push this peak oil nonsense and claim there is no oil beyond the $5 a barrel to extract jed and his shotgun type. $40 a barrel is the price point for the vast reserves I am speaking of. What's the current price of oil? nearly $70. This is all about PROFIT. We are not running out of oil. > First, production will decrease. Then, price will > increase to the point where it is simply not available to most people. US $40 makes so much oil profitable that the price, given that ideal market forces arguement that oil shouldn't go above that price. However, this isn't an unrestricted market. It's controlled by governments, cartels, regulations, etc that restrict new players entering the game and getting this oil to market. So it sits in the ground for the most part. There is litterally probably more than twice the reserves of saudi arabia in the americas alone. > Will a boycott of certain oil companies do anything to affect this one way > or the other? When pigs fly. -Dave I didn't mention the stupid boycott either way in my post. Maybe if you read and weren't into a snip happy knee-jerk.... > We are _swimming_ in oil. Peak oil is a fraud. The best scientists in the world all agree with each other, and DISagree with you, on that specific point. -Dave >> We are _swimming_ in oil. Peak oil is a fraud. > The best scientists in the world all agree with each other, and DISagree > with you, on that specific point. -Dave Why don't you actually read for detail? http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=52622 <...> Venezuela's proven oil reserves currently are estimated at about 77.2 billion barrels, but if undeveloped deposits of extra-heavy crude are factored in, the number would jump to 270 billion barrels. That alone would vault Venezuela past Saudi Arabia, which has 262 billion barrels in reserves, but Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez told 'The Guardian' that the government wants OPEC to recognize the country's total reserves as close to 312 billion barrels. <...> While Venezuela is home to the largest proven oil reserves in the Western hemisphere, most of its oil consists of extra-heavy crude that is too expensive to pump out and refine -- unless market prices are at least $40 per barrel. <...> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/20/60minutes/main1225184.shtml <...> There are 175 billion barrels of proven oil reserves here. That.s second to Saudi Arabia.s 260 billion but it.s only what companies can get with today.s technology. The estimate of how many more barrels of oil are buried deeper underground is staggering. <...> But then $40 a barrel happened and the oil sands not only made sense, they made billions for the people digging them. <...> I just picked those off of google, I've seen even higher estimates for alberta's oil sands. But even at 175 billion barrels in Alberta and 312 billion in Venezuela there are 487 billion barrels of proven reserves that are profitable at US$40 a barrel in the americas from those two sources alone. That's not even touching other sources in production now, not touching ANWR either... We are swimming in oil, it only takes the will to use it. I don't know who your "scientists" are, but they haven't been paying attention and are still only coming up with what can be extracted with Uncle Jed's shotgun. Yes, that oil is likely peaking in production... great, now oil costs more than US $40 a barrel, so now we are swimming in available, economically viable oil. > Brent P: > Venezuela's proven oil reserves currently are estimated at about 77.2 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Guardian' that the government wants OPEC to recognize the country's total > reserves as close to 312 billion barrels. Just MNSHO, but aslong as those billions of barrels are under the control of OPEC nations and/or America bashers like chavez, then those reserves might as well be zero barrels - as in none available for us. The sooner we start transitioning over to something else for our energy needs and get off the black crack cocaine (oil) the better for us in America. > Just MNSHO, but aslong as those billions of barrels are under the > control of OPEC nations and/or America bashers like chavez, then those > reserves might as well be zero barrels - as in none available for us. That was my point regarding how the market is not free but controlled by governments and cartels. Oil isn't running out, we are being scammed by more or less selfish, even criminal persons with the aid of governments. > The sooner we start transitioning over to something else for our energy > needs and get off the black crack cocaine (oil) the better for us in > America. We have a government controlled in large part by oil money. (No, that isn't just a slam on GWB, the oil guys know how to hedge their bets, look up Al Gore's holdings passed down from his father) This means the only way an alternative gets hold is if it's great and it gets investment capital from someone who is willing to go against big oil. But then after the working system is ready for prime time, there's a bigger problem. Odds are the alternative will be more than the equal of US$40 a barrel oil, especially at the initial go live date. Since there are such large volumes of oil available, all the cartels have to do is get the production facilities online and open the taps. Oil falls to ~$40 a barrel and the alternative dies as an infant technology and becomes yet another unproven, costly alternative to oil that goes nowhere. Once that impression sets in, rinse and repeat with the peak oil, the oil is running out, shoot the price back up, make more billions.... on and on in cycles. >> We are _swimming_ in oil. Peak oil is a fraud. > >The best scientists in the world all agree with each other, and DISagree >with you, on that specific point. -Dave Bullshit. The "best scientists" you mention have been saying the same f.cking bullshit for decades. I remember back in school when we were told that there would be no oil when we grew up. Well been there done that got the f.cking tshirt and spent another few f.cking decades burning the oil you enviroidiots keep saying won't be there. Guess what that means? The 'best scientists" and you disagree with f.cking reality. ************************* Dave >>The best scientists in the world all agree with each other, and DISagree >>with you, on that specific point. -Dave [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > what that means? The 'best scientists" and you disagree with f.cking > reality. Several good scientists have guessed wrong in the past. But now all the scientists who have looked at the PEAK are estimating 2013 within a few years, either way. The odds that they'd all be wrong again? Not ood. -Dave > Several good scientists have guessed wrong in the past. But now all the > scientists who have looked at the PEAK are estimating 2013 within a few > years, either way. The odds that they'd all be wrong again? Not > ood. They will be correct for a particular type of oil at best. Start building the proper infastructure now and it can be avoided if true. :) Then again,the world ends Dec 23, 2012, so a peak in 2013 is meaningless :) >>>The best scientists in the world all agree with each other, and DISagree >>>with you, on that specific point. -Dave [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >years, either way. The odds that they'd all be wrong again? Not >ood. -Dave f.ck some people are stupid! OK, let me see if I understand your "logic". The same people who have been f.cking wrong in every f.cking prediction they have made for the last forty f.cking years must be right this time because, well, you said so. ************************* Dave >Big oil has systematically reduced capacity >because it was over capacity of turning crude into gasoline that gave us >the cheap prices a decade ago. The oil company memos and documents show >this. They did something about it and reduced capacity. Even if I accepted this (I probably don't) I'm still left with a problem. Capacity of turning crude into gasoline would be a bottleneck, and that would reduce the demand for crude. But it's the price of crude that has gone from the teens per barrel to $70 per barrel, pretty much in the same ratio as the price of gas. If refining capacity were the problem, wouldn't the price of crude drop even as the price of gas rose? What Jed shot at so long ago on the surface, we are now drilling 13,000 feet to reach, and going to the arctic. It's expensive because the easy stuff is gone, the remainder is hard to get or hard to process (Canadian tar sands, etc). I'm not naive enough to believe there aren't lots of sometimes sinister things going on here, but it appears that the supply is harder to get, and at least at some rate must be diminshing. >>Big oil has systematically reduced capacity >>because it was over capacity of turning crude into gasoline that gave us [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > has gone from the teens per barrel to $70 per barrel, pretty much in > the same ratio as the price of gas. I've seen gasoline price increases that have been totally unrelated to the price of oil. > If refining capacity were the problem, wouldn't the price of crude drop > even as the price of gas rose? It's happened. > What Jed shot at so long ago on the surface, we are now drilling 13,000 > feet to reach, and going to the arctic. It's expensive because the > easy stuff is gone, the remainder is hard to get or hard to process > (Canadian tar sands, etc). Profitable at US $40 a barrel. If the price of oil exceeds $40 these reserves are economically viable. Oil is hovering just under $70 a barrel last I heard. $40 would be "cheap" now. > I'm not naive enough to believe there aren't lots of sometimes sinister > things going on here, but it appears that the supply is harder to get, > and at least at some rate must be diminshing. Ok, how about this document then? http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/5103.pdf "A senior energy analyst at the recent API convention warned that if the US petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins." Or this one: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/5104.pdf (Texaco on the reduction refining capacity) "As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the west coast is the surplus refining capacity and the surplus gasoline production capacity. (The same situation exists for the entire US refining industry.) Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery marigns <....> Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline." Or maybe the wall street Journal? http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-oil_oil.htm "We remain dependent on oil from the Mideast not because the planet is running out of buried hydrocarbons, but because extracting oil from the deserts of the Persian Gulf is so easy and cheap that it's risky to invest capital to extract somewhat more stubborn oil from far larger deposits in Alberta." Maximum profit seeking is the problem. We are swiming in oil if we are willing to pay $40 a barrel for it. Obviously, we are. Meanwhile, new players are trying to get into the game because refineries are lacking... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4255156.stm > Capacity of turning crude into gasoline would be a bottleneck, and that > would reduce the demand for crude. But it's the price of crude that > has gone from the teens per barrel to $70 per barrel, pretty much in > the same ratio as the price of gas. Demand for crude is increasing in places like China and India that are growing in prosperity (and # of autos on the road) and they don't have the refinery constraint as bad as we do; because they don't have the silly environmental laws that we do that keep refineries from being built and the moronic fuel blending requirements that reduce the capacity of what refineries we have now. > Demand for crude is increasing in places like China and India that are > growing in prosperity (and # of autos on the road) and they don't have > the refinery constraint as bad as we do; because they don't have the > silly environmental laws that we do that keep refineries from being > built and the moronic fuel blending requirements that reduce the > capacity of what refineries we have now. Those regulations are actually market protections that keep new comers out of the game. As independent refineries are bought up and closed down the supply is constricted without worry that new investors would build a refinery because of the burdensome political and regulatory battles. > Brent P: > There is no diminishing resource. There is a constriction on production > at the refinery level. The oil companies have reduced refinery capacity > on purpose as their documents from the 1990s outline that they would > not see higher gasoline profits unless they did something to reduce > refinery capacity. Couple that with these environmental laws that require special (and different) blends of gas for what seems like every city in the US, and what refining capacity you have now reduced even further. > Received one of those "gas boycott," e-mails today in the in-box > (reproduced below for your reading displeasure (with the "forward this [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Any points that I missed as to why this "boycott," silliness won't > work... Does anybody remember the beef boycotts of the 70's (I think)? Failed for the same reasons. Doug > 3. Unless people actually reduce their consumption of gas, this idea > won't work. And the only way to reduce consumption of gas it to park the > cars. Idiot. They can reduce consumption enormously by driving slow and sensible while still driving the same miles. > > 3. Unless people actually reduce their consumption of gas, this idea > > won't work. And the only way to reduce consumption of gas it to park the > > cars. > > Idiot. They can reduce consumption enormously by driving slow and > sensible while still driving the same miles. Actually that can greatly increase consumption, as more time may be required idling at signal lights. You know, running the engine while the car isn't moving ain't exactly the best way to increase your miles per gallon, pussy. HTH! :-) > Actually that can greatly increase consumption, as more time may be > required idling at signal lights. You know, running the engine while > the car isn't moving ain't exactly the best way to increase your miles > per gallon, pussy. That's judy for you. Rags on about cutting dependence on a-rab oil, but is unwilling to make any *real* sacrifice for the cause; just keeps puking the same "slower is better," bullshit and expects everyone to pull its weight in addition to the weight they are already carrying. But then what should one expect from someone who can't distinguish between "</killfile>," and "<killfile>," and who sees invisible posts in threads... > Received one of those "gas boycott," e-mails today in the in-box > (reproduced below for your reading displeasure (with the "forward this [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > go up even more (I hope they didn't actually think that people not using > ExxonMobil were going to forgo buying gas completely...) But ExMob still loses the retail mark up when they dump supplies at wholesale. And snack sales too! Locally, 2 Mobils have rebranded to Marathons, 1 closed outright. So stick it, $400 Million CEO Jaba the Hut lardo! JG > But ExMob still loses the retail mark up when they dump supplies > at wholesale. And snack sales too! Exxon/Mobil's loss equals Chevron/Texaco's (or other competitor's) gain. > Locally, 2 Mobils have rebranded to Marathons, 1 closed outright. > So stick it, $400 Million CEO Jaba the Hut lardo! I doubt that any stick could penetrate those layers of flab on Jaba. :) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.