Well two observations,

First, oil company profits have gone up in the hundreds of percent, we
are being gouged.

A tractor-trailer unit will use over $500 per day or more, compared to
the small amounts commuters use.  Yes they all add up, there is no doubt
about it, but the world is not going to stop over fuel prices though,
this has been proven several times over, look at Europe, for example.

You want to send a message?  STOP BUYING AND DRIVING BIG VEHICLES!!
Vehicles that get <25mpg and cost $50k are a problem.  Buy small, drive
less, cut your costs.  THIS sends a message because not only are the oil
companies not making as much money because the customer is using less,
but also the car companies make less on guzzler sales.

THe question I have is why does a gallon of fuel increase in price, but
never a quart of oil?!

W

If you have a 401(k) plan, sit back and enjoy the profits.  The "they"
you speak of is, well *us*, the stock holders or mutual fund we hold
that own the oil and oil services stocks.

Yeah and just think of the trillians that the Bush family is getting.
They are the biggest oil tycoons in the world,  And guess what....
this was all planned....
As long as that son of a bitch stays in power, our lives and out
country will continue to fall apart.

Over the last four years I've watched a close friend's life's savings whittled
away on living expenses as he and partner try to make a go of a marginal gas
station. It is the only gas station in a 20 block radius, at the centre of a large
suburban area, but they didn't realize how little the stations themselves make
from gas, and they are on the corner beside a very large pharmacy/confectionery
that gets all the pop/chips money. Last year they switched from being part of a
chain to being independent, which reduced the chain costs, but slightly increased
the amount they pay for the gas.

The large profits you speak of are going to the oil companies, not to the person
operating the service station. Exxon doesn't give a f*** where you buy your gas.
They are going to get their money.

Kent

THeproblem with the boycott is that the average motorist isn't going to
make a dent in the oil companies, let alone in Saskatchewan.  OUr volume
of sales don't affect the bottom dollar at Shell, Petro-Canada, etc.

By not spending your impulse dollars at the stores, you hurt the store
manager/owner more than the oil company.

Airlines, tractor trailers, and other large commercial businesses use
alot more than the average consumer.  THese companies do not care about
playing the boycott game, as they can't afford to do it.  Product needs
to move, regardless of the price of fuel.

DO you think Yanke or other large trucking companies can start worrying
about their large feets fueling locations?? No.  At more than $500.00
per day in fuel, per truck (long haul), these trucks spend the money.

Bottom line is big business needs to make the move, and not the small
time consumer like us, we don't make a dent in the profits, and big
business is to busy to play games.

Talk to your politicians, as the majority of the price on a liter of
fuel in a Canadian gas station is tax.

Oh, by the way, who do you think supplies the independant stations??????
 THe same big name oil companies do....

You are doing absolutely nothing to the major names by boycotting their stations.
The derive the vast majority of their sales from fleet sales that are on contracts
negotiated months if not years in advance. Trucking companies, cities, military,
constructions companies etc.

Any "successful" boycott is going to do nothing but help the chains consolidate to
fewer stores, which they've been working on for the last 15 years anyway.

Kent

 Diesel, I believe, is more likely..... In principle, nothing wrong with
a diesel in a 911 is there?  Lots of torque for sure.  didn't VW, I mean
Audi, show that it can be done recently?

cheers, guenter

I found this on the web a couple years ago and like its simple common
sense.  The scary things are:

1. There is nowhere near a "100 year" supply of oil identified.
2. The growth rate in consumption is greater than 5% !

The Mirage of a Growing Fuel Supply

By Dr. EVAR D. NERING

 SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — When I discussed the exponential function in the
first-semester calculus classes that I taught, I invariably used
consumption of a nonrenewable natural resource as an example. Since we
are now engaged in a national debate about energy policy, it may be
useful to talk about the mathematics involved in making a rational
decision about resource use.

In my classes, I described the following hypothetical situation. We have
a 100-year supply of a resource, say oil — that is, the oil would last
100 years if it were consumed at its current rate. But the oil is
consumed at a rate that grows by 5 percent each year. How long would it
last under these circumstances? This is an easy calculation; the answer
is about 36 years.

Oh, but let's say we underestimated the supply, and we actually have a
1,000-year supply. At the same annual 5 percent growth rate in use, how
long will this last? The answer is about 79 years.

 Then let us say we make a striking discovery of more oil yet — a
bonanza — and we now have a 10,000-year supply. At our same rate of
growing use, how long would it last? Answer: 125 years.

Estimates vary for how long currently known oil reserves will last,
though they are usually considerably less than 100 years. But the point
of this analysis is that it really doesn't matter what the estimates
are. There is no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy
problem can work.

 The exponential function describes the behavior of any quantity whose
rate of change is proportional to its size. Compound interest is the
most commonly encountered example — it would produce exponential growth
if the interest were calculated at a continuing rate. I have heard
public statements that use "exponential" as though it describes a large
or sudden increase. But exponential growth does not have to be large,
and it is never sudden.

Rather, it is inexorable.

Calculations also show that if consumption of an energy resource is
allowed to grow at a steady 5 percent annual rate, a full doubling of
the available supply will not be as effective as reducing that growth
rate by half — to 2.5 percent. Doubling the size of the oil reserve will
add at most 14 years to the life expectancy of the resource if we
continue to use it at the currently increasing rate, no matter how large
it is currently. On the other hand, halving the growth of consumption
will almost double the life expectancy of the supply, no matter what it is.

This mathematical reality seems to have escaped the politicians pushing
to solve our energy problem by simply increasing supply. Building more
power plants and drilling for more oil is exactly the wrong thing to do,
because it will encourage more use. If we want to avoid dire
consequences, we need to find the political will to reduce the growth in
energy consumption to zero — or even begin to consume less.

I must emphasize that reducing the growth rate is not what most people
are talking about now when they advocate conservation; the steps they
recommend are just Band-Aids. If we increase the gas mileage of our
automobiles and then drive more miles, for example, that will not reduce
the growth rate.

Reducing the growth of consumption means living closer to where we work
or play. It means telecommuting. It means controlling population growth.
It means shifting to renewable energy sources.

It is not, perhaps, necessary to cut our use of oil, but it is essential
that we cut the rate of increase at which we consume it. To do otherwise
is to leave our descendants in an impoverished world.

Evar D. Nering is professor emeritus of
mathematics at Arizona State University.