 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / May 2005Diesel Fuel Prices
Hi All, I found this article today ... 5/10/2005. According to the article we should have started to see drops in diesel fuel pricing 2 weeks ago. It's the same here in north Dallas. I pay $2.28 and have been for 6-8 weeks. Anyone seeing a change yet? http://fleetowner.com/news/diesel_price_energy_041205/ Craig C. $2.33-$2.48 is the lowest price here in UT. Haven't seen diesel fuel drop at all. > Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Craig C. same here in mid GA diesel around 2.25 - 2.33 and gas has taken a slight drop from 2.07 to 2.04 > $2.33-$2.48 is the lowest price here in UT. Haven't seen diesel fuel drop at > all. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > Craig C. Diesel (and unleaded regular) is $1.999 here in Tulsa, OK... > Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Craig C. man i wish it was under $2 here in GA even if it was just under 2 like in tulsa clay. that extra 5 to 7 cents is eating me up feeding that v10 everyday on the commute to work....thank God the drive isnt any farther than it is! > Diesel (and unleaded regular) is $1.999 here in Tulsa, OK... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > Craig C. > Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Craig C. Feel Happy, here in the Puget sound we are still at 2.69 to 2.75 "Happy" is never the feeling I get when talking about oil companies, even when prices are low. I wasn't interested in talking about oil company "bend-over-demographics". I was just wondering if anyone had seen a drop in pricing, regardless of their location. I'm sure there is a "good" reason why diesel is higher in Puget than in Dallas. ;) Craig C. $2.17 and up in San Antonio. Gas has dropped to $1.99 in a lot of stations, and I saw one dumpy raghead conv. store yesterday at $1.97 Diesel hasn't dropped one cent. It is usually cheaper at the truck stops east of town going towards Houston, but I haven't been out that way in some time. I got a Chevy p/u Diesel and the lockup solenoid in the trans is bad. Haven't gotten around to getting it fixed. but need to pretty soon. It has knocked off about 3+ mpg. Actually I am pretty surprised gas is dropping with Memorial Day coming up. I figured it would hit $3.00 or close, in time for summer vacations. Larry > $2.17 and up in San Antonio. Gas has dropped to $1.99 in a lot of > stations, and I saw one dumpy raghead conv. store yesterday at $1.97 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > gas is dropping with Memorial Day coming up. I figured it would hit > $3.00 or close, in time for summer vacations. Larry Gas prices will go back up soon enough. They are being lowered (for now) in order to slow the rush to higher mileage vehicles. As for the expected drop in diesel prices, don't count on it being all that great. The oil companies have already made the claim that they simply don't have the refinery capacity to handle demand so they have the perfect excuse to maintain higher prices. Diesel prices tended to drop in the spring due to the reduced need for home heating fuel but with this cold spring and the high price of gas, the resources used for home heating fuel have been needed longer than usual and are now being used to refine gas and keep the prices a little lower in the hopes of keeping Americans out of smaller and more fuel efficient cars.  SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Gas prices will go back up soon enough. They are being lowered (for now) in > order to slow the rush to higher mileage vehicles. Please explain exactly how the gas companies control the price in this manner. Nice liberal story but how about some facts to back up your claim that gas companies artificially control prices to slow the rush to higher mileage vehicles. Do oil future investors know about this? Too funny. >> Gas prices will go back up soon enough. They are being lowered (for now) >> in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that gas companies artificially control prices to slow the rush to higher > mileage vehicles. Do oil future investors know about this? Too funny. Paranoia runs rampant with that guy. > >> Gas prices will go back up soon enough. They are being lowered (for now) > >> in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Paranoia runs rampant with that guy. LOL, and failure to see the obvious seems to run rampant with you. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > LOL, and failure to see the obvious seems to run rampant with you. Obvious that you have no facts to backup your claim. All you have is your warped liberal opinion. Believe what you want but until you show proof then its just your warped liberal mind at work. > > LOL, and failure to see the obvious seems to run rampant with you. > > Obvious that you have no facts to backup your claim. All you have is > your warped liberal opinion. Believe what you want but until you show > proof then its just your warped liberal mind at work. Back to the "nuthin but name callin" tactic again, huh Miles? Exactly what proof do you expect to find? Do you really think that the oil companies publish this stuff, LOL!!! As for providing facts, you should be the last one to talk. I have yet to see you post a fact to back up anything that you claim and when asked, simply delete that part of the post on your response. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Back to the "nuthin but name callin" tactic again, huh Miles? If the shoe fits. > Exactly what > proof do you expect to find? Do you really think that the oil companies > publish this stuff, LOL!!! If companies are artificially controlling prices through some illegal mechanism then yes, there should be proof available. Instead you just give me your personal opinions and call it proof. In actuality your beliefs are just based on what suits your own warped viewpoints. At least you admit you have no proof. > > Back to the "nuthin but name callin" tactic again, huh Miles? > > If the shoe fits. And with you it currently does. > > Exactly what > > proof do you expect to find? Do you really think that the oil companies > > publish this stuff, LOL!!! > > If companies are artificially controlling prices through some illegal > mechanism then yes, there should be proof available. LOL, really? I suspect that if they are then yes, there is some proof somewhere but that doesn't mean that I or anyone else will be able to find it. There are plenty of unsolved crimes and mysteries in the world because the "proof" either doesn't exist or is hidden too well to be found. Then again, perhaps they are simply shifting resources for their best gain which is not illegal at all. > Instead you just > give me your personal opinions and call it proof. Actually Miles, you are the one that is providing the opinions that make what I say true. You are the one that says over and over that it is the consumer will be the force that will drive new technology and I agree with you on this. The part that you try to hide from is the motivation the consumer needs to do it. Oh wait, you have given the motivation for the consumer, economic feasibility. So let's see, according to YOU, the consumer will drive the move to newer and more econonomic forms of energy as long as it is economically feasable and the one thing that will make it that way is a high enough price for the current fuel that we use. Now if you happen to be the manufacturer of the older fuel and want to eliminate the motivation to move to something else, how would you accomplish that. Gee, I don't know, how about lower the price to the consumer that has the greatest effect?!?!?!?! > In actuality your > beliefs are just based on what suits your own warped viewpoints. At > least you admit you have no proof. The funny thing is that you have no proof to prove what I say is wrong and just about everything that I'm saying is based on observations that YOU have made which would make you as warped as you accuse me of being. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Now if you > happen to be the manufacturer of the older fuel and want to eliminate the > motivation to move to something else, how would you accomplish that. Gee, I > don't know, how about lower the price to the consumer that has the greatest > effect?!?!?!?! So this is your proof? An idea in your head that some conspiracy MUST exist because it just makes sense that it does? Always the conspiracy in the liberal mind. Never fails. > The funny thing is that you have no proof to prove what I say is wrong ROFL!! The old backasswards argument. Classic and still funny! I have to prove that there is no conspiracy otherwise your paranoid mind must be right? > and > just about everything that I'm saying is based on observations that YOU have > made which would make you as warped as you accuse me of being. No TBone. It is only you that draws the conclusion that a conspiracy must exist. > > Now if you > > happen to be the manufacturer of the older fuel and want to eliminate the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > exist because it just makes sense that it does? Always the conspiracy > in the liberal mind. Never fails. Where do you get this conspiracy thing from? Is this a right wing thing, sorta like your liberal accusations??? > > The funny thing is that you have no proof to prove what I say is wrong > > ROFL!! The old backasswards argument. Classic and still funny! I have > to prove that there is no conspiracy otherwise your paranoid mind must > be right? I never claimed there to ba any conspiracy. I simply said that there was pressure being put on the oil companies to get the price of gas down. You are the one always asking for proof and yet, never delivering any of your own. If you think that I amn wrong, prove it for a change. > > and > > just about everything that I'm saying is based on observations that YOU have > > made which would make you as warped as you accuse me of being. > > No TBone. It is only you that draws the conclusion that a conspiracy > must exist. Nope. the only one saying conspiracy is you. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > Gas prices will go back up soon enough. They are being lowered (for now) in > > order to slow the rush to higher mileage vehicles. > > Please explain exactly how the gas companies control the price in this > manner. LOL, have you not been watching the news, MSNBC, or even the current price of oil relative to the current price of gasoline or diesel fuel? It is fairly obvious what is happening despite your typical conservative "hide your head in the sand" method of looking at things. Just look at the facts, oil prices not moving all that much and never in a stable manor in either direction and yet, gas prices have dropped when they should be seasonally going up and diesel prices not moving much at all and in some cases rising when they should be seasonally falling. Then you can add the huge losses from GM and Ford due to their typical "head up the a.s" development of only the vehicles most heavily in demand at the time (SUV's) and ignoring high mileage vehicles despite the instability of the price of fuel or the fact that Toyota and Honda were doing it at a loss. The sad thing is that now Toyota and Honda are now raking in the bucks because of it and at GM and Fords expense. > Nice liberal story but how about some facts to back up your > claim that gas companies artificially control prices to slow the rush to > higher mileage vehicles. There is nothing liberal about it unless you are once again confusing liberalism with obvious facts. Companies control prices whenever they can to suite their needs. This is the nature of business. Reduced demand reduces prices and profits and smaller cars simply need less and the reduction in demand then becomes of a more permanent nature. Then you can add in the fact that if GM shuts down, this country is f.cked and that forces the powers that be to put serious non-public pressure on the oil companies to do something to stop that from happening. Why is it when it is suggested that we buy smaller cars that people in here say that if we do that the oil companies will cut production and then raise the price. Is this not price control as well??? Too funny > Do oil future investors know about this? The oil futures investors could give a rats a.s about that. There only concern is the price of oil and its move in price relative to their current position, not the cost of the refined products made from it. Now we investors in the oil companies may be concerned but since the oil companies seem to be reducing the price of gas without much of a loss of profit serve us quite well by keeping demand up. Since most diesel is purchased commercially anyway, keeping the price high has little effect on demand. > Too funny. Yes Miles, you are. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > LOL, have you not been watching the news, MSNBC, or even the current price > of oil relative to the current price of gasoline or diesel fuel? It's on par with each other. Look at the price of oil and gas in May 2004 compared with now. You'll see they both went up about the same %. Now, I asked you for FACTS. Not your liberal warped observations that caused you to make a baseless claim against. > It is > fairly obvious what is happening despite your typical conservative "hide > your head in the sand" method of looking at things. Just look at the facts, > oil prices not moving all that much and never in a stable manor in either > direction and yet, gas prices have dropped when they should be seasonally > going up Oil prices have dropped. It is now $47-$49 down from well over $50 a few weeks ago. Note its the futures price that has the most effect. Now show me your FACTS to backup your claim that gas companies are artificially controlling pump prices. Are they price fixing? > There is nothing liberal about it unless you are once again confusing > liberalism with obvious facts. Companies control prices whenever they can > to suite their needs. With price fixing which is illegal. Now how about them facts you must have to show price fixing or some other form of artificially controlling pump prices. > > LOL, have you not been watching the news, MSNBC, or even the current price > > of oil relative to the current price of gasoline or diesel fuel? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Now, I asked you for FACTS. Not your liberal warped observations that > caused you to make a baseless claim against. I will take the time to supply the same level of facts that you give me when I ask you for them. Oh, that's right, you ignore or delete the requests and never supply any. I guess that will make it real easy for me to match. > > It is > > fairly obvious what is happening despite your typical conservative "hide [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Now show me your FACTS to backup your claim that gas companies are > artificially controlling pump prices. Are they price fixing? Futures price, LOL!!! That is no more stable than the actual price anymore. The gas companies are always controlling the pump price to some level and it has nothing to do with price fixing. Are you really this stupid or do you just hope that the rest of us are? > > There is nothing liberal about it unless you are once again confusing > > liberalism with obvious facts. Companies control prices whenever they can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have to show price fixing or some other form of artificially controlling > pump prices. It is not a matter of artificially controlling anything or price fixing. You really do just see what you want to see. They are reducing the price of gas by shifting resources from diesel fuel production which can be seen by the continued high price well into the lower price season. The thing is that high diesel fuel prices have little long term effect on demand or sales of vehicles that use it which makes it the perfect resource to steal from to lower gas prices. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > I will take the time to supply the same level of facts that you give me when > I ask you for them. Oh, that's right, you ignore or delete the requests and > never supply any. I guess that will make it real easy for me to match. The difference here TBone is that you state an opinion and claim it as fact. > Futures price, LOL!!! That is no more stable than the actual price anymore. > The gas companies are always controlling the pump price to some level and it > has nothing to do with price fixing. Are you really this stupid or do you > just hope that the rest of us are? All of the gas companies would have to all get together in order to control the price in the manner your paranoid brain believes. > > I will take the time to supply the same level of facts that you give me when > > I ask you for them. Oh, that's right, you ignore or delete the requests and > > never supply any. I guess that will make it real easy for me to match. > > The difference here TBone is that you state an opinion and claim it as fact. And yet, no different than what you do most of the time. Hell, I did provide facts that you just pretend don't exist like the continued high price of diesel fuel and the lowering of gas prices that are exactly the opposit of what should be happening this time of year. These are facts whether you want to see them that way or not now where is your proof that this isn't happening. > > Futures price, LOL!!! That is no more stable than the actual price anymore. > > The gas companies are always controlling the pump price to some level and it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > All of the gas companies would have to all get together in order to > control the price in the manner your paranoid brain believes. Hahahahahahahahahaha, what an idiot. How hard is it to look to see what the other oil companies are charging, especially when they are getting their products from the same refineries. Funny how Home Depot and Loews both seem to charge exactly the same price for the things that they both carry. I guess that according to you, they must be doing something illegal. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > And yet, no different than what you do most of the time. Hell, I did > provide facts that you just pretend don't exist like the continued high > price of diesel fuel and the lowering of gas prices that are exactly the > opposit of what should be happening this time of year. These are facts > whether you want to see them that way or not now where is your proof that > this isn't happening. Gas prices go up generally in the late spring and early summer. This year has been vastly different. Instead of the normal lower oil prices in the spring we saw them skyrocket. Now they have fallen. Diesel prices have been going up faster than gas prices for many years. This is new to you? > Funny how Home Depot and Loews both seem > to charge exactly the same price for the things that they both carry. I > guess that according to you, they must be doing something illegal. Name brand products are commonly sold at a maximum price set by the product manufacturer. A store can't sell it for less. This is a growing trend on name brand products and unfortunatly is legal. However, gas refiners and distributors can't set the price a station charges in the same manner. > > And yet, no different than what you do most of the time. Hell, I did > > provide facts that you just pretend don't exist like the continued high [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > prices have been going up faster than gas prices for many years. This > is new to you? They have not fallen all that much to cause the sudden drop in gas prices and if it is just the price of iol, then why haven't diesel prices fallen even faster. The fact is that the pressure is to lower the price of gas more than diesel and that can plainly be seen at the pump. Now the only thing that is left is why gas over diesel? I know the answer and so do you. > > Funny how Home Depot and Loews both seem > > to charge exactly the same price for the things that they both carry. I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > However, gas refiners and distributors can't set the price a station > charges in the same manner. Actually, Home Depot and Loews are both DISCOUNT retailers and rarely use MSRP. The fact is that they know what the other one is selling key items for and matches that price. As for setting the price at the station, company owned stations can and do set the price and the independents can't sell for less than they are getting it for and stay in business for long. If every station in an area gets the fuel for the same price, they tend to sell it for the same price unless they think that they can make more money selling by volume and only the bigger stations do well at that. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > They have not fallen all that much to cause the sudden drop in gas prices From $58 a barrel to $48 a barrel is considerable. > and if it is just the price of iol, then why haven't diesel prices fallen > even faster. Diesel prices have always been rising faster than gas. Been that way for decades. This is new to you? > If every station in an area gets the fuel for the same price, they tend to > sell it for the same price unless they think that they can make more money > selling by volume and only the bigger stations do well at that. What complete bull. Here in Phoenix all gas comes from the exact same place. There is only one pipeline feeding all of Phoenix and only one central distribution center. Costs are the same for everyone. Yet prices vary across Phoenix by over $.30 a gallon. Two small stations across the street from each other can be $.10 a gallon different. Why? Not sure exactly but my guess is it has alot to do with traffic flow. Now take a look at stations in remote parts of Arizona. They have to get their gas from Phoenix and truck it. Yet their prices are often $.20 a gallon less than the average price in Phoenix. Differences in market demands cause the price variances. > > They have not fallen all that much to cause the sudden drop in gas prices > > From $58 a barrel to $48 a barrel is considerable. It would be if it was a steady thing and the price fell directly from $58 to $48 but as you know, that is not what happened and it HAS been floating around $50 for months now. Even now, it is up to $49.08, right around $50 again. > > and if it is just the price of iol, then why haven't diesel prices fallen > > even faster. > > Diesel prices have always been rising faster than gas. Been that way > for decades. This is new to you? What does this have to do with anything and where is your proof? Diesel has been more expensive than regular for years where I lived and continues to get so as demand increases but the pattern was always the same, price increases in the colder months and reductions in the spring and summer. I would also suspect that the price was also influenced by the rize in oil prices since it went up at the same time as gasoline and by around the same amount. But now according to you, the price of oil warrents and are the only reason for the sudden drop in the price of gas and if this were true, then why didn't diesel also drop at the same time and by the same amount? Sorry Miles, but your arguments are full of holes. > > If every station in an area gets the fuel for the same price, they tend to > > sell it for the same price unless they think that they can make more money [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > central distribution center. Costs are the same for everyone. Yet > prices vary across Phoenix by over $.30 a gallon. The price variance is nothing more than a distortion of facts. You are trying to hide behind the retail prices that different dealers in different areas charge but that really means nothing. What matters is when the prices change, do they increase or decrease by the same amount at the different stations. I would say that they are damn close if not exactly the same which shows that the oil companies can control the price, just like any manufacturer / supplier. Now at the company stations, they set the retail price as well but price control can also be done by varing the cost to the dealers. > Two small stations > across the street from each other can be $.10 a gallon different. Why? > Not sure exactly but my guess is it has alot to do with traffic flow. Perhaps, or maybe one of them has to set their price according to what the supplier says. Exxon stations have to set the prices to what the company says and a few of them have closed here because of that. > Now take a look at stations in remote parts of Arizona. They have to > get their gas from Phoenix and truck it. Yet their prices are often > $.20 a gallon less than the average price in Phoenix. Differences in > market demands cause the price variances. Of course, but when the prices rise, those rural stations raise there prices by the same amount as those city stations. If pressure is put on the oil companies to lower prices, all they can really do is lower the cost to the dealers and that is what they are doing. The dealers may be cashing in on the laziness and impatiens of the typical American and continue to charge high prices but it is only a matter of time... SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > It would be if it was a steady thing and the price fell directly from $58 to > $48 but as you know, that is not what happened and it HAS been floating > around $50 for months now. Even now, it is up to $49.08, right around $50 > again. For the past month it has been slowly coming down. Just like gas prices. It is now closer to $47 not right around $50. When gas prices were higher last month, oil was $58, not right around $50. Gas prices will always drop at a rate much slower than oil price reductions. http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/ > > It would be if it was a steady thing and the price fell directly from $58 to > > $48 but as you know, that is not what happened and it HAS been floating [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > For the past month it has been slowly coming down. Just like gas > prices. It is now closer to $47 not right around $50. It depends on the time of day that you look at it. > When gas prices > were higher last month, oil was $58, not right around $50. Gas prices > will always drop at a rate much slower than oil price reductions. This is true and yet magically, the price of gas jumps up at the instant the price of oil increases (at least it did while the price of oil was more stable). Looks a bit like artificial price control to me SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > It depends on the time of day that you look at it. Thats why you look at the average for say a week or so. It's down around $48, not $50 and the trend is falling. > > It depends on the time of day that you look at it. > > Thats why you look at the average for say a week or so. It's down > around $48, not $50 and the trend is falling. Yea, the trend is falling because the supplies are going up. Now why do you think that is? The fact is that even in the short time of a few months of conservation, the price of gas has fallen (by up to 20 cents in my area) which shows that conservation is the real answer, not drilling in pristine wilderness for 6 months to a years supply of contaminated garbage that we don't have the capacity to refine anyway. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Yea, the trend is falling because the supplies are going up. Now why do you > think that is? You think its because people in the USA are buying hybrids, or conserving in other ways? Thats why crude oil worldwide is falling? > > Yea, the trend is falling because the supplies are going up. Now why do you > > think that is? > > You think its because people in the USA are buying hybrids, or > conserving in other ways? Thats why crude oil worldwide is falling? Perhaps you need to look up the definition of global market. If the demand goes down, supplies go up and the price falls. This is the way our entire economic system works (minus the corruption). Since we are now in a "global" market, if the demand falls (even in only one area) the price for that product falls EVERYWHERE. Do I think that it is because of hybrids and conservation , damn right. Our hybrids and conservation are probably not the entire reason but it is a part and I would say a significant part, both directly and indirectly SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Our hybrids and conservation are probably not > the entire reason but it is a part and I would say a significant part, both > directly and indirectly Then you would be very wrong on your assumption. Now I understand your warped logic. You really think conservation on gas in the USA is the significant reason for oil prices to drop. Rather than just using your own personal beliefs, why not actually do a bit of research into whats happening globaly with regards to oil consumption, production etc. in just the past year. Then look at where massive demands for oil have occured in the world. US conservation is a main reason? Too funny. > > Our hybrids and conservation are probably not > > the entire reason but it is a part and I would say a significant part, both [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > warped logic. You really think conservation on gas in the USA is the > significant reason for oil prices to drop. Yep! Why? Because we are using less and the price is coming down. At least I have these two facts to back up my theory. What about you? Oh, that's right, your only theory is that I'm wrong, LOL! > Rather than just using your > own personal beliefs, why not actually do a bit of research into whats > happening globaly with regards to oil consumption, production etc. in > just the past year. I have, what about you? You keep making blanket statements about the "global consumption of oil" but have yet to back up anything or even say anything other than I am wrong. If you think that I am wrong then how about coming out with what you believe to be the real reason for the increase in reserves that caused the drop in price and then backing it up with something for a change. Until you do, your words are meaningless as it is clear that all you really want to do is argue with nothing to back it up or even something to back up at all which just makes you look foolish. > Then look at where massive demands for oil have > occured in the world. US conservation is a main reason? Too funny. Despite the sudden rise in China's demand for oil, we are still far and away the biggest user. Now unless China has made a sudden turn around and is no longer using as much oil, where do you think any significant reduction in usage is comming from because the increase in supply is either comming from reduced demand or the oil companies are manipulating the stated inventory which is also possible. Oh, that's right, you also said that the oil companies cannot or do not do such things. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Yep! Why? Because we are using less and the price is coming down. At > least I have these two facts to back up my theory. What about you? Oh, > that's right, your only theory is that I'm wrong, LOL! Oil prices have dropped causing gas prices to drop. Its mainly because of higher supply, now lower demand. Oil production has gone up and in the USA idle refineries were brought back online. The slight dip in USA demand has only a small effect, not the main effect you wish to believe. > Despite the sudden rise in China's demand for oil, we are still far and away > the biggest user. Now unless China has made a sudden turn around and is no > longer using as much oil, where do you think any significant reduction in > usage Oil production has been steadily increasing as has refinery capabilities. Demand has not dropped anywheres near the same % that oil prices have dropped. > > Yep! Why? Because we are using less and the price is coming down. At > > least I have these two facts to back up my theory. What about you? Oh, > > that's right, your only theory is that I'm wrong, LOL! > > Oil prices have dropped causing gas prices to drop. Its mainly because > of higher supply, now lower demand. Once again, you mention lower demand with no reason for it. As for higher supply, exactly where is this extra oil comming from? Please back up some of your arguments for a change. > Oil production has gone up and in > the USA idle refineries were brought back online. The slight dip in USA > demand has only a small effect, not the main effect you wish to believe. Whjich refineries were brought back on line? Please define a "small dip". The reduction in US demand is much greater than you think. > > Despite the sudden rise in China's demand for oil, we are still far and away > > the biggest user. Now unless China has made a sudden turn around and is no [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > capabilities. Demand has not dropped anywheres near the same % that oil > prices have dropped. And you can prove this how????? Miles, I believe you and I have had discussions in the past that were fairly non-productive. Mainly, because you're quick to start labeling. i.e. "liberal <insert adjective here>". I hope that won't be the case here. BTW, in acse you forgot ... I'm not a democrat/liberal, although I believe you have accused me of such. On to the issue at hand: Price per barrel is down from a few weeks ago ... yes? Demand for diesel is down due to warming weather ... yes? Why then, is the price at the pump remaining constant? It's awfully coincidental that DC, GM and Ford do NOT have a decent lineup of diesel/alternative energy vehicles to market ... wouldn't you say? Although I doubt TBone can prove his theory, there is no doubt that oil companies and vehicle manufacturers are in bed together. It's self preservation. His theory is not too terribly far fetched, IMO. I am also interested in knowing why oil companies rake in record profits during times when ppb (NOT demand) is increasing. That makes no sense ... unless they artificially inflating the price in their favor for <insert your favorite conspiracy theory here>. We're all getting bent over by the oil companies without the godamn common courtesy of a reach-around. ;) Craig C. But GM and Toyota are joining forces to share the expense of hydrogen powered vehicles. Hopefully their research will produce a viable option. I know for a fat that I would buy a hydrogen powered vehicle in a heartbeat if the price was right. Signature_________________________ Laszlo Almasi Carolina Watercraft Works, Inc. "In the battle between money and love, money will always triumph" I may have to change my signature...... > Miles, > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > ;) > Craig C. > Miles, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > BTW, in acse you forgot ... I'm not a democrat/liberal, although I > believe you have accused me of such. You seem to forget how fast his favorite nemesis whips out the labeling machine. > On to the issue at hand: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's awfully coincidental that DC, GM and Ford do NOT have a decent > lineup of diesel/alternative energy vehicles to market ... Generous motors had the EV1, a very heavily subsidized miserable failure. All three have had "dual fuel" vehicles bought almost entirely by government. After a brief "honey moon" with environmentalists Diesel has been denigrated as "filthy". CNG isn't viable on a practical scale, electric isn't viable for anything but commuting, what "alternative" do you expect them to provide us? >I am also interested in knowing why oil companies rake in record >profits during times when ppb (NOT demand) is increasing. Demand is increasing. We don't just import crude, we also import finished gasoline because we don't have sufficient refining capacity. But you forget the supply side of the equation. Remember China? 1.3 billion people in a country moving toward a capitalist system. They'll sell as many new cars there in 2007 as we sold in 1965, in the next several years they're projected to sell more new cars than we do. And then there's India moving in the same direction with more than a billion people. That's a LOT of additional demand and some here think we can "conserve" our way out of this. I believe I've demonstrated the fallacy of that particular "thesis". That makes >no sense ... unless they artificially inflating the price in their >favor for <insert your favorite conspiracy theory here>. > >We're all getting bent over by the oil companies without the godamn >common courtesy of a reach-around. Base language while colorful isn't productive and serves little purpose. Look at fuel prices on an inflation adjusted basis and it's STILL cheap, even cheaper than in the eighties when we thought it was so high. When fuel price inflation beats my property tax increases, I'll start to worry. > You seem to forget how fast his favorite nemesis whips out the labeling > machine. ;) Nope, I didn't forget ... just chose not to piss two people off at the same time. > Generous motors had the EV1, a very heavily subsidized miserable failure. > All three have had "dual fuel" vehicles bought almost entirely by > government. After a brief "honey moon" with environmentalists Diesel has > been denigrated as "filthy". CNG isn't viable on a practical scale, > electric isn't viable for anything but commuting, what "alternative" do you > expect them to provide us? That touches on the last thing that Miles and I discussed. Not trying to resurrect it, but the subject matter had to do with the idea that perhaps we WOULD have more alternatives than we do if the issue was pushed by the government rather than drilling for more oil ... I drive a diesel ... my friends consider me an "environmentalist", although I pale in comparison to most with that title. I think it's a great "alternative", nowadays. Despite the current stand by our government, I believe that we are starting to see a lot of progress, actually. Hybrids are looking better everyday. > >I am also interested in knowing why oil companies rake in record > >profits during times when ppb (NOT demand) is increasing. > > Demand is increasing. I suspect the curve of demand is much flatter than the curve of pricing. How else do you explain RECORD profits by ExxonMobil the last 3 years? Are you telling me that's ALL demand? If so, I have some ocean front property you may be interested in. > in the same direction with more than a billion people. That's a LOT of > additional demand and some here think we can "conserve" our way out of this. Good point. > I believe I've demonstrated the fallacy of that particular "thesis". Then I assume we both agree that oil is not the answer and neither is drilling for more? Does that make you a "liberal"? ;) > Base language while colorful isn't productive and serves little purpose. It was a quote from a movie actually. I thought it was rather funny. But then ... I'm a pretty cheery guy. > Look at fuel prices on an inflation adjusted basis and it's STILL cheap, > even cheaper than in the eighties when we thought it was so high. When fuel > price inflation beats my property tax increases, I'll start to worry. Ack, property taxes. Don't get me started on that. Single, white male, no children. Talk about getting bent over. Should it give me warm fuzzies to help pay for my neighbors 5 kids to attend school? Craig C. > That touches on the last thing that Miles and I discussed. Not trying > to resurrect it, but the subject matter had to do with the idea that > perhaps we WOULD have more alternatives than we do if the issue was > pushed by the government rather than drilling for more oil ... Government can't push much. It takes billions of $'s to develop these alternatives. The only place to get that is from the consumer. It has to be consumer driven. The government can do some motivation towards the consumer but in the end, its the consumer who drives industry to produce. > Despite the current stand by our government, I believe that we are > starting to see a lot of progress, actually. Hybrids are looking > better everyday. Hybrids are a short term solution. They don't provide the gains needed for long term. I view them as part of the evolution to better solutions but certainly not the end or anywheres close to it. > > That touches on the last thing that Miles and I discussed. Not trying > > to resurrect it, but the subject matter had to do with the idea that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the consumer but in the end, its the consumer who drives industry to > produce. I agree with you 100% and what is the best way to eliminate that drive in the industry? How about reduce the price where it counts to make it economically infeasible for the consumer to push for change. > > Despite the current stand by our government, I believe that we are > > starting to see a lot of progress, actually. Hybrids are looking [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for long term. I view them as part of the evolution to better solutions > but certainly not the end or anywheres close to it. But they help to serve a need that we have today. While it is important to work for the future, what is needed for today is even more important. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > But they help to serve a need that we have today. While it is important to > work for the future, what is needed for today is even more important. It's a bang for the buck issue. The money invested into hybrid development won't lead to newer, better energy sources. It's only a stop-gap technology at best. > > But they help to serve a need that we have today. While it is important to > > work for the future, what is needed for today is even more important. > > It's a bang for the buck issue. The money invested into hybrid > development won't lead to newer, better energy sources. It's only a > stop-gap technology at best. I agree but when our ability to refine falls below demand, a stop-gap solution is what is needed NOW. The point Miles, is that while hybrids may only appear to be a stop-gap solution, they are hear now, work well, and can be improved upon in the future. Actually Miles, they are the foundation for the fuel cell technology that you are so hopeful for in the future and are doing their part to decrease consumption now and pave the way for newer technologies tomorrow so your stop-gap only opinion is wrong. Now before you accuse me of some liberal BS, think about this... what is the difference between a current hybrid and a future fuel cell vehicle? Now what does GM and Ford have to compete with this, oh yea, nothing. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving If that is the case, then isn't drilling for more oil in Alaska a "stop-gap"? It definately does not lead to newer, better energy sources. I disagree that hybrid is a stop-gap technology. A great deal has been learned ... mostly by the consumer. For once ... we have a choice and most people are pretty excited about it. There are a few that think it's worthless and probably agree with you that it is "stop-gap". However, it is a *start* to something better, which is more than punching holes in the ground in Alaska. Craig C. >If that is the case, then isn't drilling for more oil in Alaska a >"stop-gap"? It definately does not lead to newer, better energy >sources. > I'd take a "stop-gap" of 100-200 years, what's the problem with that? >I disagree that hybrid is a stop-gap technology. A great deal has been >learned ... mostly by the consumer. For once ... we have a choice and >most people are pretty excited about it. There are a few that think >it's worthless and probably agree with you that it is "stop-gap". > From what I've read, the hybrids don't get anywhere near the advertised mileage in real life. Add the expense & danger of all those batteries & wiring. Want to be stuck in one when they use the jaws of life on it? >However, it is a *start* to something better, which is more than >punching holes in the ground in Alaska. > What else is it good for? What did a Caribou ever do for you? >Craig C. > > > I'd take a "stop-gap" of 100-200 years, what's the problem with that? What source fed you that load of crap? 100-200 years of oil under Alaska? Most that I have read ranges from 6 months to 5 years ... and that timeframe is based on pumping/using only 5% of our current demand. > From what I've read, the hybrids don't get anywhere near the advertised mileage in real life. So? They are still a step in the right direction. The solution is getting to the point that we are using resources that are renewable. >Add the expense & danger of all those batteries & wiring. >Want to be stuck in one when they use the jaws of life on it? This is what is called a "scare tactic". I could use the same reasoning on you. "Get in a wreck with highly flammable gasoline in the tank? Hell, it might blow up!" Hybrids are just as safe as regular 100% combustion vehicles. If you disagree, then the burden of proof lies on you. Gimme some examples of these horrible accidents that have happened in a hybrid and how much better it would have been in a regular 100% combustion vehicle. >>However, it is a *start* to something better, which is more than >>punching holes in the ground in Alaska. >What else is it good for? Some things should not be messed with. I happen to feel that we should try to conserve what little of the untouched earth is left. I have been to many parts of Alaska. The most beautiful being Denali ... which WILL be impacted if northern Alaska is drilled. Why drill it, damage the ecosystem, risk extinction of some wildlife when all we have to do is pursue a renewable source of energy? Progress is being made DESPITE our fearless leader's attempts to keep us hooked on oil. >What did a Caribou ever do for you? Exist. What did a Caribou ever do *to* you? Craig C. > >If that is the case, then isn't drilling for more oil in Alaska a > >"stop-gap"? It definately does not lead to newer, better energy > >sources. > > > I'd take a "stop-gap" of 100-200 years, what's the problem with that? If you really think that there is that much oil under Alaska, you have been deceived. > >I disagree that hybrid is a stop-gap technology. A great deal has been > >learned ... mostly by the consumer. For once ... we have a choice and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > From what I've read, the hybrids don't get anywhere near the advertised > mileage in real life. That is because they are usually not driven as expected and with the afressive way most people drive anymore, I'm not sure that they can be during rush hour. > Add the expense & danger of all those batteries & wiring. > Want to be stuck in one when they use the jaws of life on it? How is that any different than a conventional automobile? I would think that a tank full of gasoline would be just as dangerous. > >However, it is a *start* to something better, which is more than > >punching holes in the ground in Alaska. > > > What else is it good for? > What did a Caribou ever do for you? This is very sad and yet, explains a lot! SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > If that is the case, then isn't drilling for more oil in Alaska a > "stop-gap"? It definately does not lead to newer, better energy > sources. Yes, it is a stop-gap measure but not for cars. Oil is used for far more than just gasoline. Alaskan oil is not sweet crude. > > If that is the case, then isn't drilling for more oil in Alaska a > > "stop-gap"? It definately does not lead to newer, better energy > > sources. > > Yes, it is a stop-gap measure but not for cars. Oil is used for far > more than just gasoline. Alaskan oil is not sweet crude. IOW, it is kinda worthless. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > "miles" <nospam@noemail.com> wrote in message >>Yes, it is a stop-gap measure but not for cars. Oil is used for far >>more than just gasoline. Alaskan oil is not sweet crude. > > IOW, it is kinda worthless. Only sweet crude thats used for gasoline is worth anything? >> "miles" <nospam@noemail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Only sweet crude thats used for gasoline is worth anything? Incidentally, Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude is priced on the world market, and sells for about $3 a barrel less than the average. It hit a peak of something like $55 a barrel a short time back, and as with other oil is now significantly less. I don't remember what is was yesterday, but something like $42 a barrel. Not that Alaskans are hung up on oil, mind you... but the Anchorage Daily News prints a graph in the paper every day showing the current price and the price over the past several months. It indicates the peak price, and there is also a straight line across the graph marked as the price required for the state's current budget to break even. (We aren't all hung up on oil, but our Legislature certainly are.) ANS is indeed not "sweet crude", however virtually all of the gasoline and diesel/jet fuel produced in Alaska (which is a significant amount of jet fuel) comes from ANS. And the majority of all gasoline sold on the west coast (probably 100% in states other than California) is refined from ANS. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com You do know what sweet crude is, don't you? It does not have to be sweet crude to make gasoline and sweet crude can be used for other things besides gas. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > "miles" <nospam@noemail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Only sweet crude thats used for gasoline is worth anything? > You do know what sweet crude is, don't you? It does not have to be sweet > crude to make gasoline and sweet crude can be used for other things besides > gas. How much oil does the USA import from Canada? What type of oil is it? Whats it primarily used for? The answers are pretty much the same as that of Alaskan oil. Your statement that since Alaskan oil isn't sweet crude therefore its worthless makes no sense. > > You do know what sweet crude is, don't you? It does not have to be sweet > > crude to make gasoline and sweet crude can be used for other things besides [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that of Alaskan oil. Your statement that since Alaskan oil isn't sweet > crude therefore its worthless makes no sense. It makes perfect sense, you are just not bright enough to understand it. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > Miles, > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You seem to forget how fast his favorite nemesis whips out the labeling > machine. Really, perhaps you would care to point out an instance where I did this without it being a responce to being called names first. > > On to the issue at hand: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > electric isn't viable for anything but commuting, what "alternative" do you > expect them to provide us? LOL, are you serious. Those initial multi-fuled vehicles were a joke. While they could burn propane or gas, they were still all inefficient POS so what was the point of buying one. If we went by your back-asswards logic, we would still be riding horses for transportation and using candles for light since neither cars or electric lights existed until they were invented and perfected. > >I am also interested in knowing why oil companies rake in record > >profits during times when ppb (NOT demand) is increasing. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > additional demand and some here think we can "conserve" our way out of this. > I believe I've demonstrated the fallacy of that particular "thesis". Where did you demonstrate anything? > That makes > >no sense ... unless they artificially inflating the price in their [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > even cheaper than in the eighties when we thought it was so high. When fuel > price inflation beats my property tax increases, I'll start to worry. LOL, and we were driving much more fuel efficient vehicles at the time. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Really, perhaps you would care to point out an instance where I did this > without it being a responce to being called names first. What name calling? Saying your views are liberal is name calling? You've tossed out one name after another, most recently IDIOT. > Price per barrel is down from a few weeks ago ... yes? Demand for > diesel is down due to warming weather ... yes? Why then, is the price > at the pump remaining constant? Don't know about diesel but gas prices on average have dropped about 10 cents the past week according to national surveys. I'll find you a source if needed. > It's awfully coincidental that DC, GM and Ford do NOT have a decent > lineup of diesel/alternative energy vehicles to market ... wouldn't you > say? Although I doubt TBone can prove his theory, there is no doubt > that oil companies and vehicle manufacturers are in bed together. It's > self preservation. His theory is not too terribly far fetched, IMO. Thats just a paranoid based theory without facts. Car manufactures don't gain by high oil prices. They gain by selling more cars. They don't control what the public demands. I agree, they're slow at responding to demand but their spending for alternative energy is well above that of the Japanese. While the Japanese are building hybrids, the Americans are pouring money into technologies that hopefully will be longer term than the short term stop-gap hybrid approach. > > Price per barrel is down from a few weeks ago ... yes? Demand for > > diesel is down due to warming weather ... yes? Why then, is the price [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cents the past week according to national surveys. I'll find you a > source if needed. Yes, exactly the opposite of what should be happening this time of year. Now why do you think that is and lets see you back it up with some facts for a change. > > It's awfully coincidental that DC, GM and Ford do NOT have a decent > > lineup of diesel/alternative energy vehicles to market ... wouldn't you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thats just a paranoid based theory without facts. Car manufactures > don't gain by high oil prices. Which is why the price of fuel is now magically dropping at a time of year when it traditionally goes up. So far, my theory is holding up just fine. > They gain by selling more cars. Which they cannot do when people don't want them due to high cost of operation due to poor mileage. My theory is still holding up quite well and is being totally supported by you. > They don't control what the public demands. This is true but public demands are affected by costs and reducing costs effects demand. Once again, my theory is fully supported by you. Thanks Miles. > I agree, they're slow at > responding to demand but their spending for alternative energy is well > above that of the Japanese. Bullshit. They need to anticipate demands in the future and make investments accordingly which they simply did not do. As for their spending, the only thing that counts is where the rubber meets the road and so far, they don't have sh.t. > While the Japanese are building hybrids, > the Americans are pouring money into technologies that hopefully will be > longer term than the short term stop-gap hybrid approach. But the key word is hopefully. Do you really think that the Japanese are only building hybrids and are doing nothing more. If so, I have some beach front property that you may be interested in. The fact is that we have a need for higher mileage vehicles TODAY, not 20 years from now and this is where GM and Ford failed miserably. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Yes, exactly the opposite of what should be happening this time of year. > Now why do you think that is and lets see you back it up with some facts for > a change. Oil prices were unseasonably high through the winter and spring and have now dropped which is opposite of a normal year. You really need a URL for you to know that? > Which is why the price of fuel is now magically dropping at a time of year > when it traditionally goes up. So far, my theory is holding up just fine. Except you forgot to factor in the abnormal high oil prices that have now dropped worldwide. So much for your American gas guzzler theory. > Which they cannot do when people don't want them due to high cost of > operation due to poor mileage. My theory is still holding up quite well and > is being totally supported by you. No, its not. Gas prices skyrocketed over the past year. They dropped a small amount recently and you declare it to be a conspiracy? Good grief. > This is true but public demands are affected by costs and reducing costs > effects demand. Once again, my theory is fully supported by you. Thanks > Miles. Your theory is blown to bits by the simple fact that gas prices are very high right now. What were they only 1 year ago? Oh ya, big conspiracy to lower gas prices. Good grief. > Bullshit. They need to anticipate demands in the future and make > investments accordingly which they simply did not do. As for their > spending, the only thing that counts is where the rubber meets the road and > so far, they don't have sh.t. So rush to market a technology that is expensive and returns little gains and is not a sustainable solution? Makes more sense to spend money looking for longer term more viable solutions. > But the key word is hopefully. Do you really think that the Japanese are > only building hybrids and are doing nothing more. They are not spending anywheres near the $'s the American companies are on other forms of energy. They put all their marbles into Hybrids. > > Yes, exactly the opposite of what should be happening this time of year. > > Now why do you think that is and lets see you back it up with some facts for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > now dropped which is opposite of a normal year. You really need a URL > for you to know that? They have not dropped that much and have been hovering around $50 since Feb. Now if the price has dropped due to the lower price of crude as you suggest, why hasn't diesel dropped with it? > > Which is why the price of fuel is now magically dropping at a time of year > > when it traditionally goes up. So far, my theory is holding up just fine. > > Except you forgot to factor in the abnormal high oil prices that have > now dropped worldwide. So much for your American gas guzzler theory. Oil prices will always rise and fall worldwide so an increase or decrease in consumption will effect the worldwide price. With this in mind, a reduction in the rate of consumption in the US alone WILL have an effect on the worldwide price so my gas guzzler theory as you call it is just fine. > > Which they cannot do when people don't want them due to high cost of > > operation due to poor mileage. My theory is still holding up quite well and > > is being totally supported by you. > > No, its not. Gas prices skyrocketed over the past year. They dropped a > small amount recently and you declare it to be a conspiracy? Good grief. LOL, who said anything about a conspiracy besides you????? The fact is that when the price of gas exceeded $2.00 a gallon nationally, the demand for SUV's and large vehicles dropped 30% and that is significant, especially when Ford and GM were downgraded to junk bond status because of it. Now magically, even though the price of oil is still around $50 a barrel, the price of gas is falling below that magical $2.00 a gallon and doing it during a time when prices normally rise to control consumption. In the past 3 weeks, the price of gas has fallen about 20 cents a gallon in my area where it is now $1.95 from $2.15 while diesel has remained around $2.25 and this level of price drop is not supported by the reduction in oil prices, especially when you add in the lack of refining ability verses demand that we are currently dealing with. > > This is true but public demands are affected by costs and reducing costs > > effects demand. Once again, my theory is fully supported by you. Thanks [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > high right now. What were they only 1 year ago? Oh ya, big conspiracy > to lower gas prices. Good grief. A year ago, GM and Ford were not in serious trouble either. There is a limit where people say enough is enough and until gas reached over $2.00 a gallon with threats of it getting over $3.00, that limit was not reached but now it has been and the shift in sales of automobiles proves it. > > Bullshit. They need to anticipate demands in the future and make > > investments accordingly which they simply did not do. As for their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > gains and is not a sustainable solution? Makes more sense to spend > money looking for longer term more viable solutions. Not when the need is now and what is it with you that they can't do both. The trick is to make what is available today work for you while you develop the technology for tomorrow and at this, the Great Mistake failed. Lucent technology attempted the idiotic method that you seem to think is the way to go and look at the shape that they are in now because of it. > > But the key word is hopefully. Do you really think that the Japanese are > > only building hybrids and are doing nothing more. > > They are not spending anywheres near the $'s the American companies are > on other forms of energy. They put all their marbles into Hybrids. And your proof of this is...... And who is now making the mega-bucks that they can use to develop that new technology? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Now > magically, even though the price of oil is still around $50 a barrel, the > price of gas is falling below that magical $2.00 a gallon and doing it > during a time when prices normally rise to control consumption. You keep tossing your $50 number out. When gas prices were at their highest oil was running close to $58. Now its about $48. Gas prices normally rise because of increased demand for the summer which isn't taking place so far as well as increased oil prices worldwide which isn't the case right now. > A year ago, GM and Ford were not in serious trouble either. There is a > limit where people say enough is enough and until gas reached over $2.00 a > gallon with threats of it getting over $3.00, that limit was not reached but > now it has been and the shift in sales of automobiles proves it. Sure as gas goes up people drive less or buy more economic vehicles. Been that way for decades. This discussion is about whether gas companies are controlling that price. You've made a guess saying its true but thats all it is, a guess. > Not when the need is now and what is it with you that they can't do both. Japan is not doing both. They sunk everything they had into hybrid technology and little else. > > Now > > magically, even though the price of oil is still around $50 a barrel, the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > taking place so far as well as increased oil prices worldwide which > isn't the case right now. Well then Miles, if this is true then it more than proves my point that conservation IS THE ANSWER. Gas prices here have dropped close to 20 cents a gallon in some areas and if demand has not gone up... > > A year ago, GM and Ford were not in serious trouble either. There is a > > limit where people say enough is enough and until gas reached over $2.00 a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > companies are controlling that price. You've made a guess saying its > true but thats all it is, a guess. And the last time this happened the American auto manufacturers lost major ground that they have never reclaimed. If GM goes under, this country will fall into a depression the likes of which we have never seenand that would not look good for either Bush or the conservative party. Gas companies are no different than any other company and yes, they can and do control the price of their product which is evident by their record profits and yes, if the pressure is put on them, they can creativly lower them. > > Not when the need is now and what is it with you that they can't do both. > > Japan is not doing both. They sunk everything they had into hybrid > technology and little else. LOL, sorry Miles but as we have already discussed, these current hybrids are the foundation for tomorrows possible fuel cell vehicles. Now if you really think that they have done nothing else, lets see a little of that proof that you keep asking of me or this conclusion of yours is also nothing more than a guess. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Well then Miles, if this is true then it more than proves my point that > conservation IS THE ANSWER. Gas prices here have dropped close to 20 cents > a gallon in some areas and if demand has not gone up... 20 cents from what point? You seem to be happy it dropped 20 cents, even though it went up 50 prior to that. You think conservation is whats lowered gas prices? Too bad they really haven't lowerd. Just down from a level well above the mean. > LOL, sorry Miles but as we have already discussed, these current hybrids are > the foundation for tomorrows possible fuel cell vehicles. Hybrid technology will contribute little to other possible fuel sources. Plus it's expensive, heavy, bulky etc. > Now if you really > think that they have done nothing else, lets see a little of that proof I'm supposed to prove what they HAVEN'T done? There goes your old case of reverse scrambled logic!! > > Well then Miles, if this is true then it more than proves my point that > > conservation IS THE ANSWER. Gas prices here have dropped close to 20 cents > > a gallon in some areas and if demand has not gone up... > > 20 cents from what point? You seem to be happy it dropped 20 cents, > even though it went up 50 prior to that.. LOL, talk about that right wing fuzzy logic. Sure I'm happy that it dropped. I would be happier that it never went up and know that it probably will again and will take that into account when I buy my next vehicle. > You think conservation is > whats lowered gas prices? Too bad they really haven't lowerd. Just > down from a level well above the mean LOL, if they went down, then they were lowered, any way that you try to spin it. The fact is that the price of oil is going down as you have said and the reason is higher than expected inventories, even though we are going into the peak driving season AND there is a higher demand for fuel for yard maintenance equipment as well. The only way this can happen is either the oil storage tanks have developed a way to make their own oil or conservation (forced or not) has reduced demand below current supply. It is either that or it is artificial price manipulation and control, something else that you said could not be done. Either way Miles, you are still wrong. > > LOL, sorry Miles but as we have already discussed, these current hybrids are > > the foundation for tomorrows possible fuel cell vehicles. > > Hybrid technology will contribute little to other possible fuel sources. > Plus it's expensive, heavy, bulky etc. Sorry Miles, but you are wrong once again. Hybrid vehicles are the test bed for newer technologies. You keep talking about fuel cell vehicles when it is obvious that you don't have a clue as to what they are. A fuel cell develops ELECTRICITY and in order to use it, you need electric motors. Now as I'm sure you know, electric motors have a huge variation on demand for current and the easiest and most economical way to deal with that is for the fuel cell to charge high capacity batteries that then supply the required current to the motor(s). Sounds a lot like a hybrid now, doesn't it. Then you can add in the facts that a whole new set of systems and technology needs to be developed and perfected for fully electric vehicles to function to our current expectations and what better platform to develop them on! > > Now if you really > > think that they have done nothing else, lets see a little of that proof > > I'm supposed to prove what they HAVEN'T done? There goes your old case > of reverse scrambled logic!! |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message