 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / October 2005Fuel Price
Diesel jumped 20 cents to 2.79 from Sunday night to Monday morning. Unfuckingbelievable! Roy Suddenly, without warning, Roy exclaimed (30-Aug-05 7:26 PM): > Diesel jumped 20 cents to 2.79 from Sunday night to Monday morning. > Unfuckingbelievable! > > Roy Here in the UK you're just now catching up to our normal on-base gas station prices, both gas and diesel. Gas on the economy is close to $7.00/gallon now. yick. That said, if prices keep going up, when we go back to the US in the spring, I can see the Dak making a nice lawn ornament. I could plant a vegetable garden in the bed :) jmc > Suddenly, without warning, Roy exclaimed (30-Aug-05 7:26 PM): >> Diesel jumped 20 cents to 2.79 from Sunday night to Monday morning. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > station prices, both gas and diesel. Gas on the economy is close to > $7.00/gallon now. yick. Not really. If I am not mistaken, the fuel there is artificially inflated due to taxation to help curb excessive driving and poultion > That said, if prices keep going up, when we go back to the US in the > spring, I can see the Dak making a nice lawn ornament. I could plant a > vegetable garden in the bed :) > > jmc > > Suddenly, without warning, Roy exclaimed (30-Aug-05 7:26 PM): > >> Diesel jumped 20 cents to 2.79 from Sunday night to Monday morning. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not really. If I am not mistaken, the fuel there is artificially inflated > due to taxation to help curb excessive driving and poultion Actually, much of that taxation is used to fund their national health system. > Actually, much of that taxation is used to fund their national health > system. England has high gas taxes for the main reason to reduce the number of cars on the road. Ever drive in London? Oh yes, that wonderfull socialized health care fiasco in the UK. No thanks. > > Actually, much of that taxation is used to fund their national health > > system. > > England has high gas taxes for the main reason to reduce the number of > cars on the road. Ever drive in London? Complete BS Miles. My wife is from GB and most of her family still lives there. I go there about twice a year, what about you? > Oh yes, that wonderfull socialized health care fiasco in the UK. No thanks. LOL, once again, you talk out of your a.s with no actual knowledge.  SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Complete BS Miles. My wife is from GB and most of her family still lives > there. I go there about twice a year, what about you? Nice try at bluffing there TBone. Yes, I go there as well and have relatives there. High taxes on gas are to reduce cars. Sure it may go to healthcare. They need every penny they can get from taxes to pay for social services. > LOL, once again, you talk out of your a.s with no actual knowledge. Try again. I do have actual knowledge. Why do you make such stupid statements based on guessing about someone or something you know nothing about? > > Complete BS Miles. My wife is from GB and most of her family still lives > > there. I go there about twice a year, what about you? > > Nice try at bluffing there TBone. Yes, I go there as well and have > relatives there. Sure you do. > High taxes on gas are to reduce cars. Sure it may go > to healthcare. They need every penny they can get from taxes to pay for > social services. Yes, they do need the money and get it from the gas tax and while they do not have the number of cars per family that many Americans do, their streets are far from empty. > > LOL, once again, you talk out of your a.s with no actual knowledge. > > Try again. I do have actual knowledge. Prove it, how many relatives and where in the country. > Why do you make such stupid > statements based on guessing about someone or something you know nothing > about? It is not a guess Miles, from the idiotic crap you say, it is fact. While their medical system is far from perfect, it is one hell of a lot better than what we have, unless you are rich of course. My father in law passed away from a form of leukemia a few years ago over there and while he was alive, they took damn good care of him including weekly transfusions and other medications which cost him all of nothing for three years from the time of diagnosis until his death. Now, where does your knowledge come from, oh, that's right, it doesn't. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving Suddenly, without warning, TBone exclaimed (01-Sep-05 2:41 AM): > It is not a guess Miles, from the idiotic crap you say, it is fact. While > their medical system is far from perfect, it is one hell of a lot better [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > time of diagnosis until his death. Now, where does your knowledge come > from, oh, that's right, it doesn't. Tbone, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. NHS sucks. I *live* here, have health issues. I'm sure some NHS doctors are fine, and actually I'm quite impressed with the local hospital here, but my local clinic *sucks*. The two times I needed tests, took THREE MONTHS before I got an appointment. NHS thinks it's doing a good job if the average wait for a procedure is less than 90 days (received a brochure on this) I once went in and told the GP I was having nearly debilitating headaches - headaches that aren't helped by any OTC meds I've tried. I have damage in my shoulders and neck which cause tension, but the headaches have gotten bad enough I thought maybe they were migraine. What was I told? Take 3 Ibuprofen. If it helps the headache at all, it's a migraine. If not, it's a tension headache. And what to do if it's a tension headache? Relax. I could go on, but since this is way off topic... Our US healthcare system may not be the greatest, but at least I don't see the absolute apathy I get from both my NHS GPs. To get back on topic, our gas prices jumped again as well. Our cheap gas is now $2.85 per gallon. > Suddenly, without warning, TBone exclaimed (01-Sep-05 2:41 AM): > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Our US healthcare system may not be the greatest, but at least I don't > see the absolute apathy I get from both my NHS GPs. Like I said, it is not perfect but unless you have money or insurance here, you get nothing at all. > To get back on topic, our gas prices jumped again as well. Our cheap > gas is now $2.85 per gallon. $3.24 a gallon for regular unleaded here. Will probably be higher tomorrow. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving Suddenly, without warning, TBone exclaimed (01-Sep-05 10:00 PM): >>To get back on topic, our gas prices jumped again as well. Our cheap >>gas is now $2.85 per gallon. > > $3.24 a gallon for regular unleaded here. Will probably be higher tomorrow. yikes! Too bad the US doesn't have the nearly all-encompassing public transport system they have here. Bet lots of people would use it, now. It's pretty amazing. Seems like no matter how microscopic the town up here in northern England, there's a bus that goes through there at least once a day. I can take a train to London, and be there faster than I can drive, even on the motorway with no traffic and a 70mph speed limit. There's even a dirt-cheap bus service to/from the airport, for those who can't afford a taxi. Even more amazing, the cut rate airlines. We're paying - no kidding - 19p each to fly to Ireland. Even with all the airport fees, that's still about £50 for two people. Round trip. The distance might be about equivalent to flying from Albany, NY to Washington, DC. I noticed that Katrina has had an effect on the exchange rate, too. Jumped from 1.80 to 1.83 today... Somebody's getting rich, I imagine. The rest of us just get poorer, faster, even if we're making 'more money'. jmc > yikes! Too bad the US doesn't have the nearly all-encompassing public > transport system they have here. Bet lots of people would use it, now. The USA is a huge country with vast distances between major cities. It's 250 miles from Phoenix to the nearest major city for instance. Mass transportation does work in some cities where large populations are centralized and travel to/from large job centers. San Franscisco is a good example. People travel from the east bay to S.F. where the jobs are. Doesn't work so well in other cities were housing and jobs are scattered everywhere. Suddenly, without warning, miles exclaimed (02-Sep-05 6:46 AM): >> yikes! Too bad the US doesn't have the nearly all-encompassing public >> transport system they have here. Bet lots of people would use it, now. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > are. Doesn't work so well in other cities were housing and jobs are > scattered everywhere. Well, I realize that. I am an American, after all. I've even taken the Greyhound across most of the country, in my youth. I often hear this excuse, but I'm not really buying it, especially since I understand that Europe's public transport system is equally robust (but having little experience with public transport there, I can't say for sure). I'm talking about local munincipalities with their own bus system, connecting to others. Not one all-encompassing monopoly or gov't run system. I don't really see any reason why this wouldn't work well at least along most of the East Coast, if you needed to go west you'd still get on a Greyhound. I'm posted in the UK, which is about the size of Oregon. I live in a town of about 25k (it can't be a city, doesn't have a university or a cathedral), has the same sort of bus system as any major city, and covers a much wider area than the city itself - I've come across buses on tiny little country roads that are probably 15-20 miles from any major population center. I've seen bus stops on these same roads, with one farm within a mile or two of it. Buses run regular to towns with populations that can probably be counted in the dozens. For myself, I live on the very edge of town, there's a bus stop about a 10 minute walk away, buses run every 12 minutes. From the bus station (and the adjacent train station) I can, if I want, take public transport to John'o'Groats on the north edge of this island, or to any major ferry port in any direction. Heck, I can take a train all the way to France now (before long, I'll be able to do it with only two changes) :) Why is this not possible in the US? Seems to me it should be. Oh, and with the gas prices, you can bet I'm taking public transport a lot more now. Or better yet, walking. It's only 2 miles to the High Street from here. Augh, been here too long. 2 miles to downtown. Next thing you know, I'll be complaining about the cost of petrol (which is 93.6p per litre for petrol - diesel is 96.6). Our gas prices on base went up again too. 70.6 cents per liter. The Brits are really jealous that we pay so little for fuel. And I do understand that their fuel (and high tax - VAT is 17.5%!) is there to pay for their socialistic economy. I had a guy tell me that it was cheaper for him buy a round-trip airline ticket to NYC and buy a laptop there, than to go to the local computer shop to purchase the same laptop. But I digress. jmc > Well, I realize that. I am an American, after all. I've even taken the > Greyhound across most of the country, in my youth. I often hear this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > least along most of the East Coast, if you needed to go west you'd still > get on a Greyhound. > Why is this not possible in the US? Seems to me it should be. You have to look at who is doing the traveling any why. Transportation on the east coast does make more sense where cities are closer together. But in the USA, how many people need to go from one 20K town to another on a daily basis? Trains are considerably more common and more popular in the east coast. Many small towns in the USA do have transportation between them. Usually small shuttle buses or large vans that make a few trips a day. They are usually private run. The other major reason why they are few is because more people in the USA have cars to travel the greater distances. As long as you have a car you'll use it for shorter trips to small towns as well. In big major cities such as San Franscisco many people do not have cars. Parking spaces are at a premium for one thing and public transportation is effective there. > Why is this not possible in the US? Seems to me it should be. Damn right it should be. Why not? Because President after President, Democrat and Republican alike, with Congressional blessing, urging even, has screwed AMTrak until it had just enough to survive on. This country at one time had a massive passenger rail system. With the advent of air travel and then the interstates, rail travel became "obsolete". This rail system was, IMO, the single biggest factor in keeping this country productive and able to out produce its enemies in WWII. Said a German POW held in the Mid West, as he looked out and saw a UP Big Boy (250 tons or so) pulling what seemed a never ending train, "If this country can make that, there must be more, and if so, Germany will lose." The NorthEast Corridor (Boston to D.C., basically paralleling I-95) is the backbone of AMTrak in the east. This corridor is literally one disaster away from being inoperable due to cuts in funding. Not helping the cause were the Acela trainsets, which in June turned up with 30% failure rate in the brake rotors. If we funded passenger rail between cities enough to keep the service dependable for two years maximum, ran it at rates and times which made it worth the lack of independance given by a personal vehicle, we could actually have a rail system worth talking about. Whats more, since it runs on freight trackage, the upgrades for passenger trains would improve the service of hotshot freights, such as mail, UPS, fresh produce, etc. Union Pacific has entered a multi year plan to upgrade and build new terminals. This began as a result of having to GIVE UP a contract with United Parcel Service, due to more traffic than the major lines in its system could handle. The track was fine, but the amount of room for all the freight cars was just not there. If AMTrak were in a position to do so, they could contract with UP to assist in the improvements if given trackage rights. However, In the case of AMTrak, it has always been a struggle between free enterprise and governmental subsidy of passenger rail. Its time government took its "we know better" attitude and used it to improve not only our rail system, but our energy policy as well. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > Suddenly, without warning, miles exclaimed (02-Sep-05 6:46 AM): >> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > jmc There just isn't the demand for rail if you have a car. We're in upstate NY and have relatives in Chantilly, VA. We've looked at taking a train down. On top of being considerably more expensive than taking our care, not to mention the convenience of having our car when we get there, the trip was over 24 hours. Shoot, we drive it in 6. Let's see. Slower, more expensive, less convenient. Three great reason to hop on. Now if you don't have a vehicle that's another story. >> Why is this not possible in the US? Seems to me it should be. > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >took its "we know better" attitude and used it to improve not only our rail >system, but our energy policy as well. > There just isn't the demand for rail if you have a car. Precisely why we as a nation, and AMTrak as a transportation industry, need to change the mentality regarding transit. Individuals need to look at spending more time and less fuel, and AMTrak needs to upgrade its product. But then, I already said that. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > There just isn't the demand for rail if you have a car. We're in > upstate NY and have relatives in Chantilly, VA. We've looked at [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >>rail >>system, but our energy policy as well. Suddenly, without warning, Steve Scott exclaimed (02-Sep-05 10:04 PM): > There just isn't the demand for rail if you have a car. We're in > upstate NY and have relatives in Chantilly, VA. We've looked at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > reason to hop on. Now if you don't have a vehicle that's another > story. See, that's what I mean! I remember being on the last trip of the last passenger train to go through my hometown on the D&H lines. My brother was a babe in arms, so that'd make it - late 60's I guess. 24 hours is pretty excessive. I wouldn't mind if it took a bit longer than 6 hours - say 10 or even 12 - because the hassle's still less than driving. As long as the price is right. It costs a bit to go to London on the train - equivalent of about $130 for a saver fare round-trip last I did it (I've seen specials for 19 quid) - but as the ride's less than 3 hours, and there's a complete lack of aggravation involved with the 5 hour drive first on the motorway, then into the city. Get there early, and you can even get a seat with a table. And some trains even have wireless internet now! I'd take the train to NY all the time, if we had the same service in the US. Heck, I'd take it anywhere (which is what we do here. Off to York tomorrow). I'm not sure that gov't subsidies is the way to go though - down that path lies socialism, which while not evil, isn't the way *I* want our country to go. Why can't AMtrack make a profit on their own? jmc Good question. >I'm not sure that gov't subsidies is the way to go though - down that >path lies socialism, which while not evil, isn't the way *I* want our >country to go. Why can't AMtrack make a profit on their own? Why can't AMtrack make a profit on their own? Because it wasn't designed to do so. AMTrak is the orphan of the rail bankruptcy of the NE U.S. in the 1970's. AmTrak started with junk facilities, and a promise to fund rehab work until it could survive on its own. This has never been fully realized because the Feds consistantly underfund it. Compared to what it began with, AmTrak is shorter on routemiles, barely more modern, and headed for complete bankruptcy. Meanwhile, ConRail, the freight entity created at the same time, was funded consistantly until it was able to turn itself into a profitable corporation owned by the federal government. Since the government (in theory) isn't supposed to own something where the private sector would be in competition, ConRail was offered to the highest bidder in the 90's (IIRC). It was eventually split between two railraods, CSX Corp, and Norfolk Southern. AmTrak's biggest problem, IMO, has been the lack of trackage it can call its own, usually sharing route miles with freight rail. In many cases it uses the rail lines owned by freight railroads. Thus it is at the mercy of the freight roads in terms of scheduling, stations, and at times, motive power. If this country changes its attitude towards how AmTrak is structured, and towards energy policies that don't have long term goals, maybe AmTrak will work. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > Suddenly, without warning, Steve Scott exclaimed (02-Sep-05 10:04 PM): >> There just isn't the demand for rail if you have a car. We're in [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > jmc > Why can't AMtrack make a profit on their own? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > underfund it. Compared to what it began with, AmTrak is shorter on > routemiles, barely more modern, and headed for complete bankruptcy. Well said. > Meanwhile, ConRail, the freight entity created at the same time, was > funded consistantly until it was able to turn itself into a profitable [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the freight roads in terms of scheduling, stations, and at times, motive > power. Very true especially in CT, they are stuck behind locals all the time. > If this country changes its attitude towards how AmTrak is structured, and > towards energy policies that don't have long term goals, maybe AmTrak will > work. Very true but they need some people in there that know how to run a railroad. A politically appointed board of directors that changes with administrations does it no good either. For Steve Scott this is where I first ran into Haley Barbour, he was appointed to the Amtrak BoD. Didn't know sh.t about railroad but that didn't stop him from f.cking it up. Roy >> Suddenly, without warning, Steve Scott exclaimed (02-Sep-05 10:04 PM): >>> There just isn't the demand for rail if you have a car. We're in [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> >> jmc Sadly, even though David Gunn speaks factually and without reserve, the Feds STILL aren't doing much to fix Amtrak. Consider that if the NE Corridor had trains AND track capable of the suggested speeds that the Acela can reach, we would have round trip service from Boston to D.C. 4-5 times during working hours, and up to ten times a day. Think about how many cars that would remove from I-95. Think about the number of ball games within reasonable time/distance, let alone the possible implications for saving commuter traffic, and the boon to business. Now think about how nicely a line from Philly to Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, through Ohio and on to Chicago would work. Then drop one from Chicago to the Gulf.... wait, we had this once, and it worked wonderfully. hmmm........ SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> Why can't AMtrack make a profit on their own? >> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >>> >>> jmc > Sadly, even though David Gunn speaks factually and without reserve, the > Feds STILL aren't doing much to fix Amtrak. > > Consider that if the NE Corridor had trains AND track capable of the > suggested speeds that the Acela can reach, The tracks are there. If you spec the trains correctly you could max out the Acela. Once again Amtrak needs people that know how to run a railroad, The reason max speed can't be reached is due to the size of the cars. They are supposed to tilt as they pass through curves at high speed, in tilt mode they foul the adjacent track. So speed is reduced. Roy > supposed to tilt as they pass through curves at high speed, in tilt mode > they foul the adjacent track. So speed is reduced. Thats what I mean by having the track to do it. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> Sadly, even though David Gunn speaks factually and without reserve, the >> Feds STILL aren't doing much to fix Amtrak. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Roy Suddenly, without warning, Roy exclaimed (03-Sep-05 1:17 AM): >>Why can't AMtrack make a profit on their own? >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Roy Hey, why doesn't someone just offer a boatload of money for someone competent from the UK or Europe to help fix the US train system. Oh, wait. Maybe Europe. I'm impressed with the breadth of the British rail system, but not the quality. For example, 40 minute train ride once took nearly two hours because there were *leaves on the tracks*. In fall. In England. Duh! Did that incident this summer where a couple of passenger trains got stranded, and they wouldn't let people out of the cars until they started passing out from the heat? ::sigh:: Tho usually, we've had no problems. It was smooth sailing to/from York today, beautiful sunny hot (for here) weather. I've had few problems on the London train, no more than I've had travelling by air, anyway. jmc Suddenly, without warning, jmc exclaimed (04-Sep-05 10:38 PM): > Suddenly, without warning, Roy exclaimed (03-Sep-05 1:17 AM): > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > jmc Duh. What I meant to say is, "Did that incident this summer where a couple of passenger trains got stranded, and they wouldn't let people out of the cars until they started passing out from the heat *make the news in the US*?" hump. jmc > Suddenly, without warning, Roy exclaimed (03-Sep-05 1:17 AM): >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Hey, why doesn't someone just offer a boatload of money for someone > competent from the UK or Europe to help fix the US train system. > Oh, wait. Maybe Europe. I'm impressed with the breadth of the British > rail system, but not the quality. For example, 40 minute train ride once > took nearly two hours because there were *leaves on the tracks*. In fall. > In England. Duh! That would be Conex. They were running the british rail until they were thrown out. IIrc they run a number of railroads throughout the world. Even here is the US Roy Get real: How many public (mass) transit systems are not subsidized (i.e. they don't "loose" money)? Our roads are built and maintained by taxes (If you need to pay for a car, fuel and insurance that's about $8,000 per year, so the taxes on that are at least $800) Forestry roads operate at a loss. I wonder how much the US Forest Service spends building and maintaining roads for the lumber companies? Ferries, Mail: loss, loss. Even sidewalks operate at a loss. It is to the benefit of most of the country to have efficient transportation and better air quality. Granted, government is terrible at running things, but wasn't it private enterprise ruined rail transport in North America even after huge land grants (public subsidy)? b/t/w, Which mode of transportation is by far the most deadly? An interesting tidbit from my life in Vancouver, Canada. - Public transit to/from work about 15-20 minutes (ea. way) $6 /day - Diving fuel cost (8500# GVW 3/4 diesel 4x4 pu) about 15 to 45 min. (ea. way) + 8 minute walk from parking $3-5/ day - Walking: 50 to 65 minutes (ea. way). $ 0 Thanks for your ears. > Why can't AMtrack make a profit on their own? > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > towards energy policies that don't have long term goals, maybe AmTrak will > work. > An interesting tidbit from my life in Vancouver, Canada. > - Public transit to/from work about 15-20 minutes (ea. way) $6 /day > - Diving fuel cost (8500# GVW 3/4 diesel 4x4 pu) about 15 to 45 min. > (ea. way) + 8 minute walk from parking $3-5/ day > - Walking: 50 to 65 minutes (ea. way). $ 0 Did you including the driving/walking to get from your house to public transit and from public transit to/from your work? I live in the suburbs. Public transportation doesn't work well where homes and business are spread out all over the place. It would take me about 1 1/2 hours each way to get from my home to my work 12 miles away and require about 4 bus changes. I'd also have to drive about 3 miles to the bus stop. Suddenly, without warning, miles exclaimed (18-Oct-05 5:20 AM): >> An interesting tidbit from my life in Vancouver, Canada. >> - Public transit to/from work about 15-20 minutes (ea. way) $6 /day [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and require about 4 bus changes. I'd also have to drive about 3 miles > to the bus stop. Or you could walk the 3 miles to the bus stop. It's not that far, I'm guessing Bob's walking estimate is about that distance. Or, something that nobody's considered yet, ride a bike. It's nearly as free as walking, and a good bit faster. In some place, you could probably ride a horse, but that's the wrong ng :) jmc >> An interesting tidbit from my life in Vancouver, Canada. >> - Public transit to/from work about 15-20 minutes (ea. way) $6 /day [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and require about 4 bus changes. I'd also have to drive about 3 miles to > the bus stop. I tried public transport, once. I have a 21 mile commute. There's a train stop not too far from my house, 2~3 miles, has a nice parking lot. The train takes about 30 minutes to get downtown from my stop, not too bad, but work is about 6 miles from downtown, the bus ride takes another hour. Never again. I'm lucky: Bus stop is less than 2 blocks from my residence and I work about 2 blocks from the "Skytrain" that I transfer to from the bus. The "walking to" time was included. I would ride a bike, but there's no shower/changeroom or bike locker at work. And though I do bike frequently - even on highways, and have biked to work a couple of times on the weekend, the rush-hour traffic (drivers) on this route frighten the #### out of me. (btw, I was run off the road last weekend by someone "driving" a moving van along most of the bike lane where I was riding at 35-40kph. I managed to keep riding through the grass tho!) Yes, public transportation works best in concentrated areas. When I was going to college (and could barely afford a car) we car-pooled because the 20-50 minute drive was a 1.5 to 2 hour 3-bus trip (worse after 19.00h). That being said; It's kind of a chicken-and-egg situation. Make it easier cheaper and less stressful to use p.t. and more people will. Make it hard and businesses will relocate to the suburbs because of increased traffic. Then the cross-commuting will compound the problem. >> An interesting tidbit from my life in Vancouver, Canada. >> - Public transit to/from work about 15-20 minutes (ea. way) $6 /day [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and require about 4 bus changes. I'd also have to drive about 3 miles > to the bus stop. > Like I said, it is not perfect but unless you have money or insurance here, > you get nothing at all. Not true. All states have a HCCCS if you know what that is. Plus they have the county Dr's and hospitals that provide free or low cost care. There are numerous other programs for those that bother to seek it. Decent health care for most is better than lousy health care for all. > $3.24 a gallon for regular unleaded here. Will probably be higher tomorrow. As of tonight regular runs $2.65 to $3.09 across metro Phoenix. He's not so far off with his assessment. Do you know of anyone in GB over 60 getting kidney dialysis? Not available to those over 60. >> > Actually, much of that taxation is used to fund their national health >> > system. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >LOL, once again, you talk out of your a.s with no actual knowledge. Suddenly, without warning, miles exclaimed (01-Sep-05 2:06 AM): >> Actually, much of that taxation is used to fund their national health >> system. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Oh yes, that wonderfull socialized health care fiasco in the UK. No > thanks. Actually, London has a "congestion charge" to reduce driving in the city. Don't remember the exact amount, but I think it just went up to £8 per day (about $15). Don't know the answer as to where the gas tax goes. I do know that at least out here in the boonies, roads are repaired *before* they turn into a pothole-laden nightmare. Though I sometimes wonder if it's makework, because I've seen roads repaired that didn't look damaged at all. jmc > Suddenly, without warning, miles exclaimed (01-Sep-05 2:06 AM): >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Don't remember the exact amount, but I think it just went up to £8 per day > (about $15). No wonder the Queen has so much money ;-) > Don't know the answer as to where the gas tax goes. I do know that at > least out here in the boonies, roads are repaired *before* they turn into > a pothole-laden nightmare. Though I sometimes wonder if it's makework, > because I've seen roads repaired that didn't look damaged at all. Predictive road repair. "That looks like its gonna pothole, lets get it boys!" > jmc Suddenly, without warning, GeekBoy exclaimed (31-Aug-05 3:50 AM): >>Suddenly, without warning, Roy exclaimed (30-Aug-05 7:26 PM): >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Not really. If I am not mistaken, the fuel there is artificially inflated > due to taxation to help curb excessive driving and poultion "not really"? Yes, much of the gas price is tax, but we still have to pay it. And as far as excessive driving goes, I guess it's working. A high percentage of folks in this town don't even *own* cars, trains and buses are quite heavily used. >>That said, if prices keep going up, when we go back to the US in the >>spring, I can see the Dak making a nice lawn ornament. I could plant a >>vegetable garden in the bed :) >> >>jmc lack of current supply and ever increasing demand :-) SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Diesel jumped 20 cents to 2.79 from Sunday night to Monday morning. > Unfuckingbelievable! > > Roy > lack of current supply and ever increasing demand :-) That might be true if... it was true. Supply is fine, and demand is steady, according to all reports I've read. This years surge is being driven by the futures market, not the consumer market. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > lack of current supply and ever increasing demand :-) > >> Diesel jumped 20 cents to 2.79 from Sunday night to Monday morning. >> Unfuckingbelievable! >> >> Roy > > lack of current supply and ever increasing demand :-) > > That might be true if... it was true. Here we go again. > Supply is fine, and demand is steady, according to all reports I've read. LOL, unless those reports were written TODAY, they really don't mean sh.t. If the supply is fine as you say, why would the President be considering opening some of the national oil reserve? > This years surge is being driven by the futures market, not the consumer > market. If the price was purely based on people in the futures market speculating to drive the price up, the possibility of the President opening up the reserves would cause the price to plummet and that didn't happen. Perhaps you missed that hurricane yesterday and the damage it caused to some major supply lines. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > LOL, unless those reports were written TODAY, they really don't mean sh.t. > If the supply is fine as you say, why would the President be considering > opening some of the national oil reserve? Some of those reports were written today. Find me anything that says there is a shortage of oil. All I've read says, theres no shortage, just a huge investor pool that likes to speculate. As to the president, we all know why he's considering it. Political favor, insurance in keeping a good economy, etc. But I doubt it'll have any real effect on pump prices, since there is plenty of oil to be had. > If the price was purely based on people in the futures market speculating > to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that hurricane yesterday and the damage it caused to some major supply > lines. You missed it, the price DID drop over $2 a barrel on that news, and DESPITE the hurricane not suddenly disappearing. Damage to major supply lines, maybe, but all the refinery spokespeople are claiming minor damage. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > lack of current supply and ever increasing demand :-) >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that hurricane yesterday and the damage it caused to some major supply > lines. <snip> > You missed it, the price DID drop over $2 a barrel on that news, and > DESPITE the hurricane not suddenly disappearing. Damage to major supply > lines, maybe, but all the refinery spokespeople are claiming minor damage. You seem to miss something here, Max. There was over a million barrels per day refining production shut down along the coast prior to the hurricane hitting. That is lost gas/diesel/jet/ production prior to the storm. Then the storm hits and does whatever damage to the facilities it does. If it were heavy damage, it would take months to repair. If it were minor damage, then they only have to do system checks and get rid of the gators and snakes and make it safe to operate again. This could be days of inspection, testing and repair, if you had full crews and extra contractors. In the days of a regular plant shutdown/turnaround, all this workforce worked there butts off and went home after their shift or to the motel. Hello? The homes are gone. There are no hotels. Most of the infrastructure is gone. It is difficult to start a refinery with nobody to run it. Lots of companies are helping the communities by bringing in basic needs. Without that, people won't be able to work. Some of you out there think all you have to do is turn a key and a refinery starts. This ain't your sweet Dodge Ram CTD. LOL! Depending on the particular unit, it may take a week to 10 days to come up online and make on-test product. That is when no problems occur during startup. Some facilities took most of a month after the last hurricane went through Mississippi. Gasoline shortage? You will get your gasoline after the refiners outbid someone else for the tanker load of gas. Maybe you ought to feel good that you have a vehicle to put it in. Thousands in the South no longer do. SignatureFMB (only one B in FMB) [Cindy, slither home] > You seem to miss something here, Max. There was over a million barrels > per day refining production shut down along the coast prior to the > hurricane hitting. That is lost gas/diesel/jet/ production prior to the > storm. Didn't miss it at all, and apparently neither did the market, as the price on the trading day before landfall hit a high just over $70, and then dropped back just below $68 a barrel. If you read what I wrote, you'd see that I didn't miss that part, since I used that pricing to rebut a comment exactly like yours. > Then the storm hits and does whatever damage to the facilities it does. > If it were heavy damage, it would take months to repair. If it were minor > damage, then they only have to do system checks and get rid of the gators > and snakes and make it safe to operate again. This could be days of > inspection, testing and repair, if you had full crews and extra > contractors. True, but "days of inspection" are better than months of no production. According to what I was hearing mid afternoon, damage was "minor". Again, I said that before. > In the days of a regular plant shutdown/turnaround, all this workforce > worked there butts off and went home after their shift or to the motel. > Hello? The homes are gone. There are no hotels. Most of the > infrastructure is gone. It is difficult to start a refinery with nobody > to run it. Lots of companies are helping the communities by bringing in > basic needs. Without that, people won't be able to work. Ok, so the companies spend some of their profits and create the services needed to support employees. Not a huge hardship, given the size and resources of these companies. > Some of you out there think all you have to do is turn a key and a > refinery starts. This ain't your sweet Dodge Ram CTD. LOL! Depending on > the particular unit, it may take a week to 10 days to come up online and > make on-test product. That is when no problems occur during startup. > Some facilities took most of a month after the last hurricane went through > Mississippi. Great, so its a month instead of six. Again, We're talking about things I already noted. > Gasoline shortage? You will get your gasoline after the refiners outbid > someone else for the tanker load of gas. Maybe you ought to feel good > that you have a vehicle to put it in. Thousands in the South no longer > do. I'l repeat myself, I do not believe, based on almost all reports I've read and heard, that there is any shortage of motor fuel in this country. And yes, I feel good that I have a vehicle to put it in. Take note (because obviously you haven't) I have yet to complain about the cost of fuel. Do I like it? No. But at this point, I'm doing ok with it, and have no real hardship. Perhaps you should take that into account next time you decide to lecture me with a guilt trip. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > <snip> >> You missed it, the price DID drop over $2 a barrel on that news, and [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > that you have a vehicle to put it in. Thousands in the South no longer > do. > > You seem to miss something here, Max. There was over a million barrels > > per day refining production shut down along the coast prior to the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that I didn't miss that part, since I used that pricing to rebut a comment > exactly like yours. You didn't miss it, you simply didn't understand it. $2 is chump change and means nothing. > > Then the storm hits and does whatever damage to the facilities it does. > > If it were heavy damage, it would take months to repair. If it were minor [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > According to what I was hearing mid afternoon, damage was "minor". Again, I > said that before. Then you heard wrong. Until they get the flood water out of the way, there is no way to inspect and no idea how bad the damage really is so most of the reports that you hear right now are wishful thinking and simply bullshit. > > In the days of a regular plant shutdown/turnaround, all this workforce > > worked there butts off and went home after their shift or to the motel. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > needed to support employees. Not a huge hardship, given the size and > resources of these companies. It is a HUGE hardship as much of the area is still under water and there is no way to get building supplies into these areas. Then you can add the facts that there is no electricity, drinking water, or shelter nearby for the construction crews either and the problem becomes much larger than you want to see. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > You didn't miss it, you simply didn't understand it. $2 is chump change > and > means nothing. Thanks for jumping through the same hoop twice. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > You seem to miss something here, Max. There was over a million barrels >> > per day refining production shut down along the coast prior to the [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > the construction crews either and the problem becomes much larger than you > want to see. > <snip> >> You missed it, the price DID drop over $2 a barrel on that news, and [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Some facilities took most of a month after the last hurricane went through > Mississippi. I remember my younger days I did a temp job on a Mobil Oil turnaround. They had to wait a while before crews could start work on it. 2 weeks later they turned the unit back on and after about 10 days it was too hot for anyone to work on it anymore. End of job > Gasoline shortage? You will get your gasoline after the refiners outbid > someone else for the tanker load of gas. Maybe you ought to feel good > that you have a vehicle to put it in. Thousands in the South no longer > do. > > LOL, unless those reports were written TODAY, they really don't mean sh.t. > > If the supply is fine as you say, why would the President be considering [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is a shortage of oil. All I've read says, theres no shortage, just a huge > investor pool that likes to speculate. The futures market tells me all I need to see. Unless supplies in the NEAR future are going to be strained, the price cannot be driven up like that and the news today backs me up. > As to the president, we all know why he's considering it. Political favor, > insurance in keeping a good economy, etc. But I doubt it'll have any real > effect on pump prices, since there is plenty of oil to be had. Once again, you are completely wrong. 3 Refineries are under water and will not be restarting any time soon, there is currently NO production in the gulf at all, the mars platform is severely damaged and will probably be down for months and an entire 50 million dollar rig is MISSING. Now the President has said that he WILL tap the strategic reserves which would (if the price was driven up by pure speculation) cause a major price drop and again, that didn't happen. A $2.00 price drop means NOTHING and today, the price held at $70 a barrel. > > If the price was purely based on people in the futures market speculating > > to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the hurricane not suddenly disappearing. Damage to major supply lines, > maybe, but all the refinery spokespeople are claiming minor damage. There tune has now changed and $2 a barrel doesn't mean sh.t, not when we are up $20. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > LOL, a reserve for how long Max. These refineries could be down for > months > and who knows how long it will take to fully repair the infrastructure. > And > BTW, they had DAYS, not weeks to prepare. Um, no, they had weeks, its hurricane season, and they knew a week in advance that Katrina was coming into the gulf. Thus, they had at least ten days to figure it out, maybe more. I'm sure they have their own meteorological staff that helps them keep track of such things. As to the damage, I'm STILL not seeing anything that says the damage was more than minor to these refineries. What kills me is, y'all act like there are no refineries anywhere else in the U.S. >> Typically dozens of tankers sit waiting for a place to offload. > > Sure, and where are they going to offload too? Its a big country, and since Texas has terminals, as do states along the east coast. If the oil companies felt they had a problem, you can bet the tankers would be sent elsewhere to off load. > Yea, a buffer for a few days or even weeks, not months. Ok, so who says it'll be months? > Not only do you have to look at the futures market Max, you actually have > to > understand it and from what you are saying, you don't. Ahh yes, the ol' "you don't know what you're talking about, and neither do I, so I'll just insult you and leave my defense of my statements at that." How original. > If it were only this simple. It is that simple. > First of all, the only way that people could > drive uip the price this way is if the supplies are limited which > according > to you, they are not. Wrong. You obviously don't know how the market works. These people are buying a stake in the FUTURE of oil production, expecting that their investment will bear a return. They aren't buying a supply, they are buying (and risking) on a product yet to be produced. > Then there is a SIGNIFICANT risk of loss driving up > the price in a market that has a ready supply because someone else can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > beginning and I really don't have the time to list out point by point why > this is wrong and you really need to do a little reading. I have, but it seems you have not. > The only thing > that I will say that the only way for the futures of something to be > driven > up like this is because the near future availability of of the item is > believed to be in SHORT supply. The key word being "BELIEVED". > The price is always determined by the market Max. If people will not pay > the price that you want, then you lose money. But in the case of fuel, they keep buying, don't they? Thus, the spiral goes on. > The futures market tells me all I need to see. Unless supplies in the > NEAR > future are going to be strained, the price cannot be driven up like that > and > the news today backs me up. Except for that little word you used, "BELIEVED" ..to be in short supply. > Once again, you are completely wrong. 3 Refineries are under water and > will > not be restarting any time soon, Got a source on this? I keep hearing "minor damage". > there is currently NO production in the > gulf at all, Rubbish. 900+ platforms, and no production? > the mars platform is severely damaged and will probably be down > for months and an entire 50 million dollar rig is MISSING. Now the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the > price held at $70 a barrel. Paranoia reins supreme it seems. You're good at listing damage, bu say nothing of whats still working. All your info is speculative, with no sources listed. I've been watching MSN, among others, and so far, no reports on huge oil related damages. > There tune has now changed and $2 a barrel doesn't mean sh.t, not when we > are up $20. Up $20 from what point in time? Get it yet? This rise in price has been LONG TERM, not just from this week. I'd like to see you sources on refinery damage. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > LOL, unless those reports were written TODAY, they really don't mean > sh.t. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > There tune has now changed and $2 a barrel doesn't mean sh.t, not when we > are up $20. Apparently, pre-Kat, the refineries in the US have been running darned near to capacity. There haven't been any new refineries built in the US in far too long. Too many NIMBYers. >What kills me is, y'all act like there are no refineries anywhere else in >the U.S. While you are correct would you want one in your backyard? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Apparently, pre-Kat, the refineries in the US have been running darned > near to capacity. There haven't been any new refineries built in the > US in far too long. Too many NIMBYers. > > >What kills me is, y'all act like there are no refineries anywhere else in > >the U.S. Sure they can put one in my backyard. Sell them the whole property and they can have the front yard too. Seriously, there are MANY locations in the US where a refinery could be placed and the impact would be minimal. >While you are correct would you want one in your backyard? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >What kills me is, y'all act like there are no refineries anywhere else in >> >the U.S. > Apparently, pre-Kat, the refineries in the US have been running darned > near to capacity. There haven't been any new refineries built in the > US in far too long. Too many NIMBYers. Terrific, but to use that logic, a drop of 10% in production in the past week is being blamed for a 60% rise in cost over the past year. Simply isn't so. Fact is, global demand has driven the speculative market over the past year, not lack of refinery capacity in the past week. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > Apparently, pre-Kat, the refineries in the US have been running darned > near to capacity. There haven't been any new refineries built in the > US in far too long. Too many NIMBYers. > >>What kills me is, y'all act like there are no refineries anywhere else in >>the U.S. > Simply isn't so. Fact is, global demand has driven the speculative market > over the past year, not lack of refinery capacity in the past week. don't neglect the news media fueling the feeding frenzy if the media would STFU for a few days, prices would stabilize; instead, their constant harping leads operators to think 'hey, the news people have the general public believing it will go still higher, let's raise it another 20 cents........' It's both really. Anticipated increases in global demand while current world oil production is near its peak have driven up the oil futures. Nine consecutive weeks of a decrease in US gas stockpiles has also helped to drive up US gas prices. >> Apparently, pre-Kat, the refineries in the US have been running darned >> near to capacity. There haven't been any new refineries built in the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>>What kills me is, y'all act like there are no refineries anywhere else in >>>the U.S. > > LOL, a reserve for how long Max. These refineries could be down for > > months [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > days to figure it out, maybe more. I'm sure they have their own > meteorological staff that helps them keep track of such things. LOL, can you really be this stupid. Hurricanes are just about impossible to predict as to exact path and strength. Until it got there (into the gulf) they had no idea where it would wind up and when it did cross over Florida, it entered the gulf as a weak category 1. Then after it got there, they still had no idea how much stronger it would get OR it's path back out. At first they thought it would turn NE and hit Florida again. Like I said, at best they had DAYS and either way and until it actually made landfall, they still didn't know exactly where it was going to hit. BTW, refineries under water don't produce much and pipelines without power to their pumps transport NOTHING. > As to the damage, I'm STILL not seeing anything that says the damage was > more than minor to these refineries. While the damage may be minor, they don't have the power or personel to restart right away and many are still under water and cannot restart until the water is removed. > What kills me is, y'all act like there are no refineries anywhere else in > the U.S. The other ones are already under maximum proguction so what exactly do you expect them to do? And even if they could produce more, how exactly do you expect to get the product to where it needs to go? > >> Typically dozens of tankers sit waiting for a place to offload. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > east coast. If the oil companies felt they had a problem, you can bet the > tankers would be sent elsewhere to off load. LOL, yea, and they will get there when, in a week or so. And if these east coast and Texas refineries are already operating at maximum capacity, what exactly is this extra crude going to do for them? > > Yea, a buffer for a few days or even weeks, not months. > > Ok, so who says it'll be months? The news and the President. > > Not only do you have to look at the futures market Max, you actually have > > to > > understand it and from what you are saying, you don't. > > Ahh yes, the ol' "you don't know what you're talking about, and neither do > I, so I'll just insult you and leave my defense of my statements at that." I know more about this than you do. > How original. > > > If it were only this simple. > > It is that simple. Nope. > > First of all, the only way that people could > > drive uip the price this way is if the supplies are limited which [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > investment will bear a return. They aren't buying a supply, they are buying > (and risking) on a product yet to be produced. That is correct and that risk has to be founded in something. If as you and Miles say, that the supply is just fine, there would be no justification in taking that risk and at the first sign of trouble (like the President opening the national reserves) the price would crash just like it did with the tech bubble. > > Then there is a SIGNIFICANT risk of loss driving up > > the price in a market that has a ready supply because someone else can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I have, but it seems you have not. If you read it, you didn't understand what you were reading. > > The only thing > > that I will say that the only way for the futures of something to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The key word being "BELIEVED". That is correct and that belief has to be based on some facts and figures. The people that can afford to make these investments didn't get that money by being foolish. > > The price is always determined by the market Max. If people will not pay > > the price that you want, then you lose money. > > But in the case of fuel, they keep buying, don't they? Thus, the spiral goes > on. Sure, they keep buying, but they tend to buy less (and buy more fuel efficient vehicles) and if the reserves of gas increase, the price falls and these investors lose money. > > The futures market tells me all I need to see. Unless supplies in the > > NEAR [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Except for that little word you used, "BELIEVED" ..to be in short supply. Because it is with record low reserves BEFORE this disaster AND before the big holiday. > > Once again, you are completely wrong. 3 Refineries are under water and > > will > > not be restarting any time soon, > > Got a source on this? I keep hearing "minor damage". Just because the damage is minor doesn't mean that they can restart. Under water is under water and even if the water is only a few feet high, it is enough to prevent the refinery from restarting and if the pipeline is not operational, where exactly is the output going to go? > > there is currently NO production in the > > gulf at all, > > Rubbish. 900+ platforms, and no production? Don't tell me, talk to Shell. They made the comment on CNBC today. Did you forget about the evacuations on those platforms? > > the mars platform is severely damaged and will probably be down > > for months and an entire 50 million dollar rig is MISSING. Now the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Paranoia reins supreme it seems. You're good at listing damage, bu say > nothing of whats still working. Because if we are running at 100%, what is still working doesn't really matter. What matters is how much is no longer working and for how long. > All your info is speculative, with no > sources listed. I've been watching MSN, among others, and so far, no reports > on huge oil related damages. LOL, just look at the area and the aerial pictures. The place is a disaster with no housing, power, or water. Where are these people going to live who operate these refineries and how are they going to more the refined materials with the pipeline down, the roads under water, and no fuel for the trucks to transport it? > > There tune has now changed and $2 a barrel doesn't mean sh.t, not when we > > are up $20. > > Up $20 from what point in time? Get it yet? This rise in price has been LONG > TERM, not just from this week. I never said that it was all from this week. Roy made a complaint about the sudden jump in price of diesel this week and that WAS due to this storm. As for the $20 dollar increase, that was the past few months and was not due to pure speculation but was due to real problems with supply and demand. > I'd like to see you sources on refinery damage. Try CNBC, the local news, the President, CNN.... SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > LOL, can you really be this stupid. Hurricanes are just about impossible > to > predict as to exact path and strength. Yeah, thats why they are able to put a five day track on them, and pretty much nail the track dead on. If they are within 100 miles (and they were) on such a storm they nailed it. > Until it got there (into the gulf) > they had no idea where it would wind up and when it did cross over > Florida, > it entered the gulf as a weak category 1. Yeah, and everyone knows a hurricane over water gathers strength. Except you apparently. "Weak category 1" shows how much you actually know about this sort of thing. > Then after it got there, they > still had no idea how much stronger it would get OR it's path back out. It tracked almost exactly as NOAA had it on their websites. > The other ones are already under maximum proguction so what exactly do you > expect them to do? And even if they could produce more, how exactly do > you > expect to get the product to where it needs to go? You seem to think trucks and trains are the answer, so why ask me? > The news and the President. Let me get this straight, you believe the President on this issue, but everything else, from the economy to the Iraq War, you say h has no clue and doesn't have the facts. Is that how it works? > I know more about this than you do. Apparently not. >> The key word being "BELIEVED". > > That is correct and that belief has to be based on some facts and figures. > The people that can afford to make these investments didn't get that money > by being foolish. HAS to be? Yeah, I'm sure all the day traders know exactly what they are looking at. And I'm sure all the info sources have it right. Just like the President does this ONE time with your beliefs. > Don't tell me, talk to Shell. They made the comment on CNBC today. Did > you > forget about the evacuations on those platforms? And Shell owns ALL the platforms, right? > LOL, just look at the area and the aerial pictures. The place is a > disaster [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the > trucks to transport it? You'd be surprised what large industry can do when they see a profit opportunity. All those questions and more WILL be answered by the close of business Friday. BET on it. > Try CNBC, the local news, the President, CNN.... Yeah, I listed CNN as one of my sources, and here you are contradicting it. You list the president as a reliable source, which contradicts anything you've said about the man in recorced history, and expect me to believe what you say. Laughable at best. Please post 25 times in response to this, I want to see you top 100 worthless posts to this thread. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > LOL, a reserve for how long Max. These refineries could be down for >> > months [quoted text clipped - 219 lines] > > Try CNBC, the local news, the President, CNN.... > > LOL, can you really be this stupid. Hurricanes are just about impossible > > to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > much nail the track dead on. If they are within 100 miles (and they were) on > such a storm they nailed it. LOL, yea, within their 100 mile cone of uncertainty. The problem with that is that 100 miles makes a HUGE difference in the amount of damage. You do know that, right? And on top of that, do you really want tankers in port with an approaching hurricane? > > Until it got there (into the gulf) > > they had no idea where it would wind up and when it did cross over > > Florida, > > it entered the gulf as a weak category 1. > > Yeah, and everyone knows a hurricane over water gathers strength. LOL, that is not true. Hurricanes over WARM water gain strength but that is not the only condition and although they gain strength, there is no way of knowing how much. They predicted a strong 3 or possibly a 4 not the 5 that it became. > Except you apparently. "Weak category 1" shows how much you actually know about this > sort of thing. Still apparently far more than you do. > > Then after it got there, they > > still had no idea how much stronger it would get OR it's path back out. > > It tracked almost exactly as NOAA had it on their websites. Yea, within their 100 mile possible deviation and no idea of how strong it might become. > > The other ones are already under maximum proguction so what exactly do you > > expect them to do? And even if they could produce more, how exactly do > > you > > expect to get the product to where it needs to go? > > You seem to think trucks and trains are the answer, so why ask me? Because you claim to know everything. Trucks and trains are an emergency solution but you keep saying that the impact is minimal so perhaps you know something that everyone else doesn't. > > The news and the President. > > Let me get this straight, you believe the President on this issue, but > everything else, from the economy to the Iraq War, you say h has no clue and > doesn't have the facts. Is that how it works? And you claim that he is right about everything and now he is lying, LOL. That door swings both ways Maxi. The difference here is that the damage is obvious and the reports back him up this time. > > I know more about this than you do. > > Apparently not. Wrong again, but why spoil a near perfect record. > >> The key word being "BELIEVED". > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > looking at. And I'm sure all the info sources have it right. Just like the > President does this ONE time with your beliefs. That is right, the belief HAS TO BE based of some facts and figures or they are fools and would be soon parted from that money. Having some facts and figures does not mean that they know everything and things can change AND the can simply be wrong but playing the futures market is MUCH more involved than just making lucky guesses as you seem to indicate. > > Don't tell me, talk to Shell. They made the comment on CNBC today. Did > > you > > forget about the evacuations on those platforms? > > And Shell owns ALL the platforms, right? Why would they be any different than the rest of them? > > LOL, just look at the area and the aerial pictures. The place is a > > disaster [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > opportunity. All those questions and more WILL be answered by the close of > business Friday. BET on it. Of course they are going at it for all that they are worth but there are limits to even what the big oil companies can do and it all costs money. People still need food, water, and shelter and until a temporary infrastructure can be set up to support these needs, not much is going to happen and I doubt that business is going to close for them on Friday. > > Try CNBC, the local news, the President, CNN.... > > Yeah, I listed CNN as one of my sources, and here you are contradicting it. > You list the president as a reliable source, which contradicts anything > you've said about the man in recorced history, and expect me to believe what > you say. Laughable at best. LOL, believe what you want to Max, you are still wrong. As of 10:00AM on CNBS, 91% of crude production in the gulf has been reported as stopped which is considered significant to me. Reports now indicate that up to 20 platforms are missing and the ones still there are just beginning to undergo inspections. So much for minor damage. > Please post 25 times in response to this, I want to see you top 100 > worthless posts to this thread. PKB. BTW, you are getting very predictable and it has become expected that when you find yourself on the losing end of an argument or discussion that you begin saying things like you did above. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > LOL, yea, within their 100 mile cone of uncertainty. The problem with > that > is that 100 miles makes a HUGE difference in the amount of damage. You do > know that, right? And on top of that, do you really want tankers in port > with an approaching hurricane? The only problem with a 100 mile wide prediction is foolish people who gamble regardless. If you find that a hurricane is tracked within 100 miles of you, get the f.ck out, its that damn simple. Its also very wise, given that even within that 100 miles damage is inevitable, no matter the level. You do know that, right? As to the tankers, WTF, are there no other ports? I think we've done this Q&A before. You do know THAT, right? >> Yeah, and everyone knows a hurricane over water gathers strength. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that > it became. Actually, it was a Cat 4 when it hit landfall, according to the Weather Channel, less than Camille, which was a Cat 5. However, I fail to see what diffference 131 MPH or 155MPH makes to most buildings; both will knock the crap out of a house. Thus your point about what category Katrina may have been is... well moot at best. > Yea, within their 100 mile possible deviation and no idea of how strong it > might become. Well, they predicted a strong Cat 4, and thats what it was. They had a track that put it well into the Gulf and turning north, and thats what it did. I'm amused that you are blaming the supposed inaccuracy of the NOAA and the Hurricane Center for your inability to prove a totally different point. > And you claim that he is right about everything and now he is lying, LOL. > That door swings both ways Maxi. The difference here is that the damage > is > obvious and the reports back him up this time. Never said he was lying, I just figure on most things he's a mouth piece trying to say the right thing. I find it amusing that you, OTOH, will blast him for anything, then rely on his words to prove your weak points. BTW, if you recall, I have said over and over that he was wrong to invade Iraq, although I can see positives to having done so. But you knew that, right? >> And Shell owns ALL the platforms, right? > > Why would they be any different than the rest of them? Because different compaines have different operating policies, different locations, and different equipment. But you knew that, right? > Of course they are going at it for all that they are worth but there are > limits to even what the big oil companies can do and it all costs money. > People still need food, water, and shelter and until a temporary > infrastructure can be set up to support these needs, not much is going to > happen and I doubt that business is going to close for them on Friday. Ya know, if an oil company can feed, house, and employ hundreds of men 60-100 miles out to sea, I'll bet they can do the same on land. Its not gonna be as difficult as you make it out to be. > LOL, believe what you want to Max, you are still wrong. As of 10:00AM on > CNBS, 91% of crude production in the gulf has been reported as stopped [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > undergo > inspections. So much for minor damage. I was speaking about the refineries. So far, you haven't mentioned anything about them, you just keep dodging the issue and talking about other stuff. So they lost 20 out of 950, its still not the major losses you claim. Had a chat with my broker today. I asked him what he thought of the oil prices. He said he figured the Gulf and Katrina were minor factors in a global economy and that prices were up for now due to the storm, but would gradually tail off in October, but never be lower than $2 a gallon again. He also took issue with the predicted $4 per gallon, saying he felt that perhaps eventually it would go there, but not in the forseeable future. He mentioned that refineries were running at near capacity, but that he expected the companies would bounce back fairly easily on that issue. This guy has made a small fortune for my grandparents, thus I don't particularly give a damn if you take issue with what he says. As far as I can see, he knows his sh.t, and thats good enough for me. Please continue your posting frenzy, and be sure to insult my dead grandparents and their very much alive broker while you are at it. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > LOL, can you really be this stupid. Hurricanes are just about > impossible [quoted text clipped - 146 lines] > when you find yourself on the losing end of an argument or discussion that > you begin saying things like you did above. >>As to the president, we all know why he's considering it. Political favor, >>insurance in keeping a good economy, etc. Tell us why Gore wanted to tap the reserves when gas prices rose during his campaign? Tell us how it wasn't pure politics. > Now the > President has said that he WILL tap the strategic reserves which would (if > the price was driven up by pure speculation) cause a major price drop and > again, that didn't happen. A $2.00 price drop means NOTHING and today, the > price held at $70 a barrel. Geez TBone are you that ignorant? A puny release of US oil reserves to help a few local refineries isn't going to affect the global futures price of oil more than the $2 it did. Domestic oil prices flucuate only short term and will always follow the global futures market for the longer term. >>>As to the president, we all know why he's considering it. Political >>>favor, >>>insurance in keeping a good economy, etc. The above are my words. Regardless, there are two reasons for a president to tap the reserves, 1) political favor, 2) economic gain or stability. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message