Gas Prices

Dependence in any non domestic fuel is bad
So what do we do?
You could walk, but that is to far for most
The main problem is mobile energy sources

In every car we have a power plant
One of the easy solutions would be to cut down the number of power plants or install a smaller version

We could look at joining the cars into a train but how and who pays is a problem

Anyway some driving tips

Slowly accelerate
Brake as little as possible
Do not fill the car up any more than you have too (why carry around the weight of extra fuel)

Wear more or less clothes depending on the temperature
(AC costs, heating costs)

Try to keep the weight of your car to a minimum
Check the cars aerodynamics (cut down on air friction)
Silly stuff like shiny paint can help

Most of that is obvious anyway
Wonder how much I lose carrying around hubcaps
I will keep the spare tyre

Good to know your MPs are no worse than ours

I don?t have to imagine living in a city without a meaningful mass transit system

Solar power needs to be researched it will get there
Wind is too unpredictable
But sails may help especially with getting away from the hurricane

I don?t have any kids to worry about thank god
Now Neil don?t take that the wrong way it is just a saying

$30,000 a year is that all IT pays over there?
Damn

May have to move

Want to hear something funny

We will be having elections here this year
It makes no difference who gets into power
They will be spending the time covering their Asses

Fuel is up
Power is up and the supply will fail at some time this year
Interest rates are up
Food is up
Unemployment is up
Wages are down (yay opps no boo)

Not the best time for any government
Gen Y will be a big help too
How I don?t know
But they are young let them walk

Rick the war is not that far away
Supply or resources much the same thing
But it is hard to fight a war without them

by Member 25348569 Jun 21, 2008

from our nice people at the Ministry. What they would REALLY like is for us all to walk everywhere.

Keep the tyres - that's tires to you guys - pumped up to pressure.

Open the window and turn off the aircon in town or below 40mph. On the motorway - freeway - windows up and on with the aircon.

Keep the air filter clean.

Make sure that the engine - lube - oil is clean.

if your cars a manual gearbox - stick-shift - watch the revs and change up before 2,500rpm.

Avoid short journeys as the catalytic converter won't warm up.

Thank God I live near a main-line train station. :)

I am sure you are a godsend to some people

Cheers Steve
PS I will pray for you
Now where is my wallet

Your suggestions are helpful, but not enough.

What we need is a more comprehensive solution. One that includes more drilling, more nuculear, more solar, more biofuels, more of everything.

The probem is that the solution does require a little of everything but there is always some group that will kill each part of the solution.

I wasn't referring to my salary (I make alot more than that).

But imagine being a single parent, having a kid or two, and maybe working as some minial office worker making $30,000.

Think about this for a second. Over here, the Democrats are typically the party of the "poor".

Yet the Democrats solution so far seems to be "grin and bare it" or "suck it up".

Sort of iroinic.

I really don't think rich people get it.

Let's do some math. Say you drive 12,000 miles a year (probably average). Say your car gets 25 miles per gallon (probably average). That means you'll use 480 gallons of gas a year. If gas has gone up $2 a gallon recently, that's an additional $960 a year out of your pocket.

Multiple that by two if you're married.

Ouch!

Now, $960 to me is an inconvenience. $960 to some people breaks the bank.

And that's $960 a year only for gas in the car. Add on increased food costs, increased heating and cooling for the home, and increased inflation.

The real income of most people in society today is shrinking. Bottom line, you make less every year. End of story.

by tearat Jun 23, 2008

I thought it was a bit low

Since I am not a US citizen
I would not try to influence your vote
Unlike some of the TR members who live on the northern side of one of your borders

AS a rule I see politics as a waste of time
In NZ we have two main political parties
Labour and National

Labour has its origins in the labour movement
National the older is more towards the business side

Both are trying to occupy the middle ground
So we have very little choice

The minor parties hold the balance of power
The last two governments have been coalitions

But thanks for the info

Yes I think it is real stupid to be dependant on 1 source of fuel
There should have been real competition to oil 20 years ago

What we are seeing now is the result of low oil prices for too long
Every part of our societies will have to adjust
But it is always the people on low incomes who foot the bill

Nice to see that you find more in being resourceful than most do. Well done, you would fly through the 1 tonne reduction program by Suzuki.

Your comments:

"Dependence in any non domestic fuel is bad"
Is Canada really condsidered foreign these days?

anyway, I agree with most of yoru post, though the filling up less is not such a great idea. Keepign your tank topped up provides two benefits.
1) longer vehicle life and lower emissions. Running low (1/4 or less) on gas makes your vehicle burn sludge from teh bottom of teh tank, this harms your injectors, thorwing off the emission system and also kills teh fuel filter, gums up the fuels lines, fuel rail and makes the injector pins stick. Your vehicles engine works harder with a low gas level than it does pulling the added weight of a full tank.

2) Safety, if in an accident, your vehicle has a far greater risk of fire, or explosion with a low or near empty tank of gas than it does with a full tank of gas.

There is no real benefit to running with a full tank of gas, however there is a greater safety risk and damage to the vehicles emission control system by running lower on gas.

Cheap gas doesn't burn efficiently, so regular doesn't cut it, supreme has FAr too many additives for most of todays motors and especially really old ones (where the added detergents in the gas will actually start causing gasjket leaks) a mid grade is usually the best option, even at a higher price, you will benefit in teh long run and it will run a little better in the short term too.

Yes
North America is a long way from NZ

Most cars are designed around half a tank I believe

So ? to ? is right for most cars
Good mechanics will check the filters regularly

?longer vehicle life and lower emissions?

You will have to explain that one
You would think a lighter car would use less fuel
Less fuel used would mean fewer emissions as a whole
Less weight would reduce the load on the vehicle components
But you may know something I dont

One other thing if you have sludge on the tank you may want to look at changing where you buy fuel

From memory
We have regulation that determine the level of impurities in fuel
So I guess you dont have those

Anyway a rough road will shake up the tank
Starting and stoping will cause the fuel to slosh around the tank
I think you may be a victim of a myth on that one

?Your vehicles engine works harder with a low gas level than it does pulling the added weight of a full tank.?

Well that makes no sense to me

?2) Safety, if in an accident, your vehicle has a far greater risk of fire, or explosion with a low or near empty tank of gas than it does with a full tank of gas?

Well it is impossible to keep the tank full but I guess safety costs like it always has
Again you may be a victim of a myth
Most of the time petrol needs to be compressed to explode

But overall the full tank thing is not that important
People can make up their own mind

One other thing OZ
Where does the fuel line leave the tank in your car?
Top or bottom?
Or if you like
At what level is fuel to low to be sucked from the tank?

by thechas Jun 21, 2008

I have read and heard several reports from people identified as oil industry analysts that increasing US oil production would have little or no impact on the price of gas in the US.

Even if they could start pumping oil from restricted areas tomorrow, the limited amount available combined with limits to how fast it can be extracted would make for only a small percentage increase in supply.

I read once that the total amount of oil available in ANWR is something like a 90 day supply of crude for the US.

The only way we are going to bring down the price of gas while we wait for alternatives is to reduce global energy consumption.

Chas

Oil pumped from under the land is easy
The pumps work ok with a minimum of attention and maintenance

Oil pumped from under the sea is different
You need a platform
Workers to run the platform
You have to ship the oil
On land you can pipe it

That is old and I am sure things have changed

But I doubt it is the same cost for land and sea wells

It is not an excuse but an observation

The other thing to think about is the risk to human life

I don?t think anyone wants cheep oil that puts people at risk
Sorry I know that is an easy answer and a cheap shot
Treat the safety part as a separate post
It is not meant to be a personal attack

Everyone has different needs
Some risk their lives all the time

It is only my opinion
Damn it I should just delete it

So, just because something would have little impact, we shouldn't do it?

Obama's position so far on US drilling is that it will take 10 years to get to market.

Ok, if we start now we'll have it in 10 years. But, the longer we wait, the longer it is until we get it.

It's kind of like someone who weighs 400 lbs saying that it will take too long to lose enough weight to have any meaningful impact.

Well, you have to start somewhere, someday.

You can get all the numbers here:http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html

Over the last 8 years there have been differing reports on the project, with each report providing seemingly less and less oil each time.

In essence, IF they get the go ahead today, they won't see a single drop for at least 10-12 years, and that is for teh initial/largest know reserve. There are quite a few smaller reserves, but each time an exploration project is allowed, it will take another 10 years before oil is produced.

Regardless if you get to drill or not, the global oil price will remain the same. Even if you pull it out at $3 a barrel, it will still be on the world market at $140 barrel.

If your theory is correct, in Canada we should be payign less for our gasoline that you do in the. [b]60% of your imported gas comes from Canada.[/b] With refineries just down teh street and a pipeline that runs from Alberta through to IOCO (about 15 mins from my house), we STILL pay a higher price for gas than the Americans we sell it to, and we mainly drill out own.

Will it be "enough"?

If everyone trades in for a hybrid TODAY, how much oil will be saved? Will it be enough to make sure we don't use it all up or that the price will never go up, or make a REAL difference in emissions?

Funny, how people don't realize how stupid their argument of "it won't be enough" or "it will take to long" really is, because it is not a valid reason for NOT doing anything.

That is EXACTLY how we got into this situation, people not willing to think long term or look at a bigger picture.

I still wonder why, with prices the way they have been in the UK, why no one over there ever invented anything using an "alternative fuel". Why hasn't Canada come up with this solution? Both are more liberal leaning countries, and both have bought into the whole man made global warming thing, so why are THEY not leading the way?

A bunch of small things add up to a lot. Ricks 400lbs example of a woman didn't get that big overnight. It was one twinkee at a time, over years.

First off, the price would drop like a homesick rock before we took one drop of oil out of ANWR, or anywhere else, because the speculators would get out of Oil faster than a boyfriend in an apartment at the approach of a husband.

Another thing that would happen is that it would end the current shortage of supply, bringing prices down further.

However, to see a difference at the pump, we would also need to build more refineries.

Then, if we built more nuclear plants, we could free up coal as a source of gasoline.

The solutions are out there, and they are easy. It just takes the element of CONTROL out of the hands of the socialists.

of people that are intentionally destroying our economy.

Why are we the only nation in the world that is not suppose to drill for our own oil?

If drilling is so evil, and we get 60% of our oil from Canada, then they must have sold their souls to the devil.

by mjd420nova Jun 21, 2008

Just because the demand will go down, don't think the prices will go down too. Once they reach $5.00 a gallon many of us will find other ways to get to work or find a job close enough to walk or bike to our jobs. There will always be the jobs that will require that we drive to a customers location to provide the service. This will entail the need for a service charge that includes a high fuel charge. Many of us will just skip these services and learn how to do it ourselves or just junk it and buy a new one. This will increase the amount of serviceable junk in our landfills. Here's a real misconception that has been perpetrated by the electrical industry. Compact floresent lamps are more efficent. Maybe they use less electricity for the amount of light they give off but you can't just toss them in the trash when they fail. NO, they contain mercury and are hazardous and will contaminate the land fills in no time. Do they tell you that in the advertising? Not a chance. The country's laws and taxes are passed and forced upon the middle class by the politicans and upper class people purposely to keep the middle and lower class just where thay are, on the edge of poverty, one paycheck away from homelessness. Will this ever change? No way, the rich are pulling the strings of the large corporations and politicans and will continue to do so until the people can take no more and revolt against the heirarchy that put them there. Politics corrupted democracy, no longer do the majority rule anything.

by notsochiguy Jun 23, 2008

I read that this past Memorial Day was one of the least traveled ones since they started keeping tabs on what people do.

So, presumably, you had less usage than anticipated demands had projected.

Additionally, prices usually spike for Memorial Day, pull back a smidge, and then spike again for 4th of July.

This year, the prices have just kept on climbing. So, a decrease in consumption (again, I haven't seen hard stats on this, so it could be erroneous) against projected use had no bearing on the price.

I also read this morning that oil speculators are probably going to drive the price of oil higher this week; despite assurances from Saudi Arabia that production will be increased to its highest level since the early 80's. The reasons being that there is a threat to production in Nigeria, and the turmoil in the Middle East.

So, you have one tangibly substantial claim (increased production), one 'maybe-kinda' claim (threat to Nigerian production) and one 'ummm---what's the difference between today and the previous 8000 years or so of recorded history' claim (Middle East Turmoil).

If this doesn't constitute price gouging/fixing (especially the Middle East turmoil reason...c'mon, that is just overtly throwing stuff against the wall and seeing if it sticks), I honestly don't think you could accuse anyone else of ever doing it.

I have no doubt that by the end of the year, one of the reasons the price of oil increases is because people are using less, so they need to buffer profit margins to equalize them to previous levels.

Thank heavens for the commuter train!!

by Former member Jun 21, 2008

If you reframe the way you look at war, then all wars have been fought over resources; the resource of food, the resource of peoples thought for religion, the resource of political control. Because resources of some type have been the cause of all war, what would happen if you (we) pressured our politician to place stricter controls on how resources are controlled?

Energy, oil costs in particular, are not controlled by the Arabs, etc. Oil is controlled by the futures market just like corn and other food stocks. An investor only need to put down one or two percent to purchase a future. Now what happens if laws are forced to be passed by the citizens mandating that an investor put up 30 - 50% of the cost of the future. This would reduce markedly the cost of oil and have the immediate impact of lowering oil and other energy costs.

Just a thought.

But in the waning days of the Clinton administration, they expired.

You used to have to put more down. I think we should revisit that, definitely.

by danlm Jun 23, 2008

Is just what you mentioned rickk..

I was thinking about this yesterday, you have McCain on one side wanting to open up drilling. You have Oboma on the other side wanting alternate fuels, but he also wants to put a higher deposit on the speculators.

Me, I want both. And both of those boobs want to heal america. Yea, if so. How about agreeing to do both. Cap the bloody speculators, open up drilling, and give incentives to invest in alternate energy.

It's not one single answer, and these morons still think it is. One answer gives us what we are at now. Screwed. It has to be all of the above. With the pushing towards renewable energy being heavily invested in. And when I say renewable energy, I don't mean just one form of it. All forms.

Dan

by rfink Jun 23, 2008

Increase the margin requirement won't solve the problem. The current margin is $4050 (www.nymex.com) per contract. A contract controls 1000 barrels therefore the margin is 4.05 per barrel or ~3%.

Increasing the margin requirements or decreasing the position limits will hurt the liquidity of the contracts which will increase the price swings both up and down.

Most traders believe that "the trend is your friend" and will long or short contracts accordingly. Professional investors and traders take emotion out of the equation, they don't care which direction oil moves just as long as it does.

The point being, if you punish the traders you punish the market. The futures market isn't going away, it serves a very valuable function. Investors don't cause price increases they react to the world around them.

by Former member Jun 23, 2008

What goes up, must come down; Spinning wheels gotta go round. Blood, Sweat, and Tears.

Regulation is the friend of no one, but deregulation has caused difficulties for many industries. Just about destroyed several.

Understand your point, but disagree.

by rkuhn040172 Jun 24, 2008

As do almost all the experts.

For many, many years we had higher margin requirements. Then, shortly after those requirements were lifted the price of oil shot up.

Any fungible comodity from corn to beans to gold to oil is traded on a futures market.

Futures markets serve as a kind of breaking mechanism on market prices.

When a comodity's supply is disrupted or threatened, futures traders buy up stock in that commodity betting on the worst, which drives up prices to what they *think* they will be when the worst happens.

The affect you *see* is the prices rising.

The affect you *don't see* is what would happen if there was no futures trading here are some examples:

1)Far more rapid price jumps and drops.
2)Inconsistancy of supply; shortages and gluts
3)Greater economic instability.

A real life example of this was when Katrina hit the gulf coast. Gas prices skyrocketed overnight, there were rampant shortages, gas prices were wildly different from state to state and they yo-yoed up and down.

Rather than attacking the speculators, we should be attacking what they are speculating about.

by Former member Jun 24, 2008

Norm :)

by dr dij Jun 24, 2008

when he wanted to pass laws if he becomes president to curtail speculating in oil.

If he's economically retarded and doesn't know the basics of markets or economics he shouldn't be president. If he is pandering then he knows better but is lying then he shouldn't be president either.

In either case this is a particularly stupid thing he suggested.

BTW I'm not a Republican.

by santeewelding Jun 21, 2008

Mentioned above: resources, resource war, resources required to fight war.

Nasty. Disagreeable. Number One.

by rkuhn040172 Jun 23, 2008

Why do we always put all our eggs in one basket?

Why can't we have more than one freaking basket?

More drilling, more investment in alternatives, crack down on speculators.

Isn't politics just ridiculous? They treat us like morons just for our vote then once elected, ignore us.

I think one election year we ought to do like those stupid internet emails. You know, those ones that say don't buy gas on a certain day.

I think the next election, we all should just stay home. That would be hilarious.

by tonythetiger Jun 23, 2008

I think we're heading to another great depression. I think there ARE people who are manipulating the world's economies... ALL of them... to their own end. Control of resources is just part of it... I think it's control of PEOPLE that is the goal.

Socialism is wrong. Liberalism is wrong. Ask yourself this:

Why aren't the people who are proposing that we all should live as paupers not doing so themselves?

Obviously they think they are better or more important than the rest of us, including those who they've duped into supporting them.

World war? I don't know about that... but there are some people that will need to be "put in their place" if anything remotely resembling personal liberty is to be had in the future, and there are people who are more than willing to put them there or die trying.

Prepare myself? Well, I have a garden, and some chickens, a good well and some canning supplies... Oh, and about 36,000 rounds of ammo so far :)

okay, its a heated rant, btu at least try to make some sense or offer a logical complaint.

Socialism is wrong. Liberalism is wrong.
So are democrats and republicans if you want to pick apart singular itens on an agenda. make sense for once.

"Why aren't the people who are proposing that we all should live as paupers not doing so themselves?"
Missed that article, please post a link or be more specific, such a blanket statement doesn't hold water.

"Obviously they think they are better or more important than the rest of us, including those who they've duped into supporting them."
Why? Who?

"personal liberty "
So you feel that it is your right to do as you please, there should be no laws or enforcement of such, there should be no essential community services such as healthcare, firedepartment, police force.

If people aactually WERE responsible, then we wouldn't have issues with resource management, would we. If we did, how would that be any different than the possible crisis that we are looking at today?

"Oh, and about 36,000 rounds of ammo so far"
Oh that'll be handy, been watching Deliverance? "git awf ma layand!"

Go sit by the crick and blow into your jug some more, Zeek. Billy Bob and Dusty's Boys will be along with the washboard, spoons and banjo shortly.

[i]So you feel that it is your right to do as you please,[/i]

as long as I am not harming anybody else.

[i] there should be no laws or enforcement of such, there should be no essential community services such as healthcare, firedepartment, police force.[/i]

Each should be responsible for his own health(care). Fire dept is infrastructure maintenance. Law enforcement is to investigate, try, and punish the reported violation of one's liberties by another.

If you (personally), think that I (personally), am violating one of your liberties, or are causing you any harm, then investigate, prosecute, and punish me (personally). Do not attempt to punish me for the alleged misdeeds of another person, unless you are willing to bear the consequences.

As this pertains to the subject, that means suing or taxing or fining a business is stupid, as all of the punishment is borne by the consumers, who are doing nothing except buying perfectly legal products or services in order to live their perfectly normal lives, and eventually, at least some of those consumers are going to react, in some cases fiercely, to what they see as blatant unfairness. Just be prepared is all I'm saying, because this is going to get dangerously close to many (more than you even have an inkling of) people's
definition of [b]enough![/b]

You don?t believe in political correctness do you?

I agree you are Anti American
So that means America stops at the border

Are all Canadians like you?

The ones I have met seemed to be very nice

Let me guess
You were born somewhere else

by half9 Jun 25, 2008

Have a look at 'The energy non crisis'on you tube and remember it was posted jan 07

Ethanol is good but if you look at the power output it is 25% less than petrol. So it should be at least that much cheaper.
Our govt is pushing it and selling it the same price as 91. So why bother buying it. But Joe Public does not do the homework and thinks its the green wonder, and our local tree huggers think its the answer too. And they are in govt

by tonythetiger Jun 23, 2008

operate outside US jurisdiction? How many more do you think there'll be when Obama tries to regulate them?

In other words, he's blowing smoke up your a$$ to get votes!

by Former member Jun 23, 2008

than done. If the investors choose to operate outside of US jurisdiction, as many American multi-nationals do, then tariff them very highly. If the product cant be sold, the price goes down and less expensive alternatives are sought.

by tonythetiger Jun 23, 2008

[i]then tariff them very highly[/i]

of the less wealthy among us are you willing to sacrifice?

by Former member Jun 23, 2008

were sacrificed in any war you can name? How many are being sacrificed now by doing nothing?

by rfink Jun 24, 2008

Tariff won't work because on the futures market traders buy and sell contracts not the actual product. The person holding the contract when it expires buys or sells the physical product.

Second point, tariffs are a cost of doing business and will be added to the price. They won't affect the tradiing of the contract at all.

by Former member Jun 24, 2008

is to work on the demand side. Less demand, lower price, and greater incentive to seek alternative energy.

"After reading the following two articles, I have come to the conclusion that the granola eating, hairy armpit, tree hugging crowd along with the professors, '60's flower power, and theoretical BS crowd just don't get it."

What don't your steroptypical granola eating, hairy armpit, tree hugging crowd along with the professors, '60's flower power, and theoretical BS crowd don't get?

It looks like they share the same view as you, a reduction in resources will benefit everyone. Creation of new energy sources etc.

First of all your sterotype is too broad to apply here;

What does eating granola and living healthy have to do with your sterotype?

What do women with unshaved armpits have to do with it?

"Tree hugging" is the nickname for a practice of preserving trees fro mclearcutting by forestry companies, how do THEY play part in your analogy?

To further lump professors, you didn't go to University I assume, have to do with your little rant?

60's flower power? Okay so you are proposing that pot smoking hippies from the 60's have something to do with it now? (possibly overlooking the fact that many of them own todays corporations.)

Theoretical BS crowd.....sorry the article you posted was 100% theoretical, simply conclusions someone reached based on culminating facts.

Who is it you are trying to attack?

health nuts? preservationists? scholars? community leaders?

You've included teh gamut in your rant but without any realistic or relevance to any of it.

In short, the article says very little other than specualation based on forecasting.

Well that and the fact that your system in teh US doesn't offer accurate milage comparissons.
In Canada we already base our mileage on how many litres are burned for every 100 kms.

Gas prices are still higher here than yours and we PROVIDE yours, mostly through a former crown corporation, sure there may be SOME 'towel heads' working for Petro Canada/BP but they are often even more Canadian than I am.

Just don't see the basis for your rant.

[i]"Oh that'll be handy, been watching Deliverance? "git awf ma layand!"

Go sit by the crick and blow into your jug some more, Zeek. Billy Bob and Dusty's Boys will be along with the washboard, spoons and banjo shortly."[/i]

Yeah, stereotypes are bad....

Loc's law #37: To know what someone will do, watch what he accuses others of doing.

You seem to have missed the fun in that, oh well, what else is new.

They can't share a similar view, it is US politics. In order to have any credibility you must be an absolute opposite party, opposed to all the other is doing with no allowable middle ground. you shoul dknow that by now.

"open up drilling, and give incentives to invest in alternate energy. "
increasing access to your resources does not provide incentive to seen alternate energy, a NEED for alternate energy will though.

YOu are seekign to solve your own monetary issues by getting a lower priced gasoline (which doesn't work, we provide 60% of your imported gas, I practically live on a pipeline and the refinery is just down the street, we have plenty of oil to sustain Canada however our prices are regulated by the world oil price so we are forced to pay more anyway, regardless of our resource availability).

In this case, increased product does not reduce demand or price.

My position is to not rely on any given source.

I'll make it easy.
1). Oil will ALWAYS be a requirement of induystrial nations. EVEN if we do not use it for transportation. It is beneficial to drill for more, otherwise we will be kissing everyones a$$ for it. Period.
2). Until a CHEAP(meaning that average citizens can afford it) alternate fuel transportation is developed, Oil WILL be needed. My guess, it will take 10 years for your average citizen to cycle into an alternate fuel vehicle. That is after the 10 years have passed to get them massively on the market so that used ones can be purchased. Thats 20 years turn around time. What, we sit with our thumb up our a$$ until that comes around? What, we ignore the resources we already have that we are not touching? Sorry, thats STUPID.
3). The tree hungers can't even agree on what alternate fuels to use. Add another 10 years to my second point because of those fkn morons.

Sorry, drilling is PART of the answer. Not relying on ONE source of energy IS THE ANSWER.

NONE SHOULD BE IGNORED. I repeat. NONE SHOULD BE IGNORED. All sources of energy should be aggressively pursued.

Completely disagree with you Oz, and I am not flaming you. Just flat out telling you your position will leave this nation and every other industrial nation like they are right now. FKED. And we will be FKED for 30 years with that position, if not longer.

Dan

by marlon.lewis Jun 24, 2008

Drilling for more oil sounds like a way to increase supply, but that's simplistic.

First, oil companies have leases for about 60 million acres of untapped land. They don't drill because they want the supply low.
Second, refineries are already near capacity, so without building more refineries, getting more oil thru drilling will bring about next to no gain since the oil companies would have a hard time bringing it to market.
Third, US uses about 20 million barrels a day, we produce about 5. Even if more drilling DOUBLED our production (ignoring the refinery problem for now), which it wouldn't even approach, we'd still be over a barrel, so to speak. High estimates say we would get about 1 million more barrels per day.
Fourth, if we started drilling today (and again, had enough refinery capacity), the first gas from that wouldn't hit your gas tank until about 2020.

So what's the point of drilling again? You are right, oil won't be going away, but more drilling would be throwing good money after bad, not to mention screwing up the environment more than we already have.

FYI, FactCheck.org offers support for all of these points.

Well the only validity I see in your argument at all is all based on your GUESSES as to how the automotive industry will develop.

[i]"My guess, it will take 10 years for your average citizen to cycle into an alternate fuel vehicle. That is after the 10 years have passed to get them massively on the market so that used ones can be purchased. Thats 20 years turn around time."[/i]

Why and can you explain how you derived on your claim. I know it's a guess but even a guess is based on some faction. if not your guess could be 100 years or 5 minutes and it would make no difference.

Why would it take 10 years to get them on the market, when the average development cycle is about 3-5 years?

Why would it take 10 years for people to adopt a new technology when past technology adoption shows a much faster adoption rate?

Those are the guesses I disagree with.

IF you were to find a fairly renewable resource for vehicles, kinda like Brazil already did, would you roil consumption not drop to the point where you could be practically self sustained by your own supply and a small amount of import from Canada?

ANWR, looking WAY too fer down the road for this topic, this is about the price of gas today, not that you could actually start drilling your first well 12 years from now, and what do you think your demand would be 12 years from now, you think that ANWR's first and largest supply will actually support your constantly increasing demand?
Do you know how many new cars hit the road each month?
In order to make any difference, you'd have to send a lot more Americans to Iraq so you can cull the herd a bit.

now if you could state your aggression without the useless tree hugger comments you'd have more credibility, what do TREE huggers have to do with wiser use of nonrenewable resources? Tree huggers are out there trying to save protected forests from being destroyed by foreign company's clear cutting them. Not too much relation between saving the forest and finding an alternate fuel source.

That is what is needed
Many of the alternatives do not suit

But a good choice would be hydrogen
Which can be easily produced by fixed energy sources

Weather based power will always be tricky

Solar power is a good choice for countries with deserts
But will need to be stored for night use

OIL is going to be a problem for along time yet

You can blame the car companies
They are the ones responsible for the problem
Can anyone tell me why there is only small numbers of alternative fuel cars on the market?

If you don't see the joke in that, it at least explains why you don't catch onto much around here and have so many problems with reading too deep into what has been said instead of getting a feel for the intent of the post itself.

is just dumb. Any tariff or tax is always passed down to the consumer.

Of course, that could be the intent, in which case I would say "At least have the balls to admit it"... at least we'd know who the real enemy is.

"for their own good", he says under his breath.

Is there a whole list you can link to? :)

I have about 55.

It had posted a heads up on libel but I think I see where you are going with it now so I've renegged my comments.

use their own products or purchase their products from over seas?

Which puts money back into the economy and which sucks money out of the economy?

With Canada as dependent on the US economy as it is, it is also in Canadas interest that we are not getting our oil from over seas.

Right now you drill your own oil, but you import the bulk of it. Again, most comes from Canada but another 40% comes from many other sources.

Canada also buys and sells oil, most of our sales are to the USA, and nobody is arguing the importance of our trade with the USA, don't start getting defensive.

No matter how much oil you get overseas, you will always get a greater benefit buying it from Canada and yes Canada benefits from selling oil, to whomever it is.

Canada also has options for oil sales to Europe though, which the US does not at this time, nor can you provide a supply as your own supply falls short of your own demand. the difference is, we are not dependent on your oil, incomes yes but that can be replaced with trade within the commonwealth and other allied nations.

What you and many others fail to recognize is that drilling ANWR is not going to reduce the cost for gas at the pumps.

Even if drilling started in ANWR, there is still going to be the same, ever increasing level of demand for at least 10 - 12 years until you can start producing your own there.

While it has been suggested that just the knowledge of your drilling would bring down prices, this is very hard to believe as nobody is going to be scared out of gouging by something that WILL be in the future. It will take a good 8-10 years later that other competitors start to see any increase in supply.

With the number of new vehicles put on the road each month, to think that a small increase in your own supply would have any effect on gas at the pump is a bit far fetched. By th etime you actually start seeing any oil out of teh ground, your demand will be so high that it will probbaly be worse than today.

The resolutions are to reduce the demand, reduce the need for oil and STOP FIGHTING THE DAMN WAR. War has been responsible for almost every unrealistic hike in history.

With the Taliban sabotaging the Afghan pipeline all the time, and a thinning force there to protect against sabotage, there is no way you'll see a price drop for a long time.
I know you are thinking that if you drill ANWR you would reduce/eliminate your demand in Saudi Arabia, but that's absurd; with the amount of oil you import compared to the amount you'll get from ANWR, when you need even more than you do today, they are simply not going to balance each other out.

ANWR is NOT the answer, it is a temporary solution, and even then it doesn't work because it is not an immediate temporary solution. It is just a stupid idea.

Drilling ANWR may be neccessary one day, it may produce some valuable oil for you, but it sure as hell isn't a solution for the current problem. That's just silly

if nothing else, is what I am concerned about.

Another note, just being silly here, but if it DOES take the alleged 10 years, at what point should we START?

I was not getting defensive about trade, or putting Canada down. We both benefit or we both get hurt.

If that 40% is taking our money and putting it into over sea markets, that is less money that stays in our system, and weakens us financially. When we are hurt, Canada is hurt.

We need to drill, just like Canada needs to drill.

No, it won't lower the price now, but it does work for the future.

It would be nice if SOMEONE would come up with an alternative for transportation, leaving that oil for industry instead by the time it comes on-line.

"Funny, how people don't realize how stupid their argument of "it won't be enough" or "it will take to long" really is, because it is not a valid reason for NOT doing anything."

It is NOT enough to solve today's problem, TODAY'S problem is what everyone is trying to solve. Undoubtedly your demand is going to increase to a point where you desperately NEED that oil, but it is nothing of value today. You need an immediate solution, ANWR is NOT it and therefore it is VERY relevant that it will not BEGIN to be available for 10-12 years.

That's just one well project too, other projects, far smaller will take about the same amount of time after each exploration contract is approved. It's just not a solution, end of story, not gonna help.

YOu want to explore and drill for future demand, which will be needed no matter what happens, then do so, but this is not going to solve or even help the existing problems.

Why don't you address the issue with the high prices today instead? High prices due to reduced supply available from the Middle East?

Why are prices so high? Because the pipelines are constantly being targeted by the terrorists. They know how to hit an American, in the pocketbook.

If you were not at war in the middle east, the oil problem would have less impact. If more troops were focused in Afghanistan still, perhaps the number of attacks on that pipeline would be reduced. Perhaps there would be a smaller Taliban and AlQaeda force.
Perhaps there would actually be some progress seen in the Middle East. That's not the case though, Americans were told to forget about Afghanistan because Iraq was the new threat. Well done, you can thank your BS leader for that one too.

Well Brazil does and they are completely self sufficient now, they all use Flex Fuel vehicles and burn Ethanol which is produced from the corn fields. Yeah I know, there is not enough land in the USA for you to do the same, therefore do nothing instead.

England, Canada and Europe are very big on alternate power.

Homes in Europe are FAR more energy efficient than home out here. People are FAR more resourceful but that is seen as socialist crap by most Americans...because it wasn't America's lead.

Vehicles in Europe have FAR smaller engines than in North America, vehicle engines are also more efficient that equally sized engines in North America.

As Neil pointed out, a focus here (econo box junko car) is available with a 2.0L as the smallest motor. In England the 2.0 is the largest motor. English versions also get better mileage, burn fuel more efficiently and last longer due to better engineering and build quality. Even my SUV, with a European motor is more efficient and puts out more horse power than the exact same SUV with the North American motor.

It costs more so they don't build them here, not only do people want better vehicles, they want the at a lower price. Can't be done, so they don't do it. In Europe people are used to paying a bit more for better quality and engineering in most products, therefore the manufacturer's meet a quality and efficiency demand instead of a cheap price demand.

This doesn't just go for cars, it holds true for clothing, homes, furniture and pretty much everything else manufactured. We buy Chinese, they buy German and Swedish and British.

We just don't get the same quality here, because people aren't prepared to pay for it, while WalMart and Target stores exists.

but all your examples show is high prices just means more economical cars.

These other countries that have had the outrageous prices intentionally inflicted on them by their governments hasn't brought about innovation to get off petrol. Why?

Links

Again you take an ounce of truth and run with it until it becomes a mountain of hope for you.

Brazil drills for oil, if you took even a second to look into it before arguing your point, you'd see the difference.

It's not about whether or not Brazil drills for oil, in any way shape or form. That argument is 100% irrelevant...forget it..no such problem..not what I am talking about.. clear it from your mind.

Okay now?

Brazil is the only country on earth that has become oil independent.

First the government mandated all cars be 15-20% more fuel efficient, burning more Ethanol based fuel, then it was 25%. Guess what, manufacturer's did it with relative ease, makes you wonder how doesn't it? not.

Now, they have the bulk of new cars run on pure Ethanol made form wheat mixed with smaller and smaller portions of oil.

Again though, this is impossible in the USA, you don't have enough grain and you have far too many cars, therefore why even bother, right? Let someone else make a difference, I;ll just keep oding what I'm doing until I am told to do otherwise, hang on, they can't TELL me what to do, that would be a violation of my personal liberties. What a circular discussion you guys make just to substantiate your dream of rilling more oil and ignoring the environment until someone else does something about it and forces you to follow.

You all seem to have the "Why should I change" attitude, and then the "I better not be forced to change, I'd rather accept personal responsibility because I am an American!" attitude at the same time. Nice how that works for you.

You'll take personal responsibility? Prove it. What have you done this week, month to help curtail the world oil crisis?

You refuse to accept people who try to act on it, you refuse to accept any alternative, (even in Brazil where it has proven to be beneficial) and you refuse to be told to change.

In other words, you are just going to do f-all and anyone who forces you to be responsible is stepping on your rights as an American. If you only had an idea just how retarded that all sounds.

That is also 10 years to market which leaves time to build or expand the oil refineries.

This is still shorter then the 20 to 30 years for alternate fuels to be widely available.

Again, everyone is ignoring the fact that alternate fuel vehicles are not affordable to the general population.
1). When will they be? 5/10/15 years?
2). Even when they become so, what will the maintenance costs be? Will that be affordable to the common citizen. I say it will, but the question is when. 5/10/15 years AFTER the market is saturated enough to offer affordable used alternate vehicles and after market products for repair????

Nobody, and I mean. Nobody has addressed that. Nobody is using this also in their comparisons of drilling for oil, amount of time to market. Hell, nobody address's how the average citizen is spouse to afford it.

you didn't. Oz didn't. I raise the question.

Provide an answer WHEN your average citizen can afford these vehicles. provide an answer when the market will be saturated enough to make a difference in new vehicles sold. Provide an answer when the used vehicle market will be saturated enough to provide lower income households the incentive to buy them.

*** I'm talking estimates.. I know nobody knows this answer, but a realistic estimate.

Your time 10 years for oil? I say 30 years before other alternatives will be widely available. You say why drill? I say because there needs to be something there to fill the gap until the other alternatives are available.

Nowhere am I saying not to go alternate fuel or energy sources. Everywhere am I saying that you are ignoring what we have now because you only see the future. I see both the present and the future.

Dan

in other words, you never thought about it.

Your points are invalid until you do.

At least I address the issue, which is more then you ever did with your position.

Your arguments are null and void until you do..

Prove me wrong. I put forward the argument that nobody has addressed WHEN. It's a HELL of a lot more then you did. You just said deal with it, thats all you've done.

Deal with this. Your wrong till you at least address it.

And Oz, it YOUR SOLUTION for alternate fuels. Well god damn it, prove its feasible with my concerns. The PROOF falls on you, not me.

Dan

So don't give me crap about that. THOSE are the only afforadble alternate fuel cars there are right now.

The tree huggers are bitching because of the farm land being used.

The beading liberals are crying about the starving people.

Both those moron groups don't get the fact that ethanol can be created numerous ways.

The distribution system IS NOT IN PLACE.

it's still 10 years down the road.

It still requires OIL.

B.S.

It's a one sided argument on people that want alternate fuels. When you can answer my mother fkn questions on what and how. Then I'll believe the CRAP.

But, right now..... It's like Obama and his liberal pipe dream of peace, love, and harmony. It's nothing but a dream with not all issues taken into consideration.

Which is exactly what your argument is. A pipe dream that ignores serious questions.

Dan

by Former member Jun 24, 2008

If you look further down in the forum you will find that I addressed that issue. I hate high prices like you. I am far from being an environmentalist, but I do face facts.

I do not think this is shooting yourself in the foot. The point was: we and others can die in the energy wars now and in the future, or we can do something about, even if it is uncomfortable.

I was just wondering where you got the figure 20-30 years to produce a new energy vehicle?

Branson did try the Enthanol approach but found that there was not enough grain in America to support one city for more than a month, but that aside, it would take less than 7 years to get all new vehicles into FlexFuel burning no oil.

"There are no longer light vehicles in Brazil running on pure gasoline. Since 1977 the government made it mandatory to blend 20% of ethanol (E20) with gasoline (gasohol), requiring just a minor adjustment on regular gasoline motors. Today the mandatory blend is allowed to vary nationwide between 20% to 25% ethanol (E25) and it is used by all regular gasoline vehicles, plus three million cars running on 100% hydrous ethanol, and five million dual or flexible-fuel vehicles. The Brazilian car manufacturing industry developed flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on any proportion of gasoline and ethanol.[10] Introduced in the market in 2003, these vehicles became a commercial success,[11] and by March 2008..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

So while the ethanol solution may not be the best, it has made ONE country self sufficient, the first in the world.

You also suggested: "This is still shorter then the 20 to 30 years for alternate fuels to be widely available."
>Please explain where you found these facts.

"Again, everyone is ignoring the fact that alternate fuel vehicles are not affordable to the general population. "
>Again please explain this fact, do people in Brazil earn more than Americans and pay less for vehicles? I always thought you were on the brighter side of the economy issue.

1). When will they be? 5/10/15 years? >According to your rant, that's no time at all compared to how long it takes to begin seeing oil from ANWR.

2). Even when they become so, what will the maintenance costs be? Will that be affordable to the common citizen. I say it will, but the question is when. 5/10/15 years AFTER the market is saturated enough to offer affordable used alternate vehicles and after market products for repair????
>Again, an argument based on speculation is hardly an argument. Having been a member of SAE for the last 15 years, I'd say it will take far less time than you predict in fact the technology is already there, just not being implemented. how different do you think an alternate fuel combustion engine is? So far there is little difference. If you are talking electric cars, the price, reliability, efficiency, and cost have all come down a great deal over the last few years, a market trend change would force that price down very quickly.

Do you really think there will be one manufacturer building them? Of course not, demand means competition, competition means lower prices as the manufacturer's work overtime to drive costs down themselves.

Your examples are just way off, your conclusions are based on wild guesses that really don't stand up at all.

You timeline is a guess (new car and fuel adoption) compared to facts (time to begin seeing any oil from ANWR).

As a whole, all the ANWR posts are focused on the same thing, we want to drill for oil. We don't care how long it takes, we don't care that it isn't enough oil, we don't care that it doesn't solve our immediate OR long term problems, we just want to drill for oil because it is easier for now and we can't let the "tree huggers and hairy armpit women" be right.

Not very clever!

by Former member Jun 24, 2008

self serving, facetious and narrow minded twits who manipulate what someone says into what they want to hear.

Tony, you are out of line.

"It would be nice if SOMEONE would come up with an alternative for transportation, leaving that oil for industry instead by the time it comes on-line."

Not quite but getting closer:
Brazil is using 25% less gasoline in most vehicles (as mandated) with a great portion of them becoming entirely Ethanol based. This makes Brazil the world's first oil independent country.

ANWR is NOT going to provide 40% of your oil consumption. At todays standards it would provide less than 10%, based on predicted number of barrels per day. By the time 12 years runs by, for EACH of the DOZENS of smaller exploration projects, not just from the word 'GO', how many more cars will you have on the streets and how much MORE oil will you need and how LITTLE of that would be produced by ANWR? We are talking a very insignificant number, especially after the billions spent to get there, and even then the amount of ANWR oil has changed a great deal over the last 8 years, so the projected numbers are way off base. You produce 85 million barrels a day in America, with an additional million per day, will you get that 40% you are looking for? Nope, not a chance in hell!

In short, NO, you will NOT see 40% of your consumption taken care of 12 years down the road. You will be in the same mess you are today, except 12 years behind in doing something about it.

As far as Canada is concerned:

"Canada's energy minister said Sunday he pushed at an emergency meeting of oil producing and consuming countries for more transparency in global markets to allow supply and demand to be the biggest influences on oil prices."

"Although Canada accounts for less than three per cent of the world's oil production, it sits on 15 per cent of the world's reserves -- second only to Saudi Arabia -- mostly concentrated in northeast Alberta."

"Despite its relatively small share of the world oil market, Lunn noted that Canada is one of the few countries in the world that is capable of significantly increasing production.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said last week that Canada's oil output will nearly double to 4.5 million barrels per day by 2020. More than $100 billion worth of investments is on the books to triple oil sands production, which now supplies slightly more than one million barrels per day."

Right now, production costs for drilling in the Abertan oil sands are the worlds highest, yet you feel that by building new refineries or expanding existing ones which are already at capacity, and shipping oil from ANWR to the US, you will see lower prices from a little pittance of available oil?

I'd say that it is just a bunch of oil hungry Americans opposing change, not exactly a realistic or viable argument when it has been proven to help in other parts of the world. Most nations outside of North America have been recycling and using better resource management practices for decades, and they are much better off for it too.

The reason something NEEDS to be forcced upon people is that people are NOT talking on their own responsibility to do something about it themselves.

If people were driving less, eating locally grown produce, using less heat and electricity etc. We would be seeing some benefit, but as long as there are people, such as yourself, who feel they won't act responsibly if they are forced to and yet don't act responsibly anyway, then there is a need to impose rules.

The issue is that people DON'T do anything about it, and I can't count the number of times people on here have said they do something about it when everyone else did too.

Well there you go, wanna do f-all? Fine, now you and everyone else has to do it anyway.

Lazy rock suckers.

[i]The reason something NEEDS to be forcced upon people is that people are NOT talking on their own responsibility to do something about it themselves[/i]

Mixing people who are doing right with those who aren't is a recipe for a costly disaster. Obviously you don't see it, or don't believe it. Sorry, but there's nothing I can do about that but wait.

Always the best resolution, too bad you didn't have that insight/core value before the Iraq invasion.

People who are doing right? Which one?

You won't take action, YOU don't give a toss, YOU just want cheaper gas. You are at war, which drives prices higher. End of story.

You forgot

People have to be offered a choice for them to be able to make a decision
Some will need to have the choices pointed out
They usually complain when they are given no choice or an unfair choice

So hows it going in Canada
Everyone cutting back are they?

Shame on you and your country selling oil to someone else
That is exactly the problem

You are enabling the yanks
Bad Bad people

Actually yes, there is a massive awareness and cutback on resource waste. It has become a way of life for most now, one which is rarely even considered now. As for driving and gasoline, the city is full of bicycle commuters that were once drivers, our sky train expansion has kept several hundred thousand cars off the streets every rush hour, it is actually getting much better now. Thank you for your considerate thoughts.

We have a reliance on US money and resource sharing. We ship them grains, they pay us money. We ship them lumber, they pay us money. We ship them fish, they pay us money. about the only fair trade off is power, they can't shut down nuclear generators in California, so we buy their power at night and shut down our own hydro dams. In they day, we sell our hydro to California to make up for eh slack in their nuclear plants. It only sicks when they use too much power in the day and WE get a water warning. BC has more lakes and rivers than pretty much anywhere, we have massive glacial run offs and an abundance of water, even when there's a shortage warning, we still have full reservoirs. The problem is they are saving that water to run hydro to California in the daytime. Shucks.
Actually our government has bent over enough that the US corporations just come and help themselves now, they don't even pay the tariffs they imposed and they've put our own forestry and fishing industries out of business. niiiice.

yup, bad, bad people. But I didn't vote, I'm not Canadian, I'm just in it for the nice view.

Reading your initial post I see many assertions but no real questions demanding answers.

Your last post makes no sense at all, I don't have a clue what you are referring to as you don't reiterate you just use the terms IT as if I know what you're talking about. What IT needs your approval to be considered valid?

Judging by the inaccurate guess that was your original post, you have no place asking for proof of anything anyway, you provided proof on NOTHING and yet a bunch of claims, then asked for proof against it?

What the hell are you on about?

as for more efficient vehicles, and renewable resources. Europe has more efficient vehicles, as does Japan, South America and most other nations. North America has the cheapest, most poorly built automobile market in the world. Even North American bars in other countries are better than they are here in North America. People here are too cheap and want bigger for less, instead of more efficient at an affordable price.

When will al alternate be availble? never if we focus on drilling oil and increasing refineries product. Note yo are maxed out now, with a producion of 85 million barrels a day and that STILL equates to less than 40% of your consumption, how do you feel an added 5-10 million barrels per day, which you have no way of refining at this time, be of any help at all?

Answer: It will not make even the slightest bit of difference, you'll just find someone else to bitch about being the problem then.

As it is now, [i]I[/i] am the problem, you have already provided your views, though based on complete garbage with no conclusive proof at all, you still did it and thus I am at fault? You are a screwy one aren't you?!

My proof:
brazil has already become oil independent by utilizing FlxFuel, that sounds like a better alternative than "more of the same unless someone has a better idea."

Europe has better, more efficient vehicles but Americans won't buy them. They don't have V8's or even V6's in most cases, they aren't large enough, they aren't cheap enough.

We can't develop other means of power because as long as oil barons run the show, there will be no sizable investment into new energy sources, no support from government etc.

In other words, until you are ready to make a change there will be no change, when you are ready, there are options, you just need to look around you without your arms folded in a huff, waiting for someone to change it for you.

Personal responsibility, try taking some yourself.

that is neither my problem nor my concern.

It has been done elsewhere. I have also not said you should be driving an Ethanol burning car. I said that ONE country has made an effort and, based on their resources has become oil independent. They didn't just bitch and whine about drilling in some remote wildlife reserve, they took action and it worked. the government was in on it too though, whereas in the US the government is pretty much owned and operated by the oil companies.

YOUR only solution to the world oil crisis is to start exploration and drilling in an area where the greatest estimate would reduce your need for foreign oil supply by minuscule fractions? nice one, great solution I can see why you wouldn't be open to other ideas, that makes so much more sense!

Lets see, you currently pull about 85 million barrels a day out of America. This is about 60% of your consumption. If the greatest ANWR reserve estimates are true (at the highest estimate), you will see a million or so barrels per day. That's less than 1:100 of your daily consumption. Given the fact that it would also require new refineries, the whole idea is just an expensive waste of resources when that same money could be invested into developing a more sustainable solution. Without money there are no alternatives, just the way your government likes it.

Do you not realize that it is in your government's best interests to have prices sky high and not lowering? The BS you get fed about pushing to lower prices is crap, they are far better off with the highest price.

Will the oil companies invest in better solutions? Sure why not.

So how long will it take? until your government stops relying on oil companies and Middle Eastern money invested into the US economy.

Nice solution, you are a clever one, aren't you?

Class warfare may be taking on a more literal meaning in the near future. It can be avoided, but not by the few imposing their will on the many. You will be resisted.

What are you talking about? The US drills and refines at full capacity now. 80 million barrels a day is your own country's daily production. That 85 million barrels accounts for 60% of your use. Out of the remaining 40% that you import, Canada provides 40%. So we don't actually give you 40% of your total oil consumption, we provide 40% of you IMPORTED oil.

Nobody has said you can't drill for your own oil, people HAVE said that it is not such a matter of great importance to drill ANWR when the focus SHOULD be on finding a better alternative, ,but everyone is just drooling over ANWR is if it will make ANY difference at all.

the largest reserve in ANWR is expected to produce (on he high side) 7 bbls of oil. Or approximately 1 million per day after about 12 years, that 1 million will drop significantly after the first 10 years. ALL OF THIS IS AVAILABLE FROM THE PROJECT WEB PAGES.

So if 85 million barrels account for 60% of your oil, which you drill yourselves, how will another 1 million barrels be a solution?

My point is that's a long time to wait for VERY little oil that will never make a dent at the [pump nor will it make you oil independent nor will it rid of of dealing with Arabs for oil. The ONLY way around it is to find a different energy source.

Once you find an alternate source or even a mixed source, like FlexFuel, then you have a chance at working towards oil independence. It won't happen completely but it will ease the burden.

You can drill ANWR but it isn't the little oil mine you seem to be thinking it is. ! million barrels a day, even 10 million is a mere spit in the bucket to what you use each day.

[i]People who are doing right? Which one?[/i]

The ones who ARE conserving and the ones who ARE creating alternatives.

[i]End of story.[/i]

Nah, there are just pages missing from your copy of the book.

A local town council added 15% of alcohol to the fuel of its fleet
15% was the highest level they could use because of the increased risk of corrasion

Alcohol will sit on the top of the engine oil
It does not prevent corrasion like oil
Alot like water

That was along time ago
Today?s cars may not have the same problems

From reading your posts
You are showing a great deal of arrogance
It may be from past arguments you have had with JD

Canada is not perfect
In fact no country is perfect
But it costs nothing to cut the crap

I guess Canada is full of arrogant people
Or is it the French language

Gee I can?t wait to see what kind of reply I get

how a country that still drills and uses oil can be considered by you to be "oil independent", unless you mean they only use their own oil.

I never said Anwar would lower prices today, you are confusing me with someone else.

I never said Anwar was the only place we should be drilling, so it doesn't HAVE to be 40%.

What do I do? I drive 60mph instead of 75mph. it adds about 10 minutes to my travel time each way, but I am getting just over 40mpg with my little saturn.

Maybe some country out there will decide to lead by example instead of complaining that the US hasn't found a solution yet.

Inflicted via taxes. Do I really need to show you a link of how much of the price of gas (petrol) in the UK is taxes?

And no matter what oz says, that is a statistic world wide. Only one nation has moved totally to alternate fuels... And that was through Goverment mandate.

Brazil.

If the consumer wanted, no matter what nation, alternate fuel vechicles. They would be here. And they would be affordable... Because the consumer wanted it.

And think about this techno... If say the eurpoen nations were already alternate fuel... The manufacturing process would already be in place, and would only need to be increased. But that is not so. So, guess what... This manufacturing process has to be put in place.

So no matter what people like Oz have to say... This is a world wide issue... And people like oz, neil, and all the other environmentalist types are not willing to address the issue of price. How the average citizen, reading this oz... Any fkn nation. Can afford these vechicles.

Please see my post to oz concerning the prices in 2007 of hybrids... The average citizen, and I really don't give a crap what country. Can afford them. You can't supply the average citizen, no matter what nation. You will not move the nation to alternate fuels.

Again, something people like oz are unwilling to address.

Dan

Why the fk shouldn't america drill for oil.

If we meet the requirments of being energy dependent using altnerate fuels.

Why the fk can't we sell it to other nations.

Just because we might not use it doesn't say that other nations won't. We have just as much right to drill for oil and sell it to the highest bider as any other nation.

Tree hugers be damned.

Dan

You were not the one I was expecting to answer

One of the reasons car makers have shown little interest in the electric car and similar technology's

They worked out how much they would lose in parts
Eg oil filters
Not to mention the lesser need for the oil which is filtered

Shall we talk about tyres?
How long before we can forget about pneumatic tyres
How much fuel could be saved if every car did not have to carry round a spare wheel

But then you would only be buying four wheels
And that would affect profits
But I am sure the price of cars would go down

If you guys are going to argue about this
At least blame the right assholes for the problem

The Car Makers

Oh one more thing
Anyone who thinks they have all the answers is an idiot

And one more thing
Cars are sold worldwide so no one is off the hook
Including Canada and its population of critics

New Zealand
You know
Little islands in the south pacific

Our price for oil is going up

Nope wrong if I remember right
We sent some doctors and nurses
So that must be why it's up

And damn it we have one of the biggest oil fields off our coast

Ps don?t bother trashing New Zealand
The Aussies are much better at it than you North Americans

You see me asking a chit load of questions now don't you. Which the soposid know it alls refuse to answer.

So if your insinuating that I think I know all the answers, please think again.

Dan
[edited to add]damn, used IE for this post. No spell check. Sorry.

Okay, longer vehicle life and lower emissions. ALL gas, whether high grade or not, gums up after only a short time in the tank, that's wjy stations try to never run dry and fuel trucks constantly keep gas stations over the 1/4 tank level. This gum, a result of additives in the gasoline such as detergents and anti-knock additives create a sludge in the bottom of the fuel tank. This is why manufacturers say to never run your car dry and if possible, refill at 1.4 tank. If you do run a fuel injected car dry, you should always replace the fuel filter as it becomes gummed up with that sludge, as do the fuel rail, injectors, valves etc.

As far as fuel contamination, Canada does have slightly stricter guidelines than the Us, that's why it has always been 'sketchy' or not recommended for Canadians to buy Us gas. Unless it is REALLY cheap, and yuo full with super, many Canadians would rather stick to our gas. It was more important during the days of the leaded gas vs unleaded but still stands today for some.

ALL gasoline has additives, these additives are mainly detergents and some anti-knock additives, supreme gas has a higher amount of detergents in order to purify the fuel by killing contaminants, however in older cars, the detergents can actually eat away at gaskets and seals that are reliant of grime to hold together (even on a 5 year old car). this obviously causes leaks and expensive repairs.

As far as better mileage. If you run yoru car low on gas for extended period of time, or as a habit, you will pick up grime off the tank. This then clogs injectors, burns hard carbon deposits on the back of the valves causing them to remain partially open, clogs the fuel rail and slows down/impedes the injector pins, this causes a sick burn which also results in a clogged PCV valve and hardened vacuum hoses due to excessive heat. This not only results in poor combustion and greater emissions, it also means that you get poor mileage.

"I think you may be a victim of a myth on that one"

Actually I am a licensed mechanic, alternate fuels certified and a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

"Well it is impossible to keep the tank full but I guess safety costs like it always has
Again you may be a victim of a myth
Most of the time petrol needs to be compressed to explode"

Well your almost right. Fuel VAPOUR needs to be compressed in order to explode. You can toss a cigarette into a 5 gal pail of gas without the gas igniting, it will just put the cigarette out.

A quarter tank of gas running with a 7lb vapour lock gas cap is like a bomb waiting to explode. On impact it takes all of the cars millions of dollars in engineering to stop it from exploding. With a full tank, there is less vapour to compress and combust.

This is all high school automotive 101, thought, pretty basic stuff.

"Where does the fuel line leave the tank in your car?
Top or bottom?
Or if you like
At what level is fuel to low to be sucked from the tank?"

Depends on the car, but usually the pickup screen sits just above the bottom of the tank with one pump attached just above it. The pump outlet has spigot that fits through a locking cap that is usually at the top of the tank, though that again does vary by manufacturer.

As far as siphoning fuel, it depends on the restrictor placement and also if the tank is baffled In which case you'd need a robotic snake. Sometimes you can suck it dry but for that last 15 or so years, they have been getting better at thwarting siphoning.

Is you must have different type of fuel to us

Because I heard a different story from the auto engineers I talked to
But like I said the full tank myth is something people will have to make their own minds up about

No I was not talking about siphoning fuel
But it shows how you are thinking

detergents and anti-knock additives
Still using those are you

Ps qualifications don?t make you smarter
They just give you more things to be wrong about

Who was talking about adding alcohol?

If you want to learn about Brazil becoming the only oil independent country on the planet, http://tinyurl.com/2c9np

I have also not stated that Brazil is the answer to the problem, just used it as an illustration of what full commitment is able to accomplish if it is wanted.

As far as your other comments, Canada has many flaws, too many to reiterate in one post, but it sure as hell isn't America and we are thankful of that in so many ways.

As for JD, he's not a pu$$y and can hold his own, don't you worry about him.

As for brazil drilling oil, "
"It's not about whether or not Brazil drills for oil, in any way shape or form. That argument is 100% irrelevant...forget it..no such problem..not what I am talking about.. clear it from your mind."

Oil independent in that they have no need for imported oil anymore, you had it.

As for taxes, I think you too were thinking of someone else, unless I was on a bad trip or something. Never take the brown acid, I shoulda listened to Woodstock!

I didn't realize you weren't a Skank, you sure sound like one.

As for slamming New Zealand, why? What have you ever done?

Seeing as I haven't even mentioned the word hybrid, nor hybrid vehicle that point is entirely moot.

seeing as I haven't mentioned Ethanol as a viable alternative, and in fact said it was NOT a solution in America, that point would also be moot.

seeing as your post is a rude, offensive and personal attack, it has been reported as spam for removal as it certainly does not fit within the allowable boundaries of TechRepublic's Forum.

In future, please remember that this is a public forum and such posts will be ignored by me and are offensive to others.

Nobody said you can't. as for being energy INdependent (which is what I think you meant), you could never supply your own nation if you sucked ANWR dry tomorrow. There's no way you'll be selling it off.

The part about that being an alternate fuel just doesn't make sense, drilling for oil is not going to give you an alternate fuel to sell to other nations.

? little too warm in here?

Yes most Canadians I have met on both coasts and in between share a very similar view of America. People in Germany and the Uk seemed to as well, come to think of it they do in France also, I'm sure it's somewhat common.

Perhaps some are too fed up to bother talking about it anymore, perhaps others are too reserved, but all in all, I have yet to meet anyone outside of America that actually LIKES America these days.

Pardon me, it's not America, it's not American people, but the government and foreign policy that people seem to oppose.

Do they not have news in New Zealand yet?
Oh well not to worry, just wait 'til you see pong?

by Former member Jun 25, 2008

In a new article at ABCNews.com: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5235731
it is reported that the high fuel costs are having the benefit of bring jobs back home from overseas. The reason given is that it costs less to manufacture locally than it does offshore and ship back in.

Hmm
You don?t seem to know as much as you say you do

How nice for Brazil
It?s good that solution works for them
But it does not mean that same solution will work for every one else

So what is Canada doing?
Tell us its much more fun being a critic
Being a critic means you don?t have to come up with solutions
So much easier shooting everyone else down

Some times part of my replies are addressed to other people who may read them

I did say you were not the one I expected to answer
That was stupid since it was you I replied to you

What I have noticed
Since a certain person join the discussion
The conversation has turned from possible solutions and observations
To the blame game
Gosh how clever lets blame someone that will get them listening to us

Some people cannot be helped
(That has more than one meaning)

One more thing
At least your spelling is readable
For some of the spelling I would need training in military code breaking to understand

Cheers Steve

?I didn't realize you weren't a Skank, you sure sound like one.?
So which side of the border is that?

You North Americans are all the same anyway what difference does a border make
Think yourself lucky our nearest neighbour is Australia

?As for slamming New Zealand, why? What have you ever done? ?
How rude
As if to say we haven?t done anything
Do you think we are a nation of under achievers?

No I don?t need to list the things achieved by New Zealanders
But the Internet is your friend

PS you don?t want to know what the Aussies call the Yanks