GAS PRICES ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

[gungeey]

You know Dave, you shouldn't blow off others vision quite so easily. Your reports say months, mine say 50 years. You find greenhouse/global warming proof, I'll site numerous collections of data citing the opposite. You say no oil in Alaska? Well, I commend you on being the expert of all once again. After all, if Dave says so...it MUST BE TRUE. No more replies from me on this topic. Again, Steve

[HurstGN]

I heard a comment on the morning news and it just ticked me off that our news media can make "reports" of this nature. The comment? Some jerk, I believe an oil company representative, said that if OPEC started producing more today, it would take at least 2 months to get to us, so expect no relief from the high prices for at least 2 months.

WHAT IN THE H*@% ARE YOU SMOKING?

The second OPEC threatens to raise crude prices, the pumps go up immediately. When the price of crude is lowered, the price takes months to lower, and it NEVER lowers to where it was before the big increases! I'd like a reasonable explaination for this one. I've NEVER heard a good explaination yet...prolly because you can't logically explain PRICE FIXING!

Oh yea, I've heard the lame "well, demand increased with the threat of higher prices, so the price went up. Supply and demand." Hrmm, lets look at this one. If demand were that much higher, then somebody would be running out of gas somewhere. But this doesn't happen. Plus, where is this theoretical demand? Doesn't gasoline have to be stored in proper containers? Since the number of cars on the road didn't magically increase 10% overnight, those on the road can simply fill their tanks, no more. Unless the gas stations were selling gas cans by the thousands so people could stockpile the gas at home right next to the toilet paper, milk, and bottled water in case the power goes out. Face it. We don't have the means to consume several months supply of gasoline in a day or two...so how can you justify the raising of prices faster than the lowering of prices?

What we have here is big oil, and station owners willing to take us for a ride, because there are more lemmings out there willing to pay higher prices because "adjusted for inflation, it's not expensive" and "it's cheaper than Europe pays". Well, since these lemmings can't, or won't stand up for themselves, the only way I can see us solving this problem is opening the books of the big oil companies for long term scrutiny to stop the price fixing. And as much as I hate to say this, I think this calls for some sort of national oversight board. I hate to call it a government thing, because they'll just be bought out under the table and we'll still be paying. The point is some organized body must be assembled that DOES HAVE the power to make a decision and make it stick. I know it's not perfect, but we need a way to make big oil JUSTIFY the prices they're charging us. If gas goes up 10 cents overnight, WHY?

Now, if some multi-billionaire, that could care less what gas costs, would foot the bill to gather an unbiased and impartial oversight board, we might stand a chance. Hey NBC, ABC, CBS, and the rest of ya...this could be the next reality based TV show. Hrmmm. Hey Donald, I got a job for Kwame. And Kwame's first job..."Omarosa, YOUR FIRED!" Whadda ya think?

I just had to vent somewhere...here seemed like a good place.

[Guest John Chapman]

Dan,

A portion of the pricing remaining high is that crude oil is purchased on 'futures contracts' (unless purchased on the 'spot market' which typically will not have enough supply to meet a fraction of the demand). What we will see is that the current world price of crude will decrease, but refineries are processing crude that was bought 30-60-90 or more days ago at a 'futures' price. Funny how the pump price goes right up, when you know they'r processing crude that cost 10-15 bucks a barrel less than the current world price...

JMC

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You know Dave, you shouldn't blow off others vision quite so easily. Your reports say months, mine say 50 years. You find greenhouse/global warming proof, I'll site numerous collections of data citing the opposite. You say no oil in Alaska? Well, I commend you on being the expert of all once again. After all, if Dave says so...it MUST BE TRUE. No more replies from me on this topic. Again, Steve </div></div>

It's kind of hard to beat someone with 2 Master's Degrees in Environmental Science in a discussion like this. Especially when there's so much "information" out there. You can find all the "information" you want, it's more a matter of accuracy.

The United States currently consumes about 19 million barrels of crude oil per day according to the United States Dept. of Energy . (That's up from 15 million barrels in 1985, by the way.) At 42 gallons per standard barrel, that's 800 million gallons per day. At 365 days/year that's an annual consumption of 291 trillion gallons. For there to be 50 years supply of oil in the untapped Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) there would need to be 14.5 quadrillion gallons of crude underneath the relatively tiny area in the ANWR closed to drilling (17.5 million acres).

Plus you could toss in about 10 billion more gallons for the 12 leap years I didn't bother counting.

That 14.5 quadrillion gallons converts to around 44 million acre-feet of oil. For 50 years worth of crude oil to be located in the ANWR the entire land mass would have to be floating on a layer of crude oil a little over 2.5 feet thick. That's not 2.5 feet of oil bearing substrate, that's raw liquid. It's also a complete impossibility.

If you're interested in the maximum potential of the oil fields in the ANWR, here's what Haliburton's...I mean the President's, ...I mean <span style="font-weight: bold">your</span> DOE officially considers it to be:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In early 2000, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in response to a Congressional request, issued a report on potential oil reserves and production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The report, which cited a 1998 U.S. Geological Survey study of ANWR oil resources, projected that for the mean resource case (10.3 billion barrels technically recoverable), ANWR peak production rates could range from 1.0 to 1.35 MMBD, with initial ANWR production possibly beginning around 2010, and peak production 20-30 years after that.

<span style="font-style: italic">(MMBD equals million barrels per day)</span></div></div>

As you can see, under the most optimistic analysis of the region possible <span style="font-style: italic">(the DOE under this administration is essentially an oil and mining industry front organization)</span> this region can sustain about 1/20th of our current consumption, and the soonest <span style="font-weight: bold">that</span> could occur is in <span style="font-weight: bold">the year 2030</span>. If we abandon all thought of practicality and pretend to suck the place dry overnight the entire 10.3 billion barrel reserve there is a little less than a year and a half supply at current consumption levels. <span style="font-style: italic">That's</span> <span style="font-weight: bold">by far</span> the highest number I've <span style="font-style: italic">ever</span> heard for that field--again, this is <span style="font-style: italic">Bush & Cheney's</span> DOE we're talking about!. Most impartial estimates are a lot less.

I hate to say I told you so, but....

Oh, by the way, <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">ANY</span></span> study purporting to disprove global warming at this point is also essentially a snow job. There are thousands of Environmental PhD's on one side of that discussion vs. a couple dozen hired Shell Answer Men. But I digress....

Are you feeling used yet?

<span style="font-weight: bold">[color:\\"red\\"]The most important consideration is to think of <span style="font-style: italic">WHY?</span>! <span style="font-style: italic">Why</span> is it important to make U.S. citizens believe complete lies about oil reserves, climatic forces, and a host of other absurdities that can easily be checked?

The DOE estimated ANWR reserves at today's closing price were worth $431 billion.</span>

Who did you vote for?

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Skip a lunch...It isn't going to cripple anyone financially...It's time to get over it, folks. If you don't like it, make a change in your life to make it better... </div></div>

The local food bank here recently announced that they're going to have to start laying workers off due to the high cost of fuel used to collect donations. I guess some people's "changes" are going to involve involuntary weight loss.

<span style="font-style: italic">(Sorry to take your words so far out of context, Matt, but the coincidence was too much to ignore.)</span>

[Matt Harwood]

Dave, it isn't so much out of context, since your point is a vaild one. The results will ripple through the industries that are not even tangentially related to gas prices. I was mostly addressing jerks like a guy I work with who complains daily about gas prices while driving himself to work each day in a Chevy Avalanche. Most drivers will have to do some belt tightening (excuse the pun) to continue to drive gas guzzlers. If you can afford it, great! If not, <span style="font-style: italic">that's</span> when you need to evaluate your options.

While some of the costs of doing business, especially in a place like a food bank, are going up, eventually things will balance out, just as they always have. I guess it's possible that people will starve to death because of high gas prices, however I think it is very unlikely. And people losing their jobs isn't a new phenomenon--the economy will adjust just as soon as we get a Democrat in the White House so that Congress and the President can get back to screwing with each other instead of screwing with the economy and our personal lives (I strongly believe in the idea that a government that legislates as little as possible is the best kind. When the two parties have to split power, neither gets anything done because they're so busy launching witch hunts to discredit each other, and we're all better off for it, but I digress)...

So your point is a valid one--the trickle-down effect of these gas prices will have wide-ranging effects. However, that was beyond the scope of this particular discussion, which was dopes driving around complaining about gas prices.

[DavidS]

I am very impressed with the nature of this conversation. People who think car collectors are just a bunch of motor heads who would naturally complain about the price of fuel without looking at the greater context would be surprised. As a collector, and I admit, part of the fuel consumption problem I keep my complaints about the price of gas and road congestion to a minimum. But as I walk to work I cannot help but notice that the increase in fuel prices have done little to change people's driving habits. At least 80 if not 90% of the vehicles I see have a single occupant - just as before . It reminds me of smokers who complain when government increase the tax on cigarettes; then go out and buy another pack.

[Guest AWBE]

YOU SOUND LIKE A YELLOWDOG ECOFREAK DEMOCRAT TO ME.YOUR 2 MASTERS DEGREES CONVINCE ME THAT IS SO.

[Dave@Moon]

Booga Booga!

[old-tank]

Ha!

This is the first time I have seen Dave@Moon at a loss for words...or is it too much Booga Booga

[Dave@Moon]

Nah, I was just quoting the noted philospher David Steinberg. It seemed most appropriate.

[Guest AWBE]

BACKING IN THE INFLATION NUMBERS, THE COST OF REGULAR GASOLINE DURING THE GOOD OLD DAYS OF THE CARTER ERA WAS $2.99 PER GALLON. THIS WAS GLEANED FROM THAT ARCH CONSERVATIVE NEWS NETWORK MSNBC.

[imported_48Rdmstr68Skylrk]

Not only do we the driving public need to change our driving habits to help lower fuel consumption, but the auto makers need to make changes in the vehicles they make. The keep repeating that americans want the bigger cars and suv's because of the available space to haul things and people. I believe we not only want the bigger vehicles, but we want them with fuel efficient engines!!! The overall fuel efficiency of vehicles has dropped over the past 15-20 years. How can this be with all the computer assisted engines, high tech designs, etc..? My 1986 Somerset with the 2.5 4 cylinder and 5 speed tranny used to get 30 MPG city and 36 highway. Look at any of the comparable size cars of today and the best they get is 24 MPG. What happened? It can't all be blamed on the pollution equipment. I believe they can make cars more fuel efficient, but the car makers and oil companies have a back room deal to keep fuel consumption up.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What happened? It can't all be blamed on the pollution equipment. I believe they can make cars more fuel efficient, but the car makers and oil companies have a back room deal to keep fuel consumption up. </div></div>

Approximately 1/2 of the top 20 selling cars in the U.S. in 1982 had an engine displacement of less than 2.0 liters. Today in the U.S. (aside from 1 or 2 marginal Korean imports) <span style="font-weight: bold">there are NONE AVAILABLE!</span>

On the plus side, most off-road vehicles of today are not only by far larger than ever, they can easily out-drag a 1982 Trans-Am. That we <span style="font-weight: bold">NEED!</span>

[DavidS]

At least I was impressed by the conversation. Some folks sure have an interesting take on the value of higher education. So if the more education one has is a bad thing, does that mean the less education one has is a good thing?

I take it the 'yellowdog' post was a joke. Right?

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I take it the 'yellowdog' post was a joke. Right? </div></div>

Unfortunately it almost certainly wasn't. In the post-Monica world we are no longer a nation of Americans. Each of us is essentially cooerced into developing our own little caste system of those who are less "American" than us. Occasionally that makes for "insults" of a curious nature.

Also among the truly politically committed, men and women of learning are invariably an object of fear and derision, much like journalists. Who needs information when one already possesses truth? And don't bother pointing out the similar thought processes of Hitler and Stalin, that won't sink in either.

Freedom ain't what it used to be.

[Guest John Chapman]

You guys, I swear!

All this and you overlook the most important thing of all:

The Ton/Mile averages for the current fleet of vehicles is higher than any time since 1971. So what if the SUV only gets 12 mpg? It's doing it efficently!

[radionut98]

Question? Heard that the Canadiens are crossing the border in huge

numbers to buy "American Gas", now I have nothing again the Canadiens

and don't blame them for "buying" our gas. Their prices are $2.50

or better per "gallon". The question is what is happening to their

refineries/oil dealers etc...if most of the border people are

buying "our" gas and boycotting "their" gas? Will that lower the

gas prices in Canada? No!

[Guest]

In response to radionut, I think I can clarify the point. In Ontario Canada where I live, the price of gasoline peaked somewhere around 99 cents per LITRE. Since there are approx. 4 litres per US gallon, that works out to $3.96 CDN per gallon. You now have to calculate the exchange rate on currency which today is $1 CDN = 73 cents USD. So for comparison purposes, the price of the gallon of gas in Canada in US dollars is $2.90. Canadians near the border are crossing to buy gas to save money more so than to boycott the oil companies here. It should also be mentioned that in Ontario approx. 44% of the price of a litre of gas is federal and provincial tax. Believe it or not, the 44% includes a 7% goods and services tax even on the tax!!! We have a Federal Election next month and all the fibbers are trying to take advantage of everyone here being pxxxed off over the excessive price of gas.

[Guest AWBE]

A " YELLOW DOG DEMOCRAT" is a voter who would vote for a yellow dog listed on the ballot under the Democratic Icon. Most people with multiple degrees are in Academia where they are sheltered from the realities of the Real World and don't want to (or can't) cope with them. Since this is essentially true, the preponderance of these highly intelligent people are Socialists (or Democrats). They have an I.Q. which is very high coupled with an extreme lack of "Walking-around-sense".

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I take it the 'yellowdog' post was a joke. Right?

</div></div>

I stand corrected.

[radionut98]

Thanks Elwood, but doesn't that creat a glut of gas in Canada since

70 percent of Candiens live close to the border? So what happens to

the oil dealers up there if they can't sell the gas your refineries

are producing? Loren

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A " YELLOW DOG DEMOCRAT" is a voter who would vote for a yellow dog listed on the ballot under the Democratic Icon. Most people with multiple degrees are in Academia where they are sheltered from the realities of the Real World and don't want to (or can't) cope with them. Since this is essentially true, the preponderance of these highly intelligent people are Socialists (or Democrats). They have an I.Q. which is very high coupled with an extreme lack of "Walking-around-sense". </div></div>

Dang, now you've gone and got me all riled up.

Joe, with all due respect to your opinions on this forum, these last two or three comments of yours scare the living crap out of me. Do you mean to insinuate that I am too stupid to form my own opinions about current events? Do you mean to imply that because I care about people dying overseas (people getting their heads cut off for Pete's sake!), or because I think the size of many people's daily drivers is beyond ludicrous, that also makes me a "YELLOW DOG DEMOCRAT" or an Eco-nut? Do you really mean to say that I've led a sheltered life and couldn't possibly know what the real world is because I haven't lived a life like yours (who knows if I have or not?)?

Do you really mean to say that you feel that you are smarter than me simply because you agree with the current administration's policies and I don't? I find the implication not only insulting, but incredibly small-minded and mean-spirited. Yes, I tend to vote Democrat, but it is by no means a knee-jerk reaction.

But speaking of knee-jerk reactions, it seems ironic that by spouting these insults, you also reveal your own ignorance and lack of "walking around sense," not to mention that you tend to blindly side with the current administration. Why, oh why would you hurl such insults based on only barest understanding of what Dave knows or believes? Or what I know and believe?

You seem to imply that doing anything but blindly following the current party line makes one a danger to society and himself, too stupid to even function as an individual. Hell, why not lock up all them wacko Democrats--after all, they're just screwing things up by asking questions about what we're doing and how we're acting these days! Gee, I thought that was called "having a conscience" not Liberal-Yellow-Eco-Insanity or "Socialist."

Please say this isn't so, that you really meant to say something else and it just came out wrong. Please say that you, too, take the time to think about big pictures and the greater good and your place in a society. Tell us that you care about our young people dying needlessly and understand that in politics, might doesn't make right. Assure us that your patriotism hasn't become jingoism and prejudice against anyone who isn't like you. Give me a sign that you didn't just lump everyone who disagrees with you into one group you call "Socialists" and that your <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">sweeping</span></span> generalization about educated people was just some sort of gaffe. Tell us that you firmly believe that there is nothing more American than respecting one's right to have dissenting opinions, or is this now a country where me not believing what you believe makes me the enemy?

Isn't that what they preach over there in the Middle East that makes them want to fly airplanes into buildings? Sure sounds like it to me.

In short, assure me that you're a thinker (educated or not, but at least that you think beyond your corner of the world) rather than a parrot throwing rocks from your glass house.

<span style="font-style: italic">Edited to remove insult--I'm better than that. Really, I am!</span>

[75 LeSabre Custom (Alex Clark)]

I never realized that Dave@Moon was on the Republicans side!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a shock!!!!!!!! Sorry guys, had to lighten the mood a bit, its been many moons since I have been on the DF.

[Charles2]

I originally started this post to endorse Matt Harwood's reply to the posting by AWBE regarding the "ignorance" of folks with multiple degrees. I also thought it was a joke, originally. Now I don't. More so in the U.S. than in other nations, it is fashionable to believe that people who have advanced degrees and/or work in research or in academia are somehow sheltered from the "real world" whereas those who work outside of these areas are not. In fact, none of us live in the "real world"; we all live in our own "real" world as colored by our experience, education, culture and occupation. Many of us have lived in several "real" worlds as we progress through life. In my working career, I have lived in the real world of the logger, forester, mechanic, soldier, student, researcher, teacher, academic administrator and now retired old toad. I am sure that other folks posting to this forum have had similar backgrounds. Each of the worlds I have worked in has given me a different perspective on things and a different set of priorities. To feel that someone working as a mechanic is somehow less sheltered from the "real world" and has more "walking around common sense" than someone teaching engineering at a university is preposterous at best and indicates major ignorance of what goes on at universities. I don't want to toss gasoline on the fire but I did feel like telling AWBE politely that when it comes to academics, you don't know what you are talking about.

[DavidS]

Not to impune motives, but perhaps writers like AWBE are like many others who don't like what they are reading; some of which is calling into question long held beliefs and ways of living. I would hazzard a guess to say that most car collectors are closer to 65 than 25 and to sense the winds of change can be discomfitting for many. As much as I like my old car I cannot help but believe we are living in the twilight of a 100 year old technolgy that is on its way out. And probably not too soon. I've lived long enough to see the downside of the commuter lifestyle; the polution, urban sprawl and communties designed for cars as opposed to people. The increasing price of gas is going to bring many changes for all of us and not just the Hummer drivers either. But at this point I will still pull the old car out, fill it with gas and go for a spin. Just won't be doing it as much or as often as I did when I was younger, the streets were less crowded [and drivers more courteous] and gas was a lot cheaper.

[Guest AWBE]

Dave Moon is the one who started the political garbage not me. And he tried to impress everyone with the fact that he had TWO masters degrees. In the "Real World" that won't get you anything. I have a B.S.C.E. and ran a small consulting Civil Engineering firm for 42 years. That is the real world---providing gainful employment to anywhere from 15 to 28 people per year, and coming up with enough money to make the bi-weekly payroll and pay those CURSED taxes.In addition to that wading through the myriad regulations forced on the public by an intrusive governmental agencies. And also I note some have impugned my "love of the country" --My reply to that is that I was a reconn officer in the Korean War and every day for 7 months , put my life on the line for this country. Have you done the same???? And frankly I am sick of the Socialistic garbage going on in this country and the "educated elite" and liberal news media who are trying to promote and promulgate it. It's also got a whole lot to do with the way the people in the area of the country I live in look at things. (We are the "red states".)

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It's also got a whole lot to do with the way the people in the area of the country I live in look at things. (We are the "red states".) </div></div>

I would hope that such thoughtlessness, myopia and class bigotry would be things that people of either political party would find reprehensible. In fact I'm sure they do. But then I'm an American first, and a member of a political persuasion second. It used to be that way in this country. Sorry.

I'm glad you did so well in life, Joe. I'm glad you were able to serve your country as well as it served you. I'm glad you love your country. I just wish you'd have learned more from it or at least understood it better.

Don't worry, we're not expecting you to agree.

[Dave@Moon]

Matt,

At the risk of sounding like Joe, the kinds of statements made in his posts are those of someone who believes he possess truth. Truth is a dangerous thing. When information runs counter to truth, it is the information that must be suspect. Nobody who possesses truth has any need for information.

It is a commonplace problem in this country of late. There is a mindset out there now that believes that all sources of information are biased. You can be left wing in our country and blame <span style="font-style: italic">Fox News</span> for disseminating propaganda as information, or you can be right wing and blame "the liberal media" for doing the same thing. Or you can do both.

In any case, a norm develops that says that all information is biased. It therefore follows that only the biased waste their time with information. That's how people can come to fear the knowledge of others, and somehow disconnect it from "real knowledge" that "matters".

How else could calculating the finacial worth of an oil reserve be considered "socialist" in <span style="font-style: italic">any</span> sense?

You can't let people like him bother you, unless they wind up in charge of your son's unit in Iraq.

[Matt Harwood]

Joe, first off, I want to thank you for responding in a rational manner. I could see this discussion going off on a tangent with tempers getting riled on both sides, and that would accomplish nothing. So, if nothing else, I appreciate you keeping a cool head during the storm. It really makes rational discussion so much easier. And kudos for your service to your country--my hat is off to you for that.

Beyond that, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, which is what makes America great, no?

You do mention cursed taxes and heavy regulations--are theses simply the result of liberal policies? I'd argue not. All politicians like to have and spend money (look at the monstrous debt the conservatives have generated and tell me again that they don't like spending money). Taxes are the only place money comes from that the government spends. Therefore, it seems to me that to cover this massive debt, the only possible solution is more taxes (or more citizens, but that doesn't seem to be happening). The tax cuts we've experienced lately are only a temporary thing, believe me. No matter who gets elected in November, taxes will go up--there's no alternative. Conservatives are to blame for this one. When the liberals were in office, there was a budget surplus (and this was just 3.5 years ago!). Hmmmmmm...

And as far as regulations, they all serve their masters. If there's a regulation, then there's somebody who made money off of it. It's as simple as that. Why do you think drugs will never be legal, for instance? Not because we'll all run out and get high as soon as they're legal (some will, most wont, just like alcohol), especially since the illegality of drugs doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent anyway, or because they're bad for people, but because the prison industry makes way too much money off of putting guys with an ounce of pot in their pocket in jail for the rest of their lives. Then there are the contracts for guards, maintenance people, construction, land deals, management, etc. If there weren't any money to be made, it would be different. It isn't a morality thing, I assure you.

I also want to address Dave's comments about the "liberal" media. I, too, hear too many conservatives dismissing information as a "liberal media spin." I have a friend who is a staunch Republican, and any time he is confronted with information that says his boy screwed up, he simply says that it was the liberal media or that some liberal had an axe to grind. For instance, when Bob Woodward's book hit the stands, it was hard to believe everything it had to report. My friend dismissed it as pure liberal propoganda and fabrication. But I ask you: what does a journalist like Bob Woodward have to gain from making up lies? He's intelligent and well-known. Lies would ruin him, even if he is close to retiring. He has absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by fabricating half-truths and spinning lies. The same is true of the media. Most people would agree that those in the media have access to more informattion than most of us, and that they are generally pretty smart. Again, if this is the case, and they do have a liberal spin to the information, isn't it possible that this is actually the way the information reads? Though it's easy to accuse the media of bias, logically, it doesn't make smuch sense for the media to take a position and fabricate facts to support it. Think about it...

Of course there's going to be propoganda and denials and accusations, but the facts usually come out in the end. And more often than not, they are exactly as the "liberal" media reported. Check your history and you'll see that this is true.

Listen to the information, and make your own decisions. Be a thinker, not a follower. Realize that everyone has some financial stake in every aspect of politics or else it would be a non-issue. Be a critical thinker, that's all I ask of anyone with strong opinions.

Are we still talking about gas prices?

[HurstGN]

Easy guys...we're all on the same side here. Can't we all just get along. Lets try, OK? Like, lets say we all boycott buying gas on the 19th to show we're all working together for a better America? Whadda ya say?

Just some sarcasm to interject a few grins before we end up making life long enemys of each other.

On a serious note, My thanks go to each and ever man and woman that served our country in ANY capacity, from fighting on the front lines, to working in a factory at home. Thank you each and every one for your sacrifice to allow me to make this post here today.

[old-tank]

GAS PRICES ENOUGH IS ENOUGH or should it be POLITICS, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! This not the forum for politics. Let's get back to our common interests: Buicks! On this board sharing information on the cars should be a priority and leave the politics and flaunting of and derision of advanced degrees elsewhere.

Willie

[imported_48Rdmstr68Skylrk]

AMEN to that old Tank - or is that not politically/religiously correct?!?!? Who cares. Lets get back to the subject at hand, fuel prices and fuel efficiency. I posted a message on 5-28-04 and have been waiting to read others views about whether cars and trucks/SUV's can be made more fuel efficient. I beleieve they can - what do you all think.

[Matt Harwood]

Hi Tom, I saw your earlier post and wanted to comment on it, but got all fired up over other stuff instead. While I'll stay away from the conspiracy theories about oil company and automaker collusion, I will say that the automakers build what sells for a profit. Right now, gas mileage, even with gas prices at $2.00/gallon, is pretty low on consumers' list of priorities when selecting a new car. Truck sales are off, but the sales of cars that get 20-30 MPG hasn't changed a bit, even though there are choices that can do far, far better.

The question is, what are you willing to give up for your gas mileage? There's no magic bullet or 100 MPG carburetor they're holding back because of oil companies. They've already done all the easy, cheap things to get better mileage, now it's a matter of expensive technology, whether it is a hybrid drivetrain of some sort or exotic materials for lighter weight. Or you can simply make the cars smaller, but that doesn't really appeal to the American consumer in large numbers.

To make some great leap in mileage, consumers will either 1) pay more for a vehicle, 2) suffer with inferior performance in a large vehicle, or 3) buy smaller vehicles.

For instance, there are those singing the praises of the Toyota Prius, saying that it's a no-sacrifice car. I wouldn't buy one, however. Not enough power, odd looks, poor handling (soft springs and hard, narrow tires don't make a great performer) and its mileage isn't so much better that I feel it justifies the sacrifice. Until gas is a lot more expensive than it is, I'm willing to pay to get what I want. I suspect that many consumers feel the same.

In your example with your Somerset, you were willing to put up with anemic performance in exchange for gas mileage. The drop today isn't due to some plot, but beause cars have more features and are heavier, or because a greater proportion of vehicles sold today are trucks (more than 50%), so the overall average drops significantly. Cars aren't any less efficient, they're more efficient, but the market demands trucks and lots of features. So that's what they build and sell.

Our driving habits are also different compared to even 10 years ago. There are many more cars on the road today, gridlock is more pronounced and rush hour traffic is becoming more intense. Add to that the fact that eveyrone thinks they're Mario Andretti behind the wheel, and well, you get a pretty thirsty bunch of communter vehicles.

You can only get so much power out of a gallon of gasoline. You need a given amount of fuel for a given amount of air--the only way to change the amount of fuel that is used for each power stroke is to reduce the size of the combustion chamber, which, obviously, makes less power. You can run lean under some conditions (lean-burn technology is just now starting to come to the market), but it only works under light throttle conditions, and creates oxides of nitrogen, an emissions problem. Larger throttle openings need more fuel to keep detonation at bay and prevent engine damage (fuel is actually used as coolant in the combustion chamber). I got very good at changing head gaskets on my supercharged Ranger pickup because of occasional lean conditions--they are very, very bad.

Combustion is also an an exothermic reaction, so much of the energy contained in gasoline is lost as heat which soaks into the engine block and heads and is carried away by the radiator. Improvements have come in the for of improved regulation of fuel (fuel injection), lower pumping losses (multiple valves, low-restriction intake and exhaust systems and lightweight engine components), better combustion chamber shapes to fully burn all the fuel injected, cylinder deactivation, lean-burn technology, better transmissions, etc. But the bottom line is that a gallon of gas is still only about 42% efficient, and even with all the tricks in the world, you can't change that. If we aren't already there, we are nearing the point of diminishing returns on efficiency and performance in terms of gain vs. price. How much more would you pay for a car that only got <span style="font-style: italic">slightly</span> better mileage? $5000? $10,000? No way. So that's why we have the market we have.

And even at 42% efficiency, gasoline is pretty hard to beat. Name another substance of which 7 pounds of it can move 6000 pounds of steel 15 miles in less (sometimes lots less) than 15 minutes (dynamite doesn't count!). So far, nobody's been able to come up with anything better. The first one who does will be rich.

The only way to encourage automakers to build and sell smaller, more efficient vehicles is to create demand for them. The only way to create demand for them is to raise gas prices until the performance vs. cost tradeoff is reasonable enough to make consumers buy. But automakers are only going to build what sells--they have no care for gas prices or oil consumption, nor should they. Would you change the way you do business just because of a perceved desire for change? If someone told you to spend a ton of money to build something without any market demand just because it might be a good idea, would you? Of course not.

Remember the GM Impact electric car? About as hassle-free an electric car as you're going to get. The leases were subsidized down to about $300 a month. How many did they sell? Less than 50. Sad but true. There is no market for increased efficiency, not even at today's gas prices. Until there is, there's no incentive for anybody to do anything to change.

[Guest JT]

I keep thinking the pendulum will swing and people will become more interested in cars that are fun to drive and have more road handling capabilities than your excursion like suvs. Now if the advertisers can just get the soccer moms to think they're more important in a smaller vehicle.......

[Dave@Moon]

Matt, speaking as someone who's lost a drag race (1/8th mile at most) to a Prius driving a brand new 3.3L V6 , I wouldn't disparage their performance dynamics too much. I haven't driven one yet myself, but every write-up and test I've seen has described them quite favorably. Often the experience is equated to an early-90's minivan.

Also in a few months there's a hybrid V6 Toyota Highlander coming out that (Toyota claims) beats <span style="font-style: italic">every</span> performance spec of a V8 Explorer (incl. tow rating) while delivering 4 cyl. gas mileage. Given that hybrids perform less efficently as driving stress increases I don't think we're all going to be towing our Roadmasters <span style="font-style: italic">and</span> getting 30 mpg at the same time, but things are definitely improving.

Tom, I think we're pretty much stuck with what we've got as far as mileage is concerned for the time being. The high-mileage cars of the 1980's are essentially gone from our market today, for better or worse. However we can try to do the best we can with what we've got. Of course that means proper tune-ups, tire inflation, etc. But there's more that can be done!

As I posted here on 5/17 I've installed a <span style="font-style: italic">K&N</span> air filter element in my Nissan Frontier, and stripped it of the goofy oversized roof rack that it came with. Those 2 changes have given me an extra 3 mpg out of an otherwise unchanged vehicle. If there's anyone out there reading this with a roof rack on their car/minivan/SUV that they never use, lose the damn thing and save your self money and the country trouble! Remove any other drag-inducing extraneous piece (<span style="font-style: italic">like American flags that buoy your spirit while materially aiding al quaeda!</span>) you can to do the same!

There are hundreds of other changes we can make to help the situation. Moving from Pittsburgh to Cincinnati I've gone from a city where 70-80% of the population actively recycles it's household waste to an area where much less than 1/2 does. It's depressing. One recycled aluminum can saves enough electricty to light a 60W bulb for one hour, and much of our country's electricity is made from oil! All of our plastics are made from oil. I recycle my plastic grocery bags at the local <span style="font-style: italic">Thriftway</span> (<span style="font-style: italic">Winn-Dixie</span> div.) grocery store. Now that they're going out of business here I'll have to find a new place that takes them, which is going to be hard here. In Pittsburgh many stores take bags for recycle. All my waste oil and fluids go to the local <span style="font-style: italic">Advance Auto Parts</span>. <span style="font-weight: bold">Every</span> little thing like that helps!

[imported_48Rdmstr68Skylrk]

Thanks guys for getting back on subject. I believe part of the solution is that we all have to be willing to accept a little less performance from our vehicles. One has to evaluate what exactly we use our vehicles for. We use them to go to work, go shopping, drive to a vacation destination, etc. Why do we really need 350 HP and the ability to go from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds when we can't legally do it anyhow. We do need to be able to merge into traffic on a highway with reasonable performance, but after that, it is all wasted potential. If one wants to go fast, one should own a separate car used on a non-public thoroughfare or race track, and go as fast as you want. Otherwise, we are limited to (for safety reasons)the posted speed limits that are usually 35 MPH in a city setting and 65-70 MPH on the interstate. When one has the potential to go faster and drive like they are in a race car, one will. I never thought I would be saying things like this, since I do enjoy getting on an open road and opening up the throttle, but I am trying to be practical here and save fuel. Maybe it's because my age will start with a 5 in a few months.

My Somerset was not as bad as Matt would think. It had the 2.5 liter engine with a 5 speed manual tranny and performed much better than the same car with an automatic. My 2003 Rendezvous is a prime example of a willingness to compromise. I was willing to accept the better gas milage of this vehicle over that of the Chevy Avalance that I initially wanted to get. Sure, I can't beet many cars in a drag race from the red light in from of the local Wal-mart, but then again who cares! I'll be sitting next to the same guy at the next red light having burned less fuel than he did!

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Every little thing like that helps!

</div></div>

What'd ya' say we turn the rest of this thread into a suggestion clearinghouse on "green" ideas that we can pass on to help our country, our earth, and <span style="font-style: italic">our cars!</span> Every drop we help each other save will be one more day our Buicks can stay on the road!

A two things I haven't mentioned yet myself:

My whole house is lit with compact florescent bulbs. Their light spectra are identical to incandescent bulbs, and they use something like 85% less electricity, I once calculated that in winter I'm saving $10-$20 in electricity per month just using those bulbs!

My house has a strong ventilation fan that draws large quantities air out of the living space and blows it into the attic. In an average summer that saves me about 20+ days of a/c use!

Any other ideas?

[Guest JT]

Dave, I have used the compact fluorescent bulbs for years (even before they were really compact) and they do save a lot of energy. Some I have are at least 12 years old and still burning. The newer ones have much better output and color so I haven't waited for them to burn out before replacing. I also use the compact fluorescent flood lights which I think use about 1/3 the energy.

Since I don't have a lot of grass to cut I bought a rechargeable mower many years ago that has turned out to be one of the better purchases I have made. Other than sharping the blade it's needed no maintenance and of course no gas or oil to keep around . All my other yard tools are electric or rechargeable.

Bought a front load (low water use) washing machine years ago and when I bought a new frig tried to find one of the most efficient on the market.

Energy consumption has been the number one factor when I've made a purchase of any appliance, tool, etc. and price second for the last 14 years or so.

[Dave@Moon]

Today's refinery explosion is going to make gas even more expensive than we've all anticipated. I tried to turn this thread to constructive suggestion once before and it died. It's more important now than ever.

What are you going to do to help conserve fuel/oil/energy this year?