GAS PRICES ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

[55PackardGuy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">conservation is silly</div></div>

That's an engineering post? The new "conservative" point of view seems to honor preservation of capital and lifestyle above all, with no thought whatsoever to the future. I don't believe engineers are working for this. For instance, one reason fuel injection replaced carburetors was conservation--both of resources and environment. Or am I missing something there?

The economy does NOT just drive production and consumption, it also drives conservation. Are engineers paid only to find new ways to exploit resources? Nope. Petroleum engineers may be, but automotive engineers are not.

Ranchero, your point of view is yours to have, but I find it very selfish and short-sighted--and really impractical. We'll see what your Exxon stock is worth in 20 years--or weren't you planning to live that long?

Your reasoning that if only people buy enough of the stuff you've invested in you'll make money in the short term is EXACTLY the reason that things will continue to get worse on the geopolitical scene. The idea that we're going to extract all these resources from our own land and no longer have to go on wars of conquest to assure uninterrupted foreign supplies is a pipe dream, I'm afraid. The expansion of foreign oil dependence RELIES on your market theory. Do you think that all that oil is imported for any reason other than it's LESS EXPENSIVE than production at home?

I doubt it's going to work the way you expect, but it will be interesting to see what happens.

[Reatta Man]

"The economy does NOT just drive production and consumption, it also drives conservation."

Actually, that isn't quite true. Government-mandated fuel economy standards and increasingly stringent emissions levels drove much of the advancements of the mid-70s to late-80s. I say the developments were forced to market, because many mechanics and engineers of that time will agree that failure rates were high with alot of that new technology. Fuel injectors, microprocessors, MAP sensors and other relatively new components had high failure rates, leading to much of the then-deserved reputation domestics had for lowered reliability.

Many foreign cars had a definite weight advantage, and therefore were able to stick with older technology longer, such as carburetors, until they could work out the flaws in the newer technologies. There are some definite exceptions to the foreign cars using a lower level of technology until much later than the domestics, such as the Honda CVCC engine. But, many foreign cars didn't go completely to fuel injection until the early 1990s, while most Ford, GM and Chrysler models were using FI almost totally across the board by 1987.

So, where do we go from here to reach the next level of fuel economy?

If the goverment doesn't bow to pressure from the environmental lobby, NOW we are back to the pressures of the economy driving the pursuit of a better mouse trap. For example, lots of time and money is being spent on direct injection of one form or another. It basically injects the prescribed amount of fuel directly into the cylinder (or a charging chamber connected to the combustion chamber, patterned loosely off of the Honda Stratified Charge process).

Many people think this will give us another 10-15% in fuel economy because that is about how much fuel is lost when it is injected into the intake manifold rather than directly into the cylinder. But, once that last step is perfected and designed into the cars, many engineers think that is as far as we can go with the internal combustion engine. Cadillac and GM, as well as Chrysler are using a system of varible valves, with some valves manipulated at specific speeds to deactivate cylinders. Sure hope it works out better this time than it did with the 4.1 "V8-6-4" engines of the 1980s.

Whether it is variable-valve timing, direct injection using ceramic injectors or some form of gas-electric hybrid, we will continue to reach the next level. But the ideas of conspiracies keeping "miracles" off the market, or conservation solving all our problems in a country with a growing population are not supported by facts. Better solutions will come in spite of those now screaming "Conspiracy!" or wanting to ban all SUVs.

[Guest AlK]

For any one that is interested, I am posting a response to this... individual in the old rant/raves forum where it belongs. This forum should remain specifically geared to Buicks and not this.

[ALF1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Hey, if you carry the conservation arguement far enough (to be riduculous) then you could say we could solve all air pollution (carbon dioxide=global warming) problems if enough people stopped BREATHING......

Hmmmmm............ </div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Or if cows stopped farting, which I believe has been reported as the most serious cause of the above-mentioned problem.

-- ALF</span>

[Pontiac59]

Some amusing comparisons:

1960 Pontiac Catalina, 389 2v 10:1, Hydramatic: 18-20 MPG highway at 76,000 miles. Reg incorrectly states 2300 lbs weight, more like 4000 lbs. 3.08 rear.

1984 Buick Skylark. 2.8L, 2bbl computer control carb, auto trans. 115K. Roughly 18 MPG on the highway - this one was enough of a POS I didn't drive it very far. 2800 lbs. (hey it was free, good winter rat)

1987 Pontiac Safari, 307 4V 140HP, 200R4 trans: 17 MPG highway, roughly 55K on drivetrain. About 4000 lbs.

1989 Dodge Ramcharger. 2WD, 360 TBI, 727 trans, 134K - 14-15 MPG highway. 3700 lbs.

1989 Chevy Suburban. 350 TBI, 700R4. 57,000 miles. 17-18 MPG highway. 4500 lbs. 2.93 rear. Also 2WD

1995 Chevy 1/2-ton 2wd pickup: 305 TBI, 700R4 or whatever they call it that year, 270K on original drivetrain. Again just under 20 MPG.

What it tells me is you don't need all this computer nonsense - a high compression motor with good torque and a good set of transmission ratios will do the same job just fine. I can't remember what the '70 Gran Prix got, it was a 400/4bbl 350 horse with a 4-speed and a 3:55 posi - seems like it was around 16 (probably going to a 2.93 would have brought it to around 20). My 455 Pontiacs would get about 15, also in fullsize cars, but they're lower compression engines - more like 8:1.

The only car I've had that got substantially better milage: 1987 Thunderbird, 3.8L, port injection, AOD trans, about 3400 lbs. Even at 170K it could pull 25-30 MPG highway.

So what I'd like to see is what a computerized port injection system would do on an early 389 with a 4 or 5 (5th being OD) speed transmission behind it. Put it in a 3500-lb car and I bet you'd see 30-35 MPG down the highway -

As for the gas prices, if the damn environmentalists would let us drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska, we could tell OPEC and those other clowns to go to hell and we'd all be paying a buck a gallon again. That and some legal controls on how fast the price is raised could be used to end this crap of jacking up the price daily on gas that's already in the tank at the station. Maybe cut some of the taxes on it, too. The reason it's so high in a lot of other countries is the taxes are 100% to 200% of the actual price of the gas itself.

About ready to fix the '60 Pontiac back up and drive that again. When I ran it before I remember buying gas for 90 cents a gallon in Pennsylvania - in 1995. Here in NY it was floating around $1.05-$1.15. How is it the price can double to damn near triple in just 10 years?

[Reatta Man]

Pontiac,

Actually, those computers are not "nonsense" just because YOU don't like them or want to have to learn how to work on them or deal with them.

If we didn't have them, our air in most major U.S. cities would make Mexico City look like paradise. Before computers, older carbs, like those on most of your vehicles, had to handle all ambient and engine temperatures, ambient humidity, elevation and many other factors with basically two settings; choke on or choke off. The result was that they wasted more fuel than they converted to energy (motion) and the result was pollution.

While the computers help manage engine function to reduce pollution, they also reduce garbage going into the oil to become sludge, and produce V-6 engines that are as fast or faster than V-8s two or three times their size.

As an example, a 1973-1974 Buick Lesabre with a 455 V-8, 4-bbl. Quadrajet and turbohydramatic 3-speed transmission without a lock-up torque converter could expect to get 9-12 in town and 13-16 on the road, especially if the air conditioner was running. It went from 0-60 in 12.6 seoncds, and ran the 1/4 mile in 17.8 seconds. While it was doing that, it produced up to 3 grams of hydrocarbons, 28 grams of carbon monoxide and 3 grams of nitrous oxide per mile.

Fast forward to 2004 and compare a Lesabre with a 3.8 or a Park Avenue Ultra with a supercharged 3.8 V-6 engine, all with that computer "nonsense" in place. The Lesabre goes from 0-60 in 8 seconds, gets nearly 30 MPG on the highway. The Ultra does 0-60 in <span style="font-weight: bold">6.9 seconds</span> and gets just a little less gas mileage. While doing that, they product .125 grams of hydrocarbons, 1.8 grams of carbon monoxide, and .16 grams of nitrous oxide per mile.

Both of the new cars have front and side airbags, daytime running lights, antilock brakes, traction control, improved suspension and tires and much improved seat belts for all passengers. And, both newer cars are quieter, have larger interiors and trunks and better sound sytems than the mid-70s models.

A side-by-side comparison in a crash test wouldn't even be close. If you doubt it, remember there were 54,052 traffic deaths in 1973 compared with 42,643 in 2003, even though annual miles traveled is nearly double.

By the way, that Ultra acceleration is faster than a 1964 Mustang with a 289, a 1967 Mustang with a 390, and less than one second slower than a 1971 Mustang with a 351 and 4-speed tranny.

No matter how you cut it, in terms of safety, emissions, passenger safety and perfomrance, <span style="font-weight: bold">they really don't make them like they used to--thankfully!</span>

The emissions and performancd data is found at:

http://web.missouri.edu/~apcb20/times.html

http://www.repairfaq.org/filipg/AUTO/F_Gasoline5.html

http://www.autos.com/autos/car/luxury/2005/buick/park_avenue/ultra

http://www.autos.com/autos/vehicle_detail?acode=USB50BUC021A0

http://www.saferoads.org/federal/2004/TrafficFatalities1899-2003.pdf

[Gene Brink]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> No matter how you cut it, in terms of safety, emissions, passenger safety and perfomrance, they really don't make them like they used to--thankfully! </div></div> Agree completely but sadly, Joe, they have lost almost all of the "character" cars used to have and that is what I think is missed the most. I think that is what has made the new VW Bug, T-Bird, PT Cruiser, etc. so popular. Perhaps the best of both worlds - new technology with a bit of nostalgia thrown in.

[Reatta Man]

Agree with the "character" issue. Or call it style, pizazz, flash, wow, design; whatever.

That has been the heart and soul of nearly all of my rants about what is wrong with Buick and GM. They have gone from the world's largest motor company to the world's largest supplier of rental cars because they are all so boring.

When I want fun, nothing tops my '65 Buick Wildcat convertible with the top down. But it can't touch modern Buicks for safety or fuel economy.

[55PackardGuy]

Reatta,

Thanks for a pretty darn reasonable reply. I agree that the government mandated changes in auto design were imperfect and caused some pains for the industry in the short run. However, they brought needed pressure to bear which in the long run, as you go on to point out, took us to the next level of emissions controls and fuel economy.

I noticed this line in another post:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gas would be 75 cents a gallon almost overnight because DEMAND would be more than cut in half!</div></div>

Although the actual impact of conservation would be less dramatic, because supply is elastic (Oh, doesn't OPEC know that well!) it does give consumers some control. And when it comes to oil, the U.S. will ALWAYS be a net consumer in the global market. That's a given.

Then, there is the competitive and healthy industry that is formed around conservation technology. Design, engineering and manufacture of products that support conservation become an integral part of the economy. And the products are very attractive on the world market.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"The economy does NOT just drive production and consumption, it also drives conservation."

Actually, that isn't quite true.</div></div>

Actually, you're right. It's not quite what I wanted to say. My point was that conservation of resources does play an important role in good ol' supply and demand economics, as well as being an essential element of good stewardship. It's not only the right thing to do, it also makes practical economic sense.

[Reatta Man]

Packard,

Thanks for the reply. Actually, intelligent responses like yours are what make this forum so appealing to me.

I don't mind of someone disagrees with me because if they can make an intellectual and factual case for their point of view, I want to know it. After all, I have been wrong in the past, could be wrong now, will likely be wrong again sometime in the future and the only way I will know it is if someone "shows me the light."

The thing that overheats my radiator in here is when some (usually of the liberal elitist persuasion) starts calling me or others names, or 'refers' to them in derogatory ways but denies 'calling' anyone a name.

But, it is worth dealing with a few small minds in order to converse with larger, open minds that may very well know more about a subject than I do and are willing to share what they know with me.

Hey, if you are going to work in the news biz the way I do, growing a thick skin goes with the territory. There is always someone willing to tell you how they could have done it better/faster/smarter/cheaper than you did come Monday morning.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Experts often possess more data than judgment.

-- Gen. Colin Powell, USA (Retired) </span>

Keep the thoughts and ideas coming.

Passion is dead without thought.

Joe

[old-tank]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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 </div></div>

Here we go again...this was posted in this same thread 6/1/04...

[55PackardGuy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">when some (usually of the liberal elitist persuasion) starts calling me or others names</div></div>

I would have to say I've seen this cut both ways--having been on the receiving end of heat from both persuations. Personally, I think taking flak from both "sides" is a good sign that you're close to the right track.

As an old "J"-school alum (Minn. 1980) I remember well the phrase that a good newspaper is known by the enemies it makes. I went into advertising instead of news-editorial, so everybody hated us. Problem solved.

I've enjoyed these "big issue" topics as well. Sometimes they're frustrating, but if there wasn't controversy the discussions would probably lose their energy and die. Some "heat" is healthy. This thread is probably more civil than most board meetings, and a helluva lot more civil than a congressional session, don't you think?

We may all be way off base, but it'll still be interesting to see how our interpretations on these subjects compare with how events play out in the "real world."

[Guest Dans 77 Limited]

Name calling is never good , but sometimes you just cant help yourself.Reatta Man when you say you work in the news biz , I sincerely hope you dont mean T.V. news. I have a VERY well deserved VERY jaded opinion of T.V journalists (God i almost choked just typing that and while you may have the integrity of a supreme court judge others in that... and I use the term loosely .....profession do not and having the experience I have had I could never again look at things quite the same way again. I will tell you my story with names named and no punches pulled. This is what has turned me against TV news forever .....Maybe before coming down on this unnamed individual so hard on this board you should try to find out the reasons why he feels the way he does. I mean after all you work in the news biz & must like it , but you havent had this experience.

In 1999 I was a laborer for the cityo Pittsburgh public works department. I did my work to the best of my ability and never took a dime I didnt think I had earned. One day that same year I walked out of a convenience store and was approached by a "investigative reporter" by the name of Jim Parsons who worked for local station WTAE-TV . I didnt know him from a cake of soap but he sure seemed to know a lot about me. He spotted my pickup in the stores lot and approached me cameras rolling. Starts accusing me of loafing on the job , stealing from the taxpayers .....naturally this upset me & I responded as such. It was shown a few days later and to put it bluntly it was VERY creative editing & flat out lies , but it was also sweeps week and channel 4 wasnt about to let the truth get in the way of the ratings. This man attempted to take my job & I didnt even know him.I hadnt even made the 1st payment on my home yet. Luckily for me cooler heads in city government prevailed and they investigated Mr Parsons claims and proved to themselves without any input from me that he was lying. I didnt lose anything but others did , 5 days without pay , termination hearings etc and the man had nothing but a pack of lies. I contacted an attorney and was told I could spend 10K and the best I could hope for was an on air apology. Six months later I get a hard worked for promotion and guess what ... this idiot starts up again plastering my face all over the airwaves speaking indignantly about my promotion. When he found out that I hadnt been punished (because I had did nothing wrong) The little clip of me in the convenience store parking lot was put in a commercial showing how tough Jim Parsons & WTAE were on government mismanagement. I HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG AND THESE PEOPLE TRIED THEIR HARDEST TO RUIN ME MERELY BECAUSE WTAE & JIM PARSONS HAVE AN AXE TO GRIND WITH PITTSBURGHS GOVERNMENT. Makes me see red whenever I think about reporters. Sorry Reatta man Im trying not to hold it against you , I realize it wasnt you but can you see how my experience has colored my opinion ...... maybe this other person can say the same thing.

Dan

[Reatta Man]

Dan,

I've worked with and for most forms of commercial media, but not now.

I'm working in what I think of more as a service and a duty. I work for Air Force News Service in San Antonio. We are part of the Air Force public affairs office in the Pentagon.

I've worked as a wing Public Affairs Officer, as well as at the MAJCOM (major command) and unified command levels as well, including U.S. Southern Command (Panama) and U.S. Central Command during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm.

One of the reasons why I consider this job a service to the public and a duty is because we are now able to push so much news to the American public and the world without the "filter" of the news business. We do that primarily through the Internet such as the official Air Force Web site (www.af.mil) and other military Web sites.

The part that I really enjoy is knowing that we get approximately 2.5-3.5 million hits per week on that Web site. This tells me that Americans, like moms and dads with a son or daughter in the Air Force are getting the latest information straight from the source rather than through Peter, Dan (or his replacement) or Tom. Ditto for CNN or MSNBC.

As for your personal experience, yes, I'm familiar with the approach. It's called an ambush, and it is normally only used for real scumbags, such as people that stole millions of dollars from investors or politicians caught, as former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards would say "in bed with a live boy or a dead prostitute." By the way, Edwards ended up in the Federal pen in Ft. Worth for accepting bribes.

Usually those people will do anything to avoid the media, and an ambush is the only way to get the story to the people. What happened to you was from the Geraldo Rivera-type of person. They are not really considered a journalist by many of us in the biz; in fact we call them names like "blow-dry" or the well know "bubble-headed bleach blonde" (thank you, Don Henley). And, yes, those are only the clean names we have for those people; there are many others but I won't list them here.

Your feelings about modern-day media types doesn't suprise me. When you spend more time on Michael Jackson than you devote to the war, Social Security reform or a list of other important issues, it reminds me of that old TV news slogan; "if it bleeds, it leads (the newscast)."

Joe

[Silver Streak]

In Texas to get oil out of the ground you have to drill for it, and drilling rigs are very scarce (been declining since 1981). At todays prices there would be alot more local drilling and production if rigs were available. But then the government would dig up Jimmy Carter's "windfall profits tax". Right now the rigs that are in service are used to produce wells that have the potential to produce hundreds of barrels a day but not for some in my area that only produce 50 barrels a day. (50 barrels at $50 is still a chunk of change)

SS

[55PackardGuy]

The original title of this thread is kind of ironic, I think. It seems that when it comes to fuel for our cars, even us good supply-and-demand capitalists have a tendency to stop thinking in terms of "market effects" and take it personally when the price goes up. There was a comment about how the pump price rises immediately after news of a supply problem, even though the fuel on hand was produced long before the news of an upcoming shortage. This phenomenon is common with ALL commodities (think of the immediate spike in orange juice prices after an early freeze in Florida) because the prices are always based on the cost of REPLACING the present supply.

With a product that has such inelastic demand as gasoline (ie raising the price or lowering it doesn't affect the demand much, if any), the main reason that the price stays as low as it does is almost certainly influenced mostly by politics. Especially at the federal level, the executive branch knows full well that they are personally blamed for high energy costs. Notice how gas prices started to rise AFTER the national elections? And at the beginning of a second-term presidency? There was a recent, barely mentioned, news item that the Bush administration will not open up strategic reserves of oil now--the same reserves that are presently sacro-sanct were fair game during the first term.

$2.00 per gallon gas is NOT "what the market will bear" but far less than it will. However, it is right around what the voters will support next election, I think.

Our economy operates pretty much on the basis of capitalism, but we always have to remember that the "invisible hand" has a partner, the often invisible hand of government. Sometimes it's used for politically expedient reasons, but I think it's often necessary to temper the market through government controls. Pure, unfettered capitalism seems capable of some horrible abuses. Besides, last time I looked the U.S. Constitution established a Republic, and made no mention of establishing an economic system.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin' with it!

[Reatta Man]

I know this will generate red-hot responses from the politically correct and tree-hugger crowd, but the fact is, gas is high because the environemtal crowd has prevented any new drilling in the Gulf, off the cost of California, or the Eastern seaboard. They have also fought any new refineries and new power plants. And, of course, according to them, the world will come to an end and President Bush will truely be the next Hitler if we drill in ANWR.

Here in San Antonio, the newly rich are running out to the Hill Country to build their 3,000-10,000 square foot estates, but they are suing the power comany that needs to run power lines out to their new neighborhoods because it will "ruin my view of the hills."

Go figure.

[Guest invicta592]

All things in perspective, consider this...

Oil

Mainly Middle Eastern, brought to the surface, via multi-million dollar drilling rig. Sent via a multi-million dollar pipline to the multi-million dollar storage facility. Loaded onto a multi-million dollar tanker to transport it, at enormous cost, halfway round the world. Transported to multi-million dollar oil refineries and converted into petrol,

Cost per gallon...

$2

Beer

Consisting mainly of hops and barley, grown in the field down the road. Blended together with water from the nearest river/stream, and fermented with sugar and yeast for approximately 10 weeks. Cost per gallon...

$16

As petrol prices in the UK are near $5.50 per gallon, I'm often asked why I bother. You know what? If my car did 2 miles oer gallon, I'd still drive it. And I'd smile every mile of the journey.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know this will generate red-hot responses from the politically correct and tree-hugger crowd, but the fact is, gas is high because the environemtal crowd has prevented any new drilling in the Gulf, off the cost of California, or the Eastern seaboard. They have also fought any new refineries and new power plants. And, of course, according to them, the world will come to an end and President Bush will truely be the next Hitler if we drill in ANWR.</div></div>

Known Oil Reserves and Remaining Amounts

THE END OF CHEAP OIL by Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrère,

Scientific American, March 1998

<span style="font-style: italic">"GLOBAL PRODUCTION OF OIL both conventional and unconventional (red), recovered after falling in 1973 and 1979. But a more permanent decline is less than 10 years away, according to the authors? model, based in part on multiple Hubbert curves (lighter lines). U.S. and Canadian oil (brown) topped out in 1972; production in the former Soviet Union (yellow) has fallen 45 percent since 1987. A crest in the oil produced outside the Persian Gulf region (purple) now appears imminent."</span> (Campbell and Laherrère, 1998)

The data tables, especially from the University of Maine link, (which don't reproduce here) tell the real story. The real information is out there if one wants to find it.

"Passion is dead without thought."

[Reatta Man]

She's baaaack!

Passion with nothing more than liberal environmental cliches is the same as dead.

[Dave@Moon]

Joe,

Unlike you, I have no interest in pursuing the personal on this or any other forum. I've simply limited my input to factual matters and statistics, correcting absurd/lazy beliefs where reality was being obscured by them. Where I can constructively help I will continue to do so, even though the numbers and units involved appear to be beyond the understanding of some. The next sentence I'll type here is the closest I've ever come to posting a personal thought on this forum in 5+ years.

<span style="font-weight: bold">I'm perfectly happy to allow all of my posts on this (and every other thread here) stand, allowing the reader to discern which of us is the a$$.</span>

Now does <span style="font-style: italic">anyone</span> care to consider this deadly serious subject matter?

[ranchero]

Dave Moon - No personal comments whatsoever, but did you sell your car? Do you ride the bus? If you really believe all this stuff that you present, do you like cars? Why tell those of us who do like cars how hopeless energy consumption is?

And rather than harp at the rest of us who enjoy cars, why not simply accept that we who do love cars are going to continue to use them - regardless.

If we lived in Europe or Japan or Hong Kong, we might ride public transit and find a better hobby - one more suitable to our residence. In the USA we have fun roads, wonderful cars, long distances, cheap (still) fuel and probably most importantly an optimistic view to the future. I am perfectly confident that there is plenty of oil, right here in North America, for all of us to pour gasoline into our V-8 Buicks (or V-12 Mercedes) as long as we are able to drive them. You see disaster; I see creativity. You see negatives; I see positives. You conserve; I enjoy. You regret that last gallon you got from Saudi; I can't wait for that first drop I pump from ANWR.

Again, please answer clearly. Did you sell your car? Do you use only public transport? Do you like cars? If no to any, then please don't preach to us who enjoy cars and consumption because you would be a hypocrite. I don't mean to be nasty, mean or Republican. I am just using a noun. The noun is hypocrite - not vulgar, not nasty but just a common noun.

Thank you for your civil contribution to this forum. With respect for your opinion back there to the east in Cincinnati - Ranchero -

[Unibody]

Gee Whiz. I go away for a couple of weeks and look at all the fun I missed.

Well Pontiac seems to have been spouting off again. And Raetta, there is plenty to support your arguements. I agree we need to be more careful with the environment, so there are things to be said for both sides. Being radical about it is another story. The environmentalists are the few and us normal consumers seem to be victims of extorsion by our own government. ( I almost said something that would have really kicked off a debate, but the implication is there) So the squeaky wheel get's the grease and the majority suffer again. It just seems to me that we are not being logical about what we are doing about the environment. This country has been forced to be dependant on a bunch of fanatics whose Butts we kiss daily. And at whose expense?

I agree with everyone, but personally, I lean more for keeping everything at home. The air needs to be clean, but I think, in fact sure, it can be done in a more efficient way. Example, Europe is domanant Diesel. Some of those are just a quick as the gas jobs and get 50 MPG, for 500,000 miles. But for gas jobs, we are over engineered. Example. I have a 62 Chrysler 300 with a 383. Best I could get was 19 MPG, well tuned, no wind kind of day. I installed a holly electronic fuel injection and it went to 24.. MMMMM what does that tell you. Sooo Pontiac, you are afraid of something you don't know about? A quick emmisions test revealed I got the car up to the 1998 emmission standards. It just doesn't spit out the acid and sulphur that the rest do.

What's my point? (Honestly, it was a senior moment) We can get better performance, we can get better economy, and more environmentally friendly cars if car manufactures stopped selling Washington a bill of goods. Electronics DO make the difference. We're off the wall with some of this stuff in the US. Take that Buick in 6.9 Secs. Take the emmisions controls out of it, keep the electronic fuel, and THEN see what happens. 40 MPG and 5 Seconds. LOL

[55PackardGuy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...from the politically correct and tree-hugger crowd, but the fact is, gas is high because the environemtal crowd has prevented any new drilling in the Gulf, off the cost of California, or the Eastern seaboard. They have also fought any new refineries and new power plants. And, of course, according to them, the world will come to an end and President Bush will truely be the next Hitler if we drill in ANWR.</div></div>

Sorry Reatta, but I find this a return to inflammatory name-calling. Without calling you anything other than misguided, or identifying you with any "crowd," I will just state that I really doubt that exploitation of U.S. oil reserves and more refineries will be anything more than the proverbial "drop in the bucket" when it comes to either energy independence or the price of petroleum products. Once again, referring to simple economics, the reason the U.S. imports so much oil and transports it thousands of miles is because it's STILL CHEAPER than going after domestic reserves. Remember how the Alaska pipeline was supposed to deliver us from the evil of foreign oil? It never did and never will. It's unlikely that the other reserves you mentioned will do any better. For the foreseeable future, barring a huge and very improbable discovery, if you want cheap oil it's going to be foreign oil.

Invicta592:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All things in perspective, consider this...</div></div>

Exactly! I challenge anyone complaining about gasoline prices to name another commodity that can be purchased at a retail price of $2.00/gallon. Why is that difficult? Because most other commodity prices are far more reflective of actual market conditions.

[Dave@Moon]

Ranchero,

The answers to <span style="font-style: italic">all</span> of your questions and <span style="font-style: italic">all</span> of your continuing misconceptions about oil futures are contained in the posts already on this thread. The idea that concern for the earth and the future is incompatible with any other interest in other subjects is just as absurd as being "<span style="font-style: italic">perfectly confident that there is plenty of oil, right here in North America</span>" in the face of oil industry's own <span style="font-style: italic">extremely contrary</span> data as presented above.

If one's mind can't be changed, if the first and most profitable response is to impugn the source of new information rather than to digest and incorporate it, if life has to be divided into enemy camps that don't agree with you (and that's enough for the definition of "enemy"), then the problem isn't external. I'm afraid that finding out I'm a lifelong car collector and former BCA Chapter President isn't going to impress you any more than the laundry list of things I've done over my life (some posted here) and/or the past week to help with this problem. And neither will any of the other practical aspects this thread held at the beginning and should've continued on to.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way. You will have to make a choice, very soon.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Exactly! I challenge anyone complaining about gasoline prices to name another commodity that can be purchased at a retail price of $2.00/gallon. </div></div>

Guy,

It's very true that gasoline is still quite cheap, and used to cost a lot more, over $3/gal. in March of 1981 adjusted for inflation. That was when 12.9% financing on a top-selling Chevette was considered a very good deal.

The real problem isn't what gas costs now. The real problem is that the very best projections based on the history of economic and political trends and the <span style="font-style: italic">scientific</span> data suggests emphatically that there is a sea change coming in the way we live. <span style="font-weight: bold">By 2008 it's certain that $2/gal. gasoline will be a distant memory, and after the 2008 election (<span style="font-style: italic">regardless of who wins</span>) gasoline will very likely double or triple that amount permanently in what will seem like overnight to us!</span>

We need to be prepared to live in a very different world with our Buicks. It's time we face it!

[Reatta Man]

Guy,

Thanks for your post. I enjoy reading what you have to say. I didn't mean to get into name calling; perhaps simply referring to groups of people that have a single-minded agenda would be more accurate.

Personally, if someone wants to call themselves an environmentalist and recycle everything in sight, that is fine with me AND it is their right as a free American citizen to do so. What peeves me is when that person's view of what is wrong with the world is forced on me as the way I should live, make my economic choices and personal decisions.

As I stated before, and have not heard accurately refuted are the facts that 1) we have never conserved our way out of the need for anything, and 2) we have never run out of a single natural resource. Am I against conservation? No; I use synthetic oil and keep my cars and truck in perfect tune to avoid wasting gas AND money. Do I believe we will soon "run out of oil?" No, because the people pushing that idea are also pushing what vehicles we should drive and how we should heat/cool our homes, cook our food and generate our electricity almost in the same breath.

The fact is, there has been very little exploration for new oil reserves because the people that could bring it to market know they won't be allowed to do so unless the oil is in some Islamic or communist/socialist nation where they can't force their brand of political correctness on the leaders of that nation. Another fact to keep in mind is that the Prudhoe Bay reserve was claimed to just be "a few months supply" by the anti-oil crowd, but later turned out to be the largest find in North America to date. And, like ANWR, it took years to be deveoloped. When it was found in 1968, this nation imported NO oil. When it was brought to market in 1977, we were already importing about 30-35%. The pressures of economics and capitalism suddenly made it worth pursing and bringing to market.

So, when someone shows graphs, charts, estimates or whatever that shows the sky is falling, I tend to NOT believe it because a) they have been proven to be wrong in the past and their claim to the so-called truth supports their agenda.

This isn't the first round of dire predictions based upon a limited set of facts. Before Global Warming, there was the threat of Global Cooling. Before carbon dioxide was said to be a threat, carbon monoxide was the monster that had to be destroyed, and it was--with catalytic converters that converted CO into CO2.

Joe

[Dave@Moon]

Catalytic converters burn unburned hydrocarbons and convert large quantities of nitrous oxides into tiny quantities of sulfur oxides (if they're working correctly) in addition to managing CO emissions. CO management is and always was the least important task of the converter.

In 30 years of environmental study among the men who'd have developed the concept if it existed I never once heard of "global cooling".

Prudhoe Bay was and still is a few months supply, if evaluated as the sole source of oil for the U.S. the way ANWR fans seem to view their salvation. Also it's interesting that the length of time between initial construction and initial supply of oil for Prudhoe Bay (9 years) doesn't seem to phase the ANWR fans. Finally the most optimistic estimates for both Prudhoe Bay and ANWR have already been included in the data posted here.

The last time I checked finding an oil deposit on your property wasn't a burden. People tend to like finding oil, anywhere, even today.

They stopped looking here because it's gone. Period. Everyone who otherwise put hope above reason went broke, like Geo. W. Bush.

We burnt it all already. Deal with it!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Do I believe we will soon "run out of oil?" No, because the people pushing that idea are also pushing what vehicles we should drive and how we should heat/cool our homes, cook our food and generate our electricity almost in the same breath. </div></div>

Your cardiologist must <span style="font-style: italic">love</span> you!

Finally,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I tend to NOT believe it because...their claim to the so-called truth supports their agenda. </div></div>

Who's doesn't? And when shouldn't it?

[Dave@Moon]

...And one last thing. The last two "biased" studies I referenced here were by the Geology Dept. at the University of Maine, and by two Texaco geologists writing in <span style="font-style: italic">Scientific American</span> 7 years ago.

[Reatta Man]

Dave@moon,

1. Since you are a woman, why don't you change your screen name to reflect your gender, or use your real name in your signature?

2. When you flaunt your degrees, it smacks of arrogance, especially the East Coast-New York liberal arrogance that tends to look down on the "red states" and the people that live there, meaning most of the people in this forum. It also tends to turn people off, and make it more difficult to consider your point of view. It also reminds me of the running joke on the old Frasier TV show where people at the radio station would make bets on how long it would take Frasier to mention his Ivy League education when he met someone for the first time.

As for Global Cooling, view the following:

Newsweek article published April, 1975, currently located at:

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

The Wikipedia encyclopedia (online) refers to Global Cooling as dating from the 1970's and 1980's. Go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

A Google search on Global Cooling produced the following results:

5,230,000 for global cooling. (0.10 seconds)

Based on this, I don't think I just invented Global Cooling.

As for your statement that "CO management is and always was the least important task of the converter" you are wrong.

From the Web site www.all-catalytic-converters.com/techtip1.html, comes the following:

In an effort to control automotive emissions, <span style="font-weight: bold">reduce carbon monoxide</span> , smog, and acid rain catalytic converters began appearing on cars in the 1970's.

From the U.S. EPA Web site http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/03-co.pdf you will find the following:

The EPA motor vehicle program has achieved considerable success in reducing

carbon monoxide emissions. EPA standards in the early 1970?s prompted

automakers to improve basic engine design. By 1975, most new cars were equipped

with catalytic converters <span style="font-weight: bold">designed to convert carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide.</span>

As for "Prudhoe Bay was and still is a few months supply" try this information:

ANWR Oil Reserves Greater Than Any State Says DOI

ANWR could produce nearly 1.4 million barrels of oil per day

Washington - Interior Secretary Gale Norton said that oil reserves in the far Northern Coastal Plain of ANWR represent the nation's largest single prospect for future oil

production - greater than any state, including Texas and Louisiana.

http://www.sitnews.net/0303news/031303_anwr.html

By the way, I posted multiple sources stating the size of the ANWR reserve; guess you didn't read them, did you?

Joe

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ANWR could produce nearly 1.4 million barrels of oil per day </div></div>

What part of [color:\\"red\\"]"We currently burn 19.5 million barrels/day." are <span style="font-style: italic">you</span> not getting?

As for whether you or I know which was the most significant air quality threat in 1975, I'll let that slide.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As for Global Cooling, view the following: </div></div>

See the googlefight: http://www.googlefight.com/ . When you combine "global" and "cooling" into "global cooling" you get 55,300 hits, probably (I'm guessing) mainly facetious/sarcastic comments. Care to guess how many hits "global warming" has before you try the link?

For some reason the dang link isn't working. Oh well, "global warming" exists in 8,630,000 web sites to "global cooling"'s 55,300.

[ranchero]

Dave Moon: I am not heeding the "facts" and "science" you cite. You state ANWR can only produce "X". This may be indicated in some research you have done. I might question your credibility, the credibility of your resources and your willingness to find other citations. But especially I just don't accept your perspective. If you say "X" and I say "Y", what's the point? ANWR is just a small portion of what we can go get. We can get more petroleum off the coast of California, off the coast of Florida, off the coast of Louisiana, off the north coast of Alaska, from the Rockies (at $55/bbl it works), from Alberta, etc. What you continue to fail to understand is that demand for energy stimulates production. What oil might have been produced from ANWR years ago at $20/bbl is not what will be produced now at $55 or more. Again, this demonstrates the failure of "liberals" to understand and recognize that not everything is finite or static. Things change. Use dynamic scoring in Congressional budget debates. Use it also when assessing this country's potential to develop all energy - not just petroleum.

Dave Moon, are you also scared of using nuclear power? Do you think we should not build any more nuke plants because one accident happened several decades ago? Do you think we should not build more refineries because accidents frequently have happened at BP's Texas City? Should we not burn coal to provide electricity for California and Ohio because some "acid rain" fell on Europe or Maine? Do you hate the concept of production of energy to satisfy greedy consumners?

It is a bigger world than you recognize. Read the Wall Street Journal. Read Forbes. Read the Financial Times. Read Investors Business Daily. The answer to energy needs is not published in science journals. Rather the answers to energy needs can be found in the study and understanding of economics.

I don't care if the price of gasoline is $1.29 or $2.09 or $3.49 a gallon. I am going to use it and if it ever becomes not economic to do so, I will find a different way to provide for my transportation energy needs. In the big scheme, your discounting of the reserves at ANWR is trivial and meaningless.

- Ranchero -

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I am not heeding the "facts" and "science" you cite. </div></div>

I'd be a fool to expect otherwise. Failing to understand that "dynamic scoring" cuts both ways, making recovery of marginal oil stocks all the more expensive and unattainable with increasing energy costs associated with their recovery, is one illustration of exactly why. Failing to appreciate that these analyses came from the oil companies themselves, and that they reflect "dynamic scoring"'s impact during a period of shortage, is another.

My goal is and always has been to present hard facts and the best available pertinent expectations as published in the most learned, mainstream sources. My hope is that others who read this discussion take stock of not just the gravity of the situation, but the credibility of the sources involved. That you do not appreciate their credibility, and need to assault my character and intelligence to preserve your point (<span style="font-style: italic">"Do you hate the concept of production of energy to satisfy greedy consumners?" etc.</span>) is also not surprising. Trying to convert the true believers would be a silly exercize.

<span style="font-style: italic">Conservatism</span> is a philosophy. It is a school of thought. It's very commonplace today, so people don't notice it, but is disgraces all involved when it is invoked to excuse inaction, laziness, selfishness, and greed.

<span style="font-style: italic">Liberalism</span> is likewise a philosophy. It was similarly used as an excuse to such an extent that it was ultimately discredited and discarded by American society.

One can only hope.

[Reatta Man]

Not going after ANWR is like planning a party, realizing you need four bags of chips, going to the store and finding they only have two bags left on the shelf. Do you not take the two bags of chips because you need four? Certainly not, according to Mrs. Dave's logic!

But wait; the next store you go to also may only have two bags on the shelf. This would provide four bags, which is all I need, but I must not do that because I must get all of them from the same place. But, last time I looked, 2+2=4 not matter where you find them.

Based upon Mrs. Dave's logic, we can NEVER go after ANY oil reserves unless we find ALL we need in ONE place. A mere 1-2 million barrels per day is meaningless to her.

So, let's not go after ANY oil reserve unless it can produce at least as much as Mrs. Dave says we need. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Joe (my real name)