Gas prices, and something to think about.

streetknight

rip ssb
Mar 30, 2005
157
0
0
melbourne, fl
ok i stoped reading some of the post they where too long and im tired. but this is my opinion. when you guys voted for bush as president u f'ed up. ppl just wanted a rep. president, not carring what he really stood for. the bush family made money in oil, and they still do. while alot has gone bad here and overseas, it would have never account for these high of prices. i personally could understand when we hit $2 after 9/11 with all the extra protection need. but once it went over that, thats when i say, its just the companies being greddy.
 

RacerXJ220

Interdimensional
Mar 30, 2005
1,504
0
0
Abalama
It doesn't have to burn on water, it can use a cleaner form of gas, natural gas. Sure they're expensive, but the money that was spent on the war could have more than compensated for the production of those vehicles. Such as introduce a law where the government would pay for 50% of every vehicle powered by an alternate fuel, which may also help the economy. The only other problem with that, is to build fueling stations with these new fuels, which state governments can impliment. Yeah, this is all just talk but money is talking with these gas prices as well. Offer incentives, and people may just bite. People will say they want a car that when you give it gas, it goes, yet what do they all drive? Slow SUV's. Most people never need to go that fast anyway. Keep the police in their gasoline powered flagships, and military of course, but an althernate form of energy is the best option IMO. It still pollutes if it makes heat, no argument there, but hydrocarbons isn't the best. If every car made water (they already do with catalytic converters) it would not effect cloud cover so significantly that it would cause global warming. The oceans are so vast, to consider that producing or burning water would make an impact to me, is not worth while.

Electric cars are the way to go for everyone. Hybrids are also excellent. Government help is sought greatly in these matters.
 

IJ.

Grumpy Old Man
Mar 30, 2005
38,728
0
0
62
I come from a land down under
CNG is easy to do as it uses much the same hardware as the LPG I run daily.
(Compressed Natural Gas) Where it falls over is the infrastructure to support it again no one wants to spend the $$$ to set up a distribution network.
 

Adjuster

Supramania Contributor
Ok, so CNG is a great fuel, but it still comes out of the ground. :) And pound for pound, does not have the energy in it petrol does. (Heck, diesel fuel has more energy, but due to the tight emmisions standards, we can't get the good passenger car diesels here in the USA, Thanks Tree Huggers!

My point on starting this thread was to make you guys think about this, and to start discussion on fossil fuels being a lie. I see a few people coming back that new fuel sources are needed, or electric cars...

There are proven studies showing that electric cars are more poluting than a new Honda Accord 4 cyc. Yep, the accord puts out less emmissions than the power plant that re-charges your electric car. (Now, if the Sierra Club had not stopped all the hydro electric dam building in the USA, that might be different, or if we had not stopped building Nuke power plants, it would change too, but right now, with the coal and natural gas powered electrical plants in the USA being the most effective current way to produce power, your electric car is a gross polluter by todays standards.)

Electric powerd cars are not feasable. That is why the few hybrids on the road are the only ones still on the road. (Full electric only cars really don't exist in any substantial form, and are too expensive to produce with current technology.)

The idea of the government paying for the cars is not what I want. That is just more socialist thinking, and it will end up in your rights being restricted yet again. (Gee, while were at it, let's limit these cars to 55mph, or better yet, make speed limits interactive with the car, and when you pass the sign, that's as fast as your car will go... ) It get's worse. Why not monitor your brakes, steering and throttle imputs, and we can rate what kind of driver you are, then charge you more for insurance, or just issue tickets when you break the law. (Red light cameras are a classic form of this.)

Do you guys realize that the OBDIII computers on new cars reccord everything you do in the car, and have been used in court to convict the drivers of the cars like a secret hidden camera. (These "black boxes" can be read by simply plugging into them, but at this time with the cost of wireless technolgy going down so much, many of the car makers are thinking of putting it into your vehicles. A police officer could just read the real time data from your car, and then pull you over to issue the ticket. No need to do that even, just mail you the ticket, your vehicles computer just gave them the information to prove you were breaking the law. (Or broke the law reciently, so here's your cite.)

Right now, there are insurance companies using this data, and experimenting with it to charge you exactly for your coverage. How you drive will determine your rates. Not your driving reccord, but actually how you drive your car. For me, that is too much information for them to have. I have no tickets, but I do speed everywhere I go. Just 5 to 7 miles over the limit. I also use my brakes, and 100% throttle quite a bit, but again, I don't have any tickets, or accidents. Heck, I work for an insurance company :)

Back on topic, the current use of oil and gas is not going to change. Cars will run on Petrol/gas, houses will be heated by fuel oil or natural gas, my AC will be powered by a coal burning plant, or if I'm lucky, hydro power dam that was built before the 70's when the Sierra Club got involved.

Get involved, and change the way you think about Oil. Change the way your friends think about oil. It might just end up in the way our leaders think about oil, and that change will be good for your pocket book, and the economy in general.
 

SupraMario

I think it was the google
Mar 30, 2005
3,467
6
38
38
The Farm
Adjuster said:
There are proven studies showing that electric cars are more poluting than a new Honda Accord 4 cyc. Yep, the accord puts out less emmissions than the power plant that re-charges your electric car. (Now, if the Sierra Club had not stopped all the hydro electric dam building in the USA, that might be different, or if we had not stopped building Nuke power plants, it would change too, but right now, with the coal and natural gas powered electrical plants in the USA being the most effective current way to produce power, your electric car is a gross polluter by todays standards.)

that sounds like what they did to the nashville thermal plant. in went garbage, and out came steam, the trash was burned at such high lvls of heat that it was vaporized into a no poluting exhaust, but no those tree huggers were to fuckin stupid to know this all they saw was white looking smoke and they assumed it was bad for the environment. so they pretty much had the thremal plant burned. jobs were lost more money had to be spent to make up for the electricity that the thermal plant was producing and best of all the trash it was destroying had to be dumped into land fills now. all i have to say is PEOPLE ARE FUCKIN STUPID.
like the line from MIB "people are stupid..." sometimes i wish the dumbones, and im talkin about the DUMB ones, you know who im talkin about we have all encountered a complete dipshit, and u say to yourself ur a waste of fuckin oxygen. those people.
 

kwnate

Lurker
Jul 10, 2005
2,725
0
0
None of your fucking business
streetknight said:
ok i stoped reading some of the post they where too long and im tired. but this is my opinion. when you guys voted for bush as president u f'ed up. ppl just wanted a rep. president, not carring what he really stood for. the bush family made money in oil, and they still do. while alot has gone bad here and overseas, it would have never account for these high of prices. i personally could understand when we hit $2 after 9/11 with all the extra protection need. but once it went over that, thats when i say, its just the companies being greddy.

So are you saying that if John F Kerry the war hero was elected gas prices would be $2? Um no, we'd be in the exact same spot... Gas prices are affected by politics, but it doesnt matter republican or democrat the prices are going up cuz people are stupid... The more they tell you its going to run out the more you'll see gas going up. The only way to lower prices is to start drilling in the states... Liberals say: "This wont help today anyway... you wont notice a difference at the pumps for at least 4years" Well at least there is some relief in sight. Hybrids aren't the answer and niether is mass transit... I'd rather pay $4 a gallon than drive a car that looks like a space ship yet cant fucking fly. Mass transit is not for me either. What we need is a new source to sell us oil at half of what the major companies are selling at and drive the price down... Competition is the only way to stablize prices otherwise, the big 3 will keep selling for more and more...
 
L

lanky189

Guest
i can't count the number of political bashings in this thread on my hands...

i'll not bother to respond but instead i'll say laissez faire economics...let us buy from who, or get it from where we want and this will all be solved...the government (no matter the political affiliation) should have NILL to do with who we buy from.


but thats just the Liberaterian (sp?) coming out in me.
 

streetknight

rip ssb
Mar 30, 2005
157
0
0
melbourne, fl
kwnate said:
So are you saying that if John F Kerry the war hero was elected gas prices would be $2? Um no, we'd be in the exact same spot... Gas prices are affected by politics, but it doesnt matter republican or democrat the prices are going up cuz people are stupid... ...
nope i personally did not vote for either. i know its not just bush's fault, but i do think he can do alot about it. he does not have to let us get reamed, but he choses to let it happen.
 
E

eremyj

Guest
I hate the way ppl always blame the president (one man). If you knew anything about American government you would realize that the president of the United States (one man) isn't powerful enough to impact the world in this way. The presidnt is just a puppet on a string.
 

streetknight

rip ssb
Mar 30, 2005
157
0
0
melbourne, fl
oh dont get me wrong i know hes just a puppet. but the reason he one of the biggest puppets is because like state above by ij "Govt's are only interested in winning another term so won't do anything unpopular!" so we can really only blame him.
 

Adjuster

Supramania Contributor
Actaully, if anyone could start this, it would be a final term president of the USA.

We have the oil resouces right here in the USA. (It would be tight, but it would work.)

We could buy oil from outside the country, but that has some serious dangers. You think we just ended up in this problem overnight? It took years of low prices and planning on the part of OPEC, and our Saudi friends. (They dumped cheap oil for many years, drove the costs down, put many in the oil business out of business here in the USA, and now that we have allowed business to dry up, and allowed the environmentalists and bad science to be widely accepted, we are stuck with high prices for a plentiful commodity that should be 1/4 of the price at the most.)

J.F. Kerry would not have done anything. He's of the mindset that we should make the gas prices higher so we encourage conservation of the resource. (And only allow the rich to drive the fucking bastard.) This is what has been done for decades in Euorpe and many other countries, high taxes to promote people to drive less, and use public transportation more. (It does not work either, as the guys from TopGear pointed out in England, and I found out first hand in Holland.)

No, here in what's left of the "Land of the free" we need to get back to reality, and start drilling for oil everywhere we know there are fields. We need to start a active search for new fields too. (This is happening, trust me, at 70.00 per barrel, many rich folks are looking for oil to find more to sell you. It is when the price drops back down to 20.00 per barrel that they will go away. In the early 80's, the OPEC nations forced the price down under 20.00 to put these competitors out of business, and we just sat by and let it happen then. I think world demand now, especially as China starts to drive cars and their industry grows to supply that huge market along with many of us in the world, the price of oil will remain above 20.00. (A tipping point of sorts to either stay in the business, or cap the well and leave it.)

In 1985 I worked for a company that sold "stripper" wells in Ohio. These were old wells that had gradually slowed down in production to about 30 barrels a day. At 20.00 per barrel, the average price of oil in 1985, it was considered a tax write off to own these wells. They did not make much money, and you did not lose much, but they were not profitable unless you had them "re-fract'd" or drilled them down deeper. The oil in Ohio flows through shale deposits from what I was told, and if you placed a charge down in the well, and blew it up, the new cracks around the well would allow more oil to flow out, and increase the barrels per day you could get out of the well. (From 30 to about 3x that with a good blast.) The cost was 10k to do the work. The wells were about 10k each as well. (Dang cheap now looking back.) So, for 20k in 1985 dollars, you could be sitting on a well that puts out 90 barrels at 70.00 each today.
Just think of all the wells that have been capped all over the nation that were not profitable just a few years ago, but are laying around idle. (ALso we know that the oil refills from the bottem up, so it's very likely these oil fields are now full of oil again, and I would not be supprised that 150 or 250 barrels per day could be pulled out for a few years, making you just that much richer in the short term.)

I don't doubt that as soon as I buy a capped well, and show up with the equipment to open it back up, some jackass envrionmentalist will also show up with a lawsuit claiming I'm killing some mud bug, or rare fly... So much for that idea in the current political/leagal environment.

Perhaps in a few years, when oil is pushing 100 or more a barrel, and we are paying out the ass for fuel, this might change.

Unfortunatly it will have to get much worse to completely sway public opinon, but the government is running the risk of being blamed for ignoring the problem. And a problem they knew to be false. (That we would run out of oil soon, or that production at home was dry.)

Personally, it would take a J.W. Bush who is in his last 4 years to start this off right. He's not fighting for re-election, he's done this time around. And anything he does right now, will not reflect poorly on the next person to run for President. Let's get it started now, so in 4 or 5 years, we are enjoying the excellent supply of oil, both here and everywhere else on the planet. (You think the Saudi's are going to stop selling oil if it's 20.00 a barrel again? LOL nope, they will just sell more of it, and we will have to be careful not to fall into a trap that kills our local producers again, but it can be done if we are widely aware that oil is NOT A FOSSIL FUEL< BUT IS WIDELY FOUND ALL OVER THE WORLD. (You just have to dig deeper, and it helps to use natual pockets or oil fields when you can find them.)
 

limequat

Dissident
Apr 1, 2005
532
0
0
Detroit
lanky189 said:
i can't count the number of political bashings in this thread on my hands...

i'll not bother to respond but instead i'll say laissez faire economics...let us buy from who, or get it from where we want and this will all be solved...the government (no matter the political affiliation) should have NILL to do with who we buy from.


but thats just the Liberaterian (sp?) coming out in me.

Lanky is a Libertarian? Maybe we should start a Libertarian / Market Anarchist club. Who's in?
 

limequat

Dissident
Apr 1, 2005
532
0
0
Detroit
Adjuster said:
Personally, it would take a J.W. Bush who is in his last 4 years to start this off right. He's not fighting for re-election, he's done this time around. And anything he does right now, will not reflect poorly on the next person to run for President. Let's get it started now, so in 4 or 5 years, we are enjoying the excellent supply of oil, both here and everywhere else on the planet.
Bush is in the back pocket of the Saudis, don't count on him to look out for the little guy. All we can do is wait for the market to catch up. If there is truly money to be made by drilling for oil in the US, some one will jump on it.
 

Adjuster

Supramania Contributor
Like I said, this is going to take a last term President, who has a natural disaster and high gas prices at the pump to do it. (This is the perfect time, but I do believe your right, he's not going to have the balls to do it. But there is nobody else out there who would at this time, so I suppose that's life. eh?)

The oil companies are jumping on it right now, and the current government is allowing them to get things done, and in areas where the Clinton disaster of 8 years forbid them to drill or even explore for oil fields. (I might want to point out that a great coal bed in Utah was set aside as a roadless area, and national park while he was at the same time signing a bill that required the coal fired power plants to use low sulfer coal, and he was taking huge bribes from a South Asian country that produces large amounts of low sulfer coal... Oh, where is the largest low sulfer coal deposit found yet in North America? Let's think this one over... Yep, in the same area he put "off limits" with a stroke of his pen right before he left office.. Sneaky Bastard that Clinton is, he never even answered any questions to the media because they never noticed, and would not have asked if the did. (Being that the media in general thinks we don't need coal, and we need more wasted wilderness areas to backpack and take photos of, but not use that land for anything.)

So, I can at least hope that we might have a President who would step up and start the ball rolling so in a few years, we could see plentiful supplies of developed oil production in North America, and watch out economy grow accordingly fed by plentiful and cheap oil products for the next few hundreds of thousands of years. (Or more.)

My point is, and always has been in these threads, that we have it here, and we need to develop it here, or we are going to just become more dependant on little nation states sucking on our economy, and training terriorists at oil money funded, and religious backed camps. (People will do anything for money, or God. Combine the two, and you really have a powerfull force to be reckoned with, and they know it.)
 

Adjuster

Supramania Contributor
One more thing.
Untill we dispose of the notion that oil is a "fossil fuel" and get to the real science of oil being a hydrocarbon, that is part of the geology of the earth, we will not see this change happen.

1) The Oil Companies love the idea that oil is a scarce resource, and might run out anyday now.... (even though they know this is a lie, they love the lie, so they support it.)
2) The Environmentalists love the lie that oil should be conserved, and that we are all greedy polluters if we don't drive electric cars, or ride the bus. (Preferrably we just live in cities, and ride bikes to work when we can't just walk...)
3) Our schools, being overrun with environmentalists and left thinking leaders, can't let go of the lie, so they continue to teach it, even in the face of much better science and proven facts that completely debunk the whole idea that we are burning dead animals and plant debris crushed under layers of sedimentary rock, and sucked out of small pockets located over what used to be seas and forrests... Yada yada fucking yada.)

Untill we change those 3, we can't get to the point where oil is being treated for what it is. A plentiful source of carbon based energy, and one that we have just barely started to tap on this planet. (And one that we should be looking at on other planets in the future, say 50 to 100 thousand years from now, it might be nice to have a fuel stop on planets around the solar system or beyond.)
 

limequat

Dissident
Apr 1, 2005
532
0
0
Detroit
Adjuster said:
3) Our schools, being overrun with environmentalists and left thinking leaders, can't let go of the lie, so they continue to teach it, even in the face of much better science and proven facts that completely debunk the whole idea that we are burning dead animals and plant debris crushed under layers of sedimentary rock, and sucked out of small pockets located over what used to be seas and forrests... Yada yada fucking yada.)

Don't get me started on public schools...