$3.00/gal. Gas !

[Ravenfreak13]

around $3.09 for regular here

[Clownzilla]

as long as china and india have a greater demand for oil than we do,  which is hard to believe, the prices are never going to come back down.

they have the demand and are willing to pay top dollar.  as usual the highest bidder wins (unless you want a govt contract)...but we still want gas, so now we have to increase our bids.  thats just one more factor to add to the mess.

i say this as the price for regular, self serve-they trust us here in ny to pump our own gas-  is over 3.05.  i used to like that number when it was the 5.0 in my chevy.

  about the tax thing-  across the tiny little waterways that separtate ny from nj  gas is min 20 cents cheaper-with full serve too.  no self in jersey.

the great part is its the same gas, being transported throught he same exact lines.

it is what it is i guess

Given the HUGE growth spurt of China and India, oil will not become any cheaper! I know this has been said many times, but E85 (or E100), would be a common sense solution. That is the only way I can see getting out of this problem. Yeah, we could drive more fuel efficiant vehicles, but we have so many extra drivers in India and China, demand will STILL outstrip supply! We need to build more ethonol refineries that use the corn waste to fuel the machines (like in Brazil), create seperate corn markets for ethonol producers to buy and Mr. Joe Farmer to sell, and give tax encintives for gas stations to install E85. If the USA did these three things, we would once again see fuel below $1 a gallon and would have PLENTY of fuel for the SUV's America loves (plus help our fellow farmers, instead of a person from the Middle East that probably hates the USA)! This just makes too much sense!

[Drew Dowdell]

Given the HUGE growth spurt of China and India, oil will not become any cheaper! I know this has been said many times, but E85 (or E100), would be a common sense solution. That is the only way I can see getting out of this problem. Yeah, we could drive more fuel efficiant vehicles, but we have so many extra drivers in India and China, demand will STILL outstrip supply! We need to build more ethonol refineries that use the corn waste to fuel the machines (like in Brazil), create seperate corn markets for ethonol producers to buy and Mr. Joe Farmer to sell, and give tax encintives for gas stations to install E85. If the USA did these three things, we would once again see fuel below $1 a gallon and would have PLENTY of fuel for the SUV's America loves (plus help our fellow farmers, instead of a person from the Middle East that probably hates the USA)! This just makes too much sense!

While I doubt we'll ever see fuel below $1.00 a gallon again... even if it is E85... I agree with the rest of it.

[haypops]

It seems to me that there is too little land, too little water, too little fertilizer, and too few growing days for this ethanol thing to work the way most invision it. Also alcohol (ethanol) has a lower BTU/gal rating then the fuels we are used to further raising transportation costs for the distribution of this fuel.

[sciguy_0504]

Exon reporting the highest profits for a quarter  for any U.S. corporation is history is not what I would call playing games.   

Of course they are going to be posting record profits when oil is the most expensive it has ever been. The costs to retrieve and refine oil are nearly fixed, I think, because if oil prices went down to $50 a barrel, companies would still be making money though not nearly as much. However, the market pushes oil prices up to $75 a barrel and oil companies make a lot more.

Edit: What if we got rid of or limited the use of private planes, NASCAR and boats? Gas consumption and oil prices would go down quite a bit.

Edited May 1, 2006 by sciguy_0504

[RichW5]

Here's an interesting editorial from the Chicago Tribune on Ethanol. The vote to expand refineries narrowly passed and the representitives from Illinois are listed below. Since I don't believe in arguing over politics, I'm let you guess which party voted "NO" to refinery expansion last October. The same party is currently crying about the price of gasoline.

Clue... one of the "NO" voters has a famous father who once ran for President.

The ethanol factor

Published April 27, 2006

There are many factors that go into $3 gasoline, and even more political opinions about how we got there. Republicans blame Democrats for blocking more exploration and drilling. Democrats accuse Republicans of paying too much attention to Big Oil's needs and not nearly enough to conservation.

Next time your congressman wails about how the opposition is to blame, ask this: Exactly what have you done to lower energy costs?

Here's a good case in point: Last October the House narrowly passed incentives to expand refinery capacity. No new refineries have been built in the U.S. in 30 years, which has created a real bottleneck for gasoline production here. That has spurred higher prices, because production can't keep up with demand.

U.S. Reps. Judy Biggert, Dennis Hastert, Henry Hyde, Mark Kirk, Don Manzullo, John Shimkus and Jerry Weller voted in favor of promoting more refinery capacity.

U.S. Reps. Tim Johnson, Ray LaHood, Melissa Bean, Jerry Costello, Danny Davis, Rahm Emanuel, Lane Evans, Luis Gutierrez, Jesse Jackson Jr., Dan Lipinski, Bobby Rush and Jan Schakowsky voted no. In effect, they voted for higher gas prices.

Refinery capacity is one factor. Let's focus for a minute on another key issue in the price of a gallon of gas, one that's near and dear to almost every Illinois politician: ethanol.

Ethanol is billed as a locally produced fuel (it comes from corn) that cuts down on our consumption of foreign oil. But here's how ethanol policy actually drives up the cost of gas.

As a gift to the ethanol lobby, Congress last summer mandated a near doubling in the use of ethanol in gasoline by 2012, to 7.5 billion gallons a year from today's 4 billion gallons.

Ethanol is an oxygenate that reduces pollution (though gas refiners insist they have figured out a way to cut pollution without it.) Congress required more ethanol use at a time when the country is moving away from the only other oxygenate on the market, MTBE, because it has been found to contaminate ground water.

So ethanol producers are scrambling to meet demand and as a result, the price of ethanol has shot up. It's now selling for more than $2.80 a gallon (around $118 a barrel). That's up from a low of $1.35 last summer and a four-year average price of around $1.70. The ethanol mandate has caused price spikes above $4 a gallon and spot shortages at places on the East Coast.

The prices would no doubt be much higher if the federal government didn't provide a whopping 51 cents per gallon tax credit for ethanol producers. Illinois also provides a state sales tax discount that amounts to three or four cents a gallon. And did we mention the high tariffs on ethanol imports that protect the domestic industry from competition?

Gasohol, which includes 10 percent ethanol, is common in the Midwest. The cornfields it comes from are close by and, over the years, an extensive infrastructure to blend it into gasoline has been developed. But there's no comparable infrastructure in other parts of the country; one must be developed. That also adds to the expense--and the price of gas.

Perhaps that added expense would be worthwhile if ethanol substantially reduced oil consumption. But some studies have found that the production of ethanol consumes more energy than the final product saves.

Wait, there's more. You think gas prices are high now? If Illinois pols have their way, ethanol will be the alternative fuel of the future. E85, a blend that is 85 percent ethanol, is on sale at more than 100 stations.

Taxpayer-subsidized ethanol is a boon to some farmers and to Archer Daniels Midland Co. So you won't find many Illinois politicians who question its tax-subsidized production.

But the next time you see members of Congress blaming each other for high gas prices, ask them to explain the economics of ethanol.

Ask how they voted on refinery capacity.

Ask how much of that $3 a gallon can be attributed to ... them.

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

[capriceman]

or military actions?

it 2.779 here in detroit

[Mr.Krinkle]

gotta add that .9 of a penny.

actions speak a lot louder than words in this instance. "we need to get over our addiction to foreign oil" line and not really taking any proper steps to get that point across speaks volumes.

the only way to really make a dent in demand is to have more options when it comes to how we fill up and of course conservation.

unfortunately that will probably mean less money for anyone with an interest in the oil biz. if thats not a conflict of interests...i dont know what is.

[Clownzilla]

It seems to me that there is too little land, too little water, too little fertilizer, and too few growing days for this ethanol thing to work the way most invision it.  Also alcohol (ethanol) has a lower BTU/gal rating then the fuels we are used to further raising transportation costs for the distribution of this fuel.

If it means getting us off of buying oil from crazy dictators, I would grow corn in my back yard! Sounds crazy (and a little bit communist), but the USA should grow the fuel we use every day! If the USA can get people to work towards this (tax credits?), then the average Joe could grow this stuff in a back yard garden. This could be sold at an ethonol market, then be picked up and turned into fuel. I think if it is done that way, and is spread Nation wide, then it could very well work.

[haypops]

Of course they are going to be posting record profits when oil is the most expensive it has ever been. 

Crude oil is the raw product that the oil companies must buy. If its price goes up, and they mantian retail price where it was they would have their lowest profit or a loss. If instead they raise the price of gas fair amount, then their profits would remain constant.

What we have here is they are paying (for example) $20 a barrel more and charging the consumer $30 more. Too bad we didn't see this coming and invest in oil stocks (actually I did in my kids account).

[tmp]

Of course they are going to be posting record profits when oil is the most expensive it has ever been.

Uhh, no. The only way that there are record profits is that there is price gouging. If all the monies were going to R&D, etc, profits would be flat quarter to quarter. That's not happening.

I am very glad that now gas prices are $3.50 a gallon that I can take the bus to work and I have a car that gets 30 mpg.

There was a bit on the ultra-liberal Randi Rhodes show a few days ago about E85, and how GM was the only company that is at the forefront of this technology: they were comparing how Brazil got off the oil teat, with the help of GM, and wondering what it will take for us to do the same. As a liberal, I'd like to start a spearhead to get the idea out there that not only can we get off the foreign oil with E85, but we can save our own industries by being at the forefront of this.

Edited May 2, 2006 by tmp

[Mr.Krinkle]

e85 is a great stepping stone but its not enough to rid ourselves of foreign oil dependence. as it is now it would use about 70% of corn crops for starters.

so basically wed have to import corn instead...which really is fine by me compared to the alternatives

the downside i guess is that id just suck to drop 20 bucks for a bag of popcorn at the movies.

the problem i think is that every time this issue has ever come up in the past everyone just figured theyd be dead by the time it became a real issue.

now, it seems as if the time is ticking faster.

there needs to be a variety to completely wean us.

who the hell knows. damn you sweet crude.

[Clownzilla]

e85 is a great stepping stone but its not enough to rid ourselves of foreign oil dependence.  as it is now it would use about 70% of corn crops for starters.

so basically wed have to import corn instead...which really is fine by me compared to the alternatives

the downside i guess is that id just suck to drop 20 bucks for a bag of popcorn at the movies.

the problem i think is that every time this issue has ever come up in the past everyone just figured theyd be dead by the time it became a real issue.

now, it seems as if the time is ticking faster.

there needs to be a variety to completely wean us.

who the hell knows.  damn you sweet crude.

I would rather import corn from a stable country than oil from the Middle East, Venzuela, etc. I don't know which countries grow corn, but I don't think these oil producing giants have the same stranglehold on the corn market. Also, if we get business (including farmers) to structure right, we could grow most of the corn ourselves in the near future. This country went through a HUGE industrial spurt during WW2, so why can't we crank up agriculture for this current challenge! Good point's you brought up though. Oh, and I can't afford popcorn after paying $10 for a movie ticket!

Edited May 2, 2006 by Clownzilla

[Derek77]

Ethanol can be made out of other things besides corn. Soon, they will start using pulpwood and wood shavings to make it. Also animal waste.

EDIT: No need for the quote.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Derek77

[Mr.Krinkle]

Ethanol can be made out of other things besides corn. Soon, they will start using pulpwood and wood shavings to make it. Also animal waste.

EDIT: No need for the quote.

ehtanol can be made from other living crops so then those crops will become depleted. these arent the asnwers to solve an energy crisis. you can collect all the dog$h! in the world and it still wont equal anything near what hundreds of thousands of acres of corn will produce...you cant cut down trees for this so wood pulp is kindve limited too.

if you used all the cow and horse$h! you could find what would you use to grow the corn and other crops you want to turn into fuel...

theres got to be alternatives and plenty of them...no one thing is going to replace oil.

[sciguy_0504]

Uhh, no.  The only way that there are record profits is that there is price gouging.  If all the monies were going to R&D, etc, profits would be flat quarter to quarter.  That's not happening.

Again, the market pushes up the price of oil because it is a commodity and people can invest in it (just like haypops did, helped raise the price $0.0001). Of course not every cent is going to go to R&D (that's why the ex-CEO of EM received a $400 million retirement package).

[haypops]

I think we are forgetting to add in the petroleum inputs necessary for some of these ideas. If we were to import Corn from other countries, or even ship it around our country, it would take more oil than we would get out of it. Someone proposed growing corn in their backyard. Who will supply the oil to ship the corn to the processing center. Also the fertilizer used for a crop like Corn comes from petruleum. The backyard thing isn't all bad though. Instead of crowing corn do what the Israelis do. Use the sun to heat water passisvely instead of using natural gas or electricity. This would free up these resources for transportation, etc. Likewise consider dandelions as an alternative.

[rkmdogs]

That is not correct.  The price of fuel cost the same for the most part around the world.  Only the tax is different.

Not true!

In Saudia Arabia gas sells for $.50/gal!

In Venezuela it was $.38/gal.

Don't say that we are just catching up to the rest of the world. In most other

countries, gas is taxed ABOVE the actual cost as a political statement.

And lastly, what European country has the demographics and expanse that we do?

How many people over there drive 30-40-or even 50 miles to work?

---- one way?

The insurance companies "average" driving statistic of 15,000 miles a year

is a joke.

Some people do that in a month, just commuting!

[rkmdogs]

Uhh, no.  The only way that there are record profits is that there is price gouging.  If all the monies were going to R&D, etc, profits would be flat quarter to quarter.  That's not happening.

I am very glad that now gas prices are $3.50 a gallon that I can take the bus to work and I have a car that gets 30 mpg.

There was a bit on the ultra-liberal Randi Rhodes show a few days ago about E85, and how GM was the only company that is at the forefront of this technology: they were comparing how Brazil got off the oil teat, with the help of GM, and wondering what it will take for us to do the same.  As a liberal, I'd like to start a spearhead to get the idea out there that not only can we get off the foreign oil with E85, but we can save our own industries by being at the forefront of this.

Great idea, but you are forgetting a few reality facts. There are currently only

600 stations in the country that can dispense E85 properly. This is out of almost

400,000 gas stations!

Secondly, distribution and storage are the big problems, and the reseachers say

that it will take 10 years and over 35 Billion dollars to equip all gas stations with alternative fuel dispensing and storage capabilities. AND that is only for ONE

alternative fuel! What happens when hydrogen is the front-runner?

And the major fuel source material in Brazil is Sugar cane, not corn, like here.

Sugar cane is less than half the cost of corn!

I didn't hear Ol' George say anything about the Fed contributing into this part of

the solution.

[Mr.Krinkle]

yeah, who ever thought wed run out of oil or that theyd jack up the price so much wed want to stop using it?

[Daryl Z71]

It pisses me off how the government doesn't do anything about the prices but "LOOK INTO IT" Instead of the stupid President doing something about the price of gas he puts a new bill in law that car manufactures need to make vehicles that have better gas mileage! Now why doesnt he just solve the problem in one step LOWER THE DAMN GAS PRICES!!!

[Satty]

Bush cant just wave a magic wand and make gas prices fall. Maybe if we gave him some information that Exxon was trying to develop weapons of mass distruction he could invade, take them over and keep saying gas prices would drop.

[Clownzilla]

Bush cant just wave a magic wand and make gas prices fall.  Maybe if we gave him some information that Exxon was trying to develop weapons of mass distruction he could invade, take them over and keep saying gas prices would drop.

Ouch! Below the belt!

[Daryl Z71]

Bush cant just wave a magic wand and make gas prices fall.  Maybe if we gave him some information that Exxon was trying to develop weapons of mass distruction he could invade, take them over and keep saying gas prices would drop.

LMAO! That was below the belt but funnier than hell!

[haypops]

Bush cant just wave a magic wand and make gas prices fall.  Maybe if we gave him some information that Exxon was trying to develop weapons of mass distruction he could invade, take them over and keep saying gas prices would drop.

Mostly you are right. Any president could sell off stocks from the reserve and in so doing drive prices down. He could also lower the federal speed limit which would lower consumption which would in turn lower prices.

[longtooth]

Anybody hear tonights news, with the nonchalant announcement that

gas will hit $3.00/gal in the next few weeks, but that by next summer, it could be up another $.25 !

Then the newscaster said that "the Big TWO" are pointing fingers at the large

oil companies and accusing them of gouging, and the oil companies are

answering back that Detroit has not done anything to improve efficiency in the past 10 years!

Who in the hell cares?!!!! I'd throw them both in jail for raping the U.S public!

This nonchalant attitude about these sky-rocketing prices, with no rational

explanations is going to kill American industry, and cause one helluva crash!

Then nobody will be buying cars or driving anywhere because they won't be able to afford to do so.

Ever hear the story about eating the seed corn, and then starving to death?

Well, that is what we are doing here in America.

Wake up, everybody......... especially you head-in-the-sky legislators, and you

     >>>Below, is in response to the above, plus other points made in this thread.

thank you!, 'tooth

It isn't rape if the other party is ready and willing...(to buy cars and trucks which burn fuel)...we collectively did nothing or very little in response to the first two oil "shocks".

The money spent so far on an unpopular war (not to mention the incalculable cost in lives lost, families shattered and in human suffering) could've put us 8/10ths or better down the path toward energy independence. The adage that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it continues to be played out by the masses who're more consumed at the moment finding work with which to support a family. The fluctuating, escalating cost of fuel is as a regressive tax on those working poor families who rely on sometimes less efficient means of tranportation than those people who've greater means. But in the end, the masses will determine who determines the energy policies of the future at the polls, and ultimately the price at the pump.

     For those itching to finger point, and/or assess blame, i'm afraid it is increasingly obvious that we only need look in the mirror to see the one who is culpable in this matter.

Edited May 15, 2006 by longtooth