Jump to content


Photo

Coming to a gas station near you, 4 dollars plus per gallon gas


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#31 fishweewee

fishweewee
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,712 posts
  • Joined: Sep-29 2000

Posted February 22 2012 - 7:05 AM




Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamakatsu View Post

So, what do you figure should be done about Iran?





Well, that's what was driving yesterday's surge.



 



Will be interesting to see what happens when China starts to show economic figures that are weaker than expected.  Ind'l production #'s already came out this morning lower than expected.




#32 fishweewee

fishweewee
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,712 posts
  • Joined: Sep-29 2000

Posted February 22 2012 - 7:06 AM




Quote:

Originally Posted by tony44 View Post


Really?Ever hear of the word "pipeline"? You know, the one Obama denied?





That pipeline, while it would have been a nice addition, wouldn't have added that much to production.  Although every little bit helps.




#33 Drew C.

Drew C.
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,233 posts
  • Joined: Jan-20 2003

Posted February 22 2012 - 7:14 AM

For the people that want t0 blame Obama for the high price of gas - does it mean that if a republican gets in we will have gas back at $2 a gallon? I'd really like to hear how that's going to happen...



#34 gray gables

gray gables
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,875 posts
  • Joined: Mar-04 2008

Posted February 22 2012 - 7:19 AM

For the people that want t0 blame Obama for the high price of gas - does it mean that if a republican gets in we will have gas back at $2 a gallon? I'd really like to hear how that's going to happen...


yeah,me to.



#35 albacized

albacized
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,325 posts
  • Joined: Apr-24 2006

Posted February 22 2012 - 7:22 AM

On a related note, the White House press secretary tried to blame the lack of approval for the keystone project on the Republicans, stating that it was because the Republicans were 'playing politics' during the process of working out a deal....LOL...an extention of the old 'It's Bush's fault' stragedy

This is bad in two ways...first it's a flat out lie...secondly, even if true, it strikes of a 'I'm gonna take my ball and go home - and screw the rest of you' attitude



#36 fishweewee

fishweewee
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,712 posts
  • Joined: Sep-29 2000

Posted February 22 2012 - 7:22 AM




Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew C. View Post

For the people that want t0 blame Obama for the high price of gas - does it mean that if a republican gets in we will have gas back at $2 a gallon? I'd really like to hear how that's going to happen...





You can blame him for having no coherent energy policy. 



 



The complete aversion to anything carbon short changes all of us.



 



We could have spent the last few years gearing up our cars, for example, for compressed natural gas.  The Obama administration could have streamlined the EPA regs to encourage the development of natural gas burning passenger car engines.  It costs something like $150,000 to submit one engine design to the EPA for review.  And then it takes forever to get it approved. 



 



Why natural gas?  Because we have a metric $hit ton of it and it's CHEEP.  Distribution wouldn't be all that hard.



 



Yes, it's carbon, but it's cleaner burning than gasoline.



 



It would be an interim solution to take some of the pressure off of petroleum demand - we could, for example, reserve the use of diesel and other refined crude products for commercial trucking, mass transit, airlines, and the military. 



 



Gotta love ideology.




#37 boxlock

boxlock
  • Elite Member

  • PipPipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Joined: Nov-18 2003
  • LocationCarlisle Pa.

Posted February 22 2012 - 7:30 AM



You can blame him for having no coherent energy policy.

The complete aversion to anything carbon short changes all of us.

We could have spent the last few years gearing up our cars, for example, for compressed natural gas.  The Obama administration could have streamlined the EPA regs to encourage the development of natural gas burning passenger car engines.  It costs something like $150,000 to submit one engine design to the EPA for review.  And then it takes forever to get it approved. 

Why natural gas?  Because we have a metric $hit ton of it and it's CHEEP.  Distribution wouldn't be all that hard.

Yes, it's carbon, but it's cleaner burning than gasoline.

It would be an interim solution to take some of the pressure off of petroleum demand - we could, for example, reserve the use of diesel and other refined crude products for commercial trucking, mass transit, airlines, and the military. 

Gotta love ideology.


not so sure coherent is the word , something like total lack of, comes to mind



#38 chunk

chunk
  • 5,000 Post Club!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,682 posts
  • Joined: Nov-12 2005

Posted February 22 2012 - 8:20 AM

how do people pass the buck when it comes to what Osama promised. He promised an energy policy that would reduce the cost of fuel.. The messiah can't deliver on the issue, avoids the issue, and ignores the issue. Gas is double the price it was during the Bush years at many points in time. I hear absolute nonsense from lefties when it comes to any coherent applicable green energy plan that saves $$$ and protects the environment. The winds blow noth south east and west. Emissions from China end up in our air so why are we the ones that should suffer at the hands of inept leadership incapable of recognizing that fossil fuels are never in our lifetimes going to go extinct like the way of the dinosaur.


New Jersey King Crab

#39 DontTreadOnAnyone

DontTreadOnAnyone
  • 1,000 Post Club!

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,404 posts
  • Joined: May-20 2009

Posted February 22 2012 - 8:31 AM

For the people that want t0 blame Obama for the high price of gas - does it mean that if a republican gets in we will have gas back at $2 a gallon? I'd really like to hear how that's going to happen...


Of course you will expect that to happen immediately as well. No lame excuses like "refineries take 10 years to complete" or "permitting for new oil wells can take years" or Keystone pipeline oil is now going to China"

Oh no, if a Republican is in office we want everything to be fixed immediately. No saying trash like "I inherited this mess and it's worse than even I thought."



#40 Olbarny

Olbarny
  • 1,000 Post Club!

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts
  • Joined: Jun-17 2006
  • LocationCentral NJ

Posted February 22 2012 - 8:33 AM



That pipeline, while it would have been a nice addition, wouldn't have added that much to production.  Although every little bit helps.


It would, however, be a step down the road to energy independence, or at least non-dependance on countries/governments which hate us.


:howdy: I'm a straight, white, Republican male.....what else can I do to piss you off?

 

"When Hillary Clinton travels, she needs two airplanes ...one for her and her entourage, and one for her "baggage" - Rand Paul


#41 zybathegeek

zybathegeek
  • 5,000 Post Club!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,419 posts
  • Joined: Oct-03 2008

Posted February 22 2012 - 9:53 AM

You can blame him for having no coherent energy policy. 
The complete aversion to anything carbon short changes all of us.
We could have spent the last few years gearing up our cars, for example, for compressed natural gas.  The Obama administration could have streamlined the EPA regs to encourage the development of natural gas burning passenger car engines.  It costs something like $150,000 to submit one engine design to the EPA for review.  And then it takes forever to get it approved. 
Why natural gas?  Because we have a metric $hit ton of it and it's CHEEP.  Distribution wouldn't be all that hard.
Yes, it's carbon, but it's cleaner burning than gasoline.
It would be an interim solution to take some of the pressure off of petroleum demand - we could, for example, reserve the use of diesel and other refined crude products for commercial trucking, mass transit, airlines, and the military. 
Gotta love ideology.


Further to what you are saying about natural gas...

Emissions from the Combustion of Natural Gas

Natural gas is the cleanest of all the fossil fuels, as evidenced in the Environmental Protection Agency’s data comparisons in the chart below, which is still current as of 2010. Composed primarily of methane, the main products of the combustion of natural gas are carbon dioxide and water vapor, the same compounds we exhale when we breathe. Coal and oil are composed of much more complex molecules, with a higher carbon ratio and higher nitrogen and sulfur contents. This means that when combusted, coal and oil release higher levels of harmful emissions, including a higher ratio of carbon emissions, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Coal and fuel oil also release ash particles into the environment, substances that do not burn but instead are carried into the atmosphere and contribute to pollution. The combustion of natural gas, on the other hand, releases very small amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, virtually no ash or particulate matter, and lower levels of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and other reactive hydrocarbons.

Posted Image


Natural gas, as the cleanest of the fossil fuels, can be used in many ways to help reduce the emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere. Burning natural gas in the place of other fossil fuels emits fewer harmful pollutants, and an increased reliance on natural gas can potentially reduce the emission of many of these most harmful pollutants.


We have enormous reserves of natural gas, opinions vary, but one considered but conservative estimate by the Rand Corporation runs to 400 years worth of energy requirements at existing consumption.

I'm not leveling the blame for lack of development at just this administration, this ridiculous energy ideology has spanned multiple administrations of all political persuasions and there seems no remedy in sight.

Since there seems plenty of stimulus dollars flowing, why not put a few billion into subsidizing conversion of the US domestic vehicle fleet, as well as building out filling stations across the nation.

LNG vehicle technology is stable, developed and has been in use across the world for decades. It is widely, and successfully used in the US for metropolitan buses.

Funding an initiative such as this would mean jobs and lot of them. Not just manufacturing the technology, but also flow through to fitters and maintenance folk in small towns right across the nation

The payback would be relatively immediate and run into significant long term benefits.



Nullus Anxietas

#42 The Hairy Beast

The Hairy Beast
  • 5,000 Post Club!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,031 posts
  • Joined: Jan-22 2008

Posted February 22 2012 - 12:59 PM

Presidents can influence high gas prices and have done so in the past. Via The Captain's Comments:


Oil hit its highest price on July 14, 2008, the very same day that President Bush announced that he would, by executive order, lift the ban on offshore oil drilling. Beginning the very next day, oil prices began to drop and continued to do so for several months as the market reacted to the news of increased future oil supplies.

Now look at the graph on the bottom right, listing the crude oil prices since President Obama took office. Notice a trend? This is what the market looks like when the President reimposes a ban on offshore oil drilling less than a month after taking office, then places a moratorium on all oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The market reacted to the news of decreased future oil supplies by raising the price of crude oil.

Posted Image



Measures like shutting down or slow-walking offshore oil leases and killing the Keystone Pipeline telegraphs a clear message to the Oil industry - this administration is willing to tolerate sky-high oil, which emboldens them and speculators to continue to drive the prices upward.


Quote:Originally Posted by RI PopperWell looks like your gonna have to make the gumbo with Berkly Gulp instead LOL

#43 superstriper

superstriper
  • 5,000 Post Club!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,374 posts
  • Joined: Oct-27 2005

Posted February 22 2012 - 1:20 PM

Presidents can influence high gas prices and have done so in the past. Via The Captain's Comments:

Oil hit its highest price on July 14, 2008, the very same day that President Bush announced that he would, by executive order, lift the ban on offshore oil drilling. Beginning the very next day, oil prices began to drop and continued to do so for several months as the market reacted to the news of increased future oil supplies.
Now look at the graph on the bottom right, listing the crude oil prices since President Obama took office. Notice a trend? This is what the market looks like when the President reimposes a ban on offshore oil drilling less than a month after taking office, then places a moratorium on all oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The market reacted to the news of decreased future oil supplies by raising the price of crude oil.

Posted Image

Measures like shutting down or slow-walking offshore oil leases and killing the Keystone Pipeline telegraphs a clear message to the Oil industry - this administration is willing to tolerate sky-high oil, which emboldens them and speculators to continue to drive the prices upward.


gas prices went to $4.50 under bush so that was his fault right?

prices have spiked because of uncertainty with iran and speculation betting



#44 The Hairy Beast

The Hairy Beast
  • 5,000 Post Club!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,031 posts
  • Joined: Jan-22 2008

Posted February 22 2012 - 1:34 PM

gas prices went to $4.50 under bush so that was his fault right?
prices have spiked because of uncertainty with iran and speculation betting


Yes it was certainly portrayed as his fault, stories on soaring Gas prices appeared in the media at a rate fifteen times the level they're being published right now. Of course, Bush is not in office right now so the story's not as "useful"...

Speculation fuelled the Bush peak as well, which is why his announcement that he was lifting the ban on offshore development cause the price bubble to burst. With Obama doing exactly the opposite is it any wonder prices continue to rise?


Quote:Originally Posted by RI PopperWell looks like your gonna have to make the gumbo with Berkly Gulp instead LOL

#45 DontTreadOnAnyone

DontTreadOnAnyone
  • 1,000 Post Club!

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,404 posts
  • Joined: May-20 2009

Posted February 22 2012 - 1:34 PM

[quote name="superstriper" url="/t/837005/coming-to-a-gas-station-near-you-4-dollars-plus-per-gallon-gas/30#post_9009988"]
gas prices went to $4.50 under bush so that was his fault right?[/quote]
According to the 9/11 truthers that is correct. According to anyone with a brain it is a stretch and a half.
[/quote]
prices have spiked because of uncertainty with iran ........
[/quote]

And a drilling moratorium, and oil being rejected from the US and sent to China instead and threat of more of the same from the guy who's looking out for us.

Speculators? Nah, not so much. speculators make money when they are right and lose money when they are wrong. They try to guess what is going to happen but that is all. They've been guessing that Obama is going to screw things up even more than he has. That drives price up.