Gas prices about to skyrocket (again)

Seriously? You think gas prices in NY are 2-3x higher than what you pay in North Carolina? You're paying what? $4 a gallon. So by your estimate, gas is $8-12/gallon in New York.

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC/INSULT >>>

 

It "Lowered back down under Bush" because the economy came crashing down under Bush. Do you remember? The worst recession since the Great Depression?

Are you actually trying to push the idea that because the bottom dropped out of the economy sucking trillions of dollars out of it resulting in gas prices plummeting as demand nosedived... are you actually pushing that as a GOOD thing?

That would be about as dumb as saying that 9/11 was a good thing because the terrorists who hijacked the planes were killed.

 

This is great news. This means people will drive slower and drive less. $5 gas will prolly save 5000 lives a year.

 

Proof that the economy 'crashing' was the cause of gas prices coming down. And, I like to think of it as the economy crashing under the democratic-controlled congress. Things were fine before they got their criminal hands on things.

 

Eureka California has the highest prices in the nation at $4.05 per gallon and rising. By his estimations he is only paying $1.50 or so?

http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_19994407

 

Not really. It just says we're not running out of oil after all, even 40 years into this "peak oil" apocalypse.

 

Production is up compared to the Bush years.
Imports are down.

Those are the factors under his control.....so......???.......I guess that means the op is wrong!

 

newbie , I told you I'd review the thread , and I have , from the OP to the last post made on this thread .

you seem to have profound knowledge of the oil industry & market . good for you .

However , that does NOT excuse the cheap shot you took at me or at Flounder.

Unless the post has been deleted , there is no evidence that you & Flounder ever had a conversation on this thread .

The conversation between Flounder & myself concerned the price of gasoline , yes , but it also spoke of grocery & produce & the cost of living , here in WNC and in New York .

You picked out one sentence from my post and tried to whack & embarass me on an open forum . I can overlook that as a stupid newbie post .

But you ought not have called Flounder a liar . .

I will take you to task for that , and thoroughly enjoy it .

You have lied to me , , and the is primed and ready .

 

Which is all very well-except that the oil being discovered is becoming more difficult, and thus more costly, to extract. This will inevitably lead to inflated prices at the pump. Simple capitalist economics. Great, ain't it?

 

My 70 Hemi 'Cuda got 4mph. I bought it new. Traded in a 67 Z-28 on the Cuda. What a stupid kid, I wish I had kept both those cars. They're each worth a fortune today.

And the way I drove the Cuda had nothing to do with the gas mileage, it was unkind to think that!

 

pocket aces;1060884944]Eureka California has the highest prices in the nation at $4.05 per gallon and rising. By his estimations he is only paying $1.50 or so?



my post was taken out of context .

In WNC today , I paid $3.69 / gallon for regular gasoline .

the prices given in my original post included the price of potatoes & cranberry juice & groceries , and it relates to the ever increasing cost of living .

This idiot newbie from Canada took it upon himself to pick one sentence out of my post and try to embarass me with it ...

It didn't work .

and that's all I'm gonna say . .

 

Tarsands is by far the most expensive oil to produce. But the cost is only $20-30 a barrel, and doesn't explain why oil prices are over $100/barrel.

Also the oil being discovered is not being drilled. We still have lots of cheap oil left to use up.

Prices are high due to speculation.

 

ALL the oil that COULD be economically produced was supposed to be used up by the mid nineties. That prediction turned out to be wildly pessimistic and technology has made many more kinds of oil economically viable. So now we have more oil available than we had when the "we're running out!" scares were being made.

 

LOL... talk about placing the blame on others, if you're miserable, it's your own fault.

 

There was? Prove it, or be still.

No one likes high gas prices but the POTUS doesn't determine them. Blame big oil and speculators who actually control the prices.

Since it's not likely the price is going to come down appreciably, perhaps you need to conserve more or think about getting a more fuel efficient transportation. And then there's always car-pooling, public transportation, bicycle. Or are you too proud to be frugal and prudent? Whatever, it's not Obama's fault.

 

Or why Europe has been paying double that for 40 years!

Serial complainers could always move to Venezuela where the price is $.12 a gallon. Give Chavez a hug.

 

Jimmy Carter was ahead of his time, but don't tell conservatards that.

 

You can like to think of it as the economy crashing under the Democrat controlled congress all you want - that doesn't make it so. The crash in 07 was the result of several trends that had been building for years, some all the way back to the Clinton administration. The economy does not turn on a dime, and the crash came just a few months after that democrat controlled congress was sworn in. And there weren't actually huge dramatic changes in policy with that Congress, since those Democrats were more interested in governing then in throwing public temper tantrums because they didn't get 100% their own way, unlike the current Republicans in Congress. Governing means reaching reasonable compromises with the minority party and the administration, not turning routine housekeeping into a national melodrama that would be funny if it weren't threatening to destroy the economy.

(Headdesk) I really wish you'd look at the numbers and at least try to understand what they mean. US oil peaked in 1970, and given that it's currently about half of what it was then, you really can't deny that fact. This didn't cause any major disruptions (at least not until the oil embargoes) because the US could import oil from the rest of the world, where production was still rising. Now that world oil production has peaked, where do you suggest we start importing from? Titan?

Supply and demand is about supply of the thing being purchased, not the amount of raw materials that exist on the planet. The price of iron is about how much refined metal is available for purchase, not how much is still in the ground. The price of steel does not depend on proven iron reserves, it depends on how much iron is being produced. Oil reserves are fine and all, but they don't really matter much to the price. A barrel of oil that is still in the ground is not available for purchase, and therefore is not a part of the supply. Supply is about production, not reserves.

And peak oil is not about "running out" of oil - it's about our production not being able to keep up with our consumption. And it's about the unit cost of production going ever up. Peak oil is not about some sudden apocalypse. It's about gradually but inexorably rising prices and tightening supplies. While a sudden and dramatic shock is certainly possible, that's in the arena of human affairs, not geophysical reality. A sudden shortage would be caused by a major terrorist attack on oil infrastructure, a war, things like that, not by all the oil wells in the world suddenly going dry. Peak oil means that from now on it's going to take more and more to produce less and less. Things like tar sands and oil shale are a part of the peak oil model, not an exception to it. Peak oil says that as easily accessible supplies are depleted, we will turn to more unconventional (and more expensive) sources exactly like the tar sands.

But don't believe me. Take a look at it from an investor's point of view in this article: http://www.moneyshow.com/investing/article/37/Jubak_Journa-26512/The-Real-Cost-of-Peak-Oil/ This is from someone whose main concern seems to be the declining return on investment from the oil companies. Or listen to this debate between the former CEO of Shell and a professor of petroleum engineer: http://articles.businessinsider.com...940_1_shell-oil-oil-companies-john-hofmeister I think you'll be surprised at what they agree about - that there are huge amounts of hydrocarbons on Earth, but that's not the issue. And that the real issue is that simply continuing the status quo is just not going to be able to keep up with demand.

I am not opposed to reasonable measures to increase domestic supply. What I'm opposed to is a reckless disregard of the risks. These things need a cost-benefit and risk-reward analysis, like everything else. But no amount of drilling is going to address the real problem, merely delay it. And we can begin to address that problem now. The sooner you begin to work on something the less drastic the solution will need to be and ultimately the lower the cost will be. Fixing a leaking roof is far better then waiting for the roof to fall in from water damage. Maybe drill baby drill could keep gas prices around $3 a gallon for another 10 - 20 years. (Personally, I doubt it, but I'm no expert.) But in the end, that's just kicking the can down the road if we don't take steps to address the real issue. And let's be realistic - no amount of drilling is ever going to make us energy independent. Drill baby drill by itself is going to guarantee that we continue to be held hostage by hostile regimes in oil producing countries.

I am not advocating drastic programs spending billions of dollars to have government agencies find a solution. To my knowledge, no serious person is. I want to see action now so we can avoid exactly that, since waiting for the issue to become a dramatic crisis would probably result in something like that being done. I want to see smart market based approaches where the government only provides incentives. Leave deciding on the actual solution to the private sector.

 

So you are saying Obama is in bed with wealthy bankers?

 

Meats are really high here in NY, I cant believe the prices. Same cuts are over a dollar a pound more,,,unreal. We used to get London Broil on sale for 2.50, cant touch it for under 4.00,,,unreal. Same with other cuts as well,,,WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?, can it all be the fuel?
I have a feeling Ethanol has something to do with this,,less corn or more expensive feed means less beef...

 

Yeah like Ethanol equaling farmers to grow less beef and selling off their feed....Face it this administration wants us off oil, and any way they can do it they will....By the way, what does Gores Yacht run on? and who was getting the advantage of inside trading,,,just Republicans I imagine....


I always told you ''We know best''....[She wasn't kidding]

 

I remember, everybody called that rear a 411, but it was really a 4.10. Now the only people that clean your windshield is a times square...LOL
I had a 650 dual inlet holley with a Edlebrook highrise in my 64 vette, I even have an old photo. I bit worn though...

That's me at nineteen I believe...



I had a sixty eight too, later I moved on to this 82,,,,,,sweet........They were actually called a a 82 and a half because the new body style came out during that year

 

Anyone that looks at these two graphs and concludes that US gas prices were <$2 when Bush left the White House because he did something good is smoking crack.

 

Anyone that looks at your JOBS REPORT and doesn't realize that it STARTS one year AFTER Democrats took total control of US govt policy and spending in Jan 2007, is smoking crack.

Even IF obama is reelected, both the House and the Senate will be in Republican control. Who will liberals blame for obama's failing then????? Congress. And if Congress fails to act or acts badly, they'll be right. The Democrat controlled Congress under Bush did both, failed to act and acted badly.

 

judging by the 1st paragraph you would blame republicans also...

or is the congress only responsible when the presidents a republican?