Idiot or genius? Happy about $8 gas?

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

if you saw my river, you'd realize why...
.
47d1190410738-pict0769.jpg
 
dave chappelle
"[standing by a creek] Look, Robin, you don't have to do this. I mean, this ain't exactly the Mississipi. I'm on one side, I'm on the other side. I'm on the east bank, I'm on the west bank. It's not that critical. "
 
interesting bit on fuel prices in europe
70% of the fuel cost is tax in france and the UK?

Matters are no better on land. On Tuesday, hundreds of British truck drivers in London and Cardiff brought traffic to a crawl in a campaign to get their government to lower taxes on diesel fuel, which now costs over $11 per U.S. gallon (3.8 liters). Other businesses owners who rely heavily on gas use — including farmers, ambulance and taxi drivers, and private bus companies — have joined the protest movement or are preparing to do so.
Those labor protests reflect the hit millions of Europeans are taking at the gas pump. As American drivers groan over prices nearing $4 a gallon, the French are paying $8.67 for a gallon of super, compared to $7.10 in January, 2007. A gallon of diesel in French gas stations averages $8.54, up from $5.35 just a year ago. And in the U.K. diesel costs $11.50 per gallon, compared to around $3.90 in the U.S. Across the European Union, the average cost of a gallon of gas runs to about $8.70 — more than twice what Americans are shelling out to fill up. And Europe's dizzying fuel costs would be even worse if it weren't for the considerable appreciation of the euro and the British pound against the dollar over the past year, which has partially offset the price escalation in dollar-traded oil.
One big reason for the difference is that European governments put a much higher tax burden on fuel than the U.S. does. State and federal taxes currently make up just 11% of the pump price in the U.S., according to the Energy Information Administration; in France and the U.K., taxes account for an average of around 70%.

Think Gas is High? Try Europe - TIME
 
really, gas stations have been price gouging very badly for the past few months. it's been going on for way longer than that, but it got really bad after the beginning of this year. and the price of a barrel today, has no physical relation to the gas that goes in your car today.
 
$8/gallon+ gas prices would have a very negative effect on this country as a whole. Think severe recession, bordering on depression due to the rising costs of virtually everything you use.
 
It's going to be $500+ a month for me just to commute to work..... :(

and thats at just $5 a gallon.

Time for a bike...250cc or 600cc? :(
 
It is too bad that we all enjoy something that can only done using gas...it means our hobby (or passion) may become to expensive to enjoy.
 
Have the machines and processes changed so drastically in eight years that it requires a 400% increase in final consumer prices?

Yes, look up peak oil theory.

Many experts subscribe to the theory. Many experts also believe that Saudi Arabia overestimated their oil reserves, so OPEC would allow the Saudis to pump more oil from the ground per year.

The quicker oil is pumped, the more you lose to the ground. What is meant by this is that initially oil wells will flow freely or even be pressurized to the point that the oil easily comes to the ground. Eventually, after pumping too fast, the pressure is released too quickly and oil is left between rocks in the earth's core. Current technology makes it 1) impossible or 2) very expensive to remove this oil.

This is not to say that Exxon posting record profits in 2007 was not nonsense. Oil companies are crooks and do help fund insurgents and cause conflicts throughout the world. Half of the fights in Nigeria are over oil supply. Only an elite few in these "third world nations" benefit from the oil wealth.

Look at the Saudis, some have enough to literally have diamond encrusted Mercedes Benz (an email that went around recently) while others are dirt poor.

Oil by Mattew Yeoman is a good book. Slanted as hell and at times, the book is liberal propaganda, but I know you'll love those sections.
 
There are some benefits to increased price of fuel. These benefits are tied to the environment and finding alternate sources of energy. Europeans pay far more than Americans for gas, not because the gas is more expensive across the world, but because their countries tax the hell out of the gas to promote limited consumption and fuel efficient vehicles.

We, as Americans, all want to own our own vehicle or two or three vehicles because we feel its our god given right, along with a status symbol and a means of independence.

The downside to increased fuel prices is that oil companies still have lobbyists that help pass laws that hinder the improvements in the development of alternative energy sources. The middle and lower class also have to feel the squeeze until a new solution, which is years away, is developed.

Its difficult to feel sorry for some people, when I'll be driving 25,000-35,000 miles a year.
 
Yes, look up peak oil theory.

Many experts subscribe to the theory. Many experts also believe that Saudi Arabia overestimated their oil reserves, so OPEC would allow the Saudis to pump more oil from the ground per year.

The quicker oil is pumped, the more you lose to the ground. What is meant by this is that initially oil wells will flow freely or even be pressurized to the point that the oil easily comes to the ground. Eventually, after pumping too fast, the pressure is released too quickly and oil is left between rocks in the earth's core. Current technology makes it 1) impossible or 2) very expensive to remove this oil.

This is not to say that Exxon posting record profits in 2007 was not nonsense. Oil companies are crooks and do help fund insurgents and cause conflicts throughout the world. Half of the fights in Nigeria are over oil supply. Only an elite few in these "third world nations" benefit from the oil wealth.

Look at the Saudis, some have enough to literally have diamond encrusted Mercedes Benz (an email that went around recently) while others are dirt poor.

Oil by Mattew Yeoman is a good book. Slanted as hell and at times, the book is liberal propaganda, but I know you'll love those sections.

Not to rain on your parade or anything... but I don't think we've drilled some 5500 miles deep anywhere. (see bolded text) Get yer terminology straight ;)

And when you say "many experts subscribe to this theory" it lends a LOT towards its skepticism, which it seems to have no lack thereof.
 
Not to rain on your parade or anything... but I don't think we've drilled some 5500 miles deep anywhere. (see bolded text) Get yer terminology straight ;)

And when you say "many experts subscribe to this theory" it lends a LOT towards its skepticism, which it seems to have no lack thereof.

See this is what ticks me off about naysayers on the internet.

Do you know your ass from a hole in the wall when it comes to this topic? You may be well read in the subject matter for all I know, but from your answers I have concluded otherwise.

You're taking a few sentences that I've summarized an entire theory within and then basing your argument.

I suggest you research the theory a bit deeper and then you'll see why there's skepticism. No one knows the truth, of course there's skepticism. Its a theory.

I'll use an analogy that I know you'll subscribe to - thats like saying the idea of evolution is without merit, because there are many skeptics.

I'm unsure of the deep ocean drilling, the exact depth it has reached, but yes it is in the thousands of feet. I used the earth's "core" as a generalization to benefit the members of the forum who would lose the bigger picture if I became more technical.
 
There are some benefits to increased price of fuel. These benefits are tied to the environment and finding alternate sources of energy. Europeans pay far more than Americans for gas, not because the gas is more expensive across the world, but because their countries tax the hell out of the gas to promote limited consumption and fuel efficient vehicles.

We, as Americans, all want to own our own vehicle or two or three vehicles because we feel its our god given right, along with a status symbol and a means of independence.

The downside to increased fuel prices is that oil companies still have lobbyists that help pass laws that hinder the improvements in the development of alternative energy sources. The middle and lower class also have to feel the squeeze until a new solution, which is years away, is developed.

I agree with most of this. However, if you want to be fair about it, the environmentalist lobby is also working hard to prohibit anyone from utilizing what oil resources are available to us (ANWR, etc.). And yes, I realize that sources like that aren't a permanent solution and would take several years of development in order to become productive, BUT, as you yourself pointed out, real, reliable alternative energy sources are still years away from becoming viable.

The responsible and sensible solution would be to drill in ANWR and other places now while also continuing to research and develop alternative energy sources. The environmentalists want us to quit oil cold turkey, right now. Unfortunately, that's not an option at this point, and their refusal to allow us to use existing resources is just going to cause gas prices to skyrocket in the mean time...
 
See this is what ticks me off about naysayers on the internet.

Do you know your ass from a hole in the wall when it comes to this topic? You may be well read in the subject matter for all I know, but from your answers I have concluded otherwise.

What exactly brought you to this conclusion? You can't even get the basic layers of the planet correct.

You're taking a few sentences that I've summarized an entire theory within and then basing your argument.

I suggest you research the theory a bit deeper and then you'll see why there's skepticism. No one knows the truth, of course there's skepticism. Its a theory.
Incorrect application of the word "theory". Strike two.

I'll use an analogy that I know you'll subscribe to - thats like saying the idea of evolution is without merit, because there are many skeptics.
One is a scientific theory, the other is a mishmash of fields.

I'm unsure of the deep ocean drilling, the exact depth it has reached, but yes it is in the thousands of feet. I used the earth's "core" as a generalization to benefit the members of the forum who would lose the bigger picture if I became more technical.
Seven miles. Far too little for a "generalization".

EDIT: My issue with this theory is that you can't take it seriously when the numbers can be skewed horribly by countries and representatives at the flick of a pen. There is no way to tell how much dino is under our feet.
 
Last edited:
The real problem is our dependence on a non-renewable source of energy. We can't make any more of this stuff once it's gone.

Ever tell a crackhead that nobody's making rocks anymore... yeah, it'll look a bit like that, just with baseball bats, guns and lots of blood.
 
What exactly brought you to this conclusion? You can't even get the basic layers of the planet correct.

I explained the reason for this already. If you don't want to take it at face value, don't, but thats how the events unraveled.

Incorrect application of the word "theory". Strike two.

The idea I'm speak of is referred to as peak oil theory.

One is a scientific theory, the other is a mishmash of fields.

Both evolution and peak oil are theories. If we want to get technical again, we can classify one as a more established theory and the other as recent hypothesis, so be it. In the end, you're just splitting hairs and missing the bigger picture.


EDIT: My issue with this theory is that you can't take it seriously when the numbers can be skewed horribly by countries and representatives at the flick of a pen. There is no way to tell how much dino is under our feet.
Thats life. Intelligent design can write off much of the theory of evolution as coincidence. Perhaps our current means of testing the theory are inaccurate, but that is a more philosophical question of what is "right" and what is "wrong."

You just perceive that evolution is more concrete than peak oil based on the notion that modern science has the facts correct or mostly correct.
 
I agree with most of this. However, if you want to be fair about it, the environmentalist lobby is also working hard to prohibit anyone from utilizing what oil resources are available to us (ANWR, etc.). And yes, I realize that sources like that aren't a permanent solution and would take several years of development in order to become productive, BUT, as you yourself pointed out, real, reliable alternative energy sources are still years away from becoming viable.

I was under the same impression as yourself. I grew up with my father saying, "Fuck the carribou, drill."

When I learned the percentage chance of spills and other failure (which I believe is over 75%) of drilling off the coast, I began to look at the situation differently. Right now, I honestly do not know how risky the drilling process would be - I'm simply not an expert oil driller and only have the findings that I've been exposed to, to rely on for answers.
 
Back
Top