Excellent news: Oil Futures reach $100 a barrel

[K-D-K-D-K]

This is great news to start off the new year for my drilling and workover business as well as others around the State of Louisiana. It is also good for national and international Oil and Gas Companies. Royalty checks are going to surge in the coming months. I would urge all land owners to purchase mineral rights or check at your local natural resources department to see if you have any in case someone wants to drill.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/

[Osborn F. Enready]

If this is good news, what would be bad news?

[K-D-K-D-K]

If this is good news, what would be bad news?
If prices drop and my wells dry up.

[Truth_and_Power]

Word in my circles is this is oil's last visit to $100 before a trip downward.

[K-D-K-D-K]

Word in my circles is this is oil's last visit to $100 before a trip downward.
And what circles is this information coming from? Is it Oil industry related?

[Truth_and_Power]

Stock/Commodity Traders.

[preservanation]

Stock/Commodity Traders.
Futures markets...Hooo boy! Speculation...Hooo Double Boy!
Lets keep talking about investigating oil cos and "taking" their profits like Hillary wants to do, and speculation is going to go wild.

As international and national demand climbs and we continue to REFUSE funding for exploration and drilling, the price has nowhere to go but up.
My 401 K thanks you.
Gas is probably the next big thing. Alcoa? There is no way we're going to meet world-wide demand for refining either.
Thank you, libs.
I want to hear no more complaining for you about high prices...EVER!
Do you never see what your idiotic policies bring?
Like it or not some people are making money off your stupid policies like me (because I pay attention to the markets)...and others, like the poor who you claim to care so much about are suffering. Good job.

[DANG]

A pox on the American Oil Junta

[Fishingriver]

Good news would be that you and your buddies in the oil industry pay for the steps needed to combat global warming. And we should make you pay for the war in Iraq which is being fought to assure the supply of your archaic product. That would be good news.

[preservanation]

Good point...do that voodoo you do so well.
Let's go back to horse and buggy, that'll help bring the poor out of poverty, educate our youth and bring us UHC. All in the name of punishing a successful industry which has been as responsible as any in bringing us the prosperity and security we all enjoy.

I'll be sure to invest in that Buggy-whip company I recently dropped, and not sell my hip-boots I wear on this forum so often. I'll need them to walk into town and pick up my 100 lb of feed, my sack flour and bushel of sorghum.

[dgun]

Gas prices are bullshit. Since gas prices are so high, you would expect the supply to be limited. But this does not seem to be the case. In the 70's oil crisis, gas stations would run out of gas and people would be lined up at the pump to pay record high prices.

Not the case this time, which to me proves collusion and that international oil is one big trust.

[bishop]

This is great news to start off the new year for my drilling and workover business as well as others around the State of Louisiana. It is also good for national and international Oil and Gas Companies. Royalty checks are going to surge in the coming months. I would urge all land owners to purchase mineral rights or check at your local natural resources department to see if you have any in case someone wants to drill.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/


and in the meantime, i hope you won't mind using all the extra money on paying for inflated prices for food and manufactured goods - in addition to seeing your retirement account dramatically fall in value...

and anyone who has a clue about investing has already made money on oil - regardless of its nominal cost.

[Truth_and_Power]

Good point...do that voodoo you do so well.
Let's go back to horse and buggy, that'll help bring the poor out of poverty, educate our youth and bring us UHC. All in the name of punishing a successful industry which has been as responsible as any in bringing us the prosperity and security we all enjoy.

I'll be sure to invest in that Buggy-whip company I recently dropped, and not sell my hip-boots I wear on this forum so often. I'll need them to walk into town and pick up my 100 lb of feed, my sack flour and bushel of sorghum.


The sky is falling..

[brien]

A pox on the American Oil Junta

Now there's an intelligent statement. :unreal:

Just how long and how much will it take before Americans realize there is no future in an oil based economy? People who write such drivel are usually the very first ones who look towards government to solve their problems, like when they can't afford electricity or oil to heat their homes. They have no clue it isn't the fault of the oil companies because it is their own fault through their own inaction, yet they are loathe to admit it. They are better soft served by politicians like Hillary Clinton who blame the "big bad oil companies" for today's oil prices. Dopes, all of them. :unreal:

Not the case this time, which to me proves collusion and that international oil is one big trust.

Not quite..Check this source that shows the reasons for higher oil prices. Many people fall for the "collusion" BS because it is easy and requires very little thinking through of the issue.

The reasons for high priced oil are various:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12408007/

The sources of the upward price pressure are varied. For starters, the world's thirst for oil seems to be undiminished by rising prices. On the eve of President Hu Jintao’s U.S. visit, for example, China announced that its red hot economy had grown by more than 10 percent in the fourth quarter — stronger than expected. That’s more than twice as fast the U.S. economy, which is posting healthy economic gains of its own.

The world’s demand for more oil comes as supplies are more vulnerable than at any time in the past 30 years. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which has long provided global markets with a cushion of extra production capacity, is now pumping as fast as it can. Production facilities by OPEC producers Nigeria and Iraq are under attack by armed insurgents, raising the threat of supply interruptions. Growing tensions with Iran have raised fears that the 4.1 million barrels a day it produces could once again become a political weapon, much as it did when a cutoff of oil after the Iranian revolution of 1979 touched off a spike oil prices and long lines at American gasoline stations.

I don't think anyone will find the name of even one oil company in the above source. To blame oil companies for high oil prices is demogougery at its best, and flat out lying at its worst, something Hillary & Company love to do to their gullibile followers.

[preservanation]

This is great news to start off the new year for my drilling and workover business as well as others around the State of Louisiana. It is also good for national and international Oil and Gas Companies. Royalty checks are going to surge in the coming months. I would urge all land owners to purchase mineral rights or check at your local natural resources department to see if you have any in case someone wants to drill.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/


and in the meantime, i hope you won't mind using all the extra money on paying for inflated prices for food and manufactured goods - in addition to seeing your retirement account dramatically fall in value...

and anyone who has a clue about investing has already made money on oil - regardless of its nominal cost.

You can blame the push for ethanol for inflated food prices as well.
Burn our food to propel our SUVs... good plan.

As far as investing in oil, guess what...
If you think it will fall...SELL.
If you think it will rise...BUY.
You're welcome, and my bill is in the mail.[hr]Oh, and if you lose money hire Edwards to file a class action suit against the companies for failing you as a shareholder so you won't be penalized for making stupid investment choices.
If you make money...move it off shore like the Clintons so you can avoid taxes.
Win/win.
America, what a country!

[Shintao]

The White House on Wednesday said it would not release oil from the nation’s strategic reserves to drive prices lower.

“This president would not use the (Strategic Petroleum Reserve) to manipulate (prices) unless there was a true emergency,” said White House press secretary Dana Perino.


So the president decided YOUR OIL won't be used to give you $1.40 a gallon in America, and force the oil prices in the world (based on demand) downward.

Instead, you will pay $3.00 a gallon not to use YOUR OIL, and let Bush's rich oil buddies bleed you dry at the pumps.

How conservatives can defend this WH piece of crap is beyond me - but they do. And when Clinton takes office YOU will be using YOUR OIL to lower gasoline prices - as we did when Bill Clinton was in power. Another person these same conservatives hate.

What does lower gas prices mean? Cheaper transportation for commerical use, lower gas, food, product pricing, more jobs for Americans. Can you see how fked up this President is??

[bishop]

You can blame the push for ethanol for inflated food prices as well.
Burn our food to propel our SUVs... good plan.

As far as investing in oil, guess what...
If you think it will fall...SELL.
If you think it will rise...BUY.
You're welcome, and my bill is in the mail.

thanks, but i already figured this out for myself and have made several thousand off of it. ADM... ;)

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10025

higher food prices are a direct result of higher oil prices. ethanol is simply a byproduct of increased oil prices - and one that merely exacerbates the issues related to food prices.

and while i'll make any buy that i think will make money - using the nation's food supplies for energy must be one of the most idiotic ideas ever as far as i'm concerned.. and, people who look at ethanol as the savior to our energy problems should do themselves a favor and actually get informed, rather than remain in blissful ignorance.

first off, the process of producing ethanol is horrible for the environment, despite the "clean energy" marketing that surrounds the stuff. it's also negligibly cleaner when burnt than regular gasoline. second, the act of producing ethanol consumes as much energy as it yields. third, ethanol subsidies (paid for by debt and the american taxpayer) are required for production to be economically viable (naturally, all profits would be pocketed by the corporate farms of course). fourth, the fuel economy of ethanol (E85) is some 25% worse than regular gasoline according to a study by edmunds.com (i.e. you'll need 25% more ethanol-infused gas to make the same trip compared to regular gasoline).

i could go on, but i think i made my point... ethanol.. really great stuff indeed. :thumbsup:

[preservanation]

Bishop...We're together on that one, brother!
Ignorance of the deleterious effect of increased ethanol production escapes most people.
You also have the same concerns environmentally as well as others, (about ethanol, at least) as I do.

[bishop]

ethanol's just another "big government" project as far as i'm concerned.. the stuff just straight up sucks. a friend of mine in australia works as a researcher for the auto industry. he found that ethanol cakes on your engine, whereas oil does not. i'm not a big fan of ethanol or oil.. personally, i'd rather see hydrogen pursued more vigorously. bush has increased spending for this solution, but not nearly enough. i also think that all ethanol subsidies should be eliminated. let that turd sink or float..

it's good to see, though that the government FINALLY decided to increase CAFE standards. that said, the increase is too little, too late as far as i'm concerned. the government can't do much to stop increased demand in india and china, which is the real reason behind the increased prices. whenever we really do face the inevitable energy crisis (thanks solely to the government's ineptitude imo), it'll just be the next opportunity for the federal government to increase its control over our lives. the republican and democrat statists never miss an opportunity to grow the government.

[preservanation]

You mirror some of my previous rants against ethanol, and they usually fell on deaf ears.
My vehicle runs noticeably worse and suspect leave more deposits when I'm forced to fill up with 10% ethanol
I have found stations which do not add any to their Reg fuel...I have to go there or use high test.
Of course the farmers are doing freakin handsprings over all this and they have decreased all their feed-corn crops in favor of ethanol ones...more planting, fertilizer, run-off and profit...they also don't have the USDA or the FDA to worry about.
This past year all other crops were down, except those.

[Fishingriver]

The White House on Wednesday said it would not release oil from the nation’s strategic reserves to drive prices lower.

“This president would not use the (Strategic Petroleum Reserve) to manipulate (prices) unless there was a true emergency,” said White House press secretary Dana Perino.


So the president decided YOUR OIL won't be used to give you $1.40 a gallon in America, and force the oil prices in the world (based on demand) downward.

Instead, you will pay $3.00 a gallon not to use YOUR OIL, and let Bush's rich oil buddies bleed you dry at the pumps.

How conservatives can defend this WH piece of crap is beyond me - but they do. And when Clinton takes office YOU will be using YOUR OIL to lower gasoline prices - as we did when Bill Clinton was in power. Another person these same conservatives hate.

What does lower gas prices mean? Cheaper transportation for commerical use, lower gas, food, product pricing, more jobs for Americans. Can you see how fked up this President is??


Well said and right on the money.

The ethanol thing is just another way to stay stuck in the 19th century with the same archaic combustible engines. We need to fund research on real alternatives that are not influenced by the existing oil industry. If we approached finding alternative methods as if it were a national emergency (and it is) we would be rid of oil, ethanol, and Exxon within a few years. Give the universities a chance to develop alternatives on a competeitive basis and make the prizs huge. In fact, just take the 11 billion dollars worth of incentives (welfare) and tax breaks we are now supplying the oil industry. If not for the oil companies influence in our foreign affairs, we wouldn't have middle eastern terrorists plotting to kill us. They are killing our planet and spending the profits they bilked from us to keep us from stopping them destroying the planet. Time for a new plan there.

[Keith Hamburger]

Well, my grandparent's and great-grandparent's farms in Oklahoma have gas wells and wind turbines, so, in that regard things are looking up.

My dad is contracted to work at a company that is producing oil from Canadian tar sands at a cost of $26/bbl amortized-$6/bbl marginal. That's not looking too bad, either.

As to ethanol or hydrogen, the only way they will work as a replacement for oil is if we were to use nuclear to generate them as both use more energy to produce than they can release in a vehicle. If we have a relatively cheap source of heat and electricity (as said, nuclear) we could have a portable fuel source that is overall negative in energy production. But, without such a source, there's no hope for either of those.

The laws of thermodynamics dictate such.

Keith

[bishop]

As to ethanol or hydrogen, the only way they will work as a replacement for oil is if we were to use nuclear to generate them as both use more energy to produce than they can release in a vehicle. If we have a relatively cheap source of heat and electricity (as said, nuclear) we could have a portable fuel source that is overall negative in energy production. But, without such a source, there's no hope for either of those.

the applicable uses of nuclear energy are much different than oil/ethanol or hydrogen... and, having portable nuclear energy is definitely a fantasy imo.

as far as hydrogen is concerned, the efficiencies/inefficiencies all depend on the type of hydrogen that's produced as well as the method of production. from what i've read, it's entirely plausible that portable hydrogen energy can yield a much higher fuel efficiency than oil. the biggest problem is the lack of infrastructure.

[Mark L Hamburger]

the applicable uses of nuclear energy are much different than oil/ethanol or hydrogen... and, having portable nuclear energy is definitely a fantasy imo.


That's not what he said. He said that without a cheap and efficient way of producing energy (electricity) in order to produce hydrogen and ethanol, there is no way to eliminate our dependency on petroleum.

My personal vote is biodiesel, but you still need to have an efficient means of producing electricity to make an environmental difference.

[bishop]

california has conducted research showing that wind can be used to produce hydrogen energy. as it is, the state has been engaged in creating long-term energy contracts for wind energy. they're beginning to use solar energy to power their schools as well.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=50957&src=rss
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=50953&src=rss

there are also studies showing that hydrogen can be efficiently produced via biochemical methods.

http://www.research.psu.edu/iro/events/tradeshows/nha/brochures/LoganNHCPresent3-8-07.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/47/18871

this all underlines the reason why i support funding for hydrogen energy research.. we need out of the box solutions to produce hydrogen that don't include non-renewable inputs. and since this technology is not economically viable at the moment (neither was the internet), federal funding is required.

[Mark L Hamburger]

Wind energy is highly inefficient (http://www.greenspirit.com/logbook.cfm?msid=182). It takes 300 years to break even on emissions from the manufacturing and freight on a single turbine.

France is a prime example of how well nuclear energy works, they generate 80% of their energy with nuclear, and 10% hydroelectrically. They have the some of the lowest CO2 emissions in the world.

Patrick Moore, founder and former president of Greenpeace agrees that the best solution for our energy needs is nuclear:

http://www.greenspirit.com/logbook.cfm?msid=181

Yes, we need to explore alternative energy and alternative means of producing fuels, but we need to implement technology that already exists NOW.

[lily]

The reasons for high priced oil are various:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12408007/

[quote]The sources of the upward price pressure are varied. For starters, the world's thirst for oil seems to be undiminished by rising prices. On the eve of President Hu Jintao’s U.S. visit, for example, China announced that its red hot economy had grown by more than 10 percent in the fourth quarter — stronger than expected. That’s more than twice as fast the U.S. economy, which is posting healthy economic gains of its own.............

Brien......everytime there is a raise in the price of gas, the excuse changes. No offense, but I can't believe people actuall believe the excuses given anymore.[hr]
first off, the process of producing ethanol is horrible for the environment, despite the "clean energy" marketing that surrounds the stuff. it's also negligibly cleaner when burnt than regular gasoline. second, the act of producing ethanol consumes as much energy as it yields. third, ethanol subsidies (paid for by debt and the american taxpayer) are required for production to be economically viable (naturally, all profits would be pocketed by the corporate farms of course). fourth, the fuel economy of ethanol (E85) is some 25% worse than regular gasoline according to a study by edmunds.com (i.e. you'll need 25% more ethanol-infused gas to make the same trip compared to regular gasoline).

Ah but you see, the government is now pusing ethanol, so that makes it a good thing. Polution, food shortages, it doesn't matter. I guess it's time to give the farmer some of that free tax money and look the other way while thye take their turn at it all. It's the American way!

[K-D-K-D-K]

I noticed some people want to see the demise of the industry but did you know that it would hurt millions of Americans.Did you know this but the average Joe down to the typical pipe scrubber owns the Oil Companies. Millions of Americans own stock in oil companies either directly as shareholders, as owners of mutual fund shares or as participants in pension fund and other retirement accounts. Each year, dividends paid by oil companies put hundreds of millions of dollars into the hands of the public which inturn spend it in the consumer market or reinvest it back in the companies which uses the capital to explore for more Petroleum. You do also know that Oil and Gas Co. are the most Enviromentaly regulated Companies in the world which creates stiffer regulations on refinement that changes have to be made to the refineries which causes price increases as well.

[BoogyMan]

The White House on Wednesday said it would not release oil from the nation’s strategic reserves to drive prices lower.

“This president would not use the (Strategic Petroleum Reserve) to manipulate (prices) unless there was a true emergency,” said White House press secretary Dana Perino.


So the president decided YOUR OIL won't be used to give you $1.40 a gallon in America, and force the oil prices in the world (based on demand) downward.

Instead, you will pay $3.00 a gallon not to use YOUR OIL, and let Bush's rich oil buddies bleed you dry at the pumps.

How conservatives can defend this WH piece of crap is beyond me - but they do. And when Clinton takes office YOU will be using YOUR OIL to lower gasoline prices - as we did when Bill Clinton was in power. Another person these same conservatives hate.

What does lower gas prices mean? Cheaper transportation for commerical use, lower gas, food, product pricing, more jobs for Americans. Can you see how fked up this President is??


Shintao the path you are traveling in your everything is Bush's fault rhetoric is a bidirectional one. Your side of the political spectrum refuses to allow oil exploration on most of the coastline of our country so lets plug in some changes to your commentary.

The environmental left has decided YOUR OIL won't be used to give you $1.40 a gallon in America, and force the oil prices in the world (based on demand) downward.

Instead, you will pay $3.00 a gallon not to use YOUR OIL, and let the environmental lobby bleed you dry at the pumps.

How lefties can defend the environmental lobby is beyond me - but they do......and the point is at now made.

How about a little balance? :)

[Lazarus]

... my $.02:

There should not be a futures market on crude oil, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The oil-producing nations are too volatile as-is to interject the Chicken Little effect.

And we should not remove one drop of our crude reserves.
It would not affect market price anyway.
It should remain where it is until all other nations' reserves have run dry.
Save it for a rainy day, as it were.

[Pookie]

I think what's really wrong here is the dependency on oil. We messed up many years ago for not seriously pursuing the manufacture and development of alternative fuels, and now we're stuck.
What's really fun is at the pumps. The only ones who really bitch about gas prices are the ones driving these gas-guzzling 8-cylinder designer SUVs who have to stop to feed the monsters every two days.
I look for oil prices to go up and up even more.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Pogo]

I think what's really wrong here is the dependency on oil. We messed up many years ago for not seriously pursuing the manufacture and development of alternative fuels, and now we're stuck.
What's really fun is at the pumps. The only ones who really bitch about gas prices are the ones driving these gas-guzzling 8-cylinder designer SUVs who have to stop to feed the monsters every two days.
I look for oil prices to go up and up even more.
Purrs,
Pookie

When Ghawar runs dry, all hell breaks loose because there's nothing on the horizon to replace it. Even for those of us who don't drive. :shock:

[apdst]

We messed up many years ago for not seriously pursuing the manufacture and development of alternative fuels

We can't develope practical alternate fuels now. How could we develope them in the past?

Actually, the alternate fuels are out there. The problem is, that none of them are remotely close to being as practical and efficient as petroleum.

Until someone builds a nuclear reactor that will fit inside your trunk, petroleum is the only show in town.

[PatrickHenry]

There's lots of oil.

The multinational oil companies are conspiring with OPEC to defraud the consumers who have very few options at this point.

The Middle East Wars are about restricting access to petroleum which results in these price rises.

KDK, I appreciate an honest gloater.

If I thought you weren't just posturing for satiric purposes, I would hate you, but as it is...I find you amusing! :D

[Truth_and_Power]

We messed up many years ago for not seriously pursuing the manufacture and development of alternative fuels

We can't develope practical alternate fuels now. How could we develope them in the past?

Actually, the alternate fuels are out there. The problem is, that none of them are remotely close to being as practical and efficient as petroleum.

Until someone builds a nuclear reactor that will fit inside your trunk, petroleum is the only show in town.


1. Build Nuke Plants
2. Build Electric Cars
3. Plug in Car

Glad I could help.

[brien]

Brien......everytime there is a raise in the price of gas, the excuse changes. No offense, but I can't believe people actuall believe the excuses given anymore.

This is because the reasons for oil price spikes are tied to political and economic events around the world. What I can't believe, is that government types like Hillary Clinton use the issue to go after the oil companies for "price gouging" when government earns 65 cents per gallon with no overhead and the oil companies earn perhaps 16 cents before taxes. Now tell me who is gouging the American public on every gallon of gasolline sold in the USA.

[bishop]

I guess it's time to give the farmer some of that free tax money and look the other way while thye take their turn at it all. It's the American way!

but really, small time farmers aren't getting any of these subsidies - the big corporate farms are.

[brien]

I think what's really wrong here is the dependency on oil. We messed up many years ago for not seriously pursuing the manufacture and development of alternative fuels, and now we're stuck.
What's really fun is at the pumps. Purrs,
Pookie


This is spot on. Americans will continue to pay $3.00 per gallon and not put any pressure on politicians to extend tax credits for the establishment of a delivery system for hydrogen. Or for the increase in coal burning gassification plants to produce electricity with a resource which has a 300 year supply right here in the US. Or construct more nuclear power plants to meet the growing demand for electricity. Or increase the availability for biodiesel. When government extends tax credits for these soultions to private enterprise, the consumer will see these alternatives to oil.

There are solutions to replacing the US oil driven economy. Americans merely need to get serious about demanding accountability from government that continues to perpetuate the current addiction on oil.[hr]
We messed up many years ago for not seriously pursuing the manufacture and development of alternative fuels

We can't develope practical alternate fuels now. How could we develope them in the past?

Actually, the alternate fuels are out there. The problem is, that none of them are remotely close to being as practical and efficient as petroleum.

Until someone builds a nuclear reactor that will fit inside your trunk, petroleum is the only show in town.


There are busses and government cars operating on hydrogen right now in California. The technology is already developed but there is no delivery system in place across the country. All that needs to be done is to extend tax credits to fuel delivery companies to establish the delivery system so when you pull up to a gas station you have the availability of hydrogen. Once the delivery system is in place, you will see the mass marketing of a vehicle that runs on hydrogen whose only by product or emission is water.

The same issue is true for biodiesel. It is more available than hydrogen, but by no means is it as widely available as diesel fuel. Get the tax credits going for the delivery system and we would see fueling stations for trucks across the US. Extend the tax credits to trucking companies for using biodiesel, and we would see an alternative to $3.60 per gallon diesel fuel. More diesel fuel would mean a downward pressure on prices for home heating oil until people could find alternative heating from #2 heating fuel.

So there are many technological alternatives that already exist today but private industry needs to be afforded the tax credits to make them more widely available. Why should the oil companies get tax credits for drilling and exploration and alternative energy sources remain the step child at the energy table? Politicians are the answer.

Politicians, not big oil, are to blame for our oil dependency. They are influenced by the oil lobby. If politicians didn't accept oil money for elections, or when crafting legislation, then there would be very little influence peddling by the oil lobby in DC. People need to support those elected officials who favor alternative energy sources to begin the process of moving away from an oil dependent economy and towards one that has a self sufficient energy found and processed here in the US.

[jafar00]

We messed up many years ago for not seriously pursuing the manufacture and development of alternative fuels

We can't develope practical alternate fuels now. How could we develope them in the past?


Didn't the Model T Ford run on BioDiesel?

Anyway, back to the black stuff, there is a clear reason why it has gone from around $20 a barrel to $100 in a few short years...
I'll leave you to guess who is responsible for not only making our cars more expensive to fill, but has made our food more expensive (because of transport costs).

[lily]

We can't develope practical alternate fuels now. How could we develope them in the past?

Actually, the alternate fuels are out there. The problem is, that none of them are remotely close to being as practical and efficient as petroleum.

Until someone builds a nuclear reactor that will fit inside your trunk, petroleum is the only show in town.


The same thing was said when they changed from leaded gas to unleaded.[hr]
I guess it's time to give the farmer some of that free tax money and look the other way while thye take their turn at it all. It's the American way!

but really, small time farmers aren't getting any of these subsidies - the big corporate farms are.


Well......I'd say then we'd get back more farmers, but we both know that's not going to happen. All the small time farmers I know that haven't sold off parts of their land to keep doing what they love mostly now grow soybeans for the big companies anyway.

[hr]


This is because the reasons for oil price spikes are tied to political and economic events around the world. What I can't believe, is that government types like Hillary Clinton use the issue to go after the oil companies for "price gouging" when government earns 65 cents per gallon with no overhead and the oil companies earn perhaps 16 cents before taxes. Now tell me who is gouging the American public on every gallon of gasolline sold in the USA.


Well brien....all that may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that every time the price of gas goes up, there is a new excuse and the public falls for it, hook, line and sinker.

[namguy]

Good point...do that voodoo you do so well.
Let's go back to horse and buggy, that'll help bring the poor out of poverty, educate our youth and bring us UHC. All in the name of punishing a successful industry which has been as responsible as any in bringing us the prosperity and security we all enjoy.

I'll be sure to invest in that Buggy-whip company I recently dropped, and not sell my hip-boots I wear on this forum so often. I'll need them to walk into town and pick up my 100 lb of feed, my sack flour and bushel of sorghum.


Prosperity and security. With all of our technogoly and the 49% we place into our defense budgit and we couldn't prevent 9-11. Paying three dollars a gal for gas, in CA four bucks, that's prosperity. When you go into a grocery store have you noticed the price of food. Banks stand to loose trillions of dollars on foreclousres, on businesses as well as the housing market and you call this prosperity, wow. Where is the prosperity to be found in this econmy. Wheat just took a hugh jump in price, oats which comprise 93% of feed took a jump.

[Mark L Hamburger]

Didn't the Model T Ford run on BioDiesel?


No, but close. It ran on gasoline and ethanol. The major reason they stopped making cars that were capable of running on ethanol, and the reason for it's lack of availability, was the price of gasoline dropped significantly and prohibition made it nearly impossible to use ethanol.

The diesel engine was designed to run on peanut oil, and for one of the same reasons that gasoline engines weren't running ethanol (cheap oil) they were switched to petroleum. All modern diesel engines are still capable of running on SVO (straight vegetable oil), all you have to do is heat it to 160 degrees (F) prior to the injector pump. You can also make your own biodiesel out of used vegetable oil with methanol and sodium hydroxide (lye).

I've been thinking of taking an old VW or Mercedes diesel and converting it to run on SVO or biodiesel. Low emissions, high mileage, and next to free to drive.

[brien]

every time the price of gas goes up, there is a new excuse and the public falls for it, hook, line and sinker.

I don't think Americans are falling for these excuses so much as they tolerate the increase because they feel they have no other alternative.

[namguy]

Didn't the Model T Ford run on BioDiesel?


No, but close. It ran on gasoline and ethanol. The major reason they stopped making cars that were capable of running on ethanol, and the reason for it's lack of availability, was the price of gasoline dropped significantly and prohibition made it nearly impossible to use ethanol.

The diesel engine was designed to run on peanut oil, and for one of the same reasons that gasoline engines weren't running ethanol (cheap oil) they were switched to petroleum. All modern diesel engines are still capable of running on SVO (straight vegetable oil), all you have to do is heat it to 160 degrees (F) prior to the injector pump. You can also make your own biodiesel out of used vegetable oil with methanol and sodium hydroxide (lye).

I've been thinking of taking an old VW or Mercedes diesel and converting it to run on SVO or biodiesel. Low emissions, high mileage, and next to free to drive.


Cool:thumbsup:

[apdst]

Brien,

A unit of hydrogen , or biodiesel doesn't create as much energy as a gallon of gasoline. You would wind up spending MORE on fuel, were you using anything other than gasoline.

There are fuel sources that work, but none of them are nearly as practical as petroleum.

You think fuel prices are high now? Watch what happens we we become totally dependent on biofuels.

[Shintao]

Shintao the path you are traveling in your everything is Bush's fault rhetoric is a bidirectional one. Your side of the political spectrum refuses to allow oil exploration on most of the coastline of our country so lets plug in some changes to your commentary.

Who would you have me blame including Bush for $3.00 gasoline? OK, I will include the Energy Sec. Bodman. That make you happy?

The California government is controlled by Conad the destroyer (R), and his (R) Republican quartet - so don't try to blame Leftys for Rightwing moritoriums on pumping oil. Why would you want to pump offshore when the oil is ozzing out of the ground from Northern Cal. to San Diego? The wells are drilled & capped & awaiting a pump. Tell the movie actor to cut-up the legislation.

The environmental left has decided YOUR OIL won't be used to give you $1.40 a gallon in America, and force the oil prices in the world (based on demand) downward.

When the Clinton Team 08" returns the gasoline prices will drop like the NY NewYears ball. Sell accordingly. All you haveto do is open you biased eyelids & see what Bill did in teh past to build the faultering economy left him by the Republicans.

Instead, you will pay $3.00 a gallon not to use YOUR OIL, and let the environmental lobby bleed you dry at the pumps.

In your wildest dreams. :clapper:

lies can defend the environmental lobby is beyond me - but they do......and the point is at now made.How about a little balance? :)


Balance? Go read the article and ask yourself WHY Bush doesn't use YOUR OIL to drop the prices of gasoline globally. It only takes a month and OPEC and the rest crumble on the crude to restore low gasoline prices. Then you stop using the reserve and buying the lower priced crude again. It worked for Bill, so who the hell isn't balanced here? :ecstatic:


Here is the Clinton Team 08' response to environmentalists who drive cars, heat homes just like you do (Balanced!).

One good reason to vote for the Clinton Team 08'

http://tinyurl.com/2ldw8h


Clinton urges Bush to tap oil reserves

"I urge the President to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve to send a signal to the market and ease concerns about low crude oil stocks that are driving prices higher," Clinton said in a statement posted on Wednesday on her campaign Web site.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0825411820071108

[Keith Hamburger]

but really, small time farmers aren't getting any of these subsidies - the big corporate farms are.


And, of course, Bishop has received his share with his investments in ADM. ADM is one of the largest lobbyists in Washington and one of the very largest recipients of those corporate subsidies.

Keith

[Shintao]

Didn't the Model T Ford run on BioDiesel?


No, but close. It ran on gasoline and ethanol. The major reason they stopped making cars that were capable of running on ethanol, and the reason for it's lack of availability, was the price of gasoline dropped significantly and prohibition made it nearly impossible to use ethanol.

The diesel engine was designed to run on peanut oil, and for one of the same reasons that gasoline engines weren't running ethanol (cheap oil) they were switched to petroleum. All modern diesel engines are still capable of running on SVO (straight vegetable oil), all you have to do is heat it to 160 degrees (F) prior to the injector pump. You can also make your own biodiesel out of used vegetable oil with methanol and sodium hydroxide (lye).

I've been thinking of taking an old VW or Mercedes diesel and converting it to run on SVO or biodiesel. Low emissions, high mileage, and next to free to drive.


You might try going with used Resturant oil like that guy with a Winebaggo in Australia does. Says the fumes smell like french fries, but other than that!! :madlaugh:

What I need to get is a cheap lil mini pickup for those occassional times I need one.

[BoogyMan]

You might try going with used Resturant oil like that guy with a Winebaggo in Australia does. Says the fumes smell like french fries, but other than that!! :madlaugh:

What I need to get is a cheap lil mini pickup for those occassional times I need one.

Did you ever see the episode of Dirty Jobs where Mike Rowe worked with a guy who made his own biodiesel? They said the exhaust smelled like fajitas. Driving something like that would ensure that I gained way too much weight as I would ALWAYS be hungry.

[Mark L Hamburger]

You might try going with used Resturant oil like that guy with a Winebaggo in Australia does. Says the fumes smell like french fries, but other than that!! :madlaugh:

What I need to get is a cheap lil mini pickup for those occassional times I need one.


That's actually my plan ;)

I have a cheap little pickup, but it doesn't get very good mileage. Only paid $800 for it, tho.[hr]
Brien,

A unit of hydrogen , or biodiesel doesn't create as much energy as a gallon of gasoline. You would wind up spending MORE on fuel, were you using anything other than gasoline.

There are fuel sources that work, but none of them are nearly as practical as petroleum.

You think fuel prices are high now? Watch what happens we we become totally dependent on biofuels.


Let's see...

Hydrogen - 61,000 BTU/lb
Gasoline - 20,500 BTUs/lb

Yep, huge difference, but hydrogen seems to have more power/unit than gasoline...

Diesel - 129,500 BTU/Gal
Biodiesel - 118,296 BTU/Gal

Wow a whole 8% difference, and it translates to a whole 2-3mpg decrease. Add to that, biodiesel vehicles have equal or better emissions than hybrids, and run on a renewable energy source... seems like a decent trade-off to me

[namguy]

Brien,

A unit of hydrogen , or biodiesel doesn't create as much energy as a gallon of gasoline. You would wind up spending MORE on fuel, were you using anything other than gasoline.

There are fuel sources that work, but none of them are nearly as practical as petroleum.

You think fuel prices are high now? Watch what happens we we become totally dependent on biofuels.



Yes, I did hear that it does take a lot of gasoline to produce biofules. There's just no easy solution.

[apdst]

edited post[hr]Let's see...

Hydrogen - 61,000 BTU/lb
Gasoline - 20,500 BTUs/lb

Yes, let's see, because of the lower density that hydrogen has over gasoline, the fuel tank in a hydrogen cell vehicle will have to be three times larger than the fuel tank in a gas burner. A pick-up truck that has a 25 gallon fuel tank will now need a 75 gallon fuel tank. Are you ready to engineer that into the body of a pick-up? That takes us back to the practicality aspect of fuels.

Wow a whole 8% difference, and it translates to a whole 2-3mpg decrease.

So, my winch trucks that already get 5mpg are going to start getting 2-3mpg? Call me crazy, but I think I'll pass, brother.

[Elrathin]

So, my winch trucks that already get 5mpg are going to start getting 2-3mpg? Call me crazy, but I think I'll pass, brother.


Maybe you should think of another line of business, I hope people like you go under BIG TIME. OVER AND OVER, please die and go out of business. I hope you and your ilk pay more and more and go under to poverty.

Tow trucks can get over 5 MPG if you pay extra. Don't give me that shit you cheap mother fucker.

Military Trucks that used to tow our LMTVs got 15 MPG. So cry me a river. Either you are lying or you are using trucks from the 1970s.;

[Mark L Hamburger]

Yes, let's see, because of the lower density that hydrogen has over gasoline, the fuel tank in a hydrogen cell vehicle will have to be three times larger than the fuel tank in a gas burner. A pick-up truck that has a 25 gallon fuel tank will now need a 75 gallon fuel tank. Are you ready to engineer that into the body of a pick-up? That takes us back to the practicality aspect of fuels.


So, 61,000/20,500=3. 3 TIMES the amount of energy per unit of fuel... hmmm, looks like we need 3 times the amount of fuel to do the same amount of work...

Or, maybe the fact that it has 3 times the amount of energy, meaning you only need 1/3 of the amount of fuel making your point moot, you get the same amount of energy out of 1/3 of the amount of fuel and therefore DON'T need 3 times the capacity. Not to mention that hydrogen vehicles are ~75% efficient while gasoline is in the neighborhood of 24%


So, my winch trucks that already get 5mpg are going to start getting 2-3mpg? Call me crazy, but I think I'll pass, brother.


Did you fail math? 8% of 5 is .4. instead of getting 5 MPG you'll get 4.6, and many studies have shown that in a properly maintained engine the mileage doesn't decrease at all and may increase due to the increased lubrication from the biodiesel.

And, seriously, you should probably invest in some new trucks, the 2007 Kenworths are making 6.5 MPG and Macks are upwards of 9 MPG[hr]
Yes, I did hear that it does take a lot of gasoline to produce biofules. There's just no easy solution.


http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/Benefits%20of%20Biodiesel.Pdf
biodiesel has a positive energy balance. For every unit of energy needed to produce a gallon of biodiesel, 3.24 units of energy are gained.[hr]And speaking of hydrogen-powered cars, the BMW Hydrogen 7 (http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/bmw-hydrogen-7-production/) is already in production... So much for it not being viable...

[apdst]

Maybe you should think of another line of business, I hope people like you go under BIG TIME.

You hope the transportation industry goes under? Are you really that f'n stupid?

And, seriously, you should probably invest in some new trucks, the 2007 Kenworths are making 6.5 MPG and Macks are upwards of 9 MPG

Those kinds of trucks aren't suited to what I do, plus they cost 90 grand+. I'm not really making that kind of money. I wish I were. I would love to drop a quarter million on a brand new 30 ton gin pole truck. But, fater I got done rigging the trucks to suit my end of the industry, they would wind up getting 5-6mpg, anyway.

The Kenworths you speak of are getting the 6.5mpg--most probably--with a 12.7 Detroit. The C-50 Caterpillers are only hittin on 5.5-6. The New N-14 Cummins is only getting 6. That's miles per gallon in brand new engines. After they pass the 500,000 mile mark, the mileage will denegrate.

I would love to see where you got that info on a Mack engine getting 9mpg.

And speaking of hydrogen-powered cars, the BMW Hydrogen 7 is already in production... So much for it not being viable...

Yeah, Average Joe can afford a Beemer.

[brien]

edited post[hr][quote]Let's see...

Hydrogen - 61,000 BTU/lb
Gasoline - 20,500 BTUs/lb

Yes, let's see, because of the lower density that hydrogen has over gasoline, the fuel tank in a hydrogen cell vehicle will have to be three times larger than the fuel tank in a gas burner. A pick-up truck that has a 25 gallon fuel tank will now need a 75 gallon fuel tank. Are you ready to engineer that into the body of a pick-up? That takes us back to the practicality aspect of fuels.

Wow a whole 8% difference, and it translates to a whole 2-3mpg decrease.



Well then why is California using hydrogen in buses and cars if it is impractical. See this link:

http://www.cah2report.com/archives.htm

6/15/06 Air Products has joined the City of Santa Monica, Calif. and South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) in celebrating the official opening of a new hydrogen fueling station located at the Santa Monica City Yards. All stations in the AQMD five cities program are now open. Santa Monica adds five Quantum HICE Priuses to its fleet of 40 conventional Priuses

CARB ZEB Program Would Add 1,000 Hydrogen Buses
6/24/06 John Addison Leaders from public transportation, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), bus and fuel cell manufacturers meet on June 21 at the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) to discuss plans to have 1,000 hydrogen fuel cell buses in service in California. Currently there are eight. 1,000 hydrogen buses would result in over 400,000 daily riders on hydrogen buses and a demand for over 40,000 kg/day of hydrogen

6/8/06 John Addison The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has posted a notice of intent to award contracts for the lease of six vehicles that will lower the cost of using hydrogen. Hydrogen will be used in conventional engines, not fuel cells. This will expand to 37 the total number of hydrogen internal combustion engine (HICE) vehicles in California.Other fleets that each uses five of these Quantum Priuses include the cities of Riverside, Burbank, Santa Ana, and Ontario. AQMD in Diamond Bar also uses five Quantum Priuses. This June 15, Santa Monica will start using five.
Complete Article

So we do see the beginning of the use of hydrogen vehicles, contrary to those who state they are impractical.

[bishop]

all that's needed as far as i'm concerned is concentrated focus on r&d and the necessary infrastructure for hydrogen usage.

[brien]

all that's needed as far as i'm concerned is concentrated focus on r&d and the necessary infrastructure for hydrogen usage.


Bish, we also need to extend tax credits to those companies willing to take the lead in the R&D for alternative fuels and quit subsidizing the oil companies with our tax dollars. I think, and you would probably agree, that our tax dollars are better spent on reducing the deficit not subsidizing big business of any kind.

[bishop]

i definitely agree.

when i talk about increased r&d - i believe the funding should go towards government managed programs either in the DOD, DOE or to some of the leading public research universities (the ideal destination imo). i certainly would not want the money going into a corporation's pockes - at least not directly.

[PatrickHenry]

By infrastructure, you mean storage and distribution, bishop?

I think there are still some real problems with how to keep the fuel in the car, right?

Whether to compress it or store it as a hydride?

[brien]

certainly would not want the money going into a corporation's pockes - at least not directly.

This is why I suggested tax credits for R&D in the private sector. Tax dollars direct to DOD and the like are certainly within the scope and parameters of government allocations and spending.

[Mark L Hamburger]

Those kinds of trucks aren't suited to what I do, plus they cost 90 grand+. I'm not really making that kind of money. I wish I were. I would love to drop a quarter million on a brand new 30 ton gin pole truck. But, fater I got done rigging the trucks to suit my end of the industry, they would wind up getting 5-6mpg, anyway.

The Kenworths you speak of are getting the 6.5mpg--most probably--with a 12.7 Detroit. The C-50 Caterpillers are only hittin on 5.5-6. The New N-14 Cummins is only getting 6. That's miles per gallon in brand new engines. After they pass the 500,000 mile mark, the mileage will denegrate.


Then you do an overhaul, you do realize that a single MPG can save thousands of dollars, right?


I would love to see where you got that info on a Mack engine getting 9mpg.


New Mack C8 (http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=62121), in a Pinnacle getting 8 MPG in a real-world situation. The 9 MPG figure I found before was driving 65 on the flats...


Yeah, Average Joe can afford a Beemer.


I have a Beemer and I'm an average Joe, but that's not really the point. It is a truely viable, production-ready hydrogen vehicle. The more of these get produced, the better the infrastructure will become, and the more the manufacturers will build.[hr]
By infrastructure, you mean storage and distribution, bishop?

I think there are still some real problems with how to keep the fuel in the car, right?

Whether to compress it or store it as a hydride?


I still think the Germans have the right idea. Screw fuel cells and use liquid hydrogen to power an internal cumbustion engine. Then there's the Israeli company that made a prototype that produces it's own hydrogen. (http://www.isracast.com/Articles/Article.aspx?ID=43) It may or may not be viable, but it's pretty cool.

[Keith Hamburger]

Yeah, Average Joe can afford a Beemer.


I have a Beemer and I'm an average Joe, but that's not really the point. [

Well, you would have a Beemer if you would put the damn transmission back in it. It's been 60 degrees the past two days. What the hell are you doing arguing on the forums instead of fixing that car? I helped you get it back on the transmission jack and all you have to do is bolt it up. :shock:

And, guys, don't mess with this boy. He was homeschooled by the best. :nana:

Keith

[apdst]

Then you do an overhaul, you do realize that a single MPG can save thousands of dollars, right?

LOL...you's a trip. What you're saying, is that I should drop 16-20 g's on an overhaul, just to gain one mile per gallon? Yeah, that's going to be a good financial move.

The truck used in your article was grossing 69,000 pounds. The mpg probably goes to hell when it's heavier than 69,000 pounds.

[Keith Hamburger]

LOL...you's a trip. What you're saying, is that I should drop 16-20 g's on an overhaul, just to gain one mile per gallon? Yeah, that's going to be a good financial move.

If you're running, as you say 5mpg and at 500,000 miles you drop by 20% to 4mpg then you will spend an additional $75k over the next 500,000 miles due to the reduction in mpg. (25,000 gallons at $3/gallon, diesel's currently more than that, I know, I drive a diesel).

Any decent businessman would know that spending $20k to save $75k is a bargain.

And, you refer to "over 69,000lbs", I guess we could advise you on additional ways to improve your business situation if you could give us more details such as what is the average load, calculated per mile or per gallon, you're hauling. If you can't figure out you will save money by overhauling your engines and improving your mileage by 25% maybe we can find some other ways to make you some money.

Keith

[apdst]

I know, I drive a diesel

What do you drive?

An overhaul doesn't improve fuel mileage as much as you want to make out. There is a huge difference between coughing up 20 grand right now and a supposed savings of 75 grand over 6 years. It takes about 6 years for one of my trucks to rack up 500,000 miles. What am I supposed to do in 2 years, when my engine loses the 1-2mpg that it gained when I overhauled the engine? Rebuild it again? So, in 2 years, I've spent 40 grand chasing a fabled 75 grand that may, or may not, exist.

Since you drive a diesel, you know that a truck that has an empty weight of 40,000 pounds isn't going to get more than 6mpg, when loaded.

If you're running, as you say 5mpg and at 500,000 miles you drop by 20% to 4mpg then you will spend an additional $75k

That's not what I said. What said, or at least what I meant, was that if a truck is getting 9 mpg, brand new, what am I supposed to do when that fuel mileage drops down to 6mpg when the truck goes beyond 500,00 miles.

The truck you chose as your example is barely on the market and cost's 90,000+. You may drive diesel, but you don't do it for a living and you certainly don't own a fleet.

I guess we could advise you on additional ways to improve your business situation if you could give us more details such as what is the average load, calculated per mile or per gallon, you're hauling. If you can't figure out you will save money by overhauling your engines and improving your mileage by 25% maybe we can find some other ways to make you some money.

Ok, today I moved a 70,000 pound compressor. It was 14 feet wide. It was being hauled on a 50'x102" five axle lowboy. The gross vehicle weight was 110,000 pounds I can't wait for you to educate me as to how I'm going to increase my fuel mileage beyond 5mpg (The engine that was pulling the load is a 12.7, 475 horse Detroit that has 248,000 miles on an out-of-frame.)

I'll be waiting.

Post Script: While you're telling me how to change my business situation by spending 20 large on an engine overhaul, please explain to me how I'm going to spend the 20, AND pay the note on an $80,000 trailor.

[Mark L Hamburger]

So, you lose 1-2MPG after your engine wears out in 500,000 miles, you get an overhaul done to bring it back into tolerances and have it running properly again, and in 6 years you have to do it again. Another option is a reman engine, Detroit offers these fairly inexpensively and is just as good as a new engine.

How do you go from losing 1-2mpg in 6 years to losing it in 1-2 years?

Now, lets do a little math. At 5MPG, assuming a fuel price of $3.30/Gal (the current price of diesel here, give or take $.05), you would spend $330,000 in 6 years. lose 1 MPG and you spend $412,500, or an extra $82,500. You lose 2 MPG, to make it 3 MPG, you're up to $550,000, an extra $220,000.

Seems like spending $20,000 to save a minimum of $82,500 (a net savings of $62,500) isn't that bad of an investment.

[Keith Hamburger]

Post Script: While you're telling me how to change my business situation by spending 20 large on an engine overhaul, please explain to me how I'm going to spend the 20, AND pay the note on an $80,000 trailor.

As to the question I deleted, I drive an F350 crew cab 4x4. I know you're going to say that doesn't compare but I wasn't comparing what I drive to what you're doing, just pointing out that I know what diesel costs.

As to how you're going to keep your business operational and profitable after expenses, the answer is one I see businesses missing all the time. I've worked in corporate management on contracts and in corporate and retail sales. The mistake that's usually made is not charging enough for what you're doing. If you can't cover all of your costs (including investments necessary to reduce future costs and maintain profitability) you should be bidding higher. If you lose the bid that would lose you money, you've actually made a profit.

One thing I've seen often is people lowbidding a contract in the hope they can make up the losses in future business. Well, I'll tell you, it will never happen. The next time a contract comes up it will go to the lowest bidder as well. There is no loyalty in business or government today. The only thing you can hope for is that they guy that lowbid the last contract did such a crappy job he won't be allowed to bid again. Only bid what will make you money.

As to the cost of that expensive trailer, the common answer is to rent it for the job and include a reasonable margin above the rental cost in your bid. I know that's not always possible, though. My dad moved a reactor for the refinery where he works a few years ago. The thing was so heavy (400k lbs? I don't recall exactly) that it was brought from Germany on a ship with nothing else as cargo. It was shipped by rail with two engines, the freight car, and nothing else on the train. They had to have emergency equipment follow the train in case the thing fell off. The last half mile from the tracks had to be done on a custom 14 axle trailer. I doubt you could rent something like that. But, in that case, your shipping cost has to be the amount it would cost to build the trailer plus a reasonable margin.

If you're buying something that you're not guaranteed to use again, unless you cover the entire costs, you're making a big mistake.

And, of course, all of this is way off topic.

Keith

[Mark L Hamburger]

And if you're paying for a trailer for more than 6-years, you have a problem...