LOL, not hardly. What they look at is what the consumer is buying over time and those reports are not released every day. Despite what you might think, they are restricted by the same sales forces that effect everyone else and they can only sell it for what the market will bare.
LOL, now you are really dreaming but if this were true, how could they raise the price when we use less. Less demand translates into lower crude prices
Gasoline production is right on par with the trend of the last 10 years. They are keeping up with demand nicely. In fact, we are producing 6,000 barrels a day more than in the same week of 2003. Here is the data up to April 8 2005.
Can you point me to a resource for the price of crude oil over the past 10 years? I'll chart it out and have a look.
The US is the largest user of crude oil, but we are not the only users. North America (US, Mexico, and Canada) consumes 30% of the global market. If the entire continent got together and cut our oil use overnight by a staggering 50% the global market would only see a 15% reduction in sales.
Operating and materials costs of the oil companies are recovered in the price of the product. When the sales volume goes down, the percentage of those costs recovered in the product goes up. There is less product being sold to recover the portion of overhead that does not change with production levels. A 50% volume loss will have less than a 15% lowering effect on the global market pricing of the crude oil, and crude oil is only 54% of the end product price. That's an 8% operating cost break for a 50% reduction in sales. Volume goes down, price goes up.
Then please explain why the price of oil has not gone up anywheres near the % that gas has?
I'll see if I can dig something up. I do know that April 2004 a barrel of oil was $8 less than it is now. Thats about an 18% increase. Gas here in AZ was $1.65. Now it's $2.35. About a 40% increase. Oil accounts for less than 1/2 the increase.
Not really. They are just tired of getting it in the ass and are making a clear statement.
Probably out of fear of possible gas rationing in the near future.
LOL, you really need to start thinking long term Miles. While I agree that they will save little to no money NOW, the demand will push for the further development of the vehicles to where they both get getter mileage and cost less.
As it should be.
And it would have done nothing just like now. The problem is our wasteful use of energy as well as our limited refining capability. We have had this discussion before Miles and as usual, you only look at one side of the problem. Fortunately more people are starting to look at the other side of the problem where we can actually do something about it.
To you perhaps. Maybe you have tons of extra cash around so you can save the world. I don't. I can't afford a new car. The savings in gas from it won't come close to paying for it.
Not so. I see both sides. Short term issues as well as long term issues. You see only the long term and ignore whats happening now. We are dependent on foreign oil NOW and have serious problems NOW. Long term helps the future..great, now what about the short term? Ignore those problems? You have stated before you see nothing wrong with foreign dependency because in the long term when we get off oil entirely in won't be an issue. You gonna deny that?
It has on the national average. It appears Arizonians are taking a beating on gas prices.
I haven't found any cost information specifically for Arizona. I do have national averages.
4 April 2005 the national average price per gallon of gas was $2.217. 4 April 2004 the national average price per gallon of gas was $1.793. That's about a 23.5% increase. 2 April 2004 the price per barrel of crude was $36.082. 1 April 2005 the price per barrel of crude was $45.324. That's about a 25.5% increase.
I recently came across
Peter
Oh come on Miles, we all know that you're the one in here with the big bucks. I all seriousness though, what you are saying sounds more like a justification for not wanting to make any sacrifices or changes in your lifestyle.
While ou may see them, you still only look to one side for answers. The side that doesn't require you to make any changes.
Actually, I see both and what people are starting to do effects both the long and short term. The sad thing is Miles, is that conservation is the only real answer for both and the one you simply refuse to look at. Drilling more wells alone does nothing but propagate the problem and will make us ecen more dependent on foreign oil when we run out of ours and the people are still the wasteful pigs that they currently are.
And with our current usage and rate of grown in usage, we always will be. Even if all of alaska and everywhere else were to suddenly be opened up for drilling. it would take years for anything to come of it. Sorry Miles, but drilling is neither a short or long term solution to the problem. Concervation can be started today with results happening TODAY. Sounds pretty short term to me. And then if the demand for more fuel efficient cars continues, the builders will have no choice but to work on improving the technology, perhaps to the point of not really needing oil at all for fuel. That sounds like a solid long term solution to me.
The only one ignoring them is you. Our dependence is caused in a big way by our own hand and our continual waste of energy. Everything most Americans that can afford it have is way bigger than they need and if they want to continue this way, it comes at a cost. Just digging more well is truly ignorong the problem and trying to deal with the symptoms. The problem with doing that is the problem just gets worse.
No, what I said was that it is better to use THEIR oil first so when it becomes critical, WE are the ones that are in control because we still have some) and not the other way around like you would have it. Everyone is so damn sure that there is another technology to jump in when we begin to run out of oil and while I hate to burst your bubble, it simply doesn't exist yet and possibly never will.
This goes along with what I have been saying for years, we either conserve it now or pay big for what is left of it later.
What??? I should spend $20,000 on a new hybrid so I can save a few $100 a year and feel good about sacrificing? Good grief.
Nope. I look to solving both short and long term issues. You only look at the long term and ignore whats going on today.
Ok, so you look at the short term, but you refuse to look at solutions that can help. Conservation is a long term answer for our society. You can sit there and say everyone should go out and buy a hybrid and the short term problems will be gone. Face reality though TBone. You refuse to look at a realistic solution that will help the short term problems. A solution and not some pipedream that stands no chance.
Drilling more wells will get us off the foreign oil for the short term. Using less oil and finding alternatives will help for the long term.
Great TBone. So lets hear your great solution to the short term issues we face????? All you do is rant about how society wastes. Ya, we agree there. So your solution is to get everyone to do better? Sorry TBone, that means we will continue having a short term problem until long term solutions are found.
Which is worse? Using our own oil, or using foreign oil for the short term until long term solutions can be found?
So we better at least start finding where our oil is. But you liberals wont even allow exploratory drilling.
On one hand you whine and complain about us being dependant on foreign oil but on the other hand you are unwilling to do anything about it. Make up your mind dude.
LOL, completely untrue. I am well aware of what is going on today and we had this conversation over a year ago. At that time I was criticizing the American car companies for having their heads up their asses as usual as they were building bigger and bigger vehicles and investing nothing in hybrids or fuel efficient vehicles. You OTOH, said they were doing the right thing since there was no need or market for them and that the ones building hybrids were wasting their time and money. Now look at what is happening. Fuel prices are rapidly climbing and the American car companies lost another 20% of the market share to those companies that were as you said wasting their time. I was right then and I'm right now. The only way to get out from under these problems in both the short term and long term is conservation and looking ahead.
LOL, you said the same thing last year and look what is happening now. 6 month waits for those pipe dream hybrids and the American car companied in big trouble because they doen't have anything. Conservation is a short term solution as well. You just don't want to hear about anything that could impact your lifestyle in any way. I never said that everyone should dump their vehicle for a hybrid but they can take steps to save a little fuel today and make their next purchase more based on what they need rather than pumping up their lillte ego's.
LOL, what exactly is your definition of "short term"??? It takes years from inception to completion get anything of use from a new well. We could start conserving today and if we could save a gallon of fuel each per week (which is not impossible to do) the impact would be massive within months, not years like your ideas. Get with the program dude.
This is the part that you are not getting Miles, our public waste, selfishness, and stupidity IS THE PROBLEM. What you are talking about are the symptoms. And as we have seen in the past, if you mask the symptoms, the existence of the actual problem will be denied and not be dealt with and will simply grow worse. People becoming aware of the problem and doing what they can to conserve what we have and stop outright wasting our resources will both help to solve the problem and eliminate many of the symptoms. The thing is Miles, you need the problem to show itself to motivate most people to do something about it.
Using our own oil will be MUCH worse. There really is no benefit to doing that. If you think that it will have any effect on lowering the price, you are just fooling yourself. The price is set by demand, regardless of availability and no oil company is going to produce more just to get less for it. If we introduce more oil into the market, other producers will simply cut back and all that will happen is that we will be wasting our resources. As for the long term solution, that will only be found (if there even is one) by the growing need for it and as long as oil seems plentiful, people like you will simply say that it is not worth the money (like you have already) to do anything about it.
LOL, that is because there is no such thing. You are either drilling for oil or you're not. There is no middle ground.
Well, the author of the website says conservation won't matter... any advances in conservation & efficiency will cause us to consume more and total oil usage will continue to rise. It also states that hybrid cars production is very oil- and energy- intensive, and in fact offsets any savings made in decreased fuel consumption.
What really bothers me is that there's simply no way our energy needs can be satisfied without oil... unless there is a breakthrough in nuclear fusion or something like that.
Peter
Oh geez. Your logic is pure absurdity. Ok, how about you send me $20,000 so I can buy a hybrid. You'd benifit from the cleaner air. What? You won't make that sacrifice? Too funny.
Development like you state is a long term goal. Not a short term one. A year ago they were investing millions into more fuel efficient vehicles. They have been under development for well over a year. Your short term plan is to bitch about the consumer. Ya, real effective plan for solving short term problems.
Where do you come up with this crap? I never said developing hybrids was a waste of time and money. Good grief you're nuts.
Looking ahead is the long term solution. Conservation today sounds great. Will bitching at the consumer solve short term problems? Hell no. You have any other short term solution other than to say consumers are wastefull and need to conserve? Some sort of real solution that is effective? Thought not. Just bitch at consumers. Ya, thats gonna change short term problems.
No, they aren't in trouble. The American car companies have invested millions into development that far exceeds whats currently out from foreign companies. You look at whats on the road rather than whats being researched and developed. Besides, these hybrids are not a short term solution. They aren't even a long term one. They're only part of ongoing development into longer term solutions. Small tiny commuter hybrids are not a workable long term solution. They just allow a manufacture to learn and develope something better for the future.
Thats a long term solution. It will take decades to get more fuel efficient cars on the road. So tell me again what is your short term solution? Do tell. Bitch at consumers some more?
More bitching at the consumer as a short term solution? Bitching at them isn't going to change much. Guess it makes you feel better but I'm looking for a real workable solution. Something you won't do.
I don't disagree with that. Never have. But simply bitching about it is not a solution.
I don't get? I have stated over and over that I agree with you on this. But bitching about it won't change a thing for the short term. Your whining about others is NOT a solution.
It's not just about prices. We are at the mercy of foreign governments. This is a good thing to you?
WHAT???? It's a function of both supply and demand. Not just one. As the price of oil goes up, supply has been increased. There are scores of oil reserves untapped in foreign lands and oceans waiting for the day when the price will support expansion.
That is complete bull. Oil companies have been asking to explore for decades. In some areas they have been allowed and the oil found has not been tapped. Oil companies constantly want sources for FUTURE revenue. That means sitting on stocks and continualy finding new sources. There is middle ground TBone. Learn about the industry before putting your foot in your mouth.
Absurd, not at all, just against your way of thinking. Tell me Miles, what mileage do your current vehicles get?
LOL, if they were working on them for over a year, where are they???? Funny how the Japanese manufacturers have them NOW and are gaining market share. Looks like typical conservative short sighted thinking to me. As for bitching about the customer, I am doing no such thing. I am simply stating the real problem whic you claim to agree with me on.
Sure you did, many times. Even now you are saying that buying on is a waste of time because you will never recoup the total cost in savings on your fuel bill.
What you said is nothing mre than short sighted idiotic thinking. You need to look toward the future to make decisions today that effect both tomorrow and into the long term future but like most conservatives, you can't see past the end of your dick. IOW, if it doesn't bring you immediate satisfaction, it isn't seen at all.
Why is it that any time someone mentions what the problem really is, you call it bitching? Once again I hate to burst your bubble but bitching has nothing to do with it. I am just stating the problem as what it is and the only real way to fix it. You on the other hand just want to hide the symptoms and pretend that the problem isn't there. The problem with that is just like many times in life, if all you do is treat the symptoms and deny the actual problem, the problem continues to grow until it is incurable.
In denial once again I see. Last time I looked, Ford was trading under $10.00, not much for the #2 auto-maker and GM is begging with the union for medical benefit concessions and just closed another plant and then you can add the fact that GM has lost 20% of it's market share. Not exactly the picture of health to me there Miles .
Because what is on the road and working is what counts. Like in the stock market, until you sell it, you haven't made a dime.
Please explain exactly why they are not a short or long term solution and BTW, they are neither tiny or just commuter hybrids anymore.
Yes, and a short term one as well.
Hahahahahaha, you really should think about what you are saying.
How is this bitching? In reality, it is just something that you simply don't want to hear. Your soultion is really no solution at all. At best, it will only make the problem worse by giving people a false sense of security and more bullshit justifications not to spend the time and resources to find a valid solution. Pretty much like you are doing now.
Yawn... There is a big difference between bitching about it and defining it. What we need is for fuel to get to $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon and rationing to 20 gallons a week to wake people up to the real problem and with the continuing climb in oil prices and dropping in the reserves of unleaded gas despite the currently high price, that is not too far away.
Yes, you don't get!!!!
You say it but you don't mean it. Why, because any mention of it and what needs to be done is instantly translated by you into nothing more than bitching.
See what I mean. But you are right, talking about it does nothing with the average selfish American. The only thing that works is rubbing their faces in it and even then, it only works for a short period of time. The problem is that this oil thing is not a short term thing and it is only going to get worse and we have a choice. We can either voluntarily make some life style choices where we are still in control over some of what happens or they are going to be made for us and not in a good way.
Wake up Miles, we will always be at the mercy of foreign governments and you can thank the "global economy" for that. Drilling more wells will have absolutly no effect there.
Hahahaha, not when the supply can be controlled like it is now. And since fuel is a requirement....
What does this even mean????
waiting for the day
Back in denial once again I see.
Get real Miles. There is a big difference between tapping and pumping. There is no way to know if oil exists and if so, what type of oil it is without drilling and tapping. While there are some fields that are not being pumped or fully drilled, they have been drilled and tapped to some level. The problem is that it is the setup for drilling as well as the drilling itself and tapping that is so destructive and poses the potential environmental damage to the area.
This is definitely a matter of PKB here Miles. There is no way to prove these stocks exist and are usable without drilling and tapping and it is the setup, drilling, and tapping that poses the real and possible damage to the environment so there is in fact no real middle ground. Either you drill or you don't...
No, your logic is absurd. Society can not afford to go out buying new cars that won't come close to saving enough to make it worthwhile. Make a sacrifice to save the world? Sounds great, do most people have the money to go out and buy a new hybrid? Current hybrids range in MPG HWY from 37 (Honda Accord) to 51 (Toyota Prius). How long to pay for itself to make it worthwhile to give up my truck that I drive 15,000/yr at 18mpg?
You don't look very hard to you? Ford has the Escape Hybrid out. Chevy has hybrid versions of the Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups available to commercial customers and expects consumer versions later this year. GM has committed to spending over $1 billion to get hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles ready for production. Spending money on developing fuel cell vehicles makes far more sense than hybrids.
For cars that don't solve much of a problem. They are expensive to build and cause pollution in forms not currently measured. Look what goes into their construction. Hybrids have a short life because of their batteries (which poses pollution concerns).
You state a real problem and yes, I agree. Ok, the consumer wastes. But you have stated your problem as being the solution. Bitch at consumers to conserve. Ya, thats gonna work.
I have not said hybrids or other efficient cars or developing other energy sources is a waste. I never said its a waste of time. I said its not economical to do so and not practical for society to do so as a whole. Your solution is not a workable one. Society isnt going to change based on your logic. It has to be affordable.
See TBone, here is a classic example of you only seeing one side. Looking toward the future is great. We need to. But you assume I'm not doing so and thats where you're flat out wrong. Trouble is, you need to argue so you say I don't just because. I've repeatedly said developing alternative fuels for the future is needed. But I also see problems today that you refuse to address. Ya, tell the consumer to conserve. Great realistic plan ya got there.
Because you try to state the problem as also being the solution. It is not. It's the problem. Now tell me your solution? All you do is bitch, whine and moan about the wastefull consumer. That is not a solution.
You have not offered any workable solution to the problem. Telling people to conserve will do nothing. Therefore your solution is ineffective and some other solution needs to be found.
But I thought you said the answer is looking to the future. American companies are spending millions on technology such as fuel cells that will easily surpass hybrids and is a far better way to spend research $'s. None the less, contrary to what you seem to know, American companies do have hybrids out.
True, the American companies have hybrid trucks and SUV's out. Ones you seem to ignore. Japanese have tiny civic and the prius out.
How many years (decades) before fuel efficient cars and trucks dominate the roads?
Yep, but not the solution as you claim.
Yep, but thats your solution anyways. At least you admitted your solution is not a workable one.
What do you think exploratory drilling is? Or in your mind it doesn't exist? If it doesn't exist, why do you liberals fight exploratory drilling? Oil companies want to find new sources for future revenues just like any other business. It does not mean its to be pumped out today. We need to find what we have today for future use.
Oh ya, the liberals not in my backyard routine. Depend on foreigners instead.
How did they know there is oil in Alaska? If they setup that huge infrastructure you refer to then why has there been debate about drilling there? Heck, according to you its already been done.
Who said that everyone had to do that??? The point is that although the sales of large SUV's have dropped by about 25%, there are still a hell of a lot of them being bought by people that simply don't need them and all they are doing is adding to the problem.
Back to that lame justification again. Who said that you had to buy a new hybrid. There are plenty of used economy cars out there that you could buy as a third car for a few thousand. My third car is a 240SX and it gets about 10 MPG more than my truck and costs about $600 a year to insure. The money it saves me more than pays for its insurance and I still have my truck when I need it and an extra car if one of the other ones needs to be repaired. To me, that's a win, win, win.
No they do not. they will not even start taking orders for it until the end of May with production not to begin until this summer. And on top of all that, you are buing a prototype untested vehicle. As usual, the American car builders are late to the party.
There is a big difference between expects and delivers. Like I said, until it happens, it means nothing.
And where is the infrastructure for the pure hydrogen that they need. The answer is that it simply doesn't exist. Now you could use a hydrogen rich fuel such as gas but then you need to pass it through a reformer to get the hydrogen and that significantly increases the cost, complexity, and pollution output of the vehicle. And on top of all of that good news, the car will get no better mileage than a conventional vehicle if running on gasoline and reformers are not always 100% efficient. If carbon oxides get into the fuel cell, it will degrade the performance of the cell over time. BTW, these cars also use the same batteries that the current hybrids use so you will have the same problems there. Yea, this sounds MUCH better than the current hybrids.
Once again, you are wrong. When driven properly, they are capable of significant fuel savings and the fact that they are in demand encourages manufacturers to perfect the technology, come up with newer and better methods, and lower the cost. What you want to do will do nothing more than eliminate any desire to develop newer technology.
measured. Look what
With modern battery technology, they are rated for 8 years and 100,000 miles. Not too bad for a fairly new technology. These batteries can also be recycled.
No, but neither will increasing the supply of oil. In fact, increasing the oil available will simply make the problem worse.
And it will remain that way as long as oil appears to be plentiful and inexpensive.
No, it simply has to be more affordable than not doing it and increasing the output of oil will have the oppoosit effect.
You are not. All you want to do is increase the oil supply which is the root ocause of our problem to begin with. At best it will eliminate the one symptom that motivates people and companies to invest and develope new technologies and at the same time deplete our reserves at an ever increasing rate. Yea, that's the answer we need.
LOL. What is your answer and how will it help the short term problem?
Better than yours. You clainm to see the need to develop alternative fuels and then want to do the one thing that will without doubt kill any motivation to get it done. Yea, your plan is much better.
That is because it is.
I did. Let the price of fuel climb to level that motivates both people and companies to search for better resources and methods or as you like to say, make it economically feasible to do it.
And what would that be, hide the symptoms and let the problem fester and grow like you want to do. Then what happens when we really start running out? Conservation is the only answer and if people like you are too stupid or selfish to do it voluntarily, let the market force them to do it economically.
LOL, I said no such thing. I said that we need to look toward the future while working on the problems of today. Your answer doesn't do that at all.
LOL, Yea, now they are starting to do it but they should have been doing it
5 years ago when the Japanese companies started. By the time they get their shit together it will already be too late. Hell, it is too late now.Which ones for the general public???? GM is commercial only and the Escape doen't exist yet.
They are not out for the general public yet and are completely unproven.
Gee, how many did it take after the first gas crisis, six to seven years. Much less than even one decade. Now how long do you think that it will take to increase our oil output by around 50% and how much ecologic damage will that cause?
The solution is to either educate the public or force it on them economically.
I never said that the solution was talking to anyone but nice spin though. The solution is to stop such wasteful actions and there are ways to do just that.
A politically correct terminology for regular drilling. There is no difference between them in reality. One just sounds better.
It is fought because it is a lie. Drilling is drilling and all of the damage ands risks apply to either one because they are both the same damn thing and done the same damn way. Well actually, there is one difference. In exploratory drilling they don't know where it is and tend to cause much more damage looking for it.
The destruction and risk comes from the drilling and preparation for drilling, not the pumping. After they set up to start, they don't stop until they find what they are looking for or they exhaust all possibilities and the damage caused by this is what is being fought. If the oil companies would take some responsibility for what they do and keep to what they originally promise, there would be no real grounds to fight them but it has been seen over and over again, they refuse to do it.
LOL, yep and they brought it on themselves with their refusal to take responsibility for their screwups.
They don't.
They don't know and that is where the fear comes from. If it turns out not to be where they hope that it is, they are going to push to continue to drill in other areas and once they start, it is damn near impossible to stop them. The only safe thing to do is to prevent them from starting in the first place and once again, they brought this on themselves as well.
So you want them to go buy a hybrid because YOU feel they don't need an SUV. Name one of your great Japanese hybrids that you tout that can do what an SUV can.
Oh please. A used 3rd car will not save me anywheres near enough when you add up costs including cost of car, insurance etc. Where do I park it? Most homes here don't allow parking a car on the street etc. Oh I know, buy a bigger home with a 3 car garage to save the world.
Then you live in a very cheap neighborhood or your 240sx is worthless. $600 will barely get liability only.
It doesn't save enough to pay for the car plus insurance. Not unless its a clunker.
The Ford Escape will be the first hybrid SUV. Which Japanese company is producing a hybrid SUV? Prototype? Same as any other new car including the Japanese Hybrids. Compact hybrids serve little purpose. SUV and truck hybrids make far more sense. They replace the very vehicles you say are the problem.
The Silverado hybrids are being delivered. Besides, whats your point? Your Japanese friends aren't producing hybrid trucks. They are behind the American companies on SUV hybrids. Toyota hopes to have a highlander hybrid out late this year.
Thats where the future is. Didn't you tell me we need to be looking towards the future? Now you have a problem with an American company that is spending over a billion $'s towards technology to do just that. Go figure.
Are you trying to say Hybrids are the technology of the future here today? Good grief are you naive.
Not enough to solve any problems. Their cost to the consumer, resources used to build and short life span do not equate to saving the world.
How many 8 year old 100,000 mile hybrids are on the road? How many of those GM electrics lasted 100,000 miles on their batteries which were of the same technology. GM had those out long before any Japanese electric BTY.
Use of oil in general and foreign dependency on oil are two seperate issues.
No I don't. I want to use our own oil instead of Foreign. At the same time I want to develop newer energy sources as well as making vehicles more efficient. You only look at one side. I look at both even though you choose to argue about it.
Ya, thats why US companies are spending millions on such future development while the Japanese are building hybrids. Thought you said future development is whats needed but you tout only these hybrids which are not the technology of the future.
Oh too funny Tbone! So you think its just a guess that oil might be in Alaska? Sorry TBone, they did whats called exploratory drilling years ago in that area. True they don't know the full extent but they have some knowledge. Thats what exploratory drilling provides. It does not require a full blown infrastructure. If it did, then it would already be in Alaska and the debate would be moot. Man, you squirmed on that one TBone! lol
It's my understanding that the first fuel cell cars will probably get their H2 from...gasoline!
Makes sense. The infrastructure is already there, so might as well make use of it.
Still some serious problems with fuel cell technology for automotive purposes though. The volume problem seems fairly serious. How do you pack enough H2 in the car to get a reasonable distance? How do you store the H2 safely? Where do you get the H2 from (it's energy intensive to produce)?
But I think this technology is going to fly! Maybe 10 years? And not just in cars. Instead of those AA batteries powering all your electronics, you'll have a refillable miniature fuel cell that will do the job.
In the meantime, perhaps the prospect of $3/gal gasoline will get America more serious about alternative energy. It's only been 30 years since the first "wake up call" gas crisis!
SMH
SMH
I think H2 is the next fuel for cars but I agree there are issues to resolve before it becomes mainstream. Hybrids aren't a technology that will last or have much effect. They aren't replacing gas guzzling SUV's on the road.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.