More on gas prices...

[CrimsonEclipse]

That assumes that you'll buy new. If someone drives a lot of miles and wants to move to a more efficient car they can sell their gas guzzler and buy a more efficient used car for about the same price as what they get on the sale. i.e. Sell an SUV for $10,000 and buy a $10,000 small car, etc.

Looking at the Carmax web site for an example I find an '03 Blazer with 47,000 miles and a '04 Cavalier with 18,000 miles, both listed at $12,000. By selling the Blazer, and buying the Cavalier, you not only improve your gas mileage but you get a newer car with quite a bit fewer miles on it.

Mind you, if you're SELLING your 2003 Blazer, you're NOT
going to get $12,000 for it. Likely, half that. Then you have
to figure how long it will take to save $6K in fuel.

The prices of used efficient cars is absolutely crazy.
I saw a 2000 Toyota Echo with 75k miles going for $9,999
It was $11k new. See my point?

Oh, don't buy a Caviler. uke:

(just sayin')

CE

 

[LarryinTN]

Mind you, if you're SELLING your 2003 Blazer, you're NOT
going to get $12,000 for it. Likely, half that.

The point was that those two cars have about the same retail value. That would mean that they'd also have about the same private sale value. If you're going to trade in and buy retail, instead of selling yourself, then you wouldn't be able to move to a newer/lower-mileage economy car.

When it comes to used cars the domestic cars are the best value. They lose a huge percentage of their original value in the first few months while only haven been driven a few miles. Most of the imports hold their value much longer so aren't as great of a deal on the used market.

 

[jetflyer]

I found from reading that link better that only $15 billion dollars was spent last year on exploration by the World's PUBLICLY traded oil companies including Russia's, U.S.'s, Europe's, etc.

Exxon made $15 billion in profits in 4 1/2 months alone last year!

The world's publicly traded oil companies didn't spend much at all on exploration.

Exxon didn't even find enough oil from a single field to last ONE DAY at the current 84million barrel/day usage.

From the article:

So to answer some of the questions above - who won and who lost in 2005. None of the International Oil Companies appear to be big winners. Of the 9 discoveries reported to be greater than 100 million BOE, the operators include BP, Woodside, Daewoo, Shell, Lukoil, ONGC, ConocoPhillips, Unocal, and Gujarat SPC. Overall I would say we are all losers. More money chasing smaller volumes in more and more difficult areas. The remaining unexplored areas of the world are fewer and fewer. Not a lot of smiley faces here.

Has it all been found?

Jet

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

This is the point ----------------------> .

This is you missing the point------------------------------------>

CE

 

[jetflyer]

What do you guys think of the tax proposal in post number 100 above?

I think taxes are usually not a good thing unless used properly. If we tax the profits not used for exploration or alternatives, then I would think that would ENCOURAGE them to atleast start planting corn!

They could plant a lot of corn with their $100+ billion/year profits.

They keep buying back their stock which does only the major shareholders any good. Granted they are a public company, but the U.S. needs oil!!

The fact they only spent about $15 billion in exploration last year which includes Russia's oil companies and England's, etc. is pretty pitiful....

Jet

 

[jetflyer]

Do you guys believe the saying, "A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS"

Well then you have to look at this picture. It is a graph of world oil production from Jan. 2002 till now (NOT GOOD):
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/4/15/72931/5527

This graph is a must see and is why oil prices are high!
It has statistics from the IEA and EIA.

You will see that oil production grew very fast until the end of 2004 and has been FLAT since then.

You don't hear about this in the media. Only oil company profits and Iran and China, etc.

There is a lot bigger problem brewing.

It sure looks like we're hitting world peak oil from this picture......

Thoughts???

Jet

 

[big_al]

I dont see anything alarming about those graphs except to further prove the point Ive made since day one. control of Iraqs oil means you decide if you want to hold back production and keep prices high, or whether you want to pump liquidity into the market.

even with Iraq, production is still at almost record levels.

 

[big_al]

They are reinvesting.

Up until last summer's energy bill, you couldn't build a refinnery in the US. Too many bueracratic hurdles, environmental studies and public opposition. Now, for the first time in two decades, there are finally plans underway to build new US refineries.

Even today the oil companies are prohibited from doing new exploration in Alaska and off the coast of Florida, the two most promising sites for new domestic oil production.

reinvesting in what? care to explain?

and those poor energy companies. they couldnt even build one refinery! I am sure they fought tooth and nail to push through though, right? (wrong)

And no they should not drill in Alaska and Florida. It will take a good 5-10 years for that oil to even start hitting the market. What good will that do to help prices? Nothing, it will just allow them to continue to steal public land for FREE to make record profits, then said energy bill will continue to give those poor strugglig companies more tax breaks until they lobby again when a new bill is writen

 

[jetflyer]

Production always goes up Big_Al.

There are always records.

The fact that production has plateaud for the last year and a half is significant.

Haven't you seen the news about Iraq. There are insurgents there that hate our guts. The U.S. is not intentionally holding back the oil. The insurgents are blowing up the piplelines every day. The locals call one pipeline "the flute" because it has so many holes.

If oil production declines by more than Iraq pumps will you then think we have a problem, or just say that the producers of the world are holding back oil on purpose?

What did you think about the declining new oil finds. The fact that we found less new oil the last two years of any year since WWII?

Just curious.

Jet

 

[kingsize]

You guys think this whole energy problem is responsible for most of the problems the world faces today?
I mean "resources" are what everyone wants, why countries go to war. Today that resource is Energy, in the form of oil and uranium. No one is going to start a war over diamonds or salt.

It's funny to think about the parallels. In flying, we say "speed is life." More accurately, "ENERGY is life." It is just as true for the survival of modern societies. Survival makes the powerful do all kinds of crazy things, to keep their power. Who is the powerful?? It's the United States. It's China who is growing enormously internationally, financially, militarily. Man, buying a house in central america or northern Canada is looking better and better all the time. Maybe there's a safe island out there that doesn't have too much radiation leftover from testing.

By the way, those of you who are investors, and haven't invested in energy commodities like uranium are missing the boat.

(START SARCASM here) What about the Senate?? So now their big solution is giving us all $100! YIPPEEEEEE! That's great , now I can pay for gas for the next week and a half!!! Yay. The Senate is so smart to think of such a great fix to the problem!! (END SARCASM)

Remember when they sent out checks for like $50 for tax refunds a few years back? How gay was that? I hate this bull$hit. It's like throwing your dog a little scrap to keep it happy. If they really want to throw money at the problem, send me a check for $20,000 or something, not a measly $100. What a joke. And I see it's the oil companies being blamed. Guess what people? Oil companies are businesses trying to max out profits. That's what businesses do. If you want to place blame, place it on your elected officials for giving oil companies all these tax breaks and benefits. Place it on the elected officials who have been corrupted and bribed by big oil. Place the blame on your elected officials who have zero foresight and only know how to deal with whatever problem is getting press at the moment. Blame it on those representatives who, when they do take action, are so ********************ing retarded that they think a little policy like giving back $100 is really going to do jack. Blame it on those elected officials who suppress independent research towards alternative forms of energy. Science and technology are our friends, and the drivers behind America's innovations and greatness. The United States used to be the best at this. Not so any more, thanks to politicians. They need to be finding real solutions, not doing lame investigations which lead to nothing.

Here's something else to consider: There are too many people on the planet. People are living too young, reproducing too quickly, and taking up too much space and resources on this little planet. You won't hear anyone talk about this because it's not politically correct. This is no joke. Overpopulation is THE real problem. Do a google search of Overpopulation. Here's one article to get you started: http://www.meehanreports.com/billionaire.html
http://www.overpopulation.org/

Earth has limited resources. Given a certain population, it can sustain and replenish those resources, keeping us well fed and with plenty of energy. We have far exceeded that population equilibirum and it will grow far, far worse this century. We're at 6.5 Billion people now, and will be close to 10 billion in 30 or 40 years. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html
We were just at 2.5 Billion in 1950. So if you ever wonder why we're running out of oil, it's because we have WAY more people using it and being supported by it. And I'm not talking about just cars. Oil goes towards many other things too.

CRAZY!

 

[414Flyer]

This is interesting, especially in light of the comments we were making last night. Senators really doing little but fingerpointing and saying words they can later put into their political commercials, and afterwards they get back into their gas guzzlers, even to go a block away.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042602307_pf.html

[SIZE=+2]Going a Short Way to Make a Point[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By Dana Milbank
Thursday, April 27, 2006; A02
[/SIZE]
Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines.
Gas prices have gone above $3 a gallon again, and that means it's time for another round of congressional finger-pointing.
"Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled!" charged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), standing at an Exxon station on Capitol Hill where regular unleaded hit $3.10. "They are too cozy with the oil industry."

She then hopped in a waiting Chrysler LHS (18 mpg) -- even though her Senate office was only a block away.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) used a Hyundai Elantra to take the one-block journey to and from the gas-station news conference. He posed in front of the fuel prices and gave them a thumbs-down. "Get tough on big oil!" he demanded of the Bush administration.

By comparison, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) was a model of conservation. She told a staffer idling in a Jetta to leave without her, then ducked into a sushi restaurant for lunch before making the journey back to work.

At about the same time, House Republicans were meeting in the Capitol for their weekly caucus (Topic A: gas). The House driveway was jammed with cars, many idling, including eight Chevrolet Suburbans (14 mpg).

America may be addicted to oil, as President Bush puts it. But America is in the denial phase of this addiction -- as evidenced by the behavior of its lawmakers. They have proposed all kinds of solutions to high gas prices: taxes on oil companies, domestic oil drilling and releasing petroleum reserves. But they ignore the obvious: that Americans drive too much in too-big cars.

Senators were debating a war spending bill yesterday, but the subject invariably turned to gas prices. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) engaged his deputy, Dick Durbin (Ill.), in a riveting colloquy. "Is the senator aware that the L.A. Times headline reads today, 'Bush's Proposals Viewed as a Drop in the Bucket'?"
"I'm aware of that," Durbin replied.

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) responded with an economics lesson. "Oil is worth what people pay for it," he argued.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) sounded the alarms. "We are one accident or one terrorist attack away from oil at $100 a barrel!"

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) made a plea for conservation. "We have to move quickly to increase our fuel efficiency," she urged. But not too quickly. After lunchtime votes, senators emerged from the Capitol for the drive across the street to their offices.

Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) hopped in a GMC Yukon (14 mpg). Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) climbed aboard a Nissan Pathfinder (15). Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) stepped into an eight-cylinder Ford Explorer (14). Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) disappeared into a Lincoln Town Car (17). Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) met up with an idling Chrysler minivan (18).
Next came Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), greeted by a Ford Explorer XLT. On the Senate floor Tuesday, Menendez had complained that Bush "remains opposed to higher fuel-efficiency standards."

Also waiting: three Suburbans, a Nissan Armada V8, two Cadillacs and a Lexus. The greenest senator was Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who was picked up by his hybrid Toyota Prius (60 mpg), at quadruple the fuel efficiency of his Indiana counterpart Evan Bayh (D), who was met by a Dodge Durango V8 (14).

As a political matter, Democrats clearly sense that they have the advantage on the high gas prices, judging from the number of speeches and news conferences. "The cost of Republican corruption when it comes to energy is hitting home very clearly for America's middle class," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) exulted yesterday morning.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) introduced an amendment to repeal oil-company tax breaks and distribute $500 tax rebates to consumers. It was quickly ruled out of order.

But Republicans were clearly feeling defensive. "We passed an energy bill last year, last July," House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.) pleaded at a morning news conference. "It changes CAFE [corporate average fuel economy] standards. It changes some of the things that we can do -- I'm sorry, changes not the CAFE standards, but changes some of the supply issues, boutique fuels, all these things."

Only Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), who can speak freely because he is retiring, was willing to note the disconnect between rhetoric and action. "People say, understandably, 'Solve our energy problems right now, but don't make us do anything differently,' " he said on the Senate floor.

If the politics of gasoline favor Democrats at the moment, the insincerity is universal. A surreptitious look at the cars in the senators-only spots inside and outside the Senate office buildings found an Escort and a Sentra (super-rich Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl's spot had a Chevy Lumina), but far more Jaguars, Cadillacs and Lexuses and a fleet of SUVs made by Ford, Honda, BMW and Lexus.

A sampling of senators' and staff cars parked along Delaware Avenue NE found that those displaying Democratic campaign bumper stickers had a somewhat higher average fuel economy (23 mpg) than those displaying GOP stickers (18 mpg). A fuel-efficiency rating could not be found for the 1970s-era Volkswagen "Thing" owned by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.).
Maybe, lawmakers are starting to learn. When GOP senators had a lunch Tuesday a couple of blocks from the Capitol, many took cars. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) emerged from the lunch looking for his ride when he spied The Washington Post's Shailagh Murray. Reconsidering, he set out on foot. "I need the exercise," he reasoned.

 

[jetflyer]

King,
Good points. Too many people competing for the same resources is dangerous. Wars have been fought for this reason and will be again and again. I agree that what is going on in the world is for oil.

China knows peak oil is coming and is scrambling to make deals with everyone.

Whether we want to believe it or not: Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc. know about peak oil. They are doing in the world what they think will make America stronger in the future. Securing oil.

414,
Nice article. It is amazing how hypocritical and clueless they are huh? God help us.

Jet

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

jeezemon!

I only have a few hours a day to read this stuff. I leave for
a few hours, BAM! a whold crapload of more reading.

Do I need to start posting my electrical conversion links again?

THPHT~!!

CE

 

[big_al]

Securing oil.

negative. Iraq will turn out to be a bigger mess than anyone could dream of. still not one iraqi military unit capable of fighting on its own. good luck with that

 

[jetflyer]

Unfortunately I agree Big_Al.

It's obviously is not working and is self-defeating. We're kind of stuck on a disasterous path that is hard to turn back from now.

Jet

 

[Immelman]

I put another 16 miles on my road bike today. Almost hit my record split coming home. It takes me 20 minutes to walk to garage, get in car, and drive home versus 30 to bike it -- and the route I took home today was 9.5 miles with about 800 feet of climing.

On Wednesdays I help crew a sailboat. Yesterday we used its little diesel for all of 5 minutes to get out of the harbor & get the sails up.. say once those are up, no engine all the way back into the slip a couple of hours later. Nice hobby (especially when its not your boat!). I ran to get to the harbor after work for some exercise... it took 15 minutes (a bit over 2 miles) versus 10 to drive the same route with 5pm traffic on the road that gets there.

...Moral of the story: It is possible to reduce dependence on vehicles significantly, if you look for small ways to change your life. Start combining trips, become more efficient, use your body to get from A to B. It will leave more "gas" money left over to spend on airplanes..

 

[jetflyer]

Listen to the U.S. Govt. Department of Energy Expert Robert Hirsch and Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett talk about peak oil on April 24th:

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze4gqr9/audio/audioindex.htm

The first thing Robert Hirsch says is "Peak Oil is NOT a theory. It is a fact. The question is when will it occur."

They just want us to be preemptive so the effects of declining oil production will be no big deal because alternatives will have time to take the place of declining oil.

He says if we're not preemptive by many years we will have a bad economy for a long while. What's wrong with being preemptive to avoid a bad economy?

This is NOT a wolf crying event. NOT a chicken little event. This will happen in our future. Sooner? Later? We don't know.

This interview is very good.

Jet

 

[BenderGonzales]

ok that's it. i'm buying a ZAP car.

Well, not really but it is kinda cool.

http://www.zapworld.com/cars/smartCar.asp

50+ mpg.

 

[jetflyer]

Bender,

I saw one of those where I live, and I thought it was awesome.

SUV's and muscle cars are going to only be driven by the rich in the future.

I guess that means I'll be driving a Zap car


Jet

 

[jetflyer]

Matthew Simmons has been on Fox News for the conservatives and CNN for the liberals and CNBC for the business oriented folks talking about Peak Oil. He was an advisor to Cheney for the Energy Policy.

Jim Puplava on his FINANCIAL SENSE NEWS HOUR radio program just had Matthew Simmons on as a guest last Saturday.
See a picture of Jim Puplava and Matthew Simmons here:
http://www.netcastdaily.com/fsnewshour.htm
You can also listen to old shows about peak oil in the ARCHIVE section.

Here is this weeks interview with Matthew Simmons about PEAK OIL:

For Real Player click here:
RealPlayer

For WinAmp click here:
WinAmp

For Windows Media click here:
Windows Media

For MP3 click here:
mp3

Thought you guys might wanna hear this interview. I listen to Jim Puplava's show weekly to see what are good investments. He is very peak oil aware and talks about it weekly when talking about the future economy.

Jet