Gas Prices!!!

[flew-da-coup]

I guess that mjoeng1 thinks Harrah's Entertainment needs regulation since they reported 75% net profit last year. I mean they are evil so they should be ran by the government.

[mjoeng1]

Most unfortunate, I did not want to provoke a personal attack from you. I just pointed out inaccuracies in what you posted and tried to state my position on this important topic, apparently I needed to do that a little more astutely. Now I am forced to defend myself personally which I will only do once because I don't have the time for trivialities such as that. I would much rather have thought provoking discourse. Personal attacks accomplish nothing and provoke zero thought. Well, here goes:

F da C reply#9
Government regulation is a necessary evil. An example is Electricity and it works very well, at least for me. I'm not put into a position to choose between paying my electric bill in the winter or putting food on the table for my family. I like that and I prefer cheaper electricity. An example of no govt regulation would be the Enron debacle. A perfect example of business run amok with no check and balance. Now all of the former Enron employees are in a position to receive 25-40% on THEIR dollar from the Pension Guaranty Corporation (poor example of govt regulation and is a govt entity). This was their money not the corporations. A pension is an employee's dollar promised by the corporation to be paid out at some future date, a part of employment law(an implied contract). Guess who pays for the underfunded Pension Guaranty Corporation (currently running an 18 billion + annual deficit), that would be the taxpayer/american worker. I am not a proponent of govt regulation in general, only on industry that can bring this country to it's knees or when business is allowed to exploit people. I am a big people person, I will fight to the end of time for the people that work for me as I would fight for someone's  right to hold a far right-wing ideology. Another point;  9% profit on a utility (not a commodity) seems unreasonable to me and it's outright obscene when you examine their books covering up bonuses in the 7 figures and individual pensions in the mid-9 figure zone. These are considered operating expenses and are written off pre-tax. The 8.4 Billion that Exxon/Mobil reported was net. I didn't examine their financial report but I would suspect they took care of the obligatory one-time charges in the quarter that added up to 1 billion +. That's why a figure of 40 Billion for the year was being expressed in the media. Last point; ANWR Oil Field has an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil per the National Geological Survey...........this was considered the last real large oil field on American soil. That is until somewhere in the mid-nineties. In eastern Montana, western North Dakota, and part of Alberta they've re-evaluated after some wildcat oil drilling and now suggest that it is approximately 150% larger than ANWR. I could care less if anyone drills in ANWR, we have the technology to keep the environment clean as long as we keep the company doing the extraction in-check. The problem with ANWR is that the oil wouldn't get to our market.............everyone in the industry knows it would be shipped to Japan or near there. It's the most profitable route for the oil companies.
Here's a good link for an article concerning US oil fields; http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06095/679602-28.stm    You should be able to find a link to the US Geological Survey from that site after reading about the oil field across Montana, ND, and Alberta.

F da C Reply# 10
Good for your company, I wish you the best in those regards as long as it's honest business and they're not exploiting people. BTW-my company operates on 80-90% margins in the healthcare industry and yes, I don't think that's reasonable even at the expense of my 401k. We're a part of the Health Care crisis that is affecting all of us that don't make 1million+/yr. All I ask for is a level playing field. This might give you some insight into my position on Big Business; my father was run out of business by big Oil Companies. They were allowed to sell gasoline way below cost which drove my father and thousands of independent operators out of business. This is not a level playing field by anyone's measure. Another example of this would be a major airline in my locale. NWA and the other Big 5 Airlines have been allowed to enter into bankruptcy with the sole intent of dumping their pensions..........again you and I will be paying for these poor folks that have gotten screwed by Big Business (25-40% on their dollar........let's rack up the deficit). I have many friends here that worked for NWA as Aircraft  Maintenance workers, Pilots, Ground Support, and Flight Attendants that are now out of a job because their's was outsourced to a developing 3rd world country with the workers earning 10% or less of the jobs they replaced. Again, not a level playing field by anyone's measure. Last point; definitely wrong on this one.....OPEC does not set our current prices. Current pricing is based strictly on Futures Trading. You should educate yourself on this one. The futures are being driven up by China's pending energy needs and speculation that India is right on their heels. My position is that a utility (not a commodity as I define it) should not be gambled on. Let's allow the free market system in real-time to take care of the pricing (this would be a capitalist philosophy). This particular utility is crucial to the near-term survival of our economy until we can develop some viable alternatives.

F da C Reply# 11
This post and the next are where you really lost me. I must reiterate that personal attacks provoke zero thought and my personal opinion is that they demonstrate an angry attitude which reflects poorly on the attacker. I will not attack you but I will get personal.....about myself.  I don't consider myself a democrat nor republican, I vote for intelligence and common sense. I consider myself a centrist for this reason. I would never vote for someone associated with the New American Project (very far right-wing ideology) nor would I vote for the likes of Ted Kennedy or Hillary. They're much too far left for me. I didn't vote for Bush because I deem him galactically stupid! It's really unfortunate he's being controlled by the likes of Cheney/Ashcroft and the entire Carlisle Group (if you don't know who and what the Carlisle Group are then I suggest you google them). Their ideology is too far right for me. I would consider voting for McCain but all he's done this year is suck-up to get the nomination.....example; Speaking at Jerry Falwell's freakish university because he has to get the religious right vote. Still a better option than Hillary. The one thing that will never influence my decison-making are the social issues the far-right likes to whip-up the masses on (3Gs-god, guns, and gays). They are not relevant in the political arena. It's just a tool to control the masses. As for a measure of success, I personally don't measure it in terms of monetary value or material items. My success is based in my beautiful relationship I have with my wife, my 4 fabulous children, all of my family and friends, and my ability to keep my integrity intact. If you must, I manage metrology for a fortune 500 company and make way too much money for the job. I am the benefactor of 6 splits in 12 yrs at the company I work for and my 401k recently surpassed the 7 figure mark. My work success is not measured in that either...........it's measured by the people who work for me. I don't need to drive no stinking beamer, merc, or any other luxury car, currently driving a 2001 impala with broken off side view mirror and cracked windshield. Call me stupid, cheap, whatever...............that's the type of person I am. If you still deem me miserable I can assure you that I've never been happier in my life.

F da C Reply #12
I think I've answered your (point ?) comments on this one already. Maybe I'm an idiot..............maybe not. But I'm quite certain I understand the very simplistic capitalist theory of Supply and Demand. In fact, I think I have a firm grasp on micro and macro economics since econ was my minor. Anyway, I think I've said enough. I wish you will reconsider making personal attacks on myself or anyone else that were to post on this site. I came here looking for some technical info and possibly hooking up with some of my old PMEL buddies from Lowry and Minot AFB. I was not anticipating this but felt compelled to chime in as I do anytime I read inaccuracies and misrepresentations. I certainly will lay off making any comments if you'd like but still would like to get some technical assist from some of the other posters on this site because I know most PMEL folks are pretty bright. In fact, it might be a good location to recruit if I need.
Well, take care Flew da Coup and I do wish you the best!     Greg

[docbyers]

mjoeng1,
You've made valid points here, and I'm sure the Coupman will take them in the spirit in which they're offered.  I love debating a difference of opinion, either to prove I'm right, or to learn something new that I didn't know before.

This website may be a technically-oriented place, but we're all pretty smart here, and generally don't come to our opinions frivolously or without a great deal of thought, so I respect all the views expressed here (I don't like Coby Chuck's music tastes, but he's free to listen to whatever he wants; Freezer lives in Minot, while I prefer a more temperate climate).

Keep chiming in with your opinions, whether you agree with someone or not.  ...and I don't think the Coupster meant anything personally derisive towards you.  He's just a passionate guy who speaks his mind.

[flew-da-coup]

Your right Doc. Don't take my comments personally. Flynn and Thraxas knows how I am.  I love debate. It's what makes our coutry great. You Fckng Idiot. Just kidding. When I say that I don't mean it like it sounds. We are all friends here. Thanks Doc for reminding me that I am typing and people may misread me. 

[docbyers]

It's hard to hear the sarcastic inflection in your voice just reading the words on the screen... 

[flew-da-coup]

Yeah, well I will be more cautious. Not everyone knows me.

[mjoeng1]

fair enough...............I'm also very passionate about my views, otherwise I wouldn't waste so much time telling everyone about them. I need to work on that. I'll look forward to discussing more topics in the future then.
Greg

[Thraxas]

Your right Doc. Don't take my comments personally. Flynn and Thraxas knows how I am.  I love debate. It's what makes our coutry great. You Fckng Idiot. Just kidding. When I say that I don't mean it like it sounds. We are all friends here. Thanks Doc for reminding me that I am typing and people may misread me. 

That was sarcasm??? Ooohhh boy. I didn't know what I was doing I told you about this forum. I've created a MONSTER!!!

[docbyers]

It is a political issue. The democrates have blocked the building of new refineries and always block the republicans from passing a law allowing the U.S. from drilling in ANWR ( Alaska ). This not only will make us more self dependent but will cause the gas prices set by OPEC to drop due to supply and demand. If the middle east can't sell as much they will have to drop prices to sell. Simple economics.

The whole gas price issue revolves around the age old law of supply and demand.  The U.S. refining capacity is maxed out, and the demand for gasoline is higher than what the refineries can produce.  If we built more refineries, more supply would hit the market, and the price would drop (some).  We still have the problem of importing more crude oil than we produce here at home, so the price of the imported oil will have its effect on the price of the refined end product.  That's why we should tap in to the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean, and ANWAR for more domestic supply of crude oil.  That would lower the overall price the refineries pay for crude, and consequently lower the price of refined gasoline.  FDC is right - it's simple economics.

[docbyers]

Drilling in Alaska Is Biggest Religious Issue of Our Time
by Rabbi Aryeh Spero
Posted May 10, 2006

What political debate more than any other today tests one's belief in God and the Bible? Reciting "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? No. The display of nativity scenes during Christmas season? Still, no. It is our drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. For this issue boils down to whether we place real human needs over the lifestyle patterns of animals, in this case, the caribou. It revolves around the fundamental biblical assertion of where God placed human in His cosmic design.

There is no question that at this immediate point in time, living, breathing people in America need oil to power their hospitals, provide feasible antidotes to cold and heat, provide the fuel for transport to work and for cooking. Not to mention how we need oil to guarantee our national defense and local safety. Today, oil makes possible a healthy and long life, often life itself. The greater the supply, the cheaper the cost. The cheaper the cost, the less people have to choose what necessaries they must do without.

Yet even with this knowledge, "fashionists" have chosen the migrating patterns of the caribou over the essential needs of human beings. Consequently, no drilling. Tough luck, humans! The implication is that animals -- in fact, all of nature -- is on a par with the human being. I suppose that makes sense if one subscribes to the notion that human is nothing more than an evolved entity from animal antecedents, perhaps from great granddaddy caribou himself.

But to those of us who look to the Bible, the opposite is quite clear. In Genesis, God assigns a hierarchy to human over animal, to mankind over fern and fauna. Though human is warned not to be rapacious, God makes it clear that all that He created prior to Human is to be used in the service of mankind, for mankind's health and necessity.

Anticipating that there would be those who would bestow on all creatures an across-the-board equivalence, God numerous times warns that nature is not to be worshiped, nor assigned a position above human as if animal and plant life were gods in themselves. Man's place in the cosmos is not simply "relative" to the environment.

We are to be, God says, stewards of our surroundings, not victims of it. As stewards, we are to act wisely and judiciously, however, when necessary "You are to subdue it" and "Reign over the fish, the fowl, the animals, even the earth itself." Hundreds of millions around the world are grateful that the Bible already answered the controversial question of whether man's stewardship over the environment means that mankind is secondary to it and must even suffer in behalf of it. The answer given is No. Any other answer is preposterous.

[flew-da-coup]

THe same EcoNuts said the Alaska PipeLine back in the 70's would kill off migrating caribou. Look at what actually happened. The heat from the Pipeline increased survival of the young and some of the higher parts of the pipeline became breeding grounds for the caribou. As usual the EcoNuts are ignorant and make crap up for no reason at all. I think they need to go extinct.  We have more caribou than we did before the pipeline. They seem to forget that they have never been right about anything. Not only are they wrong they are 180 Deg. out of phase. I learned that if the Sierra Club says something is a bad thing , we know it's a good thing. What is real funny is that people still buy into their bull$hit. Those must be the people who continue to send out those stupid chain e-mails and give their personal info out on the web. Gullable idiots. 

[docbyers]

Blame the Democrats for High Gas Prices

The Senate plans to vote on an offshore drilling bill next week that would open more than 8 million acres to energy development in the Gulf of Mexico. Although the bill's passage appears to be safe, Democrats are already lining up to oppose it.

Even though the Senate bill is only a modest step in comparison with a much stronger House equivalent, Democrats opposed to it will once again prove they have a greater interest in keeping gas prices high than letting Americans drill our own oil to reduce the need from the Middle East.

Shortly after yesterday's procedural vote in the Senate, for instance, Energy and Natural Resources Ranking Member Jeff Bingaman (D.-N.M.) said the bill was "seriously flawed," according to the New York Times. Another Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), wants to add amendments addressing fuel efficiency for cars, targeting oil companies' profits and promoting environmentalist-friendly energy sources.

As Sen. Jim DeMint (R.-S.C.) said today, "Some say that there has been no coherent Democrat energy strategy since early in the Clinton Administration. Well, I disagree. They have a strategy. It's just the wrong one."

With the November midterm elections approaching—and gas prices at more than $3 per gallon—President Bush should pin America's energy problems on the Democratic Party.

For years Democrats have blocked common-sense energy solutions. As the Heritage Foundation's Ben Lieberman writes today on Human Events Online, Democrats have thwarted drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, construction of new refineries and opposed measures to simplify the complex gasoline formula.

Now, even with gas prices on voters' minds, Democrats are threatening to do it again. The U.S. Senate should pass the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (S. 3711) next week, but House Republicans should demand the Senate compromise and agree to a bill that resembles the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act (H.R. 4761). That plan, sponsored by Resources Chairman Richard Pombo (R.-Calif.), could provide up to 10 times more energy than the Senate proposal.

Republicans wanting an advantage at the polls in November should trumpet Democrats' obstructionism on energy. And as the leader of his party, President Bush should make his voice the loudest.

[flew-da-coup]

One good thing about high gas prices is that only cars that are road worthy will be on the road. These people that drive the clunkers real slow in the left hand lane won't be able to afford to slow traffic down anymore.

[clacoste]

Honestly, Detroit needs a good kick up the backside for the way they are mis-managing automotive development.  We (and our main manufacturers down here are the same - GM and Ford) don't really need paleozoic V8's with stone-age technology and ridiculous fuel consumption.  Even the sixes are a sad and hungry joke...Those days are regrettably...very gone...

I just got rid of my lease semi-gas-guzzler (and gas is about $4.20 US a gallon) for a Mitsubishi smaller one (sold as the Colt here) that the Japanese cleverly installed with a very efficient 1500cc and a CVT transmission.  Pulls nearly the same fuel consumption as a Toyota Prius...and costs half as much...

Most vehicles would run well enough with high-tech 4-cylinders and appropriate gearing....and probably knock America's fuel bill in half if widely adopted....Unfortunately the Japanese and Koreans are/or will be offering the right cars - long before Detroit pulls its thumb out...

[docbyers]

The foreign manufacturers beat the big U.S. firms to the market on quality and fuel efficiency back in the 70's and 80's- I guess Detroit didn't learn its lesson back then...

Back in the late 70's my shop teacher in school had a VW Rabbit diesel that got 50mpg- where in heck are they these days?  I understand fuel was $1/gallon back then, so the consumer demand wasn't all it could be, so VW decided not to make them anymore because they just didn't sell that well.  Now, I think they would sell just fine, and diesel is more readily available at the local fuel stations than it was 30 years ago...  Give me a Bunny!