Gas Prices

[El_Phil]

Atrocities said:
Sure a barrel of oil now costs $65.00, and is expected to reach $80.00 by the end of the month, but does that mean we need to see this cost of $80.00 a barrel passed onto us right now?

Well who should pay the extra cost of the black stuff? Most oil firms regard petrol as that annoying stuff that comes with the usefull stuff in oil. You look at say BP or Exxon and all their money comes from stuff that isn't petrol, the margins are paper thin.

Shell was seriously considering selling their entire petrol station operation only a year or so ago, the only reason they didn't was they got distracted by losing 25% of their oil reserves

So they aren't going to make a lose on petrol, so the consumer pays it. As for releasing the strategic reserve, don't be an idiot. I hate to say it AT, but its true. Countries keep reserves of petrol for alot of good reasons, none of which are to keep people from paying a bit more for petrol. If US manufactures produced cars that did miles per gallon, not gallons per mile that would solve alot of the problem.

So to get to the final point, perhaps putting fuel duty up might encourage US car makers to use existing technology in their cars to improve fuel efficency. It can't be a bad thing can it?

[Atrocities]

US Auto makers know they can make cars that can get better gas mileage, but they are in bed with the oil companies and keep gas mileage artifically lower. There are after market things you can do that improve mileage, but nothing that compares to what the manufacture can do.

And the greatest lie ever told is the lie that convinces people that evil does not exist. Oil companies love to perpetuate the myth that they are loosing money in order to hide the fact that they ar RAKING IT IN and laughing all the way to the bank. I remember a simular discussion about energy crisis a few years back and what do you know, it was all just an Eron scam to make money.

[Atrocities]

I believe the name of the man who discussed Hubbards Peak and dwindling oil reserves was Professor David Goodstein. If it was he who I saw then he made an alarming connection between increased population and dwindling resources. He also noted that increased population resulted in less freedoms and less government representation. Many states who have seen a huge increase in population still have the same number of senators that they had fifty years ago. Doing the math on this is simple, say in 1950 you had 2 Senators for a state with a population of 1 million. Today you have 2 Senators for the same state but with a population of 20 million.

He explained how Hubbards peak worked, and the bell curves for gas consumption and production. It was just about four years ago that I saw the show so forgive me if I have the name wrong. But I am pretty sure it was he who was the key note speaker. He authored the book "Out Of Gas."

[El_Phil]

Atrocities said:
US Auto makers know they can make cars that can get better gas mileage, but they are in bed with the oil companies and keep gas mileage artifically lower. There are after market things you can do that improve mileage, but nothing that compares to what the manufacture can do.

And the greatest lie ever told is the lie that convinces people that evil does not exist. Oil companies love to perpetuate the myth that they are loosing money in order to hide the fact that they ar RAKING IT IN and laughing all the way to the bank. I remember a simular discussion about energy crisis a few years back and what do you know, it was all just an Eron scam to make money.

The first one is true, but not in the way you say it. Yes you can get spectacularly better mpg out of an engine than the US boys manage, but as US consumers don't care why bother spending money making good engines?

Biggest selling US vehicle is the F150 pickup, it does gallons per mile in terms of petrol use but no-one cares. Frankly if you buy a car with a ****e mpg, don't complain you spend alot on fuel. Follow the lead of shed loads of other Americans and buy a Japanese motor, when sales for GM and Ford drop even futher then they'll start producing decent engines. Not before though.

As for the second point, yes oil firms make loads of money. No it isn't out of petrol. A quick check of their books confirms that. Take BP, £18.5 billion from exploration and production, £5 billion from Refining and Marketing, a loss of £900 million from petrochemical. Now that includes alot of exceptionals and it was a bad year. £400 million profit from petrochemicals was last year is fairer. And that isn't just petrol for cars it includes aviation fuel and a hell of alot more besides. So frankly its small beer in the scheme of things.

[Fyron]

If US manufactures produced cars that did miles per gallon, not gallons per mile that would solve alot of the problem.

That doesn't even make any sense... all cars do both gallons per mile and miles per gallon. They are just inverse ratios of each other...

[El_Phil]

Nope look at the words. Miles per gallon, as in more than one mile per gallon of fuel. Gallons per mile is more than one gallon needed to do a single mile.

So if a car did 0.5 a mile per gallon it would be 2 gallons per mile. Notice the 's' placements.

[Fyron]

Moderate sized American SUVs get around 18-20 miles per gallon (which is crappy, but whatever). More reasonable American cars are in the 25-30 mpg range. I don't know what this "mile per gallon" you are speaking of is about.