OT: Gas Prices

[Slick]

Don't get me wrong, I hate the high gas prices as much as the next guy and Hawaii is (or was last week) the state with the highest gas prices.

But consider this: check out the prices of other liquids you use in every day life and convert to price per gallon and you might be surprised. Also consider what it takes to make one gallon of that liquid.

milk
juice
liquid soap
soda
sports drink
and the one that makes me laugh: bottled water.

Gasoline couldn't cost less per gallon than bottled water, could it???? Water is free!!! and perfectly fine out of any tap. Go figure.

[Will]

Ok, I voted:
1) Maybe. While true that there has been zero increased refining capacity since... I think around 1970... it is also true that the cost of a barrel of crude oil is hovering close to $80 right now; for comparison, I remember that precisely 5 years ago, the same barrel of crude oil cost between $15 and $20. Only reason I remember this is that there are some small oil producers in the town my parents live in, and to operate the small wells, $20 was considered the break-even point. Also, rather than assume a vast conspiracy to make all of us pay more by reducing capacity of refineries, consider that it costs a lot to build and open a refinery; nobody will want it close to where they live and/or work; environmental regulations are so strict for new industrial buildings that it is very difficult to make new refineries; and, all the oil companies know that sometime in the near future, there will be so little oil left, which will be hard to get at, and will cost so much, that it does not justify the investment in more refineries.

2) Other. I don't own a car at school, so it does no impact me directly. But, price of gas is strongly correlated to price of transport, so I indirectly feel the costs via that.

3) Maybe. Democrats would probably propose to mandate via law a minimum MPG for (road) vehicles, to be phased in over a period of X years; Republicans would probably propose more tax cuts. I don't think either will sway the middle 60% of the US, since they know that neither proposal stands any chance of passing at this point.

4) $2.50-$3.00. Gas prices 5 years ago: $1.00/gallon, crude prices 5 years ago: $20/barrel. Gas prices now: $2.75/gallon (in Los Angeles), crude prices now: $71. If you scale it up, gas prices should actually be higher than $3, but part of the cost is overhead, so about in the $2.50-$3.00 range is right.

[Caduceus]

Yet the head of Exxon just retired with a multi-million dollar severance package.

Read it here .

[Azselendor]

Not to mention oil companies are generating THE highest profit margins in human history right now. Not some, most, or highest in recent years. THE HIGHEST.


I remember when gas was 0.75 cents a gallon and I'm not even 30. Now I'm paying 4 times that so my car and be something more than an expensive driveway ornament.

Part of this is inflation, the other part, a much larger part, is greed. The problem is the corrupt government in many national captials are slaves to big oil. I'd like to see a couple of politicians find their you know what and stand up to them.

[Will]

Caduceus said:
Yet the head of Exxon just retired with a multi-million dollar severance package.

Read it here .

While it seems outrageous to us "common people", multi-million dollar severance packages, and even multi-million dollar salaries, are par for the course in Corporate USA. Top executives are valuable to companies based on business experience and connections with other top executives; the salaries remain so high because if the companies don't pay the outrageous sums, the executives go to other companies that WILL pay. Similarly, severance packages are high amounts because it is very bad business to burn bridges. The person leaving the company will still have lots of contacts throughout the corporate world, and can influence those contacts. It's best to spend what amounts to pocket change (for the corporation) to the departing executive, to keep them happy and to have them not complaining loudly to everyone s/he knows about the company.

Not saying I think it's a good thing, just saying it's not limited to oil companies, and there is an economic reason for it.

[Caduceus]

"What about our stockholders, Bob? Who's looking out for them?"

- From "The Incredibles"

[Renegade 13]

That is, if you believe all the media sensationalism about global warming...personally I've taken a look at the 'evidence' and have found it lacking. I believe it's part of a natural cycle, perhaps slightly (though not significantly on a geological timescale) accelerated by mankind's actions. Greenhouse gases rise, then they natually fall, resulting in a natural ice age. Greenhouse gases rise, raising temps. out of ice age, until greenhouse gas level rise too much, plunging into an ice age...etc etc ad nauseum

But that's a subject for another thread...

[Captain Kwok]

Renegade 13 said:
...personally I've taken a look at the 'evidence' and have found it lacking...

And I'm sure that a 1st year university student (no offence intended) can really interpret the evidence better than the large percentage of professional scientists who do this for a living.

[Renegade 13]

Captain Kwok said:

And I'm sure that a 1st year university student (no offence intended) can really interpret the evidence better than the large percentage of professional scientists who do this for a living.

No offense taken However, I should correct you; I'm no longer in university. I was forced to leave due to some...rather unpleasant and severe personal issues. I think I still have a slightly better than average knowledge of science though, I try to keep learning

Now for the debate! Everyone knows that data can be twisted to suit the agenda or personal beliefs of whoever is analyzing it. As the saying goes "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

I would have to question these scientists who are doing the analyzing of the data. After all, preconceived notions will influence people, no matter how hard you strive to keep bias out of science, at some point with climatology personal analysis comes into it. Where one scientist may see one thing, another will see something totally different.

Just think that everyone "knew" 500 years ago that the Earth was flat, just like everyone today "knows" that global warming is a fact...even though there is a lot that we don't understand about the intricacies of the way the world works. Granted, the above analogy has deep flaws, but pervasive myths have a way of self-perpetuating themselves. If someone is raised being told that global warming is a fact, they will believe it. They will, perhaps, see it where it does not exist.

There are also groups of scientists (who aren't merely know-it-all 19 year-olds ) who do study this for a living, who do not agree with the theory of global warming. Granted they are in the minority right now, but to make another, perhaps more apt analogy.

In cosmology, string theory was first proposed about 30 years ago, if memory serves. The theory was derided by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers. Today it is one of the leading theories. Just because a theory does not have much support in the scientific community, does not mean it is invalid. The same could apply in this situation.

Whew...didn't realize I could be so long-winded. Now please, show me the error of my ways and point out the flaws in my logic. I always enjoy learning something new! BTW, not being sarcastic, I really do want to see if holes can be poked in my logic!

[Renegade 13]

Nuclear power. I was reading about a 'new' type of reactor that will actually utilize the waste materials from conventional nuclear reactors, and would also be much more efficient. The waste generated would still be radioactive and thus toxic, but the half life is something like 100 or 150 years rather than the current 10,000 or so.

But with general public opinion being extremely anti-nuclear power, any chance of the newer, better reactors being built isn't likely. Me, I'm all for nuclear reactors...just not in my backyard!

Nuclear is the way to go though. That'll cut dependence on oil by a lot, and also make coal-burning electricity plants (of which the US has a LOT) obsolete.