As if it isn't bad enough. I just read on Yahoo news that gas prices are going to move up SHARPLY in the next week or two. Is anyone else in here sick of this? Every year the price goes higher. Every year the oil companies report a record profit. Republican or Democrat I can't imagine this doesn't piss 99% of all drivers ( especially on here! ) right off!

Here is what I did to vent. I wrote my congressman and senator. The first time I ever wrote a politician. It was VERY EASY to do. If any of you would like to vent as well here are the links to their emails. It takes literally 5 minutes to send them all an email:

Congressmen (http://www.house.gov/writerep/)

Senators (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm)

Doesn't piss me off too much.

So you like spending an extra $.50 to $1.00 a gallon over the next few months so the oil companies can make their marks? Do you think they are sinking any of that record profit into research to find new oil fields? Uhhhhhhhh naaaaa !!! To each his owb Poncharillo but it pisses me off!

We are talking about a product whose supply is being depleted, demand is ever increasing, and then inflation. We have it easy in NA, try living in Europe. The increase shouldn't send people to the poor house.

You should go after the banks, they piss me off.

It's nothing more then the supply and demand function of economics. Supplies of oil are not growing even though exploration has quadrupled, and demand for oil domestically and internationally continues to rise steadily.

The US has no new oil fields (except Anwar, but you can thank the tree hugger environmentalists, and Democrats in congress for keeping it closed), and international fields have to cope with new demand from China and India.

It will not get better in the future. China’s ten year consumption forecast is more then the entire world’s present production.

Write letters to the Democrats in the House and Senate telling them that you will NEVER VOTE FOR THEIR PARTY AGAIN unless they vote to open Anwar.

Bush and the Republicans want to open this reserve, the Democrats don't.

I swear i mentioned this like 3-4 days ago?

If it is truely a supply and demand thing the oil companies would not be making record $$$. At what point should they begin to feel the pain for their product drying up? Record profits for oil companies equals record mark up at the pump to me. Ponch.....as for the banks.......they can bite me too.

GIGOLO - I agree 100% with Anwar. The Dems stopped it to preserve the mating habits of some friggin tree frog or something. How much you wanna bet if a Dem becomes Pres in 2008 Answar has drills hitting the ground 3 months later?

The high gas prices piss me off, but not enough to decimate one of the last wilderness (Anwar).

If leaving Anwar alone means higher prices I live with that. But IMO opening Anwar would not lower prices, it would just give more of a cushion in the reserve supply.

Like someone said, record profits for oil companys last year... but they have to raise prices. Whatever

Best Avatar Award goes too..........CAM !!!! Oh.....but wait.....I own an Odessey too.......ehh it's still the best Avatar!

If it is truely a supply and demand thing the oil companies would not be making record $$$. At what point should they begin to feel the pain for their product drying up? Record profits for oil companies equals record mark up at the pump to me. Ponch.....as for the banks.......they can bite me too.

The recod earings is a direct reflection of the record demand and record consumptions levels.

If demand were to drop and consumption were to decrease then so would their profits.

The high gas prices piss me off, but not enough to decimate one of the last wilderness (Anwar).

If leaving Anwar alone means higher prices I live with that. But IMO opening Anwar would not lower prices, it would just give more of a cushion in the reserve supply.

Like someone said, record profits for oil companys last year... but they have to raise prices. Whatever

This is 100% false. By Alaskan state law, drilling companies can only drill for oil in the middle of winter when snow is present. This is to prevent environmental damage to tundra plants after the snow melts during Alaska’s short growing season. Also, it has been proven by the Dead Horse North Slope field that there is zero impact on the local wildlife population of elk, moose, wolves, bears, foxes, caribou, and muskoxen.

All waist products produced by the facilities at these fields (food waist, human poop) are all ground up into sludge and then pumped down hole.

Being a part of the oilfield, I can say that exploration has grown in the past two years considerably. The costs have also skyrocketed due to the fact that these explorations take us into deeper and deeper waters. Drilling for oil/gas at those depths requires a tremendous amount of manpower and equipment. The ROV(remotely operated system) I run out here costs my client $3200 a day, not including my salery and that of my two co-workers. Add to that $8200 a day for the semi-sub drilling rig, that much again for the crew on board, downhole rental tools, crew/work boats, helicopters....the list goes on. Its a million dollar operation and I can say this, every oilwell we begin is a gamble with no guarentee of payoff after all the costs have been incurred.

I do agree that oil companies are making record profits, but the price for a barrel of crude is much less then the price of equal amounts of visine, H2O2, and other products sold in large quantities.

I think demand must be dropped before we see the prices drop, and that would mean more use of public transportation and car-pools. Other fuels would also help this...

The need to cut their profit margin down a bit. Or how about Iraq start paying back a bit of the 200 - 300 billion we've spent helping them out in the form of some " bubblin crude ".

I know my views may be a bit extreme but at the rate this is going we'll all be customizing our 8's with two holes in the floor boards so we can Fred Flinstone our gas guzzlin selves to work in the morning!

What's China's deal anyway...why such the boom? What has occured over there recently that has them consuming so much?

Best Avatar Award goes too..........CAM !!!! Oh.....but wait.....I own an Odessey too.......ehh it's still the best Avatar!
Thanks..BTW, I dont have anything against Honda. Its just cool.;)

This is 100% false. By Alaskan state law, drilling companies can only drill for oil in the middle of winter when snow is present. This is to prevent environmental damage to tundra plants after the snow melts during Alaska’s short growing season. Also, it has been proven by the Dead Horse North Slope field that there is zero impact on the local wildlife population of elk, moose, wolves, bears, foxes, caribou, and muskoxen.

All waist products produced by the facilities at these fields (food waist, human poop) are all ground up into sludge and then pumped down hole.
This is where our opinions differ. For me, as soon as the first piece of machinery hits the ground the enviroment has been impacted.

Zero impact my ass.

Maybe it's just me, but I find the irony of someone who drives a gas-guzzling car complaining about the increasing cost of gasoline to be rich. The RX-8 is a great car, but it is a gas guzzler, adding incrementally to the over-use of energy.

Get used to it. As the supply dwindles, the price will continue to go up. We still pay far less than most of the rest of world for gasoline, and, as a society, are far more profligate in our use of energy than the rest of the world (ever think about the explosion of SUVs here, which average maybe 15mpg?).

Try Europe, where they pay $5 or $6 per gallon, and where the vast majority of the cars are small and highly fuel-efficient.

The need to cut their profit margin down a bit. Or how about Iraq start paying back a bit of the 200 - 300 billion we've spent helping them out in the form of some " bubblin crude ". Pardon me, but are you really proposing some sort of law limiting the profit of the oil companies, so Americans can drive around in cars getting 15mpg? Surely you jest! As long as there is so much demand, and as long as people continue to drive gas-guzzling cars, the price will be high. You can cut your gas costs any time you want to get a fuel-efficient car.

I know my views may be a bit extreme but at the rate this is going we'll all be customizing our 8's with two holes in the floor boards so we can Fred Flinstone our gas guzzlin selves to work in the morning!Or driving fuel efficient cars. :eek:

The need to cut their profit margin down a bit.

The profit needs to be high enough to make the companies gamble their money on a 50/50 chance that a well will payoff. If any of us where oil-company owners, we wouldnt want to spend $1.00 to gamble on the chance of making $1.05, the payoff needs to be enough to keep companies interested in more, rather then closing shop and allowing the U.S. to rely solely on the production of other countries. Money makes the world go round, and nothing is done without it.

I'm tired of hearing about other countries paying $4-10 a gallon for gas. The only reason they pay that is because their governments tax the hell out of it.

I understand I drive a gas guzzler and I bought it knowing full well that it was. That still doesn't mean I should sit back and say " oh well shucks " every time they raise the prices of gas astronomically. I also understand the price should rise since demand is high and supply short but lets get real. The price of gas has swung almost 10% in the past week alone. Yes I do think the government should step in as far as the oil companies are concerned ( AND I'M A REPUBLICAN FOR THE RECORD). I think the oil companies are abusing the situation and they are most definately a monopoly. If the government can attemp to intervene when Jose Canfako tells the world he shot up Mark McGwire's butt ( that doesn't sound good does it? ) then they can most definately stick their noses in something that effects the economy the way this does.

This is where our opinions differ. For me, as soon as the first piece of machinery hits the ground the enviroment has been impacted.

Zero impact my ass.

And where do you think that the gasoline you burn in your car comes from? Do you think that it comes from the magical Gasoline tree growing in the back yards of oil companies, planted right next to their money tree that during spring bears fruit of gold bullion?

Tree hugging environmentalists like you are one of the reasons why our domestic reserves (Anwar) are not being utilized properly. Environmentalists want to follow the N.I.M.B.Y policy with natural recourses in relation to economic and government policies but don't want to live by that same philosophy when it inconveniences them with slow, efficient cars.

People like that are hypocrites.

Tree hugging environmentalists like you .

:eek: oooooohh! I'm telling , those are fighting words...!

On another note, I know nothing about land based operations, but out on the waters, sealife thrives around our platforms and rigs. I have countless video footage of this when I dive, and fishing is superb. ALso for the older platforms and such, they are simply taken to various locations, and sunk, to create manmade reefs, and agian, here too sealife flourishes.

I deal with land based drilling rigs and in Alaska there is zero impact becasue of the laws in Alaska that require oil companies to be very environmentally contious about their actions.

I'm tired of hearing about other countries paying $4-10 a gallon for gas. The only reason they pay that is because their governments tax the hell out of it.And the funny thing about that is that it encourages people not to waste a diminishing resource--they all drive efficient cars. But you want to drive a gas guzzler and not suffer the consequences. And you want the government to step in so that you don't have to suffer those consequence.

I understand I drive a gas guzzler and I bought it knowing full well that it was. That still doesn't mean I should sit back and say " oh well shucks " every time they raise the prices of gas astronomically.Why not? That's how the free market works--the price is determined by what the market will bear.

I also understand the price should rise since demand is high and supply short but lets get real. The price of gas has swung almost 10% in the past week alone. Yes I do think the government should step in as far as the oil companies are concerned ( AND I'M A REPUBLICAN FOR THE RECORD). I think the oil companies are abusing the situation and they are most definately a monopoly.ROFL.... A monopoly? This just gets funnier and funnier. Please--The oil companies are highly competitive, but they are smart enough to charge what the market will pay.

If the government can attemp to intervene when Jose Canfako tells the world he shot up Mark McGwire's butt ( that doesn't sound good does it? ) then they can most definately stick their noses in something that effects the economy the way this does.I love it when Republicans get angry! Because oil companies are chargning what the market will bear, and the market will bear high prices, it's now time to turn socialist and kill the free market. :rolleyes: What's next--houses are too expensive, so we'll limit the profits a seller can make; cars are too expensive, so we'll limit the profits carmakers can make.

Drive a rotary and suffer the consequences at the pump. Otherwise you need to look into buying a hybrid.

Some pictures of that sealife I mentioned earlier. A very large grouper, and a snapper.

Drive a rotary and suffer the consequences at the pump. Otherwise you need to look into buying a hybrid.Gawd, you know it's an interesting thread when Jason and I are in agreement.:eek:

Gawd, you know it's an interesting thread when Jason and I are in agreement.:eek:

Hell hath frozen over. LMAO :cool:

Hell hath frozen over. LMAO :cool: :)

Of course, that agreement only goes so far. IMO, the problem is not lack of short-term supply, but excess demand for a diminishing resource. The fact is that oil is a diminishing resource, and it should be treated as precious. Unlike our fearless leader, I would rather that we not (i) despoil wilderness, or (ii) use now oil which our children will need, just so Americans can drive gas guzzling cars and SUVs. If it weren't for our insatiable demand for energy, we wouldn't care so much what happens in the Middle East, and we certainly wouldn't now be fighting a war in Iraq.

And where do you think that the gasoline you burn in your car comes from? Do you think that it comes from the magical Gasoline tree growing in the back yards of oil companies, planted right next to their money tree that during spring bears fruit of gold bullion?

Tree hugging environmentalists like you are one of the reasons why our domestic reserves (Anwar) are not being utilized properly. Environmentalists want to follow the N.I.M.B.Y policy with natural recourses in relation to economic and government policies but don't want to live by that same philosophy when it inconveniences them with slow, efficient cars.

People like that are hypocrites.
Hmmm, the Mid East and South America, anywhere but from tearing up MY OWN COUNTRY.

The Mid East can ruin there own enviroment for all I care, but when it comes to my own land, I dont think so. Are you so naive to think that tapping Anwar is going to "magically" solve our oil needs? Wow, youre dumber than I thought.

What's China's deal anyway...why such the boom? What has occured over there recently that has them consuming so much?

They became good free-market capitalists, just like we always wanted them to.
:)

:) Of course, that agreement only goes so far. IMO, the problem is not lack of short-term supply, but excess demand for a diminishing resource.

I completely and 100% agree with you.

The fact is that oil is a diminishing resource, and it should be treated as precious. Unlike our fearless leader, I would rather that we not (i) despoil wilderness, or (ii) use now oil which our children will need, just so Americans can drive gas guzzling cars and SUVs.

First off, fearless leaders are only in China and North Korea. Second, you state that you would rather us not deplete our natural resources but you still drive a gas guzzler like the RX-8. America as a whole drives gas guzzlers. The only way that this will change is for America to realize that efficient slow cars are the only way to fight the upcoming oil shortage and that we should be actively DOING something about it, instead of just TALKING about it. As long as cars like the 8, SUV's, and other gas guzzlers are flying off of automotive show rooms, nothing will happen with it except spirited debates in an automotive forum like this one.

If it weren't for our insatiable demand for energy, we wouldn't care so much what happens in the Middle East, and we certainly wouldn't now be fighting a war in Iraq.

I agree with you 100%,

But unfortunately that is not the way the world works. We do have an insatiable apetite for oil here in America and that is what causes this entire problem and argument. We are in the middle east because at the presant time America (including you) is hopelessly stuck with oil for it's energy needs to fill the tanks of it's gas guzzlers that are parked in the diveway.

Working over 30 years in the oil industry I never failed to be amazed at the dimwitted and ignorant opinions spouted about the oil business. How it should be immune from the free market. How it should be immune from inflation. How much some discovery can affect the price of oil. How "Big" oil controls the price of oil. How the oil comanies are conspiring to keep the 500mpg carb's off the market.

During the late 70's the politicians screwed over the US producers forcing them to sell their oil at prices much less than the going free market price. When the saudi's dumped oil on the market to punish the other opec countries for over producing their compeditors and the price of oil dropped below 10/barrel no tarrifs protected the american oil industry. During the 80's the unstable oil prices caused the US oil companies contract dramaticly leaving the majority of oil company employees unemployed. If the same thing happened in the auto industry there would of been massive tarrifs on imported cars.

The free market controls the price of oil. Check with any economics professor about how to drive the price up or down of oil. All that is needed is a 4% shortfall or suplus to drive the price almost infinitly. How much will the price of gas have to go before you use less. Move closer, drive less, buy a car that gets better mileage?

ANWAR is just a strawman. The reserves there, even by the most optomistic forecasts, are just a pee in the ocean. Look at our consumption figures and how much we import. Look at the world demand. Ten years ago only the most important of govt. officals in china had a car. Now there is a growing wealthy and upper middle class that can afford them. Roughly equivalent to the US in the early 191x's. Just wait till they get an economy developed to have even one car in a family like the US in the 50's. Reagan's economic miracle was nothing of the kind. He came along as the high prices of the seventies both spured conservation and exploration and overran the market. His presidency was there while the price of oil fell due to the market pressures of over supply and reduced demand.The largest oil field in the world (Ghawar in Saudi Arabia) contains an estimated ultimate recoverable 75 billion barrels of oil, or more than seven times Prudhoe Bay.

Saudi Arabia happens to have the largest oil field in the world. They really haven't done much in the way of exploration since the late 50's early 60's. They have one field that is 150 miles by about 40 miles with and oil column many thousands of feet thick.


The oil industry is a very cash intensive very risky business. New offshore projects take hundreds of millions of dollars just to find reserves. Developing the fields and producing them generally cost 10x to actually bring to market. Not only that but they take years to explore and bring to market. Try convincing the bean counters and lameass stock brokers that the production cycle takes that long. Hell those dummass stock brokers call the companies multiple times a day fishing for a new press release to try and move the stock up or down on an almost hourly basis. They have no clue about business plans. When I started companies had one, three, five, and ten year plans. Now they have week, month, quarter plans. Even 1 year plans are just short of a joke these days.

The US oil industry lost more than 1,000,000 jobs from 1986-92, more than the more-publicized auto and steel industries combined.

If you want to affect the price of oil. Conserve, use less.


While we're worrying about the conspiracies about rising prices. How about those #$@#$@ cattle producers. I just paid $11.99/# for a Tbone. When I was in high school it was only $1.79! Where's the fully loaded 1 ton GMC pickup or full size GM sedan that was $3500 in '70?

Jason, we've got to stop agreeing like this.

I'm certainly guilty of driving less-than-fully fuel-efficient cars, although I drive an S2000 (which averages about 23mpg; my wife drives an RX-8, so I'm not in a position really to plead innocent). However, it is the reality that the US government essentially underwrites the low price of our oil, by not making us pay, in the price of energy, for the cost of our military presence in the middle east and the Persian Gulf. If, through taxes or otherwise, Americans were required to pay the $5 or $7 or whatever it really costs per gallon to assure us of our supply, people would drive fuel efficient cars. My driving a Civic hybrid would make no difference in the larger picture, but 40 million people driving cars which get 40mpg would. It's unfortunate that, 20 years ago, I drove a car which, over the 100,000 miles we owned the car, averaged 48mpg (a VW Rabbit Diesel L), but now cars which average 30mpg are fairly rare. An entire generation has been born and grown to adulthood with no memory of the gas lines of 1979-80.

Opening up the Alaska wilderness to drilling really would be, at best, a stop-gap, not a solution. Either way, the market will adjust to the actual supply/demand imbalance, I suspect, so that the price of energy will continue to rise. Eventually, the price of energy in North America will again rise to the level that we won't have millions of people commuting to work in SUVs, one person to a car. IMO, if the government should do anything to deal with this, it is not to nail the oil companies, but, rather, to insist on high fleet fuel economy out of automakers, including SUVs and minivans in the calculation, and even to tax gasoline so that we are paying, at the pump, for the actual cost of bringing that gasoline to us.

just wait, fuel cells will take over! Yah, that's what has been said for the past how many years, but once it does... YAY!:-D Right now I am working on fuel cell research, but too bad it still seems far away from reasonable comercial use.
I wonder, if there was an alternate fuel source would the big oil comapnies/car companies want it to go mainstream... (they would have to change their cars and oil companies go caput.)

just wait, fuel cells will take over! Yah, that's what has been said for the past how many years, but once it does... YAY!:-D Right now I am working on fuel cell research, but too bad it still seems far away from reasonable comercial use.
I wonder, if there was an alternate fuel source would the big oil comapnies/car companies want it to go mainstream... (they would have to change their cars and oil companies go caput.)I'm no economist, but I think that what will happen is that, as the price of fossil fuels rises (as the supply diminishes), other forms of energy will become competitive. This, IMO, is a very good reason not to take artificial steps to keep the price of gasoline low--this is how the markets work, so that as one product becomes too expensive, others can compete.

Jason, we've got to stop agreeing like this......

I did not quote the rest of your statement because I agree with it completely.

The future as I see it will be in hybrid diesel powered automobiles. Diesels are 30% more efficient then gas engines, produce torque out the wazoo, and combined with an electric hybrid, can get excellent economy with minimal sacrifice.

124Spider, the irony of us agreeing like this is that you are not just agreeing with Gigolo Jason, the forum post whore, but you are agreeing with Jason, the executive of an oil field services company. Cheers. :cool:

StrokerAce,
Very informative, and very true.

DOH! and i was planning to drive my 8 cross-country.. :mad:

just wait, fuel cells will take over! Yah, that's what has been said for the past how many years, but once it does... YAY!:-D Right now I am working on fuel cell research, but too bad it still seems far away from reasonable comercial use.

Unlikely because of the infrastructure that a national hydrogen fuel distribution system would take. That is a primary cost factor but not the only one. There are still problems with transportation and storage both in cars and at filling/distribution centers that have to be worked out in order for this hydrogen pipe dream to become a reality.

This will likely be an alternative at some point in the future, but it will begin on a very limited basis and probably initially survive as an oddity of high society for those who can A afford it and B want to brag to their friends about it that they are doing their part to save the planet BS.

I wonder, if there was an alternate fuel source would the big oil comapnies/car companies want it to go mainstream... (they would have to change their cars and oil companies go caput.)

The short answer, Yes. Oil will always be in demand, there will always be a need for lubrication, plastics, synthetic fibers, fertilizers, and other products that are directly related to petroleum and it's by products.

Higher oil prices cause marginal finds that would otherwise no be drilled for to become profitable. This spurs exploration, growth, and innovation within our industry. This innovation results in efficiency through lower completion times and lower overall day rates of rigs.

Oil companies are not going away anytime soon and no we don't sit behind our desks praying that an alternative will not appear. Crude oil is still the cheap alternative and will be for some time.

The more feasible alternative will be hybrid diesels and the one most likely to appear anytime in the near future will be hybrid diesels.

The person who invents a device that allows an engine or rotary to get 200 mph will be the next Bill Gates. Or, the oil companies will buy the rights to the design and now allow it to be produced. I think when the price for high octane gas for an RX goes to $6 per gallon the RX is getting garaged mostly. Perhaps we are seeing the birth pains for a future oil supply crisis? Bring on electric cars way before oil supplies crash or we are back to horses.

After reading this I have decided to sell my car and buy a toyota prius. No wait when I bought this car I knew the mpg of the car and it did not affect my choice. What I did not see mentioned of moving to hydrogen is the cost of the refueling stations to convert thier equipment to hydrogen not gasoline, it the growing pains of hydrogen and the tremendous amounts of gasoline engines do we all think the comapnies are going to offer both hydrogen and gasoline? Now my next question, how many of us live by a gas station that is within 2 miles of our home? Now how would you feel having huge hydrogen tanks stored there to refuel our cars?

My thinking is that we are a long time away from seeing hydrogen cars in a large scale across the world.

As far as the price of gas going up, it is a price you pay to have the convience of a car. If you don't like the price ride a bike, car pool, take the bus, or subway, maybe just go live in the woods and comsume no petroleum products.

As for me I think I will go buy a Hummer H1 and brag how good the rx8 milage is compared to my truck. :rolleyes:

The only way that this will change is for America to realize that efficient slow cars are the only way to fight the upcoming oil shortage and that we should be actively DOING something about it, instead of just TALKING about it.
Efficient and slow has nothing to do with each other. It's a common American misconception.
Did you know that the Turboed F1 cars in 80's reached effiencies of over 30%? F1 cars are commonly not considered slow.
Also if you've ever driven a Diesel VW Golf with 180 HP, you very well know that you can get 50 mpg and still drive fast. (And just because Detroit doesn't build clean Diesel's doesn't mean there aren't any cars with clean Diesel engines.)
Also, the new Honda Accord Hybrid with 255 HP + 13 HP electric motor is not exactly a slow car either.

My thinking is that we are a long time away from seeing hydrogen cars in a large scale across the world.
Hydrogen will never be alternative it's just a nice alibi for politicians and car manufacturers to pretend that they are doing something about it.

Vegetable oil or Biodiesel is an alternative, hydrogen is not.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_biodiesel_vs_hydrogen.html

They are getting a huge influx of expendable capital and more and more of those 6 billion people are learning to drive at an alarming rate.

http://home.aigonline.com/content/0,1109,17883-1568-ceo,00.html

I also read an article last year about the accident rate in China, some astronomical figure because of the sheer numbers of inexperienced drivers.

What's China's deal anyway...why such the boom? What has occured over there recently that has them consuming so much?

The person who invents a device that allows an engine or rotary to get 200 mph will be the next Bill Gates. Or, the oil companies will buy the rights to the design and now allow it to be produced. I think when the price for high octane gas for an RX goes to $6 per gallon the RX is getting garaged mostly. Perhaps we are seeing the birth pains for a future oil supply crisis? Bring on electric cars way before oil supplies crash or we are back to horses.

The car companies already have ways to invent cars that get better gas mileage...much better than what they are getting. Now, I am fairly sure that this is not true of our particular car, but it is true of the efficiency of other motors.

Take for example...In 1991, I was driving a Honda Accord with well over 400k miles on it that got anywhere from 32 to 36 miles per gallon. In 1995 I was driving a 1991 4-cylinder Geo Storm that got 36 miles per gallon. I traded that for a 1998 4-cylinder pick-up that averaged 18 miles per gallon (supposed to get 24-28 on the sticker). Now I understand that the truck was slightly heavier than the car, but that does not make up for 1/2 the gas mileage out of almost the same engine (both GM).

MPG on all cars is dropping drastically with the exception of the VERY few fuel efficient cars that now get what most small cars were getting in the past. I remember looking at cars for my dad who has to commute to work at least an hour every day. Just 6 years ago, we were looking at cars that got 52 miles per gallon. Where are those cars now? The most I have seen for a car on the lot (unless it is electric or solar powered) is somewhere in the 30s. Noting that the stickers are no longer valid for most of us since they are measured at the old speed of 55mph and we have speed limits that are higher than that...most of the time the car does not get anywhere near what the sticker says it should, or leans to the low side.

If the prices of crude oil will continue to rise people will soon switch to Biodiesel or Ethanol.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0411/04/b04-323743.htm
Also a gallon of soy bean oil is already cheaper than a gallon of Diesel.

I wonder what would have happened if the US would have started grow oil on its soil instead of trying to secure depletive oil fields on foreign lands?
Imagine what could have been done with $300 billion.

WHen people start using soy instead of disel then the price of soy WILL go up.. Then the question is, can we possibly grow enough soy to supply the demand? Is the soy farming infrastructure prepared to ramp up to these demands and sustain them for say the next 100 years?

If the prices of crude oil will continue to rise people will soon switch to Biodiesel or Ethanol.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0411/04/b04-323743.htm
Also a gallon of soy bean oil is already cheaper than a gallon of Diesel.

I wonder what would have happened if the US would have started grow oil on its soil instead of trying to secure depletive oil fields on foreign lands?
Imagine what could have been done with $300 billion.

If the price goes high enough it will spur development of alternatives. If it remains cheaper, then we'll keep using gasoline. Either way the problem will take care of itself. There will be pain, but we've always known petroleum is a FINITE resource.

WHen people start using soy instead of disel then the price of soy WILL go up.. Then the question is, can we possibly grow enough soy to supply the demand? Is the soy farming infrastructure prepared to ramp up to these demands and sustain them for say the next 100 years?
There's a lot of wasteland around the globe. There's plenty of water too (71% of the earth surface is covered with water and desalting it is not a big deal) and the sun will shine for the next 5 billion years, so we're all set.

According to these guys it would only cost $169 billion to farm algae and produce enough oil to cover the US need.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_biodiesel_vs_hydrogen.html
$169 is a real bargain or isn't it? And not only that it's money that would be spent in the US and not abroad. Keep in mind that American farmers are usually less likely to end up as so called 'suiciders' than some of the folks in the middle east.

I also read an article last year about the accident rate in China, some astronomical figure because of the sheer numbers of inexperienced drivers.

Tell me about it...I used to live in Vancouver :p :o

We are talking about a product whose supply is being depleted, demand is ever increasing, and then inflation. We have it easy in NA, try living in Europe. The increase shouldn't send people to the poor house.

You should go after the banks, they piss me off.

As a bank manager i have to ask why? What did the bank do to you?

Rising gas prices are here to stay and continue. We rotary owners should be very excited for the future.

What's China's deal anyway...why such the boom? What has occured over there recently that has them consuming so much?

You must never seen pics of China in the 80's and China in 2004 (I'm assuming you never been there.) Chinese people went from riding bikes to driving cars in twenty years. They are the third largest car market in the world. Of course they also use a lot plastics, which is a petroleum product. Some of the gas produced goes to making electricity.

By the way some of these new wealth Chinese have good taste. Saw plenty of Ferrari and MB SL500 when I last visited. Hell some Chinese guys buy Hummers (the really Kind) and go off-wheeling in the western part of the country. Chalk one up for American Cultural Imperialism, apparently they are liking the American way of life more and more.

As a bank manager i have to ask why? What did the bank do to you?

aside from manipulating markets, High transaction fees, and biased investment advice...I myself found the only way to stay ahead of the banks game and thats by investing in banks :D

BTW a branch manager like yourself should still realize that bank fees are too high considering that technology does all the work..... :rolleyes:

I'm no economist, but I think that what will happen is that, as the price of fossil fuels rises (as the supply diminishes), other forms of energy will become competitive. This, IMO, is a very good reason not to take artificial steps to keep the price of gasoline low--this is how the markets work, so that as one product becomes too expensive, others can compete.

Good point. Subsidy never makes economic sense, it only makes political sense.

BTW I read a Businessweek article that stating that Bush is thinking about getting more and more ethanol/methanol into the gas tank. 85% alcohol and 15% gasoline. The point is that the GASOLINE per MILE number will be high.

Personally I thiink it's a great idea (hydrogen is a long-term solution.) Producing alcohol allows farmers additional income. This will benefit both developed and developing world farmers. Plus alcohol is runs cooler and is pretty knock resistant. On the technical side, I don't think it takes too much to get the Internal Combustion Engine to run alcohol.

It's kind of like introducing a monk to sex.. of course they're going to like it !


You must never seen pics of China in the 80's and China in 2004 (I'm assuming you never been there.) Chinese people went from riding bikes to driving cars in twenty years. They are the third largest car market in the world. Of course they also use a lot plastics, which is a petroleum product. Some of the gas produced goes to making electricity.

By the way some of these new wealth Chinese have good taste. Saw plenty of Ferrari and MB SL500 when I last visited. Hell some Chinese guys buy Hummers (the really Kind) and go off-wheeling in the western part of the country. Chalk one up for American Cultural Imperialism, apparently they are liking the American way of life more and more.

BTW a branch manager like yourself should still realize that bank fees are too high considering that technology does all the work.....
Excellent point. I always wondered why I have to pay 10 times more for fees then for what I have to pay to get a hamburger.
The guy at the bank doesn't need to slaughter any animals, grow any plants and grill anything. He doesn't even have to touch my money, so why does he charge 10 times more for something that requires 10 times less work?

aside from manipulating markets, High transaction fees, and biased investment advice...I myself found the only way to stay ahead of the banks game and thats by investing in banks :D

BTW a branch manager like yourself should still realize that bank fees are too high considering that technology does all the work..... :rolleyes:

By high transaction fees I will assume your talking about business accounts. If you have a personal account and are paying a fee of some sort, other than NSF fees, switch banks. You have to shop banks to get the best deal. As for the technology it costs money, and there is still a lot of people power involved. I will agree that large regional or national banks are fee cows, and are only truly interested in big business, it is after all how we make 90% our income. I work for a small local bank (only 1 billion in assets) and we have no fees to speak of for personal accounts. As for the investment advise, of course its slanted if the broker works for the bank, he is just a salesman out to make a buck, go to an independent investment office, that’s who I send my clients to. And just one thing to keep in mind when is the last time you saw a bank with a sign outside that said not for profit organization?

Excellent point. I always wondered why I have to pay 10 times more for fees then for what I have to pay to get a hamburger.
The guy at the bank doesn't need to slaughter any animals, grow any plants and grill anything. He doesn't even have to touch my money, so why does he charge 10 times more for something that requires 10 times less work?

Because they are holding our money for ransom :( .......Don't even get me started on ATM's......Do yourself a favor and never take out less then a $100 from an ATM machine......otherwise if you take out $20 and pay a dollar for the fee,,,,,who's winning that game?

I rarely use the ATM, if I do It is usually $1000. Thats the only time I need to take out cash.

Because they are holding our money for ransom :( .......Don't even get me started on ATM's......Do yourself a favor and never take out less then a $100 from an ATM machine......otherwise if you take out $20 and pay a dollar for the fee,,,,,who's winning that game?

By high transaction fees I will assume your talking about business accounts. If you have a personal account and are paying a fee of some sort, other than NSF fees, switch banks. You have to shop banks to get the best deal. As for the technology it costs money, and there is still a lot of people power involved. I will agree that large regional or national banks are fee cows, and are only truly interested in big business, it is after all how we make 90% our income. I work for a small local bank (only 1 billion in assets) and we have no fees to speak of for personal accounts. As for the investment advise, of course its slanted if the broker works for the bank, he is just a salesman out to make a buck, go to an independent investment office, that’s who I send my clients to. And just one thing to keep in mind when is the last time you saw a bank with a sign outside that said not for profit organization?

I am an investment advisor....work for TD waterhouse investments....I could say a lot of things that will make you think twice about bank ethics.....your banking system differs from us Canadians....I thinks it is actually better for the client that way.....for us north of the border we don't have many choices and if down the road Canadian Banks merge.....it will only benefit the banking business and make things worse for canadian clients......newayz sorry for the hijack guys :o

If the prices of crude oil will continue to rise people will soon switch to Biodiesel or Ethanol.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0411/04/b04-323743.htm
Also a gallon of soy bean oil is already cheaper than a gallon of Diesel.
.

Frankly the faster international oil fields dry up the sooner we stop inadvertently funding people who want us all dead. I'll miss my 8 though. :)


Similar to biodiesel, I can remember hearing about a car that ran on leftover grease from local resturants and made a coast to coast trip. Anyways, the only evident drawback that I remember was that animals (esp bears) would follow the car because it smelled like a Burger King.

Excellent point. I always wondered why I have to pay 10 times more for fees then for what I have to pay to get a hamburger.
The guy at the bank doesn't need to slaughter any animals, grow any plants and grill anything. He doesn't even have to touch my money, so why does he charge 10 times more for something that requires 10 times less work?

All depends on what fees your talking about.

rotary convert: Here's a link http://www.greasecar.com

I wonder why the White House is not pursuing growing oil instead of buying it from the middle east? Aren't there any engineers or scientist working there? Or is there indeed some oil business conspiracy.

A gallon of soy bean oil costs $1.50. This is already a pretty competitive price and so far no one has even tried to grow oil more cost effective.

Stone: Fees to buy stocks or fees to transfer money. (I forgot to mention)

Because they are holding our money for ransom .......Don't even get me started on ATM's

The whole idea of ATM fees is to get people to open an account with that bank so they don’t have to pay a fee at that banks atms, also some ATM’s are privately owned and no one gets them for free. Besides do what I do use a debit card, I have never found a place that dosn’t run plastic, a debit card is faster and safer than cash, and its totally free for you. Ok that’s it no more I don’t want to highjack the threat. Back to the gas price wars!!!!!

71% of the earth surface is covered with water and desalting it is not a big deal

Desalting is a big deal. It's not cheap. After oil, the next big resource issue is fresh water.

Desalinating a gallon of water costs much more then the current rate for a gallon of crude oil.

I find average U.S. citizens to be ill-informed about the options.

It's either "buy oil from the Taliban" or "trash Alaska"!

There is a more moderate option - the tar sand deposits in northern Alberta, Canada.

These are huge beds of sand mixed with greasy black oozing 'bitumen'. Once thought only fit to use for roads, it is being shipped south, upgraded with hydrogen, then sold as 'synthetic crude oil'. The final product sold to refineries is actually better than the stuff that oil wells produce - clean, low sulfur, no black residues, and competitively priced.

The sands are a realistic option, already producing over a million barrels per day of finished product, and supplying refineries in the U.S. every day.

Check it out for yourself..... (http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/scotford/)

The project isn't cheap - already twenty billion dollars have been invested, and twenty more are planned for the near future, two new upgrading facilities are planned this year, and they will be onstream by 2009.

These oil sands hold as much crude as Saudi Arabia. The only oil that is gone is the cheap stuff, but at $50 a barrel, we can supply the U.S. for decades..... :D

S

Desalinating a gallon of water costs much more then the current rate for a gallon of crude oil.
That's ridicilous. There are many ways to desalinate water without using any energy. For instance you could simply evaporate ocean water and collect the condensate.

Have you ever heard of the solar tower project?
http://www.webaccess.iii.rmit.edu.au/vrc/solartower/

I just thought of something: If you would build this very same concept over an ocean bay, the humid air would raise through the chimney/tower and on the top you could have venturi nozzles that lower the pressure and have the water condensate. Then you collect and store that water on top of that tower and you don't even require any energy to distribute it, since it will have enough static pressure. This concept wouldn't have any moving parts, it could run forever without requiring any maintenance. So here you are, all set.

Apparently that solar tower costs $700 Million to build, which is about a third of the cost of a B2 bomber. I guess the tax payer could ask the question: Do we really need 20 stealth bombers to hunt a bunch of bare-footed terrorists or could we spare one of these things and grow some oil on our wasteland instead?

Why doesn't the tax payer ask these questions?

That's ridicilous. There are many ways to desalinate water without using any energy.

Umm.. in this Universe we obey the laws of thermodynamics. To reverse the entropy of a dissolved salt solution requires the input of energy.

For instance you could simply evaporate ocean water and collect the condensate.

Sure, it's called "rain". You can make your own rain but you sure gonna need some ENERGY to do it. If you want to use solar energy, great. You're going to need considerable infrastructure. And, you have to deal with the realities of a marine environment. It's not impossible, just expensive. Fresh water supply, irrigation, and destruction of soil from irrigating with marginal water is an issue for much of the globe. If there were a truly cost effective way of desalinating it would solve a lot of problems. Just because you see condensation on your Kool-aid pitcher doesn't mean the problem is solved.... But it's certainly an important area of research.

Umm.. in this Universe we obey the laws of thermodynamics. To reverse the entropy of a dissolved salt solution requires the input of energy. Thanks for pointing this out. Can you please check for spelling errors too? After all this is the eminent Lounge of an automotive forum and not some unimportant scientific publication.
Wasn't it obvious that I meant solar energy and not no energy?

It's not impossible, just expensive. Fresh water supply, irrigation, and destruction of soil from irrigating with marginal water is an issue for much of the globe. If there were a truly cost effective way of desalinating it would solve a lot of problems.
The question is: What is cost effective? If I build a $700 million dollar 3000 feet high chimney it will be comparable to a artificial mountain, but it's a more efficient and a more controlled way of producing rain. As long as the sun shines there will always blow a wind through the chimney and therefore generate fresh water.

If I compare the costs of some chimney with the current war in Iraq I would consider a bunch of water generating chimney's a real bargain. Or do you think that for instance a $2 billion B2 bomber is seriously a cost effective tool to kill terrorists?

Let's face the problem is not because it couldn't be solved cost effectively, it's because people that have the means to do a difference simply don't care.
All industrialized nations have water in abundance and oil is cheap so why do anything? And we'll all die anyway so why not have our kids take care of these issues?

I understand the issue with supply & demand, but as others stated...the oil companies continue to make huge proifits. Sounds like the demand is there and so is the supply, but the oil companies will use the supply and demand excuse for goughing us. I haven't heard of any of the oil companies claiming they can't meet the demand, Have you?

And it's not just about how to produce oil, it's also about how to conserve it.

A simple example:
Big rigs don't have underride protection. If they had underride protection they could increase their fuel economy by 2% and people wouldn't get their heads choped off when they get underneath a trailer.

2% less fuel consumption and people that can keep their heads on their bodies might not sound like a big deal, but if you can make 100 small changes like this it turns out to be a big deal.

Also, there might not even be a need for fresh water in order to produce oil anyway. If you can produce it from algae that lives in saltwater it might not be necessary.
I'm sure that's why there are federal funded programs to research for alternative ways to produce oil in order to reduce the dependence on foreign oil. Or am I mixing this up with the current star wars program?
Talking about that star wars program. Assuming it's possible to develop a bullet than can hit another bullet head on. As long as you can predict the track of a rocket it might be possible, but what if the enemy simply designes a rocket that continously and randomly changes it's flight path what happens then? And what country would send these rockets? By now we should all know that if a dictator even thinks about producing WMDs he'll be wiped out and as we all know most dictators are wimps and are afraid of being wiped out.,
And what if the bombs don't come as rockets but take the same path that the illegal drugs and the illegal immigrants currently take? Is there a program that can filter the bombs from the illegal drugs and the illegal immigrants?

Just filled up my old Miata today. Gas price ranges in Diamond Bar, CA on 3/8/05:
87 octane: $2.17 to 2.29/gal
89 octane: $2.27 to 2.39/gal
91 octane: $2.37 to 2.49/gal

It cost me $17.50 to fill up the Miata with regular gas. The dude in front of me at the pump spent over $50 filling up his Excretion... err, Excursion.

Thanks for pointing this out. Can you please check for spelling errors too? After all this is the eminent Lounge of an automotive forum and not some unimportant scientific publication.
Wasn't it obvious that I meant solar energy and not no energy?

No, it wasn't obvious. Don't accuse me of pedantry because you can't write what you mean. "There are many ways to desalinate water without using any energy" is a definite statement. Why would I assume you meant the exact opposite of what you stated? Maybe you're related to my old girlfriend. :p

The question is: What is cost effective? If I build a $700 million dollar 3000 feet high chimney it will be comparable to a artificial mountain, but it's a more efficient and a more controlled way of producing rain. As long as the sun shines there will always blow a wind through the chimney and therefore generate fresh water.

And it's a great question. But unless we know how many gallons per day of water your chimney will produce, we can't answer it. There is a 4000-foot mountain just a few miles from my window. More than 6 months out of the year there is no rain whatsoever. We are just a few miles from the Ocean. Simple orographic lifting to 3000 feet is not necessarily enough to produce precipitation. Your device may have more control over the parameters, but you might be surprised at what it would take to generate significant water. Maybe a 10,000-foot or a 7 TRILLION dollar 30,000-foot chimney?

If I compare the costs of some chimney with the current war in Iraq I would consider a bunch of water generating chimney's a real bargain. Or do you think that for instance a $2 billion B2 bomber is seriously a cost effective tool to kill terrorists?

Well, I don't think starting a dishonorable war is a cost-effective way of accomplishing anything at all. On the other hand the stealth bomber has tremendous advantages, and has a legitimate place in defending our country, which IS something we should be spending money on. We can argue about how much money. But, it doesn't mean that if we cut military spending we should spend it on your tower -- at least until you can answer your own questions about cost-effectiveness.

Let's face the problem is not because it couldn't be solved cost effectively, it's because people that have the means to do a difference simply don't care.
All industrialized nations have water in abundance and oil is cheap so why do anything? And we'll all die anyway so why not have our kids take care of these issues?

I think you are operating under some false or overly-simplified assumptions.

Not all industrialized nations have water in abundance. Fresh water is already a big problem right here in USA, the richest nation in the world. Other countries have it worse. Oil is NOT cheap. It's not necessarily because of lack of will or commitment. It's because making fresh water is VERY VERY expensive. How many of your artificial mountains will we need to serve the needs of a city of 100,000 people? How many will we need to provide irrigation to grow crops for those people? How many more to provide water for industrial needs, etc? Just because you have an untested idea of how to produce water doesn't mean there's a global conspiracy to prevent it from working. If you can find a way to produce cheap water for areas that need it, you will be the richest person in the history of the world and will change the face of the planet.

Oil is NOT cheap. It's not necessarily because of lack of will or commitment. It's because making fresh water is VERY VERY expensive. How many of your artificial mountains will we need to serve the needs of a city of 100,000 people? How many will we need to provide irrigation to grow crops for those people? How many more to provide water for industrial needs, etc? Just because you have an untested idea of how to produce water doesn't mean there's a global conspiracy to prevent it from working.
I don't believe in global conspiracies I just think oil is relatively cheap. I currently live in a crappy old badly insulated appartment and I believe I pay about 20 or 30 times more for rent per month than for gas (and water is almost free).
Now just the fact that I can hardly see any effort in the US in trying to build better insulated houses is a pretty clear indication to me that oil or heating energy is relatively inexpensive. (Just as a side note: Building houses with that building quality would simply be illegal in Switzerland).

I don't really care about that chimney, I just wanted to point out that there are ways to generate fresh water without using any electric or fossil energy. I've never said that it is inexpensive I just think it's cheap compared to the defense or the intelligence budget. The tax payer spends $40 billion per year on the intelligence service and then this service can't even figure out that when a bunch of brainwashed idiots with box cutters are about to attack the country. If the intelligence service was a company and I was a shareholder I'd be furious and be making sure that some people get fired. Why is nobody furious about things like this? And why on the other hand is nobody willing to spend some money to reduce the dependence on foreign oil and indirectly fund brainwashed idiots that run around with box cutters?

You say the current methods to generate fresh water is expensive. Can you tell what method is so expensive? Also can you tell me how much it costs? It's different whether you generate fresh water with an overpriced submarine unit than with some giant desalination plant in the desert.

On the other hand the stealth bomber has tremendous advantages, and has a legitimate place in defending our country, which IS something we should be spending money on. We can argue about how much money. But, it doesn't mean that if we cut military spending we should spend it on your tower -- at least until you can answer your own questions about cost-effectiveness.
Who are you currently fighting, that justifies the number of stealth bombers? Modern weapon systems are only cost effective against other industrialized nations. (As harsh as it might sound, I generally don't see a reason why you can't fight wars more cost effectively.) The US has currently 40% of the world's defense budget, what industrialized nation could possibly cope with that? Also which industrialized nation is interested in going to war with the US?
In the war that the US is currently fighting who could possibly bring down a B-52 and if so with what?
Wouldn't it be a better defense if you try to reduce your dependence on foreign oil? Or are you comfortable with the fact that the Saudi's own part of America? Forget that chimney just consider this: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_biodiesel_vs_hydrogen.html

And again if you generate oil with algae it might not require fresh water anyway.

Now just the fact that I can hardly see any effort in the US in trying to build better insulated houses is a pretty clear indication to me that oil or heating energy is relatively inexpensive.

Globi, you repeatedly throw out statements that aren't based in reality or are vastly oversimplified. "Oil is cheap". "Desalinization is easy". "US housing codes suck", etc. I don't know how old you are but during the Carter administration there was something called an "energy crisis". It was a BIG deal. There were many changes that happened as a result. One was improved insulation for buildings. You may not "see any effort" based upon your "old crappy apartment", but the whole industry shifted.

The tax payer spends $40 billion per year on the intelligence service and then this service can't even figure out that when a bunch of brainwashed idiots with box cutters are about to attack the country.

The truth that nobody wants to admit is that you cannot always stop crazy people from hurting others. Even if you spend every last dime on intelligence and station agents at every streetcorner.

And why on the other hand is nobody willing to spend some money to reduce the dependence on foreign oil and indirectly fund brainwashed idiots that run around with box cutters?

You keep stating blatently false absolutes and then attempt to reason from that. -- BILLIONS of dollars are being spent on conservation, efficiency, and alternatives! And , do you think reversing oil dependence will keep box cutters out of the hands of terrorists?

You say the current methods to generate fresh water is expensive. Can you tell what method is so expensive? Also can you tell me how much it costs? It's different whether you generate fresh water with an overpriced submarine unit than with some giant desalination plant in the desert.

try

http://www.hotpolitics.com/desal1.html


Who are you currently fighting, that justifies the number of stealth bombers? Modern weapon systems are only cost effective against other industrialized nations. (As harsh as it might sound, I generally don't see a reason why you can't fight wars more cost effectively.) The US has currently 40% of the world's defense budget, what industrialized nation could possibly cope with that? Also which industrialized nation is interested in going to war with the US?

You don't discover a need for arms on Monday and have them ready by Thursday. The stealth bomber is part of the arsenal not solely because of Iraq but for overall defense. Your issue of bombing terrorists with B-2s is specious. The B-2 is already part of the arsenal; it only makes sense to deploy it in a conflict such as this to ascertain it's performance and requirements in battle, for training, etc. Anyway, I already said, the proper size of the military is certainly debateable but has nothing to do with making wild claims that we could solve water issues with desalinization "if only". Or that your mythical desalinization plant is "cheap by comparison".

And again if you generate oil with algae it might not require fresh water anyway.

If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle. Sorry we've gotten way off topic. I'm done. :o

I don't know how old you are but during the Carter administration there was something called an "energy crisis". It was a BIG deal. There were many changes that happened as a result. One was improved insulation for buildings. You may not "see any effort" based upon your "old crappy apartment", but the whole industry shifted.
Exactly that's the irony. Eventhough you experienced the energy crisis, trying to reduce the dependence on foreign oil doesn't appear to be an important issue.
Also, I have seen how they build new houses in the Northeast and maybe it's different on the west coast, but what I've seen here does unfortunately in no way compare to building standards in other parts of the world.
The truth that nobody wants to admit is that you cannot always stop crazy people from hurting others. Even if you spend every last dime on intelligence and station agents at every streetcorner. Now you're saying that you're satisfied with their performance? :p
And , do you think reversing oil dependence will keep box cutters out of the hands of terrorists? All the 19 hijackers came from wealthy oil countries and you can argue that they were indirectly funded with oil money. Assuming the House of Saud gets overthrown by an islamic movement, don't you think that could cause some problems for the US?

Again It's not about desalination it's about reducing the dependence of foreign or crude oil in general. (Besides 1 cent per Gallon water doesn't sound like very very expensive as you stated earlier.)
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/art...s_hydrogen.html
Why don't you have a look at this link and tell me what's so ridicilous about trying to grow oil instead purchasing it from other countries? Or are there indeed billions of tax dollars that are spent on growing oil in the US?
Sorry we've gotten way off topic. I'm done. No we did not get off topic, soaring gas prices and looking for alternatives to produce oil are very much connected.

St louis prices today:

octane cost
87 1.96
89 2.06
91 2.16

Up .10 from yesterday and .25 from last week