MrObsessive Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 What I cannot figure out is that when an oil refinery halts production for some reason, like hurricane katrina I believe, the prices goes up like almost instantly, becuase supply goes down. But price never go lower when new refineries gets built and goes online. When the prices do go eventually go down, its gradual process. The prices I believe are dictated by the supply and demand worldwide. Throw in whatever our dollar is worth at any given moment, and that can change the price-------up or down. Right now the value of our dollar on the world market is at an all time low..........one can only expect the price of a barrel of oil to go up, up, up! Printing money only exacerbates the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 I wonder if enough oil exists in North America to supply us. If so I think we should harness it and use it only within our borders and not be affected by global markets. If that were the case, we wouldn't be importing all that expensive foreign oil! The "oil sands" deposits in Canada look promising, but right now the cost to extract the oil from the sand doesn't make it economically feasible... if the US and Canada went with those oil sand deposits, the cost of extracting/refining would probably drive the cost of gas up, not down. Until (if?) we invent a better and cheaper method to get at that oil, we're pretty much dependent on OPEC for our oil needs. On the other hand, we supposedly have the world's largest deposits of natural gas here in the US. And cars powered by natural gas are already a reality (I think that cabs in Phoenix run on natural gas, if I remember correctly). So why are we not exploiting that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 This is interetsing http://www.financialjesus.com/saving-money/10-countries-with-cheapest-gas-prices-in-the-world/ Cheapest place in the world is venezuela at 5 cents a liter. Most of the others are in the middle east. What are they doing to avoid this manipulation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Cheapest place in the world is venezuela at 5 cents a liter. Most of the others are in the middle east. What are they doing to avoid this manipulation? They have enough oil for their own needs, and then some! Countries like Venezuela are net oil exporters, not importers... in other words they have more than they need, and they sell the excess to the rest of us at a greatly inflated price. So the price Venezuelan drivers pay at the gas station is dirt cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) If that were the case, we wouldn't be importing all that expensive foreign oil! The "oil sands" deposits in Canada look promising, but right now the cost to extract the oil from the sand doesn't make it economically feasible... if the US and Canada went with those oil sand deposits, the cost of extracting/refining would probably drive the cost of gas up, not down. Until (if?) we invent a better and cheaper method to get at that oil, we're pretty much dependent on OPEC for our oil needs. On the other hand, we supposedly have the world's largest deposits of natural gas here in the US. And cars powered by natural gas are already a reality (I think that cabs in Phoenix run on natural gas, if I remember correctly). So why are we not exploiting that? Whats wrong with a bike? Now I understand the Venezuela situation. I wonder if it can be calculated how much oil a country needs? And if so how much oil we need now opposed to how much oil we would need if say everyone drove a hybrid or electric. And if we could potentially be self sustaining Edited September 2, 2011 by sak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kit Basher Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Venezuela is a dictatorship with large reserves of oil. They can make the price whatever they have to, to keep from being treated like Qaddafi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrObsessive Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Getting back to this new charger coupe, I would be very interested in buying this car. Aslong as it remained a hardtop and kept all of the cool styling. I always wondered when they were going to borrow mercedes hardtop technology. Unfortunately, even Mercedes is starting to abandon pillarless styling. Witness the newest 2012 C class coupe-----it now has a B pillar. No doubt in anticipation for some new "rollover" standards that our safety Nazis are about to impose on the auto industry. You can bet the next gen S class large coupe will probably have a B pillar as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Whats wrong with a bike? Have you ever tried to ship, oh, say, 12,000 pounds of lettuce from California to the midwest on a bike? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Hope not to offend anybody , but we as north americans are dumb. Europe has much higher dependence on public transportation and thing like bike paths. Very extensive train networks. Even in my city, we are about to have our first rapid transit corridor, but phase 1 only goes a few miles. At the end of the track is an abandonned rail yard. A developer wished to build a series of high rises at this station so people could live near there and take the rail to downtown. But the people living nearby protested killed the project. So who is going to drive 10 miles to park their car there and then take a train for 2 miles. I suppose bigger American cities already do this system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Cranky Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 I'd love to own a new Charger, but I will settle for this one come December. I'm getting it in flat black with hot-rod flames! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Have you ever tried to ship, oh, say, 12,000 pounds of lettuce from California to the midwest on a bike? I estimate the most I have ever carried in my basket would be 20-25 pounds, actually I would say 15 kilos. Once a 14 kilo box of cat litter plus a few other things. Not much more than my overall body weight. Transportation, emergency vehicles, military will always need petrol. Trains should be playing a bigger role in transportation. They have electric trains now that levitate with some kinda magnetic field. Cannot be hard to convert to frieght. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 I'd love to own a new Charger, but I will settle for this one come December. I'm getting it in flat black with hot-rod flames! Yes, you are correct Mr.Cranky. That is what we should be buying. They looked like hit every ugly tree on the way down, but very roomy and practical. They require a 220 socket? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Hope not to offend anybody , but we as north americans are dumb. Europe has much higher dependence on public transportation and thing like bike paths. Very extensive train networks. Even in my city, we are about to have our first rapid transit corridor, but phase 1 only goes a few miles. At the end of the track is an abandonned rail yard. A developer wished to build a series of high rises at this station so people could live near there and take the rail to downtown. But the people living nearby protested killed the project. So who is going to drive 10 miles to park their car there and then take a train for 2 miles. I suppose bigger American cities already do this system. The situation in Europe is a lot different than it is here. First of all, European countries are small compared to the US. France and Germany are about the size of Texas; most other European countries are much smaller. So there is less distance to cover. A small country (I mean square miles) can easily be covered by a network of rail lines. When it's only a couple hundred miles from one end of the country to the other, rail makes sense, especially electric lines. But here in the US, it's a couple of thousand miles from one end to the other. Nobody wants to spend a week on a train going from L.A. to NYC. We rely on air travel to get "from here to there," and airplanes run on jet fuel which is derived from oil. Same with trucks that transport our products across the country. Diesel fuel. Oil. Also, the price of gas is much higher in Europe than it is here, so people tend to drive cars less and rely more on public transportation, bikes and mopeds, etc. Then there's that American love affair with personal freedom and cars. It's ingrained in the American population. You can't really compare Europe and the US, it's an "apples and oranges" thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Then I propese a contest of global proportions. Let us see which country can burn off the most fuel in a year. We can decide the location of the summer olympics this way. But serious. We do we even care in the first place I wonder. Nothing will change too drastically for the good or better in our lifetime. As long as theres enough fuel to drive my beloved 73 plymouth when I retireand have time to do so, I should be happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenb Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 What drives me crazy is that everything looks the same today. Years ago cars had character and when one came down the street you knew what it was from a block away. And what's with this european styling? I don't give a #@% about european styling, I live in the USA. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 What drives me crazy is that everything looks the same today. Years ago cars had character and when one came down the street you knew what it was from a block away. And what's with this european styling? I don't give a #@% about european styling, I live in the USA. Ken It's not so much about "European" styling, it's about lowest possible coefficient of drag, for highest possible fuel economy. When the manufacturers all use wind tunnels as a styling tool, you're bound to get similarity in styling. After all, wind resistance works the same way for everyone, and if everyone is trying to wring that last possible MPG out of their design, it's inevitable that the designs are going to tend to look similar. Back in the '50s nobody cared about fuel economy or wind tunnels, so stylists basically had the green light to do whatever they wanted to do. Today the stylists are being driven by aerodynamic efficiency and MPG standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fumi Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 What drives me crazy is that everything looks the same today. Years ago cars had character and when one came down the street you knew what it was from a block away. And what's with this european styling? I don't give a #@% about european styling, I live in the USA. Ken Funny I never have this problem with newer cars. On the other hand cars from the 50's and before all look pretty much the same to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fumi Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 (edited) The situation in Europe is a lot different than it is here. First of all, European countries are small compared to the US. France and Germany are about the size of Texas; most other European countries are much smaller. So there is less distance to cover. A small country (I mean square miles) can easily be covered by a network of rail lines. When it's only a couple hundred miles from one end of the country to the other, rail makes sense, especially electric lines. But here in the US, it's a couple of thousand miles from one end to the other. Nobody wants to spend a week on a train going from L.A. to NYC. We rely on air travel to get "from here to there," and airplanes run on jet fuel which is derived from oil. Same with trucks that transport our products across the country. Diesel fuel. Oil. Rail system may not make sense for coast to coast connection but they are perfect for connecting the suburbs to the city and within the city itself. Yet it is constantly facing opposition from the public. I've lived in Toronto for ten years and the one thing that really sticks out is its public transportation policy. People are constantly fighting against subway programs, transportation union is constantly arguing for more buses, and the antiquated subway system remains in limbo. Meanwhile, the traffic congestion is getting worse and worse as people insist on driving to work. Then there's that American love affair with personal freedom and cars. It's ingrained in the American population. I don't really know what freedom is being endowed to the people idling on the highway for an hour trying to get to work, when it'd take half as much time with the subway. Freedom of getting stuck in traffic, I guess. Edited September 3, 2011 by fumi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaronw Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Have you ever tried to ship, oh, say, 12,000 pounds of lettuce from California to the midwest on a bike? No problem, just hook up a gooseneck trailer to the local college bicycle team. It would be like a dog sled with less hair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danno Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 I don't really know what freedom is being endowed to the people idling on the highway for an hour trying to get to work, when it'd take half as much time with the subway. Freedom of getting stuck in traffic, I guess. The biggest problem with subway systems, rail systems, and bus systems is that (outside of a densely populated high-rise city) the routes are too far flung and distant from too many departure or destination locations; the second biggest problem is that our economy cannot afford to build the infrastructure to build more or subsidize the operating costs enough that potential riders will willingly purchase tickets to ride. No matter how "good" the deal, if you can't afford it ... you can't afford it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMc Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 No problem, just hook up a gooseneck trailer to the local college bicycle team. It would be like a dog sled with less hair. That would no hair........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 The biggest problem with subway systems, rail systems, and bus systems is that (outside of a densely populated high-rise city) the routes are too far flung and distant from too many departure or destination locations; the second biggest problem is that our economy cannot afford to build the infrastructure to build more or subsidize the operating costs enough that potential riders will willingly purchase tickets to ride. No matter how "good" the deal, if you can't afford it ... you can't afford it. The money is there, just poorly spent. Divert a fraction of the 200 trillion defense budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Johnston Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 She looks great from behind... but I'd sure like to see her face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Rail system may not make sense for coast to coast connection but they are perfect for connecting the suburbs to the city and within the city itself. Yet it is constantly facing opposition from the public. People just prefer to drive themselves from place to place. I can't say it's the ideal scenario in every case, but it just seems to be how the vast majority of Americans feel. They equate their personal car to "freedom," the ability to jump in and go anywhere, any time, not on the train's or bus's schedule, but on their own schedule. There's a powerful attraction to that concept. As far as rail transportation... Amtrak (the largest network of passenger rail lines in the country) is heavily subsidized by the government. If rail is such a good idea, why is Amtrak losing money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkman Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 (edited) As far as rail transportation... Amtrak (the largest network of passenger rail lines in the country) is heavily subsidized by the government. If rail is such a good idea, why is Amtrak losing money? Where is money made in private road trasport? How much tax money is spent on the road network? Edited September 4, 2011 by Junkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.