Fuel Prices...

[Grammatron]

Fair enough. Smart is a division of Daimler-Chrylser, though I don't know how he would've got "300Z" out of any of their models. I'll check to see if Smart is available in Canada.

In any event, the reason they have not been legal for sale in the U.S. is because they were not engineered to comply with various Federal requirements, such as those for crashworthiness. Too, setting up a dealer network is costly. They could be placed in MB dealerships, but stocking parts and training service personnel ain't cheap.

There has been effort for a number of years, it should be said, to bring Smart to the U.S. by way of private entrepreneurs retrofitting them for compliance and offering them for sale. This has been done in the past for many non-U.S. cars, such as those from Citroen, Lotus, and even Mercedes. And voila, a quick google reveals you can purchase a Smart today.

So even if the Smart microcar (I've driven one, and the term certainly applies) is what Maygar was referring to, he/she is mistaken to suggest that there's anything nefarious keeping them from consumers in this country.

A bit more about Smart brand.

Despite a 16% rise in Mercedes-Benz car sales, the division saw an operating loss of 678m euros due to the costs of revamping its loss-making Smart brand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4951900.stm

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes. Daimler-Chrysler chief Dieter Zetsche has lately not been bullish on the long-term prospects for Smart. Perhaps the current rapid rise in fuel prices will help to invigorate the division.

 

[shecky]

so, is there any evidence that oil use is down lately as a result of prices? I had to do some driving around L.A. today, and it seems just as congested as ever. I suppose if I was oil boss, I'd raise prices, too.

 

[The Don]

I suppose if I was oil boss, I'd raise prices, too.

Crude oil is a commodity and is traded as such. As a result it's quite difficult to control prices (I am lead to believe that OPEC would like a stable price of $30-$40 a barrel). The market is driven by supply and demand in the long term but it seems sentiment and fears in the short term.

The oil companies are making a load of money from their exploration arms (who benefit from high crude prices) but are not making significantly more on their refining and retail operations. A lot of this is due to the poor publicity they would get if this were the case.

Demand for oil is somewhat elastic but at the moment it is sentiment which is driving up prices. Even if demand were to reduce, the fears over Nigeria, Venuzuela and Iran would remain.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Methanol on NPR science friday right now

 

[Crossbow]

Yes, we all know that the government is a better guardian of your money than those Evil corporations.

Liberals think any company that has its own interests at heart is Evil, because corporations all have their own interests at heart, and all corporations are Evil except for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The corporations that build your houses, clothe your nakedness, feed your child, build your car, and cure your sickness, are all doing this to make money. Liberals think making money is wrong. Liberals think that taking money in the form of taxes is the best way to provide for our social needs. That's how the Department of Housing and Urban Development (not a developer and a home builder) can build that tract of new townhouses on the vacant lot down the street. That's how the Department of Agriculture (not ConAgra) can run the thousands of Official US Government farms that provide your cheap food. That's how the Department of Transportation (not Honda) is providing better, safer cars for you every year. No, profits are Evil, and those who make them are Evil unless they render unto Caesar all those profits. The best always comes from those who forswear profits. Hence, public housing is better than private - that's why you have chosen public housing instead of private, right? The most famous symbol of transportation built by a non-profit entity is the Yugo. A public school is where you want to send your kids for the best education, and a public hospital is just the place you want to be when you get sick - just like a public restroom is the place to be when your bowels call. And the world's most famous symbol of public agriculture was once known as the Soviet Union.

I feel better now.

Look, just because public transportation is there doesn't mean people are going to use it. Until recently, I took the DC metrorail to work because 1) the station is close to my house, 2) door to desk was about 45 minutes, and 3) rail was safe, clean, comfortable, and reliable.

My office relocated a few weeks ago. There's a metrorail station across the road from my office, but if I were to take the train now, it would take about 1:15 door to desk. So I started driving my car (a rice rocket which gets 32 mpg highway, thank you very much), because I can go door to desk in 35 minutes. Yeah, gas is $3.00 a gallon, but it takes me less than half the time to get to work than it would if I were to take the train. Time is money, and at my age, time is also very, very precious.

People forget that this country isn't Europe. It is a vast country, with a widely-scattered population. People live much more closely together in Europe, making public transportation a much more viable option than in the U.S. Germany, for example, is a little over half the size of Texas - but with about four times the population.

Well then, I guess you must have more faith than I do that the extra money suddenly flooding into the oil companies will be better managed by the private sector than would the public sector.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucwb/20060425/cm_ucwb/gasgouge

GAS GOUGE?

The gas problem was nicely framed in the past fortnight by two news items. The first was the report that Lee Raymond received $400 million in his retirement package as chairman of ExxonMobil. The second was the published sketch of the projected backboard for airline passengers willing to travel more or less standing up, helping out the airlines' need for extra revenues to pay for -- Lee Raymond's gas.

...

While it is true that the large and diverse population of the USA is indeed a problem for getting public transportation to work on a large scale, there are numerous other factors at work could help the situation, but many of these issues have not been addressed in any serious way.

Raising CAFÉ Standards for one,
not properly taxing SUVs for another,
encouraging the conservation of fuels,
and so on.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

NPR had a good interview on this a couple of days ago. I can not recall the gentleman they were interviewing, but he made a compelling argument that the incentives provided by the gov't, during the time when crude oil prices were ~$10/barrel did not have provisions to stop once the prices rebounded.

 

[Mark]

Cite?

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - After nearly three decades of work, Brazil has succeeded where much of the industrialized world has failed: It has developed a cost-effective alternative to gasoline. Along with new offshore oil discoveries, that's a big reason Brazil expects to become energy independent this year.

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=5029

Why not? Isn't there any oil there?

Most estimates says there is only 6 months to 2 years of oil there. And drilling there would have little or no imoact on prices. We need long term solutions, not short term destruction.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I say we bust all the moonshiners out of jail, and repeal all moonshine laws, with the provision that they sell us the juice cheap

Its alcohol time!

Moonshiners who are also hobbyist drag racers have been making their own go sauce in small quantities since time began. How about we step up production?

I can run alcohol right now, and many other cars can or could be modified to do so, many times easily. The problem is getting it. Before it seemed to be prohibitively expensive, but right now with crap 91 octane arizona blend running about 3.40 a gallon and AV gas running near 3.80 a gallon, Im just buying avgas...pathetic

 

[Mark]

I say we bust all the moonshiners out of jail, and repeal all moonshine laws, with the provision that they sell us the juice cheap

Its alcohol time!

Moonshiners who are also hobbyist drag racers have been making their own go sauce in small quantities since time began. How about we step up production?

I can run alcohol right now, and many other cars can or could be modified to do so, many times easily. The problem is getting it. Before it seemed to be prohibitively expensive, but right now with crap 91 octane arizona blend running about 3.40 a gallon and AV gas running near 3.80 a gallon, Im just buying avgas...pathetic

Which brings up an interesting point. Alcohol is so much easier to produce than gasoline, competition would spring up all over the place. Kinda makes ya wonder a bit...

 

[BPSCG]

Most estimates says there is only 6 months to 2 years of oil there.

In fact, the best estimates run from 5.7 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil and natural gas liquids are technically recoverable from the ANWR. Those estimates vary largely based on the prevailing world market price for oil; the mean (expected value) estimate is 10.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Of course, as the price of oil goes up, the incentive to drill for the harder-to-reach oil goes up, too, so the best estimates are probably much closer to the 16 billion barrels than the 5.7 billion.

How much oil is that?

Currently, the U.S. imports about 542 million barrels of oil a year from Saudi Arabia. The recoverable oil in the ANWR, therefore, represents anywhere from ten to thirty years' worth of imported Saudi oil. You conclude the ANWR oil isn't worth going after. But imagine the outcry if Saudi Arabia were to announce it was going to cut off all oil sales to the U.S. for a decade or three.

And drilling there would have little or no imoact on prices.

Really? What do you suppose would happen to oil prices if Saudi Arabia announced today that they were going to cut their production by 542 million barrels a year for the next thirty years? Would you be pleased?

We need long term solutions, not short term destruction.

Destruction of what?

 

[Mark]

In fact, the best estimates run from 5.7 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil and natural gas liquids are technically recoverable from the ANWR. Those estimates vary largely based on the prevailing world market price for oil; the mean (expected value) estimate is 10.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Of course, as the price of oil goes up, the incentive to drill for the harder-to-reach oil goes up, too, so the best estimates are probably much closer to the 16 billion barrels than the 5.7 billion.

How much oil is that?

Currently, the U.S. imports about 542 million barrels of oil a year from Saudi Arabia. The recoverable oil in the ANWR, therefore, represents anywhere from ten to thirty years' worth of imported Saudi oil. You conclude the ANWR oil isn't worth going after. But imagine the outcry if Saudi Arabia were to announce it was going to cut off all oil sales to the U.S. for a decade or three.

Really? What do you suppose would happen to oil prices if Saudi Arabia announced today that they were going to cut their production by 542 million barrels a year for the next thirty years? Would you be pleased?

Prices would go up. If they increased production by that amount it would have little or no effect on lowering prices. Are you pleased? Your faith in the oil industry is enviable (at least in terms of sleeping at night) but misplaced. Their profits have skyrocketed...you may be pleased by that, but it has nothing to do with shortages.

Destruction of what?

The fact that you have to ask indicates you wouldn't understand if I answered. What area would you object to drilling in? The Grand Canyon? Yosemite? Yellowstone? Since the drilling (according to you) is totally benign, why object to drilling anywhere?

 

[BPSCG]

Prices would go up. If they increased production by that amount it would have little or no effect on lowering prices.

So decreasing production would cause prices to rise, but increasing it would not cause them to fall.

That makes sense...

The fact that you have to ask indicates you wouldn't understand if I answered. What area would you object to drilling in? The Grand Canyon? Yosemite? Yellowstone? Since the drilling (according to you) is totally benign, why object to drilling anywhere?

Please show me where I said the drilling is totally benign.

And again, tell me what would be destroyed in the ANWR if drilling were allowed there.

 

[Mark]

So decreasing production would cause prices to rise, but increasing it would not cause them to fall.

That makes sense...

Supply and demand only work when there is competition. Not to mention the fact that the commodity (oil) can't be completely vital to the very existence if civilization. No competition + vital = prices rising uncontrollably.

Please show me where I said the drilling is totally benign.

And again, tell me what would be destroyed in the ANWR if drilling were allowed there.

Fair enough...I took it as implied, but accept your correction. So please tell me if you would object to drilling in Yosemite. And if so, why?

 

[BPSCG]

Supply and demand only work when there is competition.

So why would prices rise as production fell?

Fair enough...I took it as implied, but accept your correction. So please tell me if you would object to drilling in Yosemite. And if so, why?

Nonononono... I asked you, twice, what destruction there would be if drilling were allowed in the ANWR. Let's get that actual possibility out of the way, and I'll be happy to answer your Yosemite hypothetical in the fullness of time.

 

[Mark]

So why would prices rise as production fell?
Nonononono... I asked you, twice, what destruction there would be if drilling were allowed in the ANWR. Let's get that actual possibility out of the way, and I'll be happy to answer your Yosemite hypothetical in the fullness of time.

The same reason as now; they can.

Basic Socratic method, Beeps: I ask again...do you object to drilling in Yosemite? The answer to your question is right there.

 

[Tricky]

I am against drilling in ANWR simply because I want to save it as a resource for the future. No, its not very much oil by today's consumption standards, but it could be very significant in a crunch. Until that crunch comes, lets burn theirs and save ours. Also, that will give us time to develop more environmentally friendly technology.

And speaking of environment, it is true that drilling in the ANWR is not going to cause much of a disturbance. Drilling for oil is a relatively benign activity in almost any environment. The problem comes when you need to transport and refine the oil. Practically every oil-related disaster you've ever heard of had to do with transfer and refining, whether it be a tanker running aground, a pipeline rupturing or a refinery exploding. By contrast, hurricanes knocked down hundreds of rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, but the oil spill was relatively minor compared to, say, the Valdez.

In ANWR, the obvious solution is a pipeline. But building pipelines across permafrost areas is an engineering nightmare. Just the pressure of the construction will cause the permafrost to deform (ice is a plastic substance) leading to potential breaks in the pipe. Also, quite often pipelines must be heated to keep the oil from caking on the sides, hastening permafrost "heaving". And of course, pipelines are a barrier to natural migration patterns. This being said, it is still not a catastrophe for nature and the Trans Alaska pipeline has functioned for many years without many serious incidents, at least, without incidents that have been reported.

But ANWR is almost nothing in the big picture. Why don't we just call it a "long-term strategic petroleum reserve" and leave it there until we really need it.

 

[Jocko]

Supply and demand only work when there is competition. Not to mention the fact that the commodity (oil) can't be completely vital to the very existence if civilization. No competition + vital = prices rising uncontrollably.

This is patently untrue. Oil is an elastic demand. Not a very elastic demand, but elastic nonetheless. If it wasn't, the price would never, ever go down under any circumstances. Yet it has, does, and will continue to do so in reaction to favorable market conditions.

 

[Mark]

This is patently untrue. Oil is an elastic demand. Not a very elastic demand, but elastic nonetheless. If it wasn't, the price would never, ever go down under any circumstances. Yet it has, does, and will continue to do so in reaction to favorable market conditions.

"Patently untrue?"

Hardly. Althougn I will grant that there are certainly many, many influences. Nevertheless, the price is overwhelmingly free of the constraints of supply and emand. For now...Brazil gives one hope.

Just as satellite brought competition to the pay TV market, so will alternative fuels and oil.

 

[BPSCG]

The same reason as now; they can.

So this is three times I've asked you what destruction would occur in the ANWR if drilling were allowed there.

You choose to evade, so I will answer.

There will be no destruction whatsoever if drilling is allowed in the ANWR.