| Author | Message | ||
     Ceejay |
before you go shooting the poll numbers out in regards to people looking at buying more efficient cars, you have to look at where those pollsters come from, the same people who buy a new car every three years? Or the ones who actually use thier vehicles for work, thus can't give up power and usefulness for the sake of energy efficiency. The people who can't give up those types of vehicles eg trucks, diesel powered farm equipment-which seems to be more buffered to flucuations- are also the same people who put GWB in office. And while we as a country or govt are not price gouging we are slowly helping a country get back on its feet-rebuilding, while helping to put into place the people and policies which will help us continue to buy or trade oil at a price favorable to us. This is just good business. And with many other countries picking up thier industrialization/china-India, they in turn are going to want more oil, so who's to say that it is not in our best interest to get into bed so to speak with the oil rich nations. | ||
| Brucelee |
Ceejay, My point in posting the article was simply to point out how well price works in changing folks attitudes about what is important to them. Clearly, this same trend impacts industrial purchasers also IN THE LONG RUN! To wit, I am a car dealer who goes to auctions every week. What is clear to me is that diesel trucks are very very much in demand lately. I believe that even within the work sector, this attention to MPG is happened big time. Similarly, my cousin has 73 light trucks on the road right now in his business. He is looking at whether he can and should go diesel right now and has actually just ported all his trucks over to synthetic oil and gear oil. Again, price makes things happen in a big and direct way and to be fair, NOT EVERYONE will be so motivated. My neighbor has a Hummer and told me flat out he doesn't care what it costs to fill it. Me, I am riding my XB more and I have plenty of money for gas for my Corvette. I am simply cheap! Good stuff! | ||
| Bustybuell |
Well, the "that" I was referring to was - "Your comments require no response at all. You are the problem, no part of any solution. As a once famous man said "and that's all I got to say about that" ******************** Now I just thought I would point this out (because again you don't understand), because based on your posts you are trying to battle wits and you are unarmed... y'all are typical men trying to •••• on one another...doesn't work here, I have seen all you little roosters struting about scratching your feet in chicken $hit, cockadoodledoo, it's the reason there are so many lesbians in the world.  | ||
| Brucelee |
"Now I just thought I would point this out (because again you don't understand), because based on your posts you are trying to battle wits and you are unarmed... y'all are typical men trying to •••• on one another...doesn't work here, I have seen all you little roosters struting about scratching your feet in chicken $hit, cockadoodledoo, it's the reason there are so many lesbians in the world." Several quick observations: 1. When your powers to persuade fail you, well, there is always personal attack and insult. This does nothing to further the thread on gasoline prices and how they mediate supply and demand. 2. I claim no special knowledge of lesbians, so I can't comment, on your comment. 3. What happended to your commitment to stop responding to these posts? (Message edited by brucelee on September 08, 2005) | ||
| Cochise |
Bruce, what is your agenda here? If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. If people don't like confrontation, why do they keep pushing it? This used to be a good thread, now it is just a pushy BruceLee show. | ||
| Brucelee |
"Bruce, what is your agenda here? If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. If people don't like confrontation, why do they keep pushing it? This used to be a good thread, now it is just a pushy BruceLee show." Hey, I am swapping data on the economics and policy aspects of oil and gas prices. People are free to read what I write or not. They are free to respond, either to agree or to refute. I am not attacking anyone personally, so I guess I am wondering what the issue is? If you don't like my posts and the information therein, don't read them. This thread is cleary titled and if one is not interested in the thread, one can refrain, just like any other thread. | ||
| Tramp |
Tramp is NOT digging this thread. JM-, you're working overtime to jam up my attempts to see at least some of the Buell sites on one page. I don't know why, but...holy Push-Tramp's-efforts-back-a-mile, Batman! Not sure why that was brought up. as to Bustybuell, well...Holy-james-brown-13-curtain calls, batman. how many times can one person say "that's all I have to say" in one thread? bustybuell, attacking agroup according to their gender is a very chauvanistic form of gender bias. If the genders were reversed you'd be called a sexist, chauvanistic pig. don't categorize people according to those characteristics which are beyond their control. you know: race gender age height etc. I can't help being a fella. doesn't make me bad. the fact that you choose to identify your online persona by describing a gender-specific attribute says more about what 'damaged goods' any of us can become in our socially-segregated society than a Phd Thesis on the backlash of the sexual revolution. why not identify with some non-gender related attribute? surely there's more to you than a pair of generous mammi. I'd like to be (likely) the first to apologise for the grossly twisted self-image that our gender-prejudiced society has wrought upon the innocent child that your folks brought into this world. I refuse to refer to you as 'bustybuell', regardless of your own misguided pride over such a beautiful (in the earth-mother venus-shaman primitive celt sense) gift you've been bestowed. to me, you're an equal lump of gray transmitting your own sincere and worthy opinions over this digital medium. please don't let's any of us reduce this to sexism or racism. I won't atke your thoughtless remarks to heart, beacuse i'm keenly aware of the overall cause. ...that being said, "fighting fire with fire" is the prime onus of terrorism, and I'd like to think we're all above that. let's not become a beirut of the gender. or of the website, (joe) love and respect, T*R*A*M*P (Message edited by tramp on September 08, 2005) | ||
| Tramp |
incidentally, I'll be an hour north of your town again in couple weeks, "Bbuell". yoiu wanna take a ride and discuss this like sensitive, intelligent adults, I'm always up to meet another Bueller. Especially a californian bueller who has chops enough to stick with a 'meeting' plan  | ||
| Cochise |
"Bruce, what is your agenda here? If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. If people don't like confrontation, why do they keep pushing it? This used to be a good thread, now it is just a pushy BruceLee show." Hey, I am swapping data on the economics and policy aspects of oil and gas prices. People are free to read what I write or not. They are free to respond, either to agree or to refute. I am not attacking anyone personally, so I guess I am wondering what the issue is? If you don't like my posts and the information therein, don't read them. This thread is cleary titled and if one is not interested in the thread, one can refrain, just like any other thread. I like the thread, there are plenty of different viewpoints which are good, but it seems like you are pushing yourself around on everyone, but that is just me.} | ||
| Cochise |
I actually like this site, thanks  | ||
| Bustybuell |
"Bbuell" ??? shucks are you that shy ? I'll be riding but I think I'll pass on your ride. Read what was written before if ya don't understand well then, I think I'll pass. (Message edited by bustybuell on September 08, 2005) | ||
| Tramp |
you think anybody here really buys your story that you're female? coincidental timing, when you registered on bwb. that was the answer i expected from a guy, associated with another buell site, posing as a female, for trolling's sake. nice try, you took a shot  | ||
| Brucelee |
Tramp, You're making me laugh. Good stuff, keep it up! | ||
| Tramp |
Right on, Missah lee. trust me, some people have no clue how much they're giving away about themselves when they pull these ID stunts. the most basic tenets of profiling throw up huge red flags on an alleged female referring to "her"self as "busty", then using a silly, male-perspective soft-shot for a 'profile pic', with no buell or rider astride it pictured, then making inane generalisations regarding the 'other gender', etc. the best is the timing involved after a fray-petite on 'another buell site', involving one recent, and somewhat infamous badwebber. anyone with half an investigative aptitude would have predicted the emergence of "bustybueller", an attractive, zoftig, lobotomy-blonde who just happens to ride that specific stretch of hwy.... turns of phrase & consistent grammatical rythyms are the truly definitive earmarks of a troller...(drum roll) "in mufti! I'm here all week, try the veal, tip your waitress..... | ||
| Tramp |
actually, the chops are especially tender and milk-fed... tip al, your bartender good night, san luis obispo | ||
| Tramp |
I love working "The Cedar Room" on Thursdays... you've been a terrific audience, give yourselves a hand... .....out the exits...OH! | ||
| Brucelee |
Encore please! | ||
| CJXB |
Can everyone please get back to the topic at hand, sheesh it's getting deep in here !! CJ  | ||
| Brucelee |
Back to topic! Excerpt from today's Wall Street Journal "The refining industry is one of historically meager returns. So poor was business that the number of U.S. refineries has declined to 149 today from 325 in 1981, according to the petrochemical and refiners association. With no new refineries built since 1976, capacity for refining crude oil fell 10% to 16.8 million barrels a day from 18.6 million barrels over the same period. That squeezed supply. At the same time, demand began to rise, yielding higher margins and what some have called the industry's "Golden Age." Valero, for example, reported profit of $1.4 billion for the six months ended June 30, an increase of nearly 60% over the year-earlier period. Still, autumn had been expected to bring some signs of weakness. The hurricane hit just days before Labor Day, the traditional end to the summer driving season when gasoline demand begins to decline. Heating-oil supplies had climbed almost 5% higher than last year, leaving refiners in good shape for winter. But expectations of that period of weakness in the refining sector "have been wiped out" by the events on the Gulf Coast, Doug Leggate, an analyst for Citigroup, says in a dispatch this week. He adds that inventories took nearly a year to recover from Hurricane Ivan, which struck the Gulf of Mexico this time last year. "The extent of the damage from Katrina points to a recovery at least that long," he writes. Mr. Leggate recommends buying shares of Valero, Tesoro and Sunoco Inc. of Philadelphia. Other factors keeping pressure on prices next year, says Jacques Rousseau, an analyst at Friedman Billings: stricter environmental rules for diesel fuel in 2006 that could complicate pipeline deliveries, and a move away from the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether on the part of refiners, which is likely to shrink gasoline supplies. Mr. Rousseau has "buy" ratings on all of the refiners he covers, though his top picks are Valero and Frontier Oil Corp. of Houston. Hurricane Katrina cut off about two million barrels a day of crude-oil refining capacity, resulting in the loss of one million barrels a day of gasoline production -- or 10% of U.S. demand. While roughly half of the refinery capacity knocked out by Katrina began to come back on line this week, four refineries that together represent about 5% of U.S. oil-refining capacity will be out of commission for at least a month. The upshot: a sharp drop in the output of fuel and declining inventories of gasoline and heating oil, renewing upward pressure on prices. The Energy Department said gasoline inventories last week declined for the 10th consecutive week, dropping 4.3 million barrels to put supplies at the bottom of the average range. But stocks of distillate, which include heating oil and diesel, declined by 800,000 barrels, less than expected." | ||
| Brucelee |
You have to love the French for this idea. Notice there is no mention of LOWERING the pump tax to help lower the cost of gasoline to consumers, only an increase in taxes to "punish" oil companies for higher prices. I wonder if that tax extends to the OPEC nations, which of course it does not. So, if I am an oil company that can choose to sell crude to France or say, the US, where might I move my crude? Man, these guys in government defy logic! French Minister Weighs Tax on Oil Companies A WALL STREET JOURNAL NEWS ROUNDUP September 9, 2005 11:24 a.m. Adding to mounting pressure on big oil companies over the profits they are making amid sky-high gasoline prices, France's finance minister late Thursday said he was considering asking oil companies to lower their prices at the pump and imposing new taxes on them to ease the burden of surging prices. The French warning echoes rhetoric in the U.S. among some politicians who have called for investigations of possible price gouging and a cap on prices and profits. Oil prices have doubled over the past two years, pulling gas prices up as well. Hurricane Katrina, which shut down a chunk of U.S. oil production and refining capacity in her wake, has sent them even higher. In a television interview, Finance Minister Thierry Breton told France-2 television that he wanted to find ways to return to consumers the extra costs they have shelled out through rising gasoline prices. Gasoline is typically much more heavily taxed in Europe than in the U.S., making its price at European filling stations less sensitive to changes in crude-oil prices. But pump prices have still risen sharply, triggering consumer protests such as truck-driver blockades. "I expect concrete ideas because this does not involve small amounts of money," the finance minister said, adding that the government could envision "a reduction of prices at the pump." If the proposals don't match the public's expectations, Mr. Breton said: "We do not exclude the possibility of submitting to a [parliamentary] vote the principle of an exceptional tax corresponding to the exceptional profits," he said. Some Democratic lawmakers in Washington called Wednesday for legislation that would cap the amount a company can charge for gasoline in times of crisis like Katrina. Sen. Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, introduced legislation to create a windfall-profit tax on oil companies. Under the proposed legislation, profits earned by the major oil companies on crude oil above $40 a barrel would be subject to a 50% excise tax and the revenue would be rebated to consumers. Such proposals appear likely to fail in the Republican-controlled Senate, however. | ||
| Brucelee |
Saving money on the hybrid? Maybe not. See below! Hybrid Pricing Gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles typically are priced higher than non-hybrid counterparts—anywhere from a couple thousand dollars to several thousand dollars. For example, Honda's Civic Hybrid has a starting manufacturer's suggested retail price of just under $20,000 for a manual transmission version in the 2005 model year. A 2005 Civic LX gasoline sedan with manual transmission and many comparable features carries a starting MSRP that is some $4,000 less. True, the manual-transmission Civic Hybrid is rated at 45 mpg in city driving and 51 mpg on the highway, for a combined 48 mpg. This is 37 percent better than the combined rating of 35 mpg for the gas-powered LX model. But even if drivers maximize their fuel savings and get the full 13-mpg benefit in the Hybrid, they'd need about 16 years of 15,000-mile annual travel before the gasoline savings—estimated at $2.25 a gallon—would recoup the $4,300 extra they paid for the Hybrid over the Civic LX. On-road testing by Popular Mechanics magazine—comparing a Civic Hybrid with a higher-priced, uplevel Civic EX—showed a similar result. Magazine officials took the cars on a cross-country run and concluded the Hybrid saved about a penny a gallon in fuel costs. Thus, buyers of the Hybrid would need to travel 144,000 miles—about 9.5 years at the 15,000-mile-a-year national average rate—to recoup the approximately $2,000 price difference in these cars, Popular Mechanics said. A final note: Hybrids qualify for a one-time federal tax deduction of $1,500. But the impact on a person's bottom line tax bill is typically in the three-digit range, according to tax experts. Other Hybrid Issues Auto industry officials project hybrid vehicle prices will come down as the vehicles become more plentiful and there are greater economies of scale. Some states are studying whether drivers of hybrid vehicles can use carpool lanes when they travel solo. Virginia became the first state to allow this | ||
| M2me |
Brucelee, your hybrid pricing example actually proves my point. Why is government not doing all it can to encourage a technology that is 37% more energy efficient? I don't know where you stand on the "Peak Oil" theory. I think the evidence is clear. The days of Jed Clampett shooting at some 'coon and up comes bubbling crude are over! We shouldn't sit around and wait for free market capitalism to correct it. Free market capitalism will eventually correct it but the consequences to our economy, and even our national security, will likely be grave. We need a leader who says, "We will set a goal to reduce our oil usage by 5% before this decade is through!" Is this doable? Of course it is! Before you say that government shouldn't pick winners in energy, let me remind you of the Energy Bill. Government has already picked a winner and the winner is oil. Is that a good thing, long term, for the United States? | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Just to clear things up a little, the French plan is basically thus, If the oil companies, who are profiting hand over fist, don't take some kind of action to smooth the price of fuel out, they will be slapped with a windfall tax. The problem is that the prices go up when there's a peak in crude rates, but when crude falls back the prices don't follow, which is profiteering, & that's what the government here is trying to tapdance around. They have to be seen to be doing something about the problem, to stop the protests & blockades, (a national passtime here) while milking the situation for every tax euro they can get. By the way gas here is $6.50 -$7.00 a gal. I think twice before jumping in the Dodge! | ||
| Brucelee |
"Brucelee, your hybrid pricing example actually proves my point. Why is government not doing all it can to encourage a technology that is 37% more energy efficient?" Interesting wording! "The government doing all that it can" is not something I can respond to. What the government seems to be doing is saying, Look, this technology is "more efficient" than that technology but it takes maybe 10 years of driving for you to get to breakeven, so many of you will never go for it. (btw-that does NOT count the cost of the new batteries when the origs die). So, we will force the entire US to subsidize this particular technology with a tax credit. Therefore, the technology that is clearly not cost effective will LOOK cost effective. BTW-why not "subsidize" diesel technology? It is MORE EFFICIENT too! Answer- the greens don't like those dirty disels. "I don't know where you stand on the "Peak Oil" theory. I think the evidence is clear. The days of Jed Clampett shooting at some 'coon and up comes bubbling crude are over! We shouldn't sit around and wait for free market capitalism to correct it. Free market capitalism will eventually correct it but the consequences to our economy, and even our national security, will likely be grave." You and I differ on this conclusion. Free market capitalism will resolve this if left to do so. What HAS NOT worked is when the government decides what will work, and what won't. That has been tried in the Soviet Union, remember them? Hey, I am still happy about my solar home tax credit but don't see this "more efficient" technology having taken over the US Home building industry (this after 25 years of "progress."  "We need a leader who says, "We will set a goal to reduce our oil usage by 5% before this decade is through!" Is this doable? Of course it is!" In your opinion we do. In mine, we don't. We need a leader who says, what is in the way of individuals and corp driving new technologies and allowing the market to find its own solutions. Do you think that government policy would generate a 55 MPG sportsbike like the Buell? No Erik and CO did that. "Before you say that government shouldn't pick winners in energy, let me remind you of the Energy Bill. Government has already picked a winner and the winner is oil. Is that a good thing, long term, for the United States?" That is your interpretation of the energy bill not mine. Besides the usual pork that Congress distributes, I saw tax credits for hybrids, tax changes for oil industry. The tax changes might work, the tax credits will likely fail in the long run. As far as oil being the dominant source of motive energy, I see that as a given for a long time to come. However, as I said before, as prices move up and down, consumers and suppliers react and will ultimately decide. What the government COULD DO BTW is clear the way for the building of refineries, the drilling for oil and natural gas, the additional development of tree farms, the building of solar and wind stations, nuclear plant construction etc. etc. The market works, always has, always will! | ||
| Honu |
Anyone care to take a guess at what it costs to build a oil refinery and then maintain one? | ||
| Buelluk |
A recent purchase of a refining company came out at $10,000 per barrel of production. The minimum economic size for a refinery depending of course on configuration is 100,000 BPD, so we a talking about 1 billion for a small refinery, most of the larger refiners like to have refineries around the 240,000 BPD level, so now we are talking about close to 2.5 billion. The main disincentives on building new refineries are 1) nobody want's an oil refinery in their back yard ..except maybe in TX 2) the tortuos planning process 3) the environmental considerations ..you are looking at around three years for the state DEQ to even look at your plans. 4) the future market, we are currently in a " golden age of refining" ..but in five years that could be gone. | ||
| Honu |
Well said Buelluk, my point was the cost and upkeep of refineries vs say Walmart stores who just several years ago were posting profits higher than most oil refining companies. | ||
| Brucelee |
Couple of good posts guys, thanks for the info. No one really wants to hear about these issues like building the refinery in their town. Then of course, they bitch about the cost of gas etc. One of the things that is not obvious but consequential (IMHO) is that when these special interest groups block every energy related project (except their own favorites like wind and solar) they add costs and inconvenience for the entire American population. Preaching energy independence is fine with them, as long as it means doing it their way. Accessing our own energy sources and using Nuclear Power is simply off the table for them, so it must be for all of us. I think they call that Fascism! | ||
| Aesquire |
The history of human advancement is one of growing concentration of energy in the hands of the average citizen. From muscle to steam to internal combustion, life got better when you could have more focused & available power. Think of a steam powered lawn mower. Solar & wind do not have the "handiness" of Chemical power, since the energy is diffuse, & needs to be concentrated & usually converted from one form to another. This is not to say these "alternative" energy forms are useless, just that I doubt the 2012 Buell Cyclone will be wind driven. Wind generators would be a great add on to existing systems, I suggest one on top of each major electric transmission tower, where the winds make economic sense. ( I'm thinking of North Dakota blizzards, where a bit more power would be nice, for example ) When solar shingles come down in price enough, I'll buy them. Since the NIMBY attitude is rampant, if understandable, do not expect wind, solar or tidal energy schemes to happen anywhere near where rich people live. Wind mills off Cape Cod? HA! Tide machines near the Kennedy ( or Bush to be fair ) beach mansions? Dream on, utopian idealists. Note that for the price of hurricane Katrina's reconstruction, we could build solar power satellites that would ease our need for that "furrin oil". True, years would pass before sat power would cover 1/2 the worlds needs, but the infrastucture needed to make power sats would be useful on it's own. I'm not saying to skimp on the Gulf states reconstruction, I'm saying we should make the effort to really exploit the universe. If we miss the window of opportunity to use our riches to invest in the future before the politicians take them as taxes, we will die as a species on a cold & crowded Earth. ( or maybe "Soylent Green" hot & crowded. ) Not to offend those who's religion forbids Nuclear power, but show me a commercial nuke plant in the U.S. that was designed after I was born. We can do much better now. How about a Federal over ride on bans on offshore drilling places like Florida & California? Would that make a difference in short term energy supplies? ( Long term we need Nuclear & Fusion, since as we all know, the world will be out of fossil fuels in 20 years. ooops!, that figure is from 1973, sorry. ) | ||
| Brucelee |
Aesquire Very eloquent. I could not agree more. Bring on innovation, get the govt out of the way! |
