Gasoline Prices

[klott]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Ken, you seem upset today.

You know I blame the government for most of our problems but remember we are the ones that keep reelecting them. How smart is that?

Sorry, it was a bad day.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by klott

Sorry, it was a bad day.

No problem. I was a little uptight yesterday myself.

Hope your weekend goes better.

I'm off to some family "fun" a few hours away.

Wife's side reunion.

[klott]

Originally Posted by mlarson

No problem. I was a little uptight yesterday myself.

Hope your weekend goes better.

I'm off to some family "fun" a few hours away.

Wife's side reunion.

You have my condolences! Have a good one.

[Kevin Davis]

Originally Posted by ecrofutt

I thought the statement that everyone on earth would fit in a 60 mile circle a bit of el toro poo poo.

BUT: (okay, I don't do circles) but I CAN calculate a 60 mile by 60 mile rectangle.

5280 Length of a square mile
5280 Width of a square mile
27,878,400 Square Feet Per Square Mile
60 Miles Long
60 Miles Wide
3,600 # Square Miles in a 60 mile X 60 mile box
100,362,240,000 # Square Feet in a 60 mile X 60 mile box
3 Divided by 3 square feet per person
33,454,080,000 # people that would fit the 60x60 box
6,708,700,100 Earth's Population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

That'll be an interesting conversational tidbit of useless information.

At three square feet per person, everyone in the world would fit in the triangle formed between Louisville, KY - Lexington, KY - Cincinnati, OH.

Sure as hell would be crowded though.

Dang, can't insert tables. Not spaced good but you get the idea.

The only problem with saying we can all fit in a box , your forgetting the two sory house with the half acre lot the 2-3 cars parked in the driveway , the land its gonna take to feed and grow materials, and the biiggest part a place for wal mart walgreens and quiktrip to set up shop. Now im not disagreeing with you or saying that your mathmatical equation is wrong ,just putting my slant on it. I dont know all the facts but is China known for being overpopulated .

[Kevin Davis]

aftere doing some research us here in the states have a ways to go but they are a bigger country , so if you use a theory on how we can all fit into small spaces then take a look over there , they have four times the population of us but more space and still very much overpopulated .

[Steven R. Butts]

Originally Posted by rmaday

There is so much wrong with the above I don't know where to start.

Richard, I couldn't agree more. If we took that stance the U.S. would suffer the most and how long do you think it would take for someone to decide that if we won't sell it to them , then we will take it from them? Look what happened when Russia was considering cutting off or significantly increasing prices for natural gas supplies to parts of Europe. There was a brief period where that 3-letter word was mentioned as a response. Time for us to start thinking outside of the oil 'box' a little more seriously.

[klott]

Steven, you are taking what I said totally out of context, I did not say Canada should stop selling oil to the U.S. or anyone else, They have plenty enough to take care of Canada first, which they should, then sell what's left. The point I was trying to make is, the high prices Canadians pay, has or should not be because of supply and demand, and it should be cheaper because they don't have to import it on ships from 1/2 way around the globe, and 3rd, you should not have to pay such a large amount on fuel tax. Most importantly, there is no reason why anything that happens in the Middle East should affect Canada's prices, because unlike the U.S., they should not have Canada over a barrel.

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by klott

Steven, you are taking what I said totally out of context, I did not say Canada should stop selling oil to the U.S. or anyone else, They have plenty enough to take care of Canada first, which they should, then sell what's left.

I think they do (take care of themselves first), but I'm not Canadian. They do sell "what's left" but why should they sell it to us for less than the going rate (as dictated by supply and demand)?

Originally Posted by klott

The point I was trying to make is, the high prices Canadians pay, has or should not be because of supply and demand, and it should be cheaper because they don't have to import it on ships from 1/2 way around the globe, and 3rd, you should not have to pay such a large amount on fuel tax.

Yes, it is supply and demand. A basic economic law.
It may be a bit cheaper because of the lack of a need for transport, but the oil is a commodity, like gold, silver, coal, etc. and the price is set by world markets. Before you respond with your OPEC countries charging so little to their own, remeber those are state run organizations, not private for profit enteprises.

As for taxes, that is a very complicated matter and "too much" tax on one item probably results in "too little" tax on others. It is all up to the elected govn't to determine.

Oh, yeah and "free" heathcare too!

Originally Posted by klott

Most importantly, there is no reason why anything that happens in the Middle East should affect Canada's prices, because unlike the U.S., they should not have Canada over a barrel.

Canada, I believe, does not have a state run oil industry. If the going rate for oil is $140bbl, why should (would) any for profit company sell it for less? I would be furious if I was a stockholder in any company who did that.

Mike earlier offered to pay you $10 for an inspection - how is that different when the "going rate" is much higher?


</IMG></IMG>

[klott]

I never said they should sell it to us for less. Nevermind, you don't understand my point.

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by klott

I never said they should sell it to us for less. Nevermind, you don't understand my point.

So, you think it should be cheaper for the Canadians only?

[Steven R. Butts]

Originally Posted by klott

Steven, you are taking what I said totally out of context, I did not say Canada should stop selling oil to the U.S. or anyone else, They have plenty enough to take care of Canada first, which they should, then sell what's left. The point I was trying to make is, the high prices Canadians pay, has or should not be because of supply and demand, and it should be cheaper because they don't have to import it on ships from 1/2 way around the globe, and 3rd, you should not have to pay such a large amount on fuel tax. Most importantly, there is no reason why anything that happens in the Middle East should affect Canada's prices, because unlike the U.S., they should not have Canada over a barrel.

That's a good point Ken. I wonder if we do get all of our needs from our own resources? I believe we do have enough to satisfy both our and the US's current needs for awhile, but I also believe we are glutonous when it comes to our use and we need to realize this before we all end up in a situation none of us want. I firmly believe the only reason prices are so high is because of well planned trading and the only ones who benefit are the stockholders, the majority of which is held by oil company execs. I am opting for smaller engines and more bike riding (in the summer) for the time being. I also buy more locally grown produce and we have added a small garden at home to help curb the use of fuel to bring us things we can get here. Maybe less demand will help stabilize prices at the very least. If prices drop too much I think we will be in for a long term roller coaster ride on prices.

[Steven R. Butts]

Originally Posted by rmaday

So, you think it should be cheaper for the Canadians only?

I'll vote for that one

[Steven R. Butts]

Originally Posted by rmaday

Oh, yeah and "free" heathcare too!

</IMG></IMG>

We prefer to call it 'universal health care'...helps us forget it's not free.

[Michael Larson]

Answer To Energy Is 'All Of The Above'
By ADAM PUTNAM | Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Watching Democrat leaders in Washington respond to skyrocketing gas prices has been nothing short of a tutorial on the five stages of grief.

Weeks of conspicuous silence (denial).

Lashing out at the oil companies, the White House, the markets, the oil companies again (anger).

Repeated pronouncements that prices would stabilize at one point or another in the not-too-distant future (bargaining).

The long faces trying to explain away their failure to pass a single energy bill that creates energy (depression).

Sen. Barack Obama topped it all off by saying he had hoped the rise in gas prices would have been a "gradual adjustment" so American families could adapt to the reality of four-buck gasoline. Acceptance.

More

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Answer To Energy Is 'All Of The Above'
By ADAM PUTNAM | Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Watching Democrat leaders in Washington respond to skyrocketing gas prices has been nothing short of a tutorial on the five stages of grief.

Weeks of conspicuous silence (denial).

Lashing out at the oil companies, the White House, the markets, the oil companies again (anger).

Repeated pronouncements that prices would stabilize at one point or another in the not-too-distant future (bargaining).

The long faces trying to explain away their failure to pass a single energy bill that creates energy (depression).

Sen. Barack Obama topped it all off by saying he had hoped the rise in gas prices would have been a "gradual adjustment" so American families could adapt to the reality of four-buck gasoline. Acceptance.

More

Hohum!