Bush said "America is addicted to oil!"

[[email protected]]

MichaelB wrote in part:

> oil is worth a lot of money!

You aint seen nothin yet.

> Basically, if I was someone who was hoping for the world to run out of
> oil at the $60 a barrel mark then I'd die unforfilled. I'm 25.

The question is not when does the oil run
out but when does the oil start to run out.
That is, when have we extracted roughly
half the oil. After that point the remaining
oil is harder and harder to get. Global
production will decline from that point, and
unless global demand declines along with
it the price of oil will rise. At the current rate
we produce an all time high and still can
not meet demand, which is growing. But it
seems likely we will encounter a situation
of declining production coupled with rising
demand and will have to get used to triple
digit barrels sooner than later.

This is not necessarily bad for oil companies.

R

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> The Wogster <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Here is an option, suppose you added a gas guzzler tax, you take the
>> >most efficient model of all makes, and state that, that car pays no
>> >guzzler tax, for every MPG less then that car, you tack on $1000 in
>> >guzzler tax. So, if the maximum MPG is 55, and you are buying an SUV
>> >that gets 15MPG, that adds on $40,000 in guzzler tax. First of all, the
>> >car companies would be tripping over their own tires trying to be the
>> >manufacturer of the no guzzler tax car.
>>
>> ... thereby killing the American auto industry overnight. You'd also
>> be putting large families into a very difficult situation (after all,
>> there ARE families that do need seven plus passenger seating).
>
>Overpopulation is destroying the quality of life on this planet. Why
>should we subsidize over-breeding?

The American family isn't the problem. Take away immigration and IIRC
we're actually in a decreasing mode (something similar is happening in
most first world countries). Perhaps you should talk to those in
India (where very few of 'em drive large SUVs).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>MichaelB wrote in part:
>
>> oil is worth a lot of money!
>
>You aint seen nothin yet.
>
>> Basically, if I was someone who was hoping for the world to run out of
>> oil at the $60 a barrel mark then I'd die unforfilled. I'm 25.
>
>The question is not when does the oil run
>out but when does the oil start to run out.
>That is, when have we extracted roughly
>half the oil. After that point the remaining
>oil is harder and harder to get. Global
>production will decline from that point, and
>unless global demand declines along with
>it the price of oil will rise.

.... which will moderate the demand for oil.

FWIW, if you drive across Texas, you'll see an awfully high percentage
of the drills shut down (not pumping). That's because the
profitability of the wells is determined by the price of crude. As
the price goes up, the wells come back on line (and the supply
increases, moderating the price again).

The real limitation to our current oil supply is lack of refinery
capacity. The recent hurricanes took a few major refineries off line,
causing much more disruption than any perceived lack of crude (which
as far as I know didn't actually affect the supply to the consumer).

One of the contributing factors is that most states have legislated
special blends of fuel - meaning that excess capacity from one
refinery can't legally be sold in another state that is experiencing a
shortage. Seems like a bad idea on the surface...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[The Wogster]

[email protected] wrote:
> Irans going to switch to the Euro with the Iranian oil bourse in March
> http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=9752
> , if this takes place China and Russia may stop using american dollars to
> buy oil further crashing our economy, At the current Euro american exchange
> rate america could have another depression quickly, so they will stop Iran
> at any cost even pre emptive war. Hmmm I wonder if China will sit by after
> signing a 20 billion dollar gas deal with
> Iran?http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/19/content_316354.htm.
> Saddam Hussein switched to the euro for it's oil sales right before we went
> their.

Ah yes, still the United States uses 25% of all of the oil pumped, what
happens to a market if nearly 25% of the sales evaporate over a short
period of time..... Simple, prices drop like a rock, new Railcar and
rail manufacturing, mean that you get a large domestic need for
manufacturing.. The economy would survive, simply from the new building
needed.

Realistically, America should have realised when the Euro was invented,
that the days of the Petrodollar were numbered, and should have prepared
for that fact. How long do you think the IPE will remain dollar based,
at some point, it will probably adopt the Euro as well, and then the
United States dollar will probably collapse. The solution will probably
be a new Americas currency similar to the Euro, where Canada, Mexico and
most Central and South American countries are likely to adopt it.

W

 

[gooserider]

"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> gooserider wrote:
>> "Wayne Pein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>No. My point is that the vast majority of vehicles are overpowered.
>>>
>>>Wayne
>
>> A big SUV is NOT overpowered. It's just a big SUV.
>
> I agree with Wayne. One of our vehicles is a Hyundai Santa Fe, which
> weights like 3000 lbs or something (it's physically small but somewhat on
> the heavy side) and it has a 4 cylinder that's perfectly adequate, even in
> Colorado (we get about 25mpg out of it).
>
> Of course, the next year they stopped selling the 4 cylinder model because
> customers much preferred the 6 cylinder. Fools.
>
> Rich
>
> P.S. Our other vehicle is a 98 honda civic that gets between 35 and 40
> mpg.

That's fine, but a Santa Fe doesn't weigh what a Suburban does, and doesn't
need to do what a Suburban is supposedly designed to do. I see that GM is
designing V8 engines which will run on 4 cylinders when cruising. That's
great. The vehicle will need horsepower to pull trailers and boats and such.
There is a place for them, it's just not to shuttle soccer kids around.

 

[gooserider]

"Wayne Pein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Lo9Ff.7715$%[email protected]...
> gooserider wrote:
>
>> A big SUV is NOT overpowered. It's just a big SUV.
>
> I beg to differ. The power could be reduced and it would still be able to
> function fine, as would most cars.
>
> Wayne

Could it pull a boat or horse trailer with less horsepower? I don't like the
big SUV, but I understand they are designed with a specific purpose in mind.
Same for big pickups. They are not being bought for that purpose, but some
people still need the capability. Decontenting them to make them less
attractive to soccer moms would be a help. Strip out the leather, the
carpet, the DVD.

 

[Mike Latondresse]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>>
>>Where the hell is Ralph Nader when you need him.
>
> Ralph Nader is one of the reasons we're in this particuar
situation.
> Detroit actually built a '60's car that was light, efficient and
> sporty - very Yurrupean actually.
>
> Nader killed it, and with it died Detroit's willingness to take a
> chance. It wasn't a perfect car, but its "flaws" were blown far,
far
> out of proportion.
>
> Yes, it's more complex than that, but the US auto universe would be
a
> lot better today had the Corvair not been demonized. IMHO of
course.
>
Jeeze, do we now have to put smileys everywhere

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Mike Latondresse <mikelat@no_spam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >[email protected] wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
> >
> >> I agree. However, when our newspaper carried the article on that
> >> recent study, it wasn't exactly on the front page. I think it's
> >> going to be hard to counter the multi-million dollar TV ads
> >> showing "Look! It's huge! It has airbags! And here's a
> >> prosperous and stylish mommy belting her baby into one! Why, it
> >> _must_ be safer!"
> >>
> >> The free market isn't going to correct this misconception.
> >
> >Where the hell is Ralph Nader when you need him.
>
> Ralph Nader is one of the reasons we're in this particuar situation.
> Detroit actually built a '60's car that was light, efficient and
> sporty - very Yurrupean actually.
>
> Nader killed it, and with it died Detroit's willingness to take a
> chance. It wasn't a perfect car, but its "flaws" were blown far, far
> out of proportion.
>
> Yes, it's more complex than that, but the US auto universe would be a
> lot better today had the Corvair not been demonized. IMHO of course.

I know "me too" responses are considered bad form. But when I
agree this thoroughly with Mark, I think I've got a moral obligation to
say so!

Good post, Mark.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Alex Potter]

gooserider wrote on Saturday 04 February 2006 23:40:

> . Decontenting them to make them less
> attractive to soccer moms would be a help. Strip out the leather, the
> carpet, the DVD.
There were once just such vehicles, manufactured both in the United
States and Europe. They were the *****'s Jeep and the Land Rover. Both
would easily pull boats and horse trailers (not to mention small
artillery pieces) and were difficult to get really stuck off-road.
--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid

 

[Rich]

gooserider wrote:
> "Wayne Pein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:Lo9Ff.7715$%[email protected]...
>
>>gooserider wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A big SUV is NOT overpowered. It's just a big SUV.
>>
>>I beg to differ. The power could be reduced and it would still be able to
>>function fine, as would most cars.
>>
>>Wayne
>
>
> Could it pull a boat or horse trailer with less horsepower?

Only a very small percentage of SUV buyers are actually going to pull a
trailer. So the vast majority of the SUVs on the road could get by with
far less horsepower.

 

[n5hsr]

"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> It's too late. The global production peak is near.
>
> As always, it's just around the corner...
>
>> 'Conservation' at this point--too little too late.
>
> So we should just all drink the cool-aid?
>
> Rich

Some have already drunk the Kool-Aid.

Charles of Schaumburg

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> The real limitation to our current oil supply is lack of refinery
> capacity.

Refining capacity affects the supply and price of
gasoline and other light products of crude oil
but does not affect the supply of oil or its
price.

Robert

 

[n5hsr]

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Latondresse <mikelat@no_spam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> I agree. However, when our newspaper carried the article on that
>>> recent study, it wasn't exactly on the front page. I think it's
>>> going to be hard to counter the multi-million dollar TV ads
>>> showing "Look! It's huge! It has airbags! And here's a
>>> prosperous and stylish mommy belting her baby into one! Why, it
>>> _must_ be safer!"
>>>
>>> The free market isn't going to correct this misconception.
>>
>>Where the hell is Ralph Nader when you need him.
>
> Ralph Nader is one of the reasons we're in this particuar situation.
> Detroit actually built a '60's car that was light, efficient and
> sporty - very Yurrupean actually.
>
> Nader killed it, and with it died Detroit's willingness to take a
> chance. It wasn't a perfect car, but its "flaws" were blown far, far
> out of proportion.
>
> Yes, it's more complex than that, but the US auto universe would be a
> lot better today had the Corvair not been demonized. IMHO of course.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

I took my driver's test on a '62 Corvair. Had GM kept up with a little R&D
.. . . .

Charles of Schaumburg

 

[Rich]

gooserider wrote:
> "Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>gooserider wrote:
>>
>>>"Wayne Pein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>No. My point is that the vast majority of vehicles are overpowered.
>>>>
>>>>Wayne
>>
>>>A big SUV is NOT overpowered. It's just a big SUV.
>>
>>I agree with Wayne. One of our vehicles is a Hyundai Santa Fe, which
>>weights like 3000 lbs or something (it's physically small but somewhat on
>>the heavy side) and it has a 4 cylinder that's perfectly adequate, even in
>>Colorado (we get about 25mpg out of it).
>>
>>Of course, the next year they stopped selling the 4 cylinder model because
>>customers much preferred the 6 cylinder. Fools.

> That's fine, but a Santa Fe doesn't weigh what a Suburban does

The point is that the vast majority of vehicles are overpowered.

 

[Rich]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Ralph Nader is one of the reasons we're in this particuar situation.
> Detroit actually built a '60's car that was light, efficient and
> sporty - very Yurrupean actually.
>
> Nader killed it, and with it died Detroit's willingness to take a
> chance. It wasn't a perfect car, but its "flaws" were blown far, far
> out of proportion.
>
> Yes, it's more complex than that, but the US auto universe would be a
> lot better today had the Corvair not been demonized. IMHO of course.

Unlikely. THe US auto industry has made plenty of small sporty cars.
Americans just aren't that interested.

 

[n5hsr]

"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>> gooserider wrote:
>> > Of course that would help. 26mpg isn't enough. 30 would be better.
>> > Slapping
>> > a big gas guzzler tax on any vehicle that gets less than 30 would, too.
>> > The
>> > auto industry would be forced to innovate or die, and I believe they
>> > would
>> > innovate. I have no doubts that the technology to drastically improve
>> > gas
>> > mileage already exists, but has been kept under wraps because it's not
>> > viewed as being profitable.
>> >
>>
>> No technology is needed at all. They could and should simply depower the
>> engines. Most vehicles are way overpowered. Besides, few people use it
>> when the need it.
>>
>> We own a Scion xB. 107 hp. It has more than enough pep (it's light) for
>> any situation. Most times when merging onto a freeway from a ramp for
>> example, when I want to accelerate to freeway speed before actually
>> merging in, often I'm stuck behind someone with a much more powerful and
>> faster vehicle who is doing 50 mph and too stoopid to press the gas.
>
> Don't follow other vehicles so closely on on-ramps.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman
>

Sometimes in Chicago you don't get much choice. . . .

There are two kind of drivers in Chicago: The Quick and The Dead. The
Dead are usually driving Buicks . . . .

Charles of Schaumburg

 

[n5hsr]

"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> gooserider wrote:
>> "Wayne Pein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>No. My point is that the vast majority of vehicles are overpowered.
>>>
>>>Wayne
>
>> A big SUV is NOT overpowered. It's just a big SUV.
>
> I agree with Wayne. One of our vehicles is a Hyundai Santa Fe, which
> weights like 3000 lbs or something (it's physically small but somewhat on
> the heavy side) and it has a 4 cylinder that's perfectly adequate, even in
> Colorado (we get about 25mpg out of it).
>
> Of course, the next year they stopped selling the 4 cylinder model because
> customers much preferred the 6 cylinder. Fools.
>
> Rich
>
> P.S. Our other vehicle is a 98 honda civic that gets between 35 and 40
> mpg.
>

My Corolla gets over 30 on the highway at 75-80 average speed. Our Previa
gets 20-22 and weighs almost 4200 lbs empty, and it only has the 4 cylinder
engine. Also hauls 7 people or a lot of cargo and has done a bit of both
over its life.

Charles of Schaumburg

 

[The Wogster]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> The Wogster <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Here is an option, suppose you added a gas guzzler tax, you take the
>>most efficient model of all makes, and state that, that car pays no
>>guzzler tax, for every MPG less then that car, you tack on $1000 in
>>guzzler tax. So, if the maximum MPG is 55, and you are buying an SUV
>>that gets 15MPG, that adds on $40,000 in guzzler tax. First of all, the
>>car companies would be tripping over their own tires trying to be the
>>manufacturer of the no guzzler tax car.
>
>
> ... thereby killing the American auto industry overnight. You'd also
> be putting large families into a very difficult situation (after all,
> there ARE families that do need seven plus passenger seating).

The gas guzzler tax, is two fold, first it forces the car companies to
innovate, find ways to make larger vahicles, that are more efficient (
the modern automobile only converts about 10% of the energy in, to
actual locomotive power ).

Second, those who are most responsible for pollution and greenhouse gas
emittions, get to pay the cost of that pollution and those emissions.

As for large families, nobody puts a gun to a couples heads, and says
you must have 5 or more children....

> There really should be an adjustment to the CAFE standards, IMHO - but
> the previous incarnation (almost a pun...) was flawed. I don't know
> the right approach, and apparently Washington DC doesn't either. Or
> at least the auto lobby is keeping it from happening.

Innovation is expensive, it's cheaper to make a donation to a group of
politicians favourite charities (their re-election campaign), to get
them to vote for weak standards. Rather then come up with standards
that work.

Mind you, gasoline prices are headed up, waaaaaaaay up. For example
right now oil runs about $66/bbl and gasoline is around $2.34 (from
gasbuddy.com), in the summer they expect oil at around $100/bbl which
would result in a price of $3.55/Gallon still not that unreasonable.
Now suppose instead that you need to buy oil from a Euro trader, so
instead your looking at €83.20/bbl and the US$ (currently worth
€0.831945) is dropping like a rock, because it no longer has Petro$
holding it at an inflated value (heck it's dropping now, even with
petro$ holding it up, 6 years ago it was worth €1.00 it's dropping
against the GBP and the CA$ as well. Good news, it's holding against
the Bolivian Boliviano, but that's currently dependant on how President
Morales deals with Bolivias home grown oil supply.

Like I said, if President Bush was really interested in stopping
terrorism, he would immediately start moving the USA away from
dependance on foreign oil. If that means that General Motors needs to
build electric Locomotives, and Ford needs to building rail cars, and
Chrysler needs to build bicycles, then so be it.

W

 

[gooserider]

"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> gooserider wrote:
>> "Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>gooserider wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Wayne Pein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>No. My point is that the vast majority of vehicles are overpowered.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wayne
>>>
>>>>A big SUV is NOT overpowered. It's just a big SUV.
>>>
>>>I agree with Wayne. One of our vehicles is a Hyundai Santa Fe, which
>>>weights like 3000 lbs or something (it's physically small but somewhat on
>>>the heavy side) and it has a 4 cylinder that's perfectly adequate, even
>>>in Colorado (we get about 25mpg out of it).
>>>
>>>Of course, the next year they stopped selling the 4 cylinder model
>>>because customers much preferred the 6 cylinder. Fools.
>
>> That's fine, but a Santa Fe doesn't weigh what a Suburban does
>
> The point is that the vast majority of vehicles are overpowered.

Power has very little to do with fuel economy. Weight does. There are plenty
of 4 cylinder cars with BLISTERING performance and a lot of power that get
good gas mileage. Subaru WRX, Dodge Neon SRT-4, Mitsubishi EVO, Toyota
Celica, Honda Accord V6, Nissan Maxima, etc. Too many vehicles are too BIG.

 

[gooserider]

"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> gooserider wrote:
>> "Wayne Pein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:Lo9Ff.7715$%[email protected]...
>>
>>>gooserider wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>A big SUV is NOT overpowered. It's just a big SUV.
>>>
>>>I beg to differ. The power could be reduced and it would still be able to
>>>function fine, as would most cars.
>>>
>>>Wayne
>>
>>
>> Could it pull a boat or horse trailer with less horsepower?
>
> Only a very small percentage of SUV buyers are actually going to pull a
> trailer. So the vast majority of the SUVs on the road could get by with
> far less horsepower.

No. They have to strip out the WEIGHT and SIZE before they can lose
horsepower. They are too big. People are buying vehicles that are larger
than they need. It's not a horsepower issue---it's a weight issue. 300HP in
a Mustang is going to get higher MPG than 300HP in a Suburban. It's a weight
issue.