Why is Diesel Fuel Higher Priced Than Gasoline? [Archive]

More Power

06-05-2008, 10:56

The Diesel Page - Editorial - June 2008
Why is Diesel Fuel Higher Priced Than Gasoline? (http://www.thedieselpage.com/dieselprices.htm)
Energy Independence & Affordable Diesel Fuel

This editorial is the result of a conversation we were having in our bulletin board about exporting diesel fuel and high diesel fuel prices, which motivated me to dig deeper into our energy policies and use of petroleum. What I learned is that time is running out.

Becoming energy independent is vital to the future of the country. How much oil are we using? How much is the world using? How much are we paying for imported oil, and how long can we continue to pay? Do we have enough domestic energy resources to supply our needs?

This piece catalogs what oil and unconventional oil sources currently exist here in the U.S. Do we have the will to become energy independent? In the end, it's all up to you.

93GMCSierra

06-05-2008, 14:13

I think this is or atleast should be a priority for everyone.

AKMark

06-05-2008, 20:04

That's one of the greatest articles I've read in awhile on this subject.

moondoggie

06-07-2008, 06:09

Good Day!

Is there any way I can share this with my non-DP friends? Can we buy copies?

I'm not in full agreement with every word, but this is very thought-provoking; I have friends that would profit from reading it.

Blessings!

john8662

06-07-2008, 09:33

The article is not passworded, not that I have permission to distribute it. I'm sure it can be linked to. If it were private, it would have been passworded.

I'd like to send a link to it to several influential people myself.

I think the most staggering fact to me that I hadn't considered is simply that our Diesel is being exported and sold for more $ or for a stronger money than the dollar. Thanks to ULSD and unanticipated trade and/or regulation problem. This, should be stopped, as mentioned, the people should get to say where oil pumped off U.S. public/federal lands goes...

Well done Jim!

DmaxMaverick

06-07-2008, 10:47

Linking to the page is allowed. It's the copy/paste without proper copyright acknowledgments and page location that pose a problem.

More Power

06-07-2008, 12:27

This is the first time I've deviated from just truck stuff to policy. Please feel free to get the word out, if you feel the info in that piece is worthwhile.

For what it's worth, the most often mentioned objection is the "world-market" vs "US market" angle pushed in the editorial. Till I did the research I was a totally open trade guy. Now, I am for everything except energy. I honestly don't know how we can become energy independent if we export it. It's a finite resource that will eventually disappear. Being tied to world-market energy will use up what we have at an alarming rate and its world-market cost will drastically change our future. If there's a world-market solution, I'd like to hear it. Perhaps that's what the catastrophic global warming movement and the Lieberman-Warner "cap and trade" bill is all about - i.e. make everyone poorer....

Jim

ronniejoe

06-07-2008, 23:44

It's interesting that the new emissions control requirements have negatively impacted fuel economy.

As for the oil from public lands... Who paid for the exploration? Who paid for the development? Who paid for the extraction? Who paid (or pays) for the production? Do the taxpayers pay any of those costs?

Most of the industrial use of public lands has some form of lease or licensing arrangement. Therefore, the private companies that bear all the costs of production also have to bear the cost of the licensing fees and lease payments. It seems to me that this ought to allow them to sell the oil to whomever they wish for the best price they can get. That is, afterall, capitalism.

If you want to see supplies dwindle and prices skyrocket even further, get the goverment involved in regulating this. You will long for the days when Diesel was only $4.509/gal!

This is hugely political. It matters how you vote. This article does serve to increase education on the subject which will help to create informed voters. I simply disagree with the notion that the government should be able to tell private industry who they can have as customers. Should the government be able to tell The Diesel Page who it can have as members (customers)?

The next logical extension of this suggested policy is to nationalize (socialize) the oil companies as our good friend Hugo Chavez did and as the Hon. Rep. Maxine Waters (D) California admitted that she wants to do. http://rightc0ast.livejournal.com/#item64419

More Power

06-08-2008, 00:55

Every President since at least Nixon has campaigned, in part, on "Energy Independence". Google "energy independence" and Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George Bush. Yet, we continue to move farther away from independence. John McCain, just in the past couple of days said it was "absolutely vital to the future of the country" that we become energy independent. I completely agree, but in my opinion, it's not possible with our current energy export policy.

At some point, people will have to decide if the economic future of the country is more important than our current energy export policy. That's why I said in the editorial that "we may need to hit a rough patch" before the tough decisions are made. If The Diesel Page was as important, I (we) would do whatever it took.

These are just my opinions. That's what an editorial is. I don't hold it against anyone for having another opinion or if they present a different solution to out of control energy costs. In fact, I encourage them. ;)

Jim

PS - A pleasant sounding woman from a Washington DC research group called me early last week to discuss a variety of diesel related subjects. One of the issues was the "future of diesel". Again, it was just my opinion, but I said if the cost trend in diesel fuel continued, diesel engines would likely return to what they were originally designed to do - move freight, move earth, do the heavy lifting, and any new consumer-oriented light-duty diesels would likely appear as hybrids (diesel/electric).

Robyn

06-08-2008, 08:41

IMHO
The biggest threat to our energy independence is and always has been the special interest envirofreeks that insist on iron clad rules that forbid,eliminate and hamper any and all new refineries,exploration and production.

Talk is cheap, we cant become independent by chatting about far fetched fuel cell goodies that take more energy to produce that they give back.
We can't use food crops to produce a fuel (alcohol) that is sorely lacking in BTU's and that continues to drive food prices up.

We can have energy independence or tree huggers.
Untill people are willing to come together and sit down and decide to do the responsible things like produce energy products and do it as safely as we can we are going to see just what we have now.

Building refineries is a responsible thing. The oil companies would build a buttload of them if they could get the go ahead.

Drilling into proven resources is the right thing to do.
Spending huge quanitities of gum bumping on telling folks about alternative energy sources and conservation is about as useless as it gets.

This nation runs on energy. Conservation is basically saying, cut back, dont produce, dont work, dont grow and dont stay a viable vibrant nation.

Just lay down and die.

There are ways to make a given amount of fuel go farther and to extract more useful energy from that amount.

Remember when diesel trucks (big ones) spewed a column of coal black smoke up the stack every time the driver go his/her foot on the loud pedal.

Trucks today are clean. Rarely do you ever see anything come out the top.

The new crop of heavy diesel engines are starting to go backwards now as far as reliability. The new emissions laws have finally caused the technology to reach a point of collapse.

Too many goodies to fail and too many costly parts that are just not able to stand the "long haul"

Need a new Cat converter for a big truck?? About a Grand $1000 or more.

New engine deisgns are far more prone to failure. Some of the issues will be worked through and fixed but just as we gain firm footing again the enviro freeks will demand even more and the process will start over again.

Energy independence is great, but dependability of the equipment that uses the energy is of greater importance.

If America is going to roll along on equipment powered by efficient technology then it had better be dependable technology as well.

As far as Im concerned we reached the zenith of the tech race a few years ago and now its just a waste of $$$$ to try and go farther to get the last tid bit.

Its like the coal company that has played out the mine and then decides to do a "retreat" to get the last few tons of product but at the expense of safety. (Crandall Canyon)

We have acheived very good economy with diesel technology but now we are doing the "retreat" and trying to get that last little tid bit and the cost is the terrible burden to the end user.

The reason for this is greed on the part of the envirofreeks.
Give these people an inch and they will take a mile.

Throttle these folks a little and get things back to a point of equalibrium and you will see fuel prices drop and things stabilize.

There cant be any one group or issue that is allowed to be in total control, there has to be a happy medium between enviroment and survival of our nation.

We can have the cleanest air on the planet but if the country goes broke to acheive this then its of absolutely ZERO value.

Responsible stuardship of our enviroment is of great value but not to the point of excess.

Just like leaving all the dead fall in the forest and restricting access so that when the fire that will inevitably come happens, the whole pristine forest is lost.

Moderation is the key word to success.
We can have dictatorial environmental contol and with this comes an energy dependant nation.

We can have responsible controls, new refineries and new oil fields and be independant.

None of this is rocket science and only takes a little common sense, (sorely lacking unfortunately) to get things moving in the right direction.

Many of the problems could be solved within a year or two simply by allowing the folks that produce energy related products to do what they know how to do.

But as always these days its, " Not in my back yard" :rolleyes:

Down off soap box :D

best to all

Robyn

moondoggie

06-09-2008, 15:19

Good Day!

"I'm sure it can be linked to." Isn't this a member forum? If so, wouldn't that mean only a member could open such a link?

I sure wish I had time to reply to this. This is clearly a massively-researched editorial, but what appears to be missing is an analysis of the effect of unintended consequences, which I think would be significant.

Blessings!
(signature in previous post)

DmaxMaverick

06-09-2008, 15:32

Not all Member's Area articles are password protected. Several articles are available for public viewing.

More Power

06-10-2008, 16:29

"I'm sure it can be linked to."

Sure it can. Do a google search for the keywords:

energy independence diesel fuel export

energy independence coal export

energy independence diesel fuel prices

;)

I've recently added some commentary about Shell's work to develop technology to extract oil from oil shale, and to further define the massive scale of the oil shale deposits found in the Green River Formation. :)

Jim

SoTxPollock

06-11-2008, 10:32

I'm going to have to admit I'm not computer savy enough to get an email onto this site that I received this morninng. It shows a bar chart that was presented by Chevron to the Senate during their investigation of the "Big Oil Companies", its very sobering.
First consider this 94 percent of the producing world reserves in oil and gas are controlled by National Oil Companies government owned of course.
The size of Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Phillips Petroleum etc are so small you have to hunt for them down at the far end of the chart.
We, Americans have developed all of those countries oil and gas fields, they have sold to us their products and have ammased probably by now 80 percent of the capital in the world, probably more like 90 percent.
Those envirofreeks as ROBYN calls them, I call them something that starts with a D, have prevented us from not only drilling in areas "they say we shouldn't" and have made it illegal to even map or explore the latest supposed find have IMHO created such an energy dependence on foreign reserves that we have missed the boat. It left the docks without American and set sail for another plateau of living that we will never reach.
As a red blooded Texas who drover anywhere and everywhere he wanted to when he wanted to I came to realize that this country is great because of our independence to be mobile. Unfortunately the rest of the world has figured that out and it winning the war on destroying America. If we don't find a way to be energy independent, we won't be free. We'll be a slave to every National Oil Company that wants to continue to jerk our chain.
Think for a minute who has controlled Congress for say just the last50 years, except for the last few years and now are back in control again. How can we not see whats being done to us?
If only we could leave the government out of it, we'd have a chance.
What happened to government "by the people for the people"? How do the blind continue to vote for the blind and believe "they owe us". I'll predict $5.00 gasoline and diesel before the end of this year. $8.00 next year, $10.00 the year after that and so on if we don't wake up.

More Power

06-11-2008, 11:42

SoTx, Nearly everything you said is the underlying message in the editorial.

Not till the capital bldg is surrounded by pitchforks and torches will they see the light (a metaphor). It's coming.... unless we become energy independent. The U.S. absolutely has the resources to become energy independent. We just need to take hold of the ring.

I predict that the day will soon come when voters in this country , regardless of party affiliation, will vote for candidates who put energy independence at the top of their list of priorities.

BTW - Even though its only been up for a few days, the editorial is now the 15th most requested page on the web site. It'll be #1 by the end of the month.

Jim

ronniejoe

06-11-2008, 20:32

I predict that the day will soon come when voters in this country , regardless of party affiliation, will vote for candidates who put energy independence at the top of their list of priorities.

No, because too many folks live under the delusion that the Drive-By Media is telling them the objective truth...

Democrats in Congress blocked a Republican proposal to open up more off-shore drilling today. The Media crowed that this was good for the country. Obama said that rising fuel prices didn't bother him, just the fact that they have gone up so much, so fast. He would have preferred a much more gradual increase. Republicans blocked a Deomcrat proposal to tax oil company profits a day or two ago. The Media complained that this was bad since Republicans didn't want to "punish" the oil companies.

Which proposal would have increased the supply of oil? Which would have done nothing but increase the price of oil?

I have said nothing here that is opinion (with exception of my description of the main stream media). These comments are verifiable fact that anyone can explore at his own convenience. The comments may be labled as political because they deal with what has happened in the legislative body of our government and I mentioned the party affiliation of the proposal sponsors. It will probably solicit an emotional response from some and get me in trouble again. Oh, well.

AKMark

06-12-2008, 04:53

I'll predict $5.00 gasoline and diesel before the end of this year.

It's $5.41 for diesel at many places near me right now.

SoTxPollock

06-12-2008, 10:26

MP, hope I didn't ramble on too long, I admit I haven't taken the time yet to read the editorial, I did however notice you didn't put a time table on when the voters will wake up.

RonnieJoe, you are absolutely right about the drive by media. I've notice for a long time who is controlling the news and Congress, I think I mentioned this before that my daughter will only watch BBC news because she noted that American news is no news, it's only what they want you to know and every network reports the same story like its their exclusive. Oh whatever happened to journalism and honest reporting.
The news I see I find the person reading the teleprompter telling you what you think about what has just happened, not telling you what happened objectively without an adgenda and letting you deceide what you think about it. I believe they want to keep us from thinking, that would be dangerous to them who want to control us.
I saw a painting last night in a Catholic school library, it showed a horse running out on the open range, the caption said. "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom".
I thought about that for a little while and realized how true that is, just look at the world around us.
Maybe we better all start praying for our governmental officials so their eyes be opened up to what kind of mess they have gotten us into with their very short sighted regulations. They've opened up pandora box with the globalization of trade and one world government crap and we're all going to pay dearly if someone doesn't close that box back up.
Interesting to me it took Osama Bin Laden or howere its spelled to introduce our government officials to global business operations where no boundries are in place. I'm not an isolationist, but I do thing we must protect our country and its citizens that is the duty of the people we have put into office by our collective votes. They're doing a horrible job is some respects IMHO, but a magnificent job in other ways until the liberals shut them down where they can't profile anyone or anything because it might offend someone.
With 94 percent of the worlds Oil and Gas reserves controlled by Nationalized Oil Companies, we should be getting the picture that we are not a second or third rate country. We're a 18 or 20th rate country already when it comes to energy independence.
How do we get that across to our Congress?

More Power

06-12-2008, 11:20

No, because too many folks live under the delusion that the Drive-By Media is telling them the objective truth...

Who'll be voting for energy independence? I will.... The current Montana Governor Brian Schwitzer - a Democrat, is running for re-election this fall. He'll get my vote because.... He's pushing hard for a major coal to oil program, which is an important step toward energy independence.... ;)

If I were an Alaskan resident, I'd vote for the current Alaska Governor Sarah Palin - a Republican, who wants to help the U.S. become energy independent by expanding oil exploration and drilling.

If the price of diesel fuel affects someone's ability to make a living, even tangentially, I'd guess they would be more likely to take their candidate's energy policies into account come November. ;)

Jim

Dr. Lee

06-12-2008, 13:32

Excellent work, Jim. I like how you independently computed the years supply of each source if fuel if it ALONE were to supply current U.S. needs. And you are of course implying that we need all the steps: more drilling for oil, more oil shale recovery, more coal-to-gas conversion, and efficient diesel cars as well as trucks.

There is also a renaissance in nuclear energy coming; several utilities have applied for licenses to build NEW nuclear plants, and have hundreds of engineers (including me!!) working on the technical aspects. Plug-in hybrids like the Chevy Volt are coming, and if we can get the majority of the sheeple to commute with electricity instead of gasoline, there will be more petroleum for those of us who love gutsy internal combustion engines. Heck, I would buy a plug-in hybrid for my routine driving and save my pair of Chevys for fun, and for the heavy haulin'.

And while I am at it, let me agree with Robyn; our new vehicles are truly suffering from the "curse of complexity" thanks to the use of environmental regulations by those who would like to see the U.S.A. subordinated to world opinion.

93GMCSierra

06-12-2008, 18:18

Plug-in hybrids like the Chevy Volt are coming, and if we can get the majority of the sheeple to commute with electricity instead of gasoline, there will be more petroleum for those of us who love gutsy internal combustion engines. Heck, I would buy a plug-in hybrid for my routine driving and save my pair of Chevys for fun, and for the heavy haulin'.

I like the Idea, get electric going, though In North Dakota winters the electric car is not good enough to make the grade. the cold alone will kill the batteries and then how bout heat? electric? more juice that isnt going to propel the car. Or if the intent is to use the gas engine to supply heat then where is the fuel savings?
now thats just the winters they would be fine for the other 2 months a year...... lol

More Power

06-13-2008, 10:50

We've all heard that the oil companies are unfairly getting the blame for high fuel costs, while they provide all the risk in development and investment. That's true.... mostly....

However, the U.S. oil companies are also taking advantage of the U.S. taxpayers by using a loophole in a 2004 law that encourages (subsidizes) bio-diesel production. That loophole is now termed "Splash and Dash", and it involves exporting bio-diesel...

The following two links explain how "Splash and Dash" works:
http://forums.fourtitude.com/zerothread?id=3850732
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0608/p02s01-usec.html?page=1

As reported last night on Fox News, this gouging of U.S. taxpayers could result in as much as a $600 million future payout for no benefit to diesel fuel consumers. We've already paid the oil companies millions due to this loophole. Not only is this hurting Americans, but it is also hurting European oil companies who are in bio-diesel production and have to compete against U.S. subsidized bio-diesel.

Ending petroleum exports would also end this boondoggle...

Jim

ronniejoe

06-13-2008, 11:32

No offense intended here, but I want to encourage some thought on this subject.

It seems to me that something gets labeled a "boondoggle" when it doesn't benefit the labeller.

Consider the farmer land bank program that has been going on for years in this country. This program essentially pays a farmer - with US taxpayer supplied funds - to leave his land dormant with no crops on it. I don't even really know what the intended "good" was from this program, but it is clearly a boondoggle. In most cases, farmers have placed their worst, most unproductive land in the "land bank". They receive more money from the government to not farm it than they could make off of it if they did farm it. I've seen it in action all over the state of Indiana. Heck, my dad and his brothers did this with about 10 acres of land on the family farm that was prone to errosion and flooding. It hasn't been farmed in years, but the farm has collected money from the government for it. It's absurd! I don't see too many people complaining about this boondoggle, though, because too many "ordinary" people benefit from it. It doesn't have anything to do with the so-called evil corporate America. Yet, my tax dollars -- and yours -- get wasted subsidizing farm land that is basically useless. I would be willing to bet that more taxpayer money is spent on this than on the "splash-n-dash" issue. It doesn't benefit "evil BIG OIL" so it's OK.:eek:

The biggest point to be made from the "splash-n-dash" problem is that government only causes problems, it doesn't solve them. If you think that this is bad, let the government have control of health care (as the libs want) and let them have control of the oil industry (as the libs want, see Maxine Waters' slip up in the lynchings...I mean hearings...in congress recently).

More Power

06-13-2008, 12:54

You're right, farm subsidies are perhaps wrong as well, but this thread is about energy independence.....

I wish someone at the recent Congressional hearings would have asked "Big Oil" these two questions:

1- How is "Splash & Dash" helping Americans?

2- How much profit do the oil companies make on imported oil, and on domestically produced oil?

I'm with you on not blaming Big Oil... But there are still a couple questions I'd like answers to..... regarding petroleum related issues. :)

By the way, I've read where George Soros has made $3B on oil speculation.... The Saudi gov said today that the oil market is artificially inflated by nearly 100% due to speculation.... Oil should be something on the order of $60-70/bbl when based on supply and demand. I'd say keep oil speculation going, but require the speculators take physical delivery and pay 100% upfront. It's mostly on paper and on credit now.

Jim

ronniejoe

06-13-2008, 13:30

You're right, farm subsidies are perhaps wrong as well, but this thread is about energy independence.....

I understand. However, it doesn't seem fair to criticize one set of subsidies but encourage, or at least accept, another. If subsidies come into the discussion, all subsidies should be considered. Otherwise, you can get a distorted view.

The point is the government has screwed it all up. We are not energy independent because of Big Government, not because of Big Oil.

I also find it interesting that in this conversation about fuel prices and energy, no one has seen fit to criticise the government for their exhorbitant taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. At this point in time, the tax rate is significantly higher than the profit margin being enjoyed by the oil companies.

JFerg65

06-13-2008, 16:11

I also saw the Saudi Gov't statement about supply and how it should be running 60 - 70 dollars a barrel. If the Saudi's are saying this and it can pinned to the speculators, isn't that the inroad the gov't needs to at least take a closer look at the practice / impact on the economy.

I realize it is part of our free market system..... just like people speculate on pork bellies and grain futures.

ronniejoe

06-14-2008, 06:35

Here's some info on speculation: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_061308/content/01125108.guest.html

A former commodities trader and economics professor called in and explained the concept of futures. It's the best common language explanation that I've heard in a while.

arveetek

06-14-2008, 07:32

I also find it interesting that in this conversation about fuel prices and energy, no one has seen fit to criticise the government for their exhorbitant taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. At this point in time, the tax rate is significantly higher than the profit margin being enjoyed by the oil companies.

I've always thought it odd that people would bash the oil companies for making a profit (slim percenatage at that, even if it is a large dollar figure) when at the same time it's the government making the most profit off of fuel.

Casey

93GMCSierra

06-14-2008, 08:38

DmaxMaverick

06-14-2008, 08:50

I don't think the fuel taxes are an issue, at all, in this case. With the exception of sales tax (local thing), the fuel taxes, state or federal, are the same, regardless of the price of oil or fuel. Now, fuel tax intake is low. Probably the lowest it has been in years. Because the tax is per gallon, the government's "income" is dependent on how much fuel is purchased, not the price of it. Because higher fuel prices decrease fuel purchases, there is less fuel tax collected. The problem I have with the fuel tax is the pockets between the pump and highway. I'd like to know how much of that tax actually goes to highway maintenance. By the looks of things (poor highways, etc.), there isn't much of it left to do what it was intended. This isn't unique to fuel taxes. It is unique to government.

Market speculation and futures is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a speculated market is anticipated to increase, it will. The oil price is what it is, because we/they chose it. Unlike most commodities, oil is not seasonal. It isn't effected by weather or disease, and doesn't rot on the vine. The amount available to the market is only dependent on those providing it. If they "choose" to provide less, the market will have less to trade, and the price increases. If futures are speculated to have less available, the futures trade price increases, immediately, whether or not the shortage comes to be.

ronniejoe

06-14-2008, 10:21

DmaxMaverick

06-14-2008, 12:32

State sales taxes are often a percentage of the price, so they increase with increasing fuel price.

Crude oil supply is affected by weather... Hurricane Katrina anyone? Also, the geopolitical forces play into this as well. Instability in the Middle East (a good reason to liberate a country and build a democracy) is a major contributor to the current surge.

I exempted sales tax from my statement (second sentence). It's local government income, and they're gonna get that one way or another.

My point with the weather was the crude doesn't spoil. Weather can only effect the means to process and/or deliver it. Short of an accident or a willful act, it isn't going anywhere.

Geopolitical forces certainly do play a part. It's been shown time and time again, they hold all the cards. Anytime they don't agree with what someone else is doing, they mess with the oil supply. They do it because they can.

ronniejoe

06-14-2008, 13:24

I don't think the fuel taxes are an issue, at all, in this case.

The Federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon (cpg) for gasoline and 24.4 cpg for Diesel. That's pretty significant.

Total taxes (Federal + State + Local) vary by state and locality. For instance, total taxes on gasoline in California are 63.9 cpg (as of 1/1/2008) and on Diesel are 72 cpg. In Indiana they are 50.1 and 69.2 respectively. These numbers would be higher now, since the prices have increased significantly since 1/1/2008. Most state and local taxes are percentages of sales (as I stated before) instead of flat rates per gallon. At current prices assuming an 8.3% overall profit margin, the profit is about 39 cpg currently. Remember when fuel was only about $2.80/gal? That was not too long ago. The profit was about 23 cpg then.

So far, we have only spoken about the taxes that the consumer pays when buying the fuel. If you consider the income taxes that the oil companies pay, it becomes even more staggering. In 2006, the income tax expense that the oil companies bore was 40.7% of their net income. For comparison, if you lump all other manufacturing businesses together, their income tax expense was 22.1% of their net income. Those expenses are obviously part of the per gallon price that we pay at the pump. Looks like "Big Oil" is really getting a break, huh?:eek:

You can think what you want to, but I think the actual facts speak for themselves. The point to be made here is that government (all stripes) is the single biggest profit taker from fuel sales. They are the ones reaping a "windfall profit" because they had nothing to do with producing the product in the first place...with the exception of standing in the way and making it more difficult to produce.

References:

http://www.api.org/policy/tax/stateexcise/upload/December_2007_notes.pdf

http://www.api.org/statistics/earnings/upload/earnings_perspective.pdf

http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/upload/Economics_of_Gas_Retail.pdf

DmaxMaverick

06-14-2008, 15:57

I won't disagree with what you've said.

In regards to the part of my statement you quoted, how do the taxes contribute to the increase in crude and fuel prices? Other than a coincidental increase in sales tax, of course. The change from high volume and lower prices, to low volume and higher prices has changed the taxes to less federal and more local. Overall, the "highway" taxes are less, and per $ sales taxes are more. The only problem with the taxes, as with any tax, is what they do with it. Not so much the collection. I don't mind paying taxes. I do mind when our appointed powers abuse the taxes they collect.

The taxes don't effect the price of crude. The price of crude effects the taxes. Removal of all taxes on fuels won't decrease crude prices. It may, in fact, cause an increased crude price, vicariously. If fuel prices are artificially decreased, the demand will, however slightly, increase. Isn't that one reason they are stating the crude price increases? I don't buy into it, but they do, and they hold the cards.

ronniejoe

06-14-2008, 16:15

I think that you misunderstood the point of my original comments. I never said that the taxes are the cause of the current surge in prices. What I said was, it is funny that most folks want to make the oil companies out to be bad guys for "gouging". My point is that the government is the real gouger. I said that I found it interesting that no one wanted to examine the role of government in the price of fuel...not the current spike in prices.

I also have been focusing on the price at the pump. The price of crude is a driver in the pump price, but not the only one. I don't buy crude oil and neither do you.

The fundamental truth in all of this is that the government is the major driver in the cost of the fuel that we purchase. From there, market factors play out.

We have idiots in the Senate wanting to impose "windfall profits" taxes on the oil companies. How much oil will that produce? How much will that lower the price? My contention is that the government is the one reaping the windfall profit and the government is the major road block in providing price relief.

I didn't bring the following into the discussion earlier, but on second thought, I think it is appropriate. There is a lot of misinformation flying around out there. A lot of it coming from one political party and the far left of this country. Since they control most of the media outlets, it is difficult for the truth to be heard. That is why I am passionate about these issues. Read what the founder of The Weather Channel had to say recently about the price of fuel in this country. It's very interesting. His comments may be found here: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

Mark Rinker

06-14-2008, 17:40

I didn't bring the following into the discussion earlier, but on second thought, I think it is appropriate. There is a lot of misinformation flying around out there. A lot of it coming from one political party and the far left of this country. Since they control most of the media outlets, it is difficult for the truth to be heard.

RJ, have you not taken notice that everyone else here has checked their political views at the door, in the sake of peace?
Have you not taken notice of the gentle, yet persistant stance taken by More Power, when it comes to users stating political opinions that cause inflammatory reactions?
Have you not noticed that I, for one, have refused to get drawn into these again?In short - its NOT appropriate for you to continue your right wing "I'm always right, every one else is wrong" drum thumping.

I have stopped. Now its your turn. Can you try?

a5150nut

06-14-2008, 22:04

The problem I have with the fuel tax is the pockets between the pump and highway. I'd like to know how much of that tax actually goes to highway maintenance. By the looks of things (poor highways, etc.), there isn't much of it left to do what it was intended. This isn't unique to fuel taxes. It is unique to government.
.

Here in California The Operating Engineers have pushed through two initiatives to get a portion of the fuel taxes put directly onto highway work instead of into the General Fund. Two governors have declared "Emergencies" and overridden the bills.

This year because of the severe drop in Privet work we were really counting on the $37 billion in Public Works jobs slated to go. Schwarzenegger wanted to pull the States share and the Feds said 'No you don't". Then they pulled their share out and the state followed suit. That leaves $9 billion in Measure A & B funds the can't be used without matching $$ so the hole $37 Billion is gone. I have to try to explain to members daily why they are not working. Job placement is way down from last year and last year was down from the year before.

Gas taxes (Highway Taxes) are being collected daily. But it still goes to the General Fund to be used for whatever the Governor pleases. These Taxes were originally intended to be used for highway improvement and repair.

Stepping of my saop box now..........................

AKMark

06-14-2008, 23:59

Well that explains the 3" potholes in all the roads near where I live.

93GMCSierra

06-15-2008, 14:00

I didn't bring the following into the discussion earlier, but on second thought, I think it is appropriate. There is a lot of misinformation flying around out there. A lot of it coming from one political party and the far left of this country. Since they control most of the media outlets, it is difficult for the truth to be heard. That is why I am passionate about these issues. Read what the founder of The Weather Channel had to say recently about the price of fuel in this country. It's very interesting. His comments may be found here: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

I may not agree with you very often or on several things but this "global warming" scam I am in 100% agreement on.
I read a Scientific report on the so called hole in the ozone, Restated it said that ozone, O3 is a naturally occuring thing, but only in the Hard Radiation at the top of the atmosphere, the radiation breaks up the O2 and rebonds it with 3 molecules that causes it to become heavier then the air around it and it falls. and O2 being lighter is always rising, if everyone has air to breath there is always going to be oxygen, O2.

More Power

06-16-2008, 16:13

RJ, I read the Coleman piece. It's a great read! I couldn't agree more.... I've always believed that global warming due to fossil fuel CO2 was a scam...

Will sanity prevail? I believe it will once the high energy costs affect enough people.

Jim

Mark Rinker

06-17-2008, 05:14

I also read the Coleman peice. Twice in fact.

Is John Coleman using good science? Example:

"...Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t."

(Wow, John - I think you must be right...:rolleyes:)

As for his references to the left controlled media and their mass hysteria, please carefully consider his own closing statement.

"If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy."

Sounds like a dismissive scare tactic to me, if I've ever read one.

MP - you recently spent many hours researching a piece on the rising cost of diesel fuel. I read it with interest, but don't recall any connection being made between global warming, and the cost of a gallon of fuel, as John Coleman would suggest.

Did I miss something?

ronniejoe

06-17-2008, 06:20

Its amazing to me that there are still people willing to debate this topic, in the face of overwhelming evidence, and good science. (emphasis added).

There is no good science to support the theory of global warming. In fact, the rise in average global temperatures has stopped...for the last ten years. I recently read a prediction by one of the global warming proponents that we would see a decline in global temperatures for the next ten years as "natural forces" overtook the "manmade causes" of global warming.

Further, the level of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere has been shown to increase as a result of increased temperature, not the other way around. The level of increased CO2 lags the temperature increase by several years when plotted vs. time. The global average temperature actually correlates well with the activity level of the sun.

There are arguments and counterarguments, of course. The trick is for one to examine the available arguments, assess which ones have faithfully applied the scientific method and decide which is telling the truth. If you've never been taught how to scientifically investigate things, then it is difficult to sort through the noise. This is true on a lot of subjects these days. What you will find is that there is a lot of agenda driven "science" out there.

Mark Rinker

06-17-2008, 06:28

ronniejoe

06-17-2008, 06:28

Just saw this article. This could be the future!:eek:;)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367642,00.html

Mark Rinker

06-17-2008, 06:47

If you've never been taught how to scientifically investigate things, then it is difficult to sort through the noise. This is true on a lot of subjects these days. What you will find is that there is a lot of agenda driven "science" out there.

And a lot of agenda driven call to arms
And a lot of agenda driven rationalization of uneccessary human suffering and death
And a lot of people looking for a simple political scapegoat for what stands in the way of their happiness, rather than looking within for the answersI swore off political debate on this board weeks ago. It now appears that the game will simply have lighter shades of black and white.

For the record:

For you to suggest that I don't know how to apply scientific method to a problem is dismissive and smacks of your continued personality trait of " I am right - the masses are wrong. " (Remember high boost pressures = low EGTs = broken engine?)
Nobody would like a quick, simple answer to high fuel prices MORE than I. It threatens my ability to pay bills and threatens my children's future. I know that the answers will not be simple, or quick, or convenient.
Drill more wells domestically, and call OPEC's bluff. Convert the entire state of Wyoming and province of Alberta into oil. Go back to sleep for 30 more years, like we did after fuel prices doubled in the 70s. Continue on a consumptive, entitled, the current 'conservative' path to happiness and see where it gets our children's children.How can anyone debate the need for significant, new (non-fossil-fuel) energy inputs, and cleaner outputs into our earth's fragile environment - regardless of the % of CO2 and its affect on greenhouse gas levels?

Ask a Katrina victim if climate change is real.
Ask someone digging mud out of their basement in eastern Iowa, or a victim of one of the over FORTY Iowa tornados in the last 30 days.
Ask someone who lives in northern BC or Alaska about their 'new summers', or an Alaskan about what has happened to the glacier they first photographed in 1950s - that has now retreated by 50% or more.
Ask a scuba diver that has traveled the world studying coral reefs what is happening to them as average water temperatures increase.I have done all these things, person to person, in the last three years. My methods might not be scientific, but I have no doubt that we are living in a time where our weather, our water cycles, and our environment have been negatively impacted as a direct result of a booming, consumptive population that IS having a negative effect. Our outputs are not insignificant, or benign. Our footprint has become bigger and deeper. We have an effect, and rarely is the effect positive on fragile and not fully understood ecosystems.

To accept the notion that our human activity is without consequence on the environment is not logical - whether you are debating 'Global Warming' or simply looking at air pollution, or a specific topic like the spread of invasive species through human transportation - i.e zebra mussels or asian carp in our lakes and streams.

Sometimes we can all be too smart, too entitled and too deserving/comfortable to use our common sense - because the truth that we are ALL IN THIS TOGETHER is by far the most inconvenient truth of all.

If defending personal entitlement to wealth, leisure, and convenience at all cost, ignoring the oncoming freight train of climatic/environmental impact and change is being 'conservative' today - then I don't want anything to do with it. Given that choice, I'd rather accept the label of "liberal tree-hugger", bringing about seemingly uneccesary change - that will provide a more certain future for my grandchildren. (Ends up sounding 'conservative' doesn't it?)

Besides - in twenty years or so - we'll still be debating the effects of any of our policy changes made today, against the current weather and environmental conditions, unwilling or unable to place credit where credit may be due. Similarly, and on a smaller scale - today we debate the correlation between our former administration and the unprecendented economic surge of the mid 90s, and the track record of our current administration, and the economic train wreck of the last 8 years.

If we can't agree on that, today, how will we ever begin to measure and account for the success or failure of environmental policy change and its results, measured over decades?

:)

End rant.

ronniejoe

06-17-2008, 07:12

RJ, please give at least an hour after my postings to quote me.

Twice in recent months, you have cut and pasted text from my postings still under editing - like pulling scraps of paper out of my wastebasket. I simply use the edit feature to refine, spell-check, and sometimes even soften my statements in order to get a point across, withoug being uneccesarily inflammatory.

If you enjoy posting the electronic equivalent of my garbage, you are free to do so, but it only exposes your quick-to-judgement character, and not my more thoughtful and reflective approach to debate.

I have nothing to hide.

Mark, I simply logged onto the page and read your post. I didn't look at the time stamp, I rarely do. I hit the quote button and then spent about twenty minutes thoughtfully, reflectively putting together my post. I reviewed several web articles to ensure that I worded my post correctly. I really was trying to avoid inflaming you, since you seem to be so sensitive and judgmental toward anything that I say. I use the "preview post" function to check my posts before posting. This post of yours is the first knowledge that I had that you had edited anything. I didn't respond maliciously or try to use your "garbage". I simply responded to what I read on the screen in front of me.

From now on, with the exception of this post, I will check the time stamp of every one of your posts and make sure that I don't respond before an hour has passed. In fairness, I would ask that you do the same.;)

ronniejoe

06-17-2008, 07:59

It's been an hour...

The only thing that I want to say in response to your last post is this:

South-central Indiana has seen historic flooding just last week. It happened here before it happened in Iowa. Our flood levels approached, and in some cases exceeded, those of the "Great Flood of 1913." Incidentally, did global warming cause that flood? Interstates 70 and 65 were both closed for two days due to high water...for the first time ever! (They didn't exist in 1913...)

Since I built my house on a hill, we did not have any flooding in our house. However, my driveway washed out badly to the point of being impassable twice. I pulled out the 4020 and grader blade to repair it for now, but I will have to rent a bulldozer and a backhoe to rebuild it completely. My neighbors bordering my property at the bottom of the hill to the south had over a foot of water in their house. Several of my friends and some of my family have lost everything.

In an attempt to help, I have parked my travel trailer in my neighbors driveway. They are living in my trailer while their house is renovated. It's been down there over a week already. We took in a family of friends whose house and belongings were destroyed. They stayed with us for a few days last week. My son went with the football team and spent the day carrying furniture, ripping out carpet and doing other tasks to help those whose lives have been devastated.

You all didn't hear much about our flooding because it was in largely rural southern Indiana. The largest town affected by it was Columbus. Hence, we don't fit the Katrina template. We didn't sit around waiting for the federal government to come in and fix everything (although, they have now arrived and are offering some meager assistance). Our situation couldn't be used as political fodder, so it was ignored.

So, we here in Indiana have dealt with some very devastating weather events in the last two weeks. I am sympathetic to those in Iowa and can understand their circumstances.

Everyone knows that tornado activity increases during cooler summers. You need a cold air mass to crash into a warm air mass to cause a tornado.

By the way, the broken engine that gave you amusement was caused by low boost pressures and high egt. The damage was done before I made my modifications to address the problem. I have explained that before.

Reflectively, thoughtfully submitted after waiting an hour...

Mark Rinker

06-17-2008, 08:11

Correct. The entire midwest has suffered. Sounds like you are a compassionate man, that has raised compassionate children. Maybe there is a liberal in there trying to get out, after all. :)

Maybe the next hurricane or flood will affect Kennebunkport, or the Hamptons. Interesting then to see the level of FEMA response, or news coverage. I'm sure the Kennedy's and Bush's would all roll up their pants and wade about the same!!!

93GMCSierra

06-17-2008, 08:35

do any of your remember the red river flooding in 97? Grand Forks ND was hit very hard, Fargo was also hit but not as extensively. I Think unusual weather is not just a current phenomenon but something that happens over and over again.

Mark Rinker

06-17-2008, 10:35

Agreed! Its very hard to measure cause and effect when it comes to global weather - or global economies, for that matter!!!

More Power

06-17-2008, 11:02

MP - you recently spent many hours researching a piece on the rising cost of diesel fuel. I read it with interest, but don't recall any connection being made between global warming, and the cost of a gallon of fuel, as John Coleman would suggest.

Did I miss something?

Mark, I didn't include the global warming subject in the editorial because it would have distracted my own (and others) throughts from the issues I wanted to discuss.

Yes, Coleman had some questionable statements in his piece - that I mainly attribute to being passion driven. He did have enough meat in the story that would allow someone to dig deeper and cross-reference with other sources if it were deemed important. At the present time, I feel the basic tenets of his piece were pretty close to the mark. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts. The facts in Coleman's piece appear to be accurate.

Purely out of curiosity, I did some online research a week or so ago about the ~11 year solar cycle (i.e. sunspots, etc), and compared what scientific data I found to what I've personally seen here in Montana for weather over the past 20 years or so. We're now at a solar minimum (fewer sunspots), which corresponds to a reduction in solar radiation output (heat). Here in the mountains of Montana, we're at nearly 200% snowpack for June. The rivers are the highest they've been for about a decade. During the last solar minimum, we had a record snowfall (December 24, 1996 - 37" accumulation in one day). The current solar minimum likely explains the flooding the mid-west is currently experiencing.

The most recent solar maximum occurred in 2000. A good deal of the national forests burned here in Bitterroot National Forest in 2000. It was a hot dry year. You can read more about solar cycles at http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/Sun/Sunspots.html, which outlines all of the prior recorded solar min/max cycles and lists the dates in which they occurred.

The average global temperature has been declining for most of the past several years. I suspect it could slowly rise again over the next few years as we approach another solar maximum. If increasing levels of CO2 could produce the same warming effect as that produced by a solar maximum, we'd be in trouble. All of the natural causes of any long-term warming or cooling overwhelms any effect we humans can have on global temperatures - in my opinion. :)

Here are a couple questions for everyone..... What current percent of the atmosphere is CO2? And, what is the magnitude of increase since the industrial revolution - expressed as a percent of all gases in the atmosphere?

Jim

Mark Rinker

06-17-2008, 13:09

So, Al Gore is now not only credited with inventing the internet, ;) but also contributing to the first $5/gallon diesel in the US - due to his crazy notion that greenhouse gasses might be responsible in part for global climate change and more rapid melting of glaciers and polar ice caps?

This is one seriously influential man. (Too bad we can't get somebody visionary like this elected to office.) But yet if I suggest that the current administration might be even partially responsible for the same $5 fuel, what would your answer be...?

On another GREEN note:

https://us.etrade.com/e/t/invest/Story?ID=STORYID%3Detrade_2008_06_17_eng-etrade_cbs2_market_watch_eng-etrade_cbs2_market_watch_746D5806-CAA8-4F56-AD58-739E8230D907&provider=PRNewswire

I really like Waste Management. They have a huge initiative to burn waste methane off of landfills. We have a small plant here that powers about 250 homes.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/final_results_wm_truck.pdf

Do you suppose that in the future, we will be MINING our own landfills, as they have now become the areas of greatest concentration for precious metals, plastics, and other petroleoum based products that were thrown away as waste?

arveetek

06-17-2008, 13:21

I was hit with a tornado on May 10th. We've had really weird weather the past two years. With two major ice storms and one tornado, the trees in my area have been hit hard. Yet I don't believe we can take the events of the past year or so and come to any conclusion about global weather. Truth be told, we don't have enough accurate records spanning back far enough to determine much of anything, other than weather is always unpredictable.

I think it's rather arrogant of man to think he can cause global warming (let alone fix it).

I loved reading Micheal Crichton's novel entitled "State of Fear." Sure, it's a novel, but he did a LOT of research, and come up with some pretty unpopular opinions regarding global warming.

Casey

Mark Rinker

06-17-2008, 13:37

Sorry to hear of your experience with the tornado. We have been hit by straight-line winds and hail three times in the last 10 years, resulting in vehicle, roof and siding damage. Normal stuff for MN, but scary to live through!!!

Agreed. If we can't measure and agree on the warming (or even IF there is warming) then we certainly can't reliabily connect isolated incidences of flooding or tornadoes or hurricanes or tsunamis to it. It does seem to many that we are experiencing more frequent anomolies worldwide. Solar flares, or the lack of them, may well be the culprit. Time and better science will tell. Maybe.

I haven't read that novel. Did he go into the effect on the populus of our Terrorist Threat Level system - envisioned, created and maintained by our current administration, complete with with a color coded system?

http://www.dhs.gov/xinfoshare/programs/Copy_of_press_release_0046.shtm

Poke around that website awhile - and then ask yourself:

"Who is keeping people more 'off balance' today, waiting for the other shoe to drop? Homeland Security, or proponants of Global Warming? Which seems more likely to happen around me today, a plane falling from the sky, or a tornado hitting my home?"

Not hard to see why us simple folks - without a scientific approach to our conclusions - fall for anything that Al Gore tells us. ;)

ronniejoe

06-17-2008, 14:43

What was the state of the economy and how high were fuel prices in October 2006? What happened in November 2006? What is the state of the economy and how high are fuel prices now? Is there a correlation?:cool:

Mark Rinker

06-17-2008, 18:21

I think fuel was about $2.25, IIRC...

Bush said something like this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGRYPYuFZLk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGRYPYuFZLk)

Then fuel steadily rose in price, with each and every public gaffe.

So, using my powerful scientific deductions, I'd estimate fuel went up about $.20/gallon - each and every time George W. attempted to address the nation.

My final hypothesis? Fuel prices will certainly level off about November 11th, 2008. :D

JFerg65

06-18-2008, 03:44

No offense to anybody on this thread at this point in time.... but I'm glad I can click a button and "un - subscribe to the thread.

Mark Rinker

06-18-2008, 06:15

Good point. (I think I'll unsubscribe this thread as well...! I had sworn off debating political issues, but...)

DmaxMaverick

06-18-2008, 09:35

I hate be the one to say "I told you so", but Jim and I have cautioned this from the onset (in previous threads, as well). Politics is just too sensitive, and opinions too strong, these days. Our mission stays the same, regardless of what goes on in DC. The benefits are also oblivious to the goings on in DC. Believe it or not, it is not partisan. They may like you to believe it is, but it isn't. It's a talking point used to gain favors, and votes, but the end result will be the same regardless of whom you support in Washington.

This is an excellent topic, and the discussion should continue.......ON TOPIC.

More Power

06-18-2008, 10:44

Here are a couple questions for everyone..... What current percent of the atmosphere is CO2? And, what is the magnitude of increase since the industrial revolution - expressed as a percent of all gases in the atmosphere?

Before the industrial revolution, CO2 comprised 0.028% of all atmospheric gases. Since the 1800’s, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 0.011% for a total of 0.039% (an increase of eleven thousandths of one percent). Source: noaa.gov

Jim

JohnC

06-18-2008, 11:06

Maybe there is a liberal in there trying to get out, after all. :)

Nah, Conservatives help those who want to help themselves but can't. Liberals help those who should be helping themselves but won't...

;)

Mark: Use "Preview Post" for your editing and then no one can see your trash.

Mark Rinker

06-18-2008, 11:22

Well, here's the new Republican candidate's stance on Global Warming. Depending on where you live, you might not have seen the TV ads, Minnesota is a target state.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYpS6G-fl1u-yS2zifc0FsveuPGwD91C36MG0

DmaxMaverick - agreed on political but we have entered a new era where it is pretty darn tough to address something central to this board - Diesel Fuel Prices, without treading on political ground. So far, I think we have been able to do it with a healthy dose of science, humor, and a few (temporary) hurt feelings. We aren't discussing Clinton and Monica. This is VERY topical to TDP, in my opinion - and we seem to be sorting out some fact from BS and lots of people are stopping by to read, and weigh in with their .02 worth.

Gotta love free speech we still have that, and there isn't a tax on it. (Yet.) :)

DmaxMaverick

06-18-2008, 13:03

JFerg65

06-18-2008, 13:17

Hey Mark

I thought you were going to un - subscribe? I said I was, but I guess i just love a good train wreck like the next person!

Mark Rinker

06-18-2008, 13:26

It is only political because individuals and politicians insist it is. It's the tail wagging the dog. Don't buy into it. Too bad many/most Americans don't have the will and strength to accept reality. When you seek blame, you'll find it where it's convenient.

I view many/most Americans as very strong willed, smart, and seeking the truth - which will then become their reality.

DmaxMaverick

06-18-2008, 15:18

I view many/most Americans as very strong willed, smart, and seeking the truth - which will then become their reality.

Perhaps I could have worded it better. I meant the reality of political issues that are only political because the politicians insist it is. Usually by trying to place blame on their opponents, and voters/listeners buy into it while they are grasping for answers that suit them. I agree with your statement, in regards to the truth and reality in general. I do have a high regard and confidence in Americans, generally speaking. It is unfortunate political office is a career. It wasn't always this way. As long as there's a fortune to be made (and/or power to be had) in politics, most politicians, of any party, will continue to sell whatever keep them in office. There are good men/women in office, but they are few and far between.

ronniejoe

06-18-2008, 19:35

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/06/13/truth-about-ocs/

Mark Rinker

06-19-2008, 04:46

Perhaps I could have worded it better. I meant the reality of political issues that are only political because the politicians insist it is. Usually by trying to place blame on their opponents, and voters/listeners buy into it while they are grasping for answers that suit them. I agree with your statement, in regards to the truth and reality in general. I do have a high regard and confidence in Americans, generally speaking. It is unfortunate political office is a career. It wasn't always this way. As long as there's a fortune to be made (and/or power to be had) in politics, most politicians, of any party, will continue to sell whatever keep them in office. There are good men/women in office, but they are few and far between.

Understood. Senator Norm Coleman (R, former D) from Minnesota is running a series of ads that parallel your sentinments. In a nutshell, the message is one of "start takin action, stop the partisan finger pointing, stop placing blame." (I don't know if the new ads are on his website or not.)

http://www.colemanforsenate.com/

I have always coached those around me in the workplace that for every time you point out a problem around you - you had better take at least two positive steps of action to solve them...or more recently with a young driver assigned to the Kodiak and gooseneck loads...

"Don't call me and tell me that the trailer or truck needs a marker light or a fuse for the turn signal, or a fresh set of straps. Call me to tell me that you fixed the marker light, the fuse, or bought a new set of straps - preferably on sale at Northern Tool." :D

JohnC

06-19-2008, 10:55

"Don't call me and tell me that the trailer or truck needs a marker light or a fuse for the turn signal, or a fresh set of straps. Call me to tell me that you fixed the marker light, the fuse, or bought a new set of straps - preferably on sale at Northern Tool." :D

Mark is a closet conservative...

Mark Rinker

06-19-2008, 16:48

Nah, I'm just a conservative looking guy that thinks like a hippie.

More Power

06-20-2008, 11:21

I see McCain has come around with regard to energy development. It'll be interesting to see whether the candidates engage in a contest to see who can outdrill the other between now and November.... ;) Gas/diesel prices could become "the" issue that determines the outcome of the election...

Jim

ronniejoe

06-20-2008, 11:28

He still hasn't come all the way around. He doesn't want to drill in ANWR. Maybe we can get him there, I dunno.

moondoggie

06-20-2008, 12:27

Good Day!

"This is one seriously influential man (Al Gore). (Too bad we can't get somebody visionary like this elected to office.)" "Not hard to see why us simple folks - without a scientific approach to our conclusions - fall for anything that Al Gore tells us." Please investigate his living arrangements vs. the current president. I have, but not in near the depth I'd like to, so the following may be in error - find out for yourself. My understanding is that his place in Nashville TN (one of many) consumes 20x the energy of the average home. If this is indeed true, I can't bring myself to believe anything he says about issued discussed here. If he drove a Prius & lived in an 1800 sq ft home like average folks do, instead of jetting around the country (trains, buses, & bicycles are more energy-efficient) espousing his views (which he is certainly entitled to do), I'd consider what he has to say.

BTW, Georgie's place in TX is said to be more energy-efficient than average, & nowhere near as large as Al's place in TN.

Mark has expressed both leftie & rightie stuff that I've read. The quickest fix for political commentary is to ignore what we don't consider to be fact. If you love Al & think I'm wrong about his living quarters, why waste time flaming me? Check it out yourself, I could be wrong. ;)

Let's keep enough politics in this to be honest - it's impossible to discuss any significant issue & ignore the politics. Let's just stay friendly about it. :D

& BTW, RJ's a true conservative - he didn't wait for mommy government to fix his neightbor's problems, he & his family jumped in with both feet.

Blessings!

Mark Rinker

06-20-2008, 18:31

Welcome to the jungle, Moondog!!! (Watch out for the tigers...) :D:D:D

moondoggie

06-20-2008, 19:19

Good Day!

Nah, just good folks that get passionate about our ideas, sometimes a little too much, eh?

Blessings!

Mark Rinker

06-21-2008, 05:17

Hey are you still working from home? If so, do you ever get Ferris Bueller's Days off? Our boat is slipped in Stillwater and would enjoy getting together sometime this summer.

a5150nut

06-21-2008, 07:09

I don't know. Everyone around here argues all the politics of fuel prices. I have actually gone out and done something about it! I haven't bought diesel fuel for my truck for going on 4 months now. I have finally effected the price here locally. The Valero where I used to get fuel got as high as $5.199, now I have punished them enough to get them down to $5.019!!! And who said we wouldn't be happy to see $5.00 a gallon diesel? :eek:

Funny thing though, there is a 76 station not too far from here that hit $5.299 and hasn't budged from that price in 3 months. That must be the stuff for them there Mercedes diesels.......:rolleyes:

Shure miss driving my truck. :(

a5150nut

06-24-2008, 20:09

Well, you need to help me here. I got them beat down to $4.999 today. If I keep this up a little longer I might be able to afford to drive my truck again!! :eek:

DmaxMaverick

06-24-2008, 22:31

Well, you need to help me here. I got them beat down to $4.999 today. If I keep this up a little longer I might be able to afford to drive my truck again!! :eek:

Keep it up! It seems to be working. Every time I do anything, it goes up, so I can't help you. I've been staying out of it, and it's down to $5.099 here, and $4.999 in town 25 miles away. Still ridiculous, but down is good.

Mark Rinker

07-06-2008, 17:14

Is it just me - or does it appear that we may have hit a plateau in diesel prices? Honestly, I don't follow it that closely (pricing) but it seems like things are starting to moderate around here...

a5150nut

07-06-2008, 17:22

It's been holding at $4.959 here for over a week now. But down the street it's still $5.199 and $5.299. Funny how a few blocks can make such a difference.

6.5 Detroit Diesel

07-06-2008, 23:24

Dang. Diesel rocketed again. Canada Day, (July 1st), our wonderful provincial government decided to celebrate by introducing a 2.5 cent/per liter "Carbon" tax. When the Green party is opposed to such a tax as nothing but a cash cow, you know there is a problem. The lowest place in town went from $1.369/liter to 1.384/liter. $5.21 a gallon. Whatever. Go there today and diesel has jumped overnight to 1.479/liter. Now with diesel sitting at $5.55/gallon I am looking at around $180 to fill up the truck. This is getting stupid. It's time that all these North American trade laws actually went to work and did something, like keep all the crude here. I need my truck for work, but this is getting stupid ridiculous. I am already looking for a little TDI Jetta for ANY running around that I don't need to do in the truck.

Sorry, just a little POed about the whole fuel thing.:mad:

gophergunner

07-07-2008, 09:23

I hate to see how bad this is going to affect whats on the shelves in the grocery stores. It will get high enough that lots of farmers won't be able to afford to operate anymore.......

On a side note, I got a little tired and am in the process of getting a small toyota diesel pickup for my running around. Will definately be much cheaper than driving my full size vehicles.:o

More Power

07-07-2008, 12:38

Dakster

07-08-2008, 15:17

New Study Finds Greenland Ice Melt ‘not changing’ and may be dropping (http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/07/04/new-study-finds-greenland-ice-melt-not-changing-and-may-be-dropping/) July 2008 Science Magazine Report

Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175b568a-802a-23ad-4c69-9bdd978fb3cd) July 2007 Senate report

More Power - That's some interesting reading... I just watached a history channel report on "crude" that goes from the beginning of discover thru 2004. Two things caught my attention regarding today's crisis. One was that they predicted (in 2004) that we would be in this situation today and reach "peak oil" by 2010 at the latest.

The Second was that during the time most crude oil was created the Earth was very warm and ice free most likeyl due to multiple volcano eruptions. By looking at fossils they were able to determine the CO2 content was 4-6 times HIGHER than it is today...

Not that we shouldn't be looking at alternative fuels and more efficient modes of transportation... Just don't take my Diesel truck away...

More Power

07-08-2008, 15:41

How many here remember watching the WWII P-38 Lightning salvage from the ice on Greenland? They had to melt their way through more than 260' of ice to reach the plane. On July 15, 1942, a flight of six P-38 Lightnings and two B-17 Flying Fortresses did an emergency landing on the ice of Greenland while flying from the U.S. to Europe during WWII. Cool story! Two hundred and sixty feet of ice accumulation from July 1942 to July 1992. It wouldn't appear that Greenland is in too much danger of losing its ice.

See: http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl.htm

Jim

ronniejoe

07-08-2008, 15:44

If you have an open mind and want to learn some very interesting information that has some solid evidence behind it, check out this site: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

This explains many things that are puzzles to modern science. It explains how fossile fuels were formed, in a very short period of time, and why there will be billions of barrels of crude under the polar caps. It explains the mechanism behind earthquakes and many other natural phenomena. It provides a better mechanism to explain what is thought to be continental drift than Plate Tectonics does and does not have the technical difficulties that the theory of Plate Tectonics has. (Plate tectonics can't explain such features as overlapping spreading centers in the mid-oceanic ridge or submarine canyons, for example.)

The finding that there was significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere in antiquity was predicted by this theory several years ago and the theory can explain why it was. This phenomenon also is why radiocarbon dates older than about 3500 years should be viewed with great skepticism. (Since radiocarbon dating looks at the ratio of C12 to C14 in decaying matter, the starting ratio must be assumed. This assumption usually states that the ratio in in the atmosphere in antiquity was the same as it is today. Several recent discoveries are casting doubt on this assumption. If the ratio of C14 to C12 in the atmosphere has changed significantly, as many experiments indicate, then radiocarbon dates could be significantly in error.) This theory has been used to make over 30 specific predictions in the earth sciences. All of the ones that have been tested to date have been proven correct.