backtop


Print 98 comment(s) - last by someguy123.. on Apr 30 at 5:56 PM


Chevrolet Volt

Ford Focus Electric

Hyundai Sonata Hybrid

Honda CR-Z Hybrid
Despite rising sales, J.D. Powers is convinced "green" vehicles will only see slow pickup, be overcrowded

Some analysts think the electric vehicle market is ready for primetime.  Others have been less convinced.  Last October, investment firm J.D. Power and Associates, Inc. estimated that by 2020 electric vehicles (EVs) would only gain a slim 7.3 percent market share.

I. Hybrid/EV Outlook -- Not Good?

Now the firm has returned with another report, bumping its estimates slightly, but remains skeptical of hybrids, electric vehicles, and clean diesel.  

Mike VanNieuwkuyk, executive director of global vehicle research at J.D. Power and Associates states in a Detroit News interview, "Alternative powertrains face an array of challenges as they attempt to gain widespread acceptance in the market. The bottom line is that most consumers want to be green, but not if there is a significant personal cost to them."

His report estimates that by 2016, market share of hybrids and electric vehicles will remain under 10 percent.  The report's basic argument boils down to that EVs and hybrids are too expensive for customers.  It cites a recent 4,000 person U.S. survey that it conducted, which showed that a growing number of customers were concerned about the prices of electric vehicles.

The J.D. Power report also cited concerns about function as a factor slowing sales -- particularly for electric vehicles.

II. Too Expensive?

Other market research firms don't necessarily agree that the price of electrified vehicles will trump the price at the pump.  Rival research firm Deloitte LLP conducted a 1,000 person U.S. study, which found that 78 percent of people would consider purchasing an electric vehicle if gas hit $5 USD/gallon.

Subcompact cars typically start at around $11,000 USD for the cheapest non-hybrid models and around $19K USD for the cheapest hybrid models (the subcompact Honda Insight and CRZ hybrids).  Thus you're looking at a premium of around $8,000 USD.

For the mid-sized sedan market pricing starts at around $20K USD, with the cheapest hybrid being the new Hyundai Sonata at
$26,545.  In this segment you're looking at around a $6,500 USD premium.

A recent report by the U.S. Department of Energy stated that the annual cost of gas for the average family is $3,625 USD (based on a gas price of $3.61 USD/gallon).  

Assuming an average household has two cars and that the hybrid sedan would get at least 33 percent better gas mileage, a family would save approximately $600 USD annually by switching to a hybrid.  In other words, it would take approximately 7 years of ownership to break even with a compact or mid-sized hybrid.

III. Small Vehicle Sales Up

According to industry statistics in the first three months of 2011 large car sales have plunged 35 percent, while small car sales have jumped 25 percent.  Hybrid sales during the period accounted for 4.7 percent of sales, up from the average 2.6 percent in 2010.

Those numbers seem more impressive when you consider that a tax credit for hybrid vehicles expired at the end of 2010.  

It seems clear that the high price of gas this spring -- with fuel regularly hitting $4 USD/gallon -- has motivated some customers to get hybrid vehicles.

EVs from General Motors Comp. (GM) and Nissan Motor Comp. (7201) are still selling slowly due to limited distribution and volume.  Both companies hope to sell a modest 10,000 units by the year's end.  Mitsubishi Corp. (8058) just released a new EV -- but only in Hawaii to start.  Ford Motor Comp. (F), Toyota Motor Corp. (7203), and Tesla Motors Inc. (TSLA) all will release new EVs by the end of the year as well [1][2][3].

Two factors working in the favor of electrified sales is an increasing selection and government pressure on fuel efficiency.  

One of the few somewhat seemingly positive aspects of the J.D. Power report was an estimate that by the end of 2016, 159 hybrid and electric vehicle options would be available for purchase -- up substantially from the 31 available in 2009. (Of course the report casts this in a negative light as well, complaining that the market will be overcrowded.)

And the Obama administration is working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to deliver new fuel efficiency mandates for the 2017-2025 period.  It is thought that those mandates would demand fleetwide average fuel efficiency reach 62.5 mpg by 2025.  That could force automakers to try to limit the sales of non-electrified models.

IV. Clean Diesel, Where Art Thou?

A dirty little secret of the EV industry is that clean diesel vehicles can currently get as good or better mileage as most hybrids.  In the first three months of the year, 24 percent of Volkswagen AG's (VOW) sales were clean diesel vehicles.  Mazda Motor Corp. (7261) and other companies are planning to offer new diesel models over the next couple years.

Still J.D. Power is also pessimistic on clean diesel's prospects.  Mr. VanNieuwkuyk states, "Advocates of clean diesel engines tend to be some of the most vocal among consumers who tout the benefits of their chosen technology. Clean diesel technology continues to struggle not only against concerns about cost and perceived fuel availability, but also against the lingering perception that diesel is 'dirty.'"

Both with hybrid vehicles and with diesel, there seems to be a clear momentum in the U.S. Yet J.D. Power seems convinced both movements will only see slow growth at best.  It remains unclear whether the pessimism is unfounded -- or whether it knows something other analysts don't.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Can this be true...
By Hiawa23 on 4/28/2011 11:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
This article is interesting. I own a 1997 Honda Civic, that still gets over 30mpg with 225k miles, & I have a 2006 Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart 2.4L engine that gets somewhere in the 20s. my commute is 56miles a day. I like to think most consumers are in my group. Got good cars, not buying any new veicles especially in this bad economy, & with the rising cost of everything from food, electric, mortgage, kid tuition, student loan, but no pay increase, there is noway a new car is in my future, so for most of us, Hybids, I don't care how many they sell, how do you get the cost of fuel down? How do you get the cost of fuel down, right now? It's not my fault our country borrowed too much money to pay for entitlements, or started wars they couldn't pay for.

President Obama, is there anything you can do like tap our reserves, cause many of us need help right now, & Hybrid sales donot give us any relief. I just got my fuel bill for this month, & it usually is $110-150/month, this month it's $240, & the only reason I did not have shortfall in my monthly expenses was because there were 5 pay weeks this month instead of 4, which is like getting an extra pay check for those who gets paid every week. We need help now, does anyone have any answers, cause for most of us, fuel is the only price we care about. It's sad I keep hearing on how great we are, but it baffles me we have had decades to get off or atleast reduce our dependance on foreign oil so anytime one of these Arab countries cough, the speculators swoop in, & our prices skyrocket. Can anyone stop this or are we just screwed?


RE: Can this be true...
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/28/2011 11:31:33 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
President Obama, is there anything you can do like tap our reserves, cause many of us need help right now, & Hybrid sales donot give us any relief. I just got my fuel bill for this month, & it usually is $110-150/month, this month it's $240, & the only reason I did not have shortfall in my monthly expenses was because there were 5 pay weeks this month instead of 4, which is like getting an extra pay check for those who gets paid every week.


Er... I don't think it is (or at least I don't think it SHOULD BE) the federal government's role to pay for your "gas price relief". You do realize that ultimately you're just paying for that out of your taxes?

quote:
We need help now, does anyone have any answers, cause for most of us, fuel is the only price we care about. It's sad I keep hearing on how great we are, but it baffles me we have had decades to get off or atleast reduce our dependance on foreign oil so anytime one of these Arab countries cough, the speculators swoop in, & our prices skyrocket. Can anyone stop this or are we just screwed?


Then HELP YOURSELF. You are indeed "screwed" if you just sit around with your old vehicles hoping big brother government to bail you out. If you don't like that consider options like diesel, hybrids, or budget EVs next time you purchase a vehicle. Carefully assess the price vs. gas savings and make an educated decision as a responsible consumer.

There's a reason to support these technologies, and that reason is that it makes sense financially. They reduce reliance on expensive fossil fuels either by offering superior efficiency (diesel, hybrids) or removing the direct fuel altogether (EVs).

The U.S. is a free market system and if consumers are happy to stand by and get "screwed" at the pump (in your words), the oil companies will be more than happy to oblige.

Show a bit of personal responsibility and try to improve your own situation yourself. Don't ask Obama for help, help yourself.


RE: Can this be true...
By TheRealArdrid on 4/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: Can this be true...
By MrTeal on 4/28/2011 12:08:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no justifiable reason for his fuel bill to double in a month's time.


You know, other than perhaps he used more fuel in one month than he did in the other? Or he had a yearly negotiated rate that expired and the new rate is more?

I just got a $300 water/electricity bill, when I normally average $140 or so. They hadn't read the meters in a few months and my consumption was higher than their estimates, so when an actual meter read happened I got a nice surprise. That's not the utilities' fault though, that's just how life works.


RE: Can this be true...
By YashBudini on 4/28/2011 12:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just got my fuel bill for this month, & it usually is $110-150/month, this month it's $240,

Fuel pumps and cash registers don't work like meter readers.


RE: Can this be true...
By MrTeal on 4/28/2011 12:32:52 PM , Rating: 4
No, it's actually worse, since fuel is purchased in discrete transactions. Case in point, in the summer I bike the 10 mi round trip to work. I still use gas, probably in the range of a half tank a month. So, in my car I might average $25, but some months I might not fill at all. Some months I might put in $50 at the start of the month and another $50 at the end if I've been doing a lot of driving.

No where in North America has the price of gas doubled in the last couple months. So, if his gas bill doubled, he either
1) Drove more
2) Drove in a manner that he got worse fuel economy
3) Started the month with less fuel in the tanks than he ended it with
4) Some combination of the above

Gas has gone up, but not that much.


RE: Can this be true...
By YashBudini on 4/28/2011 12:46:12 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah fine his numbers don't add up, doesn't mean he's not going broke.


RE: Can this be true...
By Hiawa23 on 4/28/2011 12:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
You know, other than perhaps he used more fuel in one month than he did in the other? Or he had a yearly negotiated rate that expired and the new rate is more?

Here's the answer. He, I, didn't use more fuel. It used to cost me $25 to fill up my Lancer, now it costs me $38 to $40, & I have to fill it up 4 or 5 times a month & all I do is drive that to work & home, & use the Honda for my weekend & other driving which doesn't cost me anymore than $20/month. The difference in my bill is the difference it now costs to fill the car up, not driving more. I really did not think I had to state this but I guess I did for some.


RE: Can this be true...
By MrTeal on 4/28/2011 1:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming you put the same amount in each time, that would imply that the price of gas has gone up 60% since the days when you paid $25 a tank.
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx...

Gas has gone up about 40% since it's low last summer, but that's not unexpected. It's still lower than it was in the summer of 2008 before the recession really tanked gas prices. Using either number, gas hasn't doubled in any recent time frame. It sucks you got a big bill, but it's not because gas doubled in price over the last couple months.


RE: Can this be true...
By Hiawa23 on 4/28/2011 1:45:09 PM , Rating: 2
Gas has gone up about 40% since it's low last summer, but that's not unexpected. It's still lower than it was in the summer of 2008 before the recession really tanked gas prices. Using either number, gas hasn't doubled in any recent time frame. It sucks you got a big bill, but it's not because gas doubled in price over the last couple months.

I never said gas doubled. My difference from this month compared to the last is the difference it now costs as I have stated. I will leave it at that. Hybrids, & EV's are not the answer for most folks so my question was simple, not about my situation, I just used that as an example that I am sure many can relate to. What can anyone do to get gasoline prices down? If you have no answer other than bashing complete strangers on their driving habits or making assumptions, which seems to be the norm on these boards, then there is no point. Life will go on, It's just getting tougher for many to attain this so called american Dream which really doesn't seem to possible for most folks, especially the middle or lower class & it because of stuff like these insane prices whether it be at the pump, or store or energy, or God forbid sickness.


RE: Can this be true...
By Spuke on 4/28/2011 2:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I never said gas doubled. My difference from this month compared to the last is the difference it now costs as I have stated.
I live in California and my gas didn't come close to doubling, even on my diesel pickup in which the fuel cost rise has been quite a bit steeper.


RE: Can this be true...
By Calin on 4/29/2011 8:12:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What can anyone do to get gasoline prices down?


Increase production or decrease consumption. Decreasing production costs might help (if this leads to production increasing above consumption).
I think the world production is no longer increasing, and the demand is slowly rising due to countries like India and China slowly increasing their consumption (what do you think the effect of the small and cheap Indian cars will be?).


RE: Can this be true...
By Hiawa23 on 4/28/2011 1:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
Some reponses are hilarious. I only get gas at one station, BP. I use my BP card for all my fuel purchases, of which I pay every month, & I usually have to fill the Lancer up once a week. I did not drive any different, my cars are in tip top shape especially the Lancer. I work for Goodyear, so the cars are fine. My fuel pumps did not go bad in a month, the cars still get the same gas mileage, it's the difference that it now costs to fill the cars up now is what caused my bill to go up, & this along with everything else that has gone up, like the kid's lunch, tuition, my student loan, mortgage, insurance, just the cost to live yet incomes have not risen is the problem, not my cars. The problem is we have been gouged & no one seems to have any fixes that will work for the masses.

Judging by many of the responses, wow, some just missed the point, completely. Most folks aren't buying new cars or can afford to buy Hybrids, so gasoline is the only solution for most. I was only wondering what anyone could do to get gasoline prices down. It's really that simple.


RE: Can this be true...
By someguy123 on 4/30/2011 5:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
You can argue all you want but the fact of the matter is gas prices have not increased to the point where you'd be seeing 60% increase in cost. Are you expecting people to believe your specific pump has a unique rate that nobody else shares (even areas of peak pricing)?

At any rate, you were initially asking for "relief" from gas pricing and pushing your sap story while trashing the government for not providing some miraculous reduction in gas prices. They don't own Exxon, and you're not entitled to lower gas prices. Hell, you're not entitled to the lifestyle you have right now. There are plenty of people substantially worse off than you. How about they get help first before you continue going off about how gas costs too much?


RE: Can this be true...
By Iaiken on 4/28/2011 12:19:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The government is the only one who can fix this problem because they're the only ones who can set the damn rules.


False, the government doesn't have the power to fix this because the oil companies and the banks have the power to sway government opinion away from the interest of the masses and towards their own best interests. To think that some noble and princely soul will come forth to save the people from these abuses is naive at best.


RE: Can this be true...
By Hiawa23 on 4/28/2011 1:03:26 PM , Rating: 1
In my view the govt could have fixed this years ago by adopting some sort of energy plan, but what do I know, my degree in not in government.


RE: Can this be true...
By Spuke on 4/28/2011 2:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
What would this energy plan consist of?


RE: Can this be true...
By YashBudini on 4/28/2011 5:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
Trapping the vast quantity of rising hot air about D.C.


RE: Can this be true...
By Spuke on 4/28/2011 7:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Trapping the vast quantity of rising hot air about D.C.
Where do I sign? LOL!


RE: Can this be true...
By Hiawa23 on 4/28/2011 6:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
What would this plan be made up of, well, that's what I thought taxpayer dollars were paying for all these years. It would be made up of something better than what we have now.


RE: Can this be true...
By Spuke on 4/28/2011 7:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What would this plan be made up of, well, that's what I thought taxpayer dollars were paying for all these years.
Can't argue with this! But I think we're asking for something that will either take a long time to happen or will never happen. I see problem number one being the two party system.


RE: Can this be true...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/2011 12:34:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Shut up, Mick, for God's sake. There is no justifiable reason for his fuel bill to double in a month's time. Exxon just reported another ridiculously profitable quarter to the tune of $11 BILLION


Exxon doesn't set the price on what a barrel of crude is, or how much it costs to refine it though. Why do people ALWAYS make this mistake?


RE: Can this be true...
By YashBudini on 4/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: Can this be true...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: Can this be true...
By Spuke on 4/28/2011 2:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He never said Exxon set the price, why do you always make that mistake?
The guy did mention Exxon and their profits. Sounds relevant to me.


RE: Can this be true...
By YashBudini on 4/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: Can this be true...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/2011 12:48:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you think for a second that current gas prices are legitimately related to supply/demand, world crisis, or whatever inane reason corporations like to give, you're a complete idiot and a tool.


The oil refineries in the U.S and Canada have been running flat out at maximum capacity for a while now. Supply and demand is absolutely playing a role in gas prices, as well as the uncertainty in many oil producing Middle East nations. We're barely keeping up with current demand, there's just no overhead in the system to keep up with increased demand. Therefor higher prices.

This is just how it works, no greed conspiracy, sorry. If demand goes up, and the supply does not, then you have rising prices. It's just that simple.


RE: Can this be true...
By Dr of crap on 4/28/2011 3:23:55 PM , Rating: 1
There is no supply problem. Hasn't been for many years. OPEC is running out more barrels than they did in 2009.

Make sure you know the answer before just writing anything.


RE: Can this be true...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/2011 8:13:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no supply problem. Hasn't been for many years. OPEC is running out more barrels than they did in 2009.


It doesn't matter how many barrels of OIL they can crank out, if we barely have enough REFINING capacity to keep up with fuel demands. Hello? I thought this was obvious. Oil has to be turned into fuel you know.

quote:
Make sure you know the answer before just writing anything.


Right, ok. I'll get on that...


RE: Can this be true...
By Schrag4 on 4/28/2011 12:54:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Exxon just reported another ridiculously profitable quarter to the tune of $11 BILLION


And what was Exxon's profit margin during that quarter? What would you like to set their profit (and margin) at exactly?

quote:
The government is the only one who can fix this problem because they're the only ones who can set the damn rules.


If your aim is lower prices for energy, there are plenty in our government that would love for prices to increase unnecessarily (Obama included), forcing us to use less. I don't think you want them "fixing" anything.


RE: Can this be true...
By acer905 on 4/28/2011 1:00:38 PM , Rating: 3
http://www.jb-williams.com/4-25-06.htm

Oil companies profit comes from less than $0.10 a gallon. The record profits come from record amounts of gas sold.

The federal government gets profit of the tune of nearly $0.60 a gallon. And they want to tax it even more?

http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/04/27/gas...

You are right though, the only entity that can fix the problem with gas prices is the Government, because they are the only ones who are price-gouging the consumers.


RE: Can this be true...
By callmeroy on 4/28/2011 1:47:21 PM , Rating: 3
Well if you read the CNN Money article on Exxon's 11B Q that'll tell you that Exxon swears only 6% of its profits come from selling gas at the pump. The article states that Exxon makes 7 cents per gallon at the pump and as contrast state and federal taxes (combined) range between 40-60 cents per gallon. So Exxon therefore claims our states and federal government are making many times more profit per gallon sold than they are.

(btw the main source , Exxon says, for its huge profits are its over seas operations and refining for commercial grade (re: not automobile) products)....


RE: Can this be true...
By Solandri on 4/28/2011 1:49:31 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Exxon just reported another ridiculously profitable quarter to the tune of $11 BILLION. Is that supposed to convince me that the "free market" is doing its job and NOT screwing over the average consumer? The free market doesn't work when it's cornered and manipulated by those who directly seek to profit from the lack of regulation.

Your mistake is in thinking that $11 billion in profit is something to be outraged about. ExxonMobil had $31 billion in profit last year, on $383 billion in revenue. That's a profit margin of 8.1%.

Here's a list of net profit margin by industry (next to last column).
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/s_qpmd.html
You can see that Exxon's 8.1% is about average for utilities, and is middle of the pack for all industries (you can click on each category to see what types of goods/services they contain). The technology, raw materials, financial, and health care sectors all had bigger average profit margins.

The only reason ExxonMobil has a large raw dollar profit is because they are one of the biggest companies on earth. Nothing more. Normalized for their size, their finances are pretty average. Chevron did better than them last quarter. Your ire is better directed at the health care, financial services, raw materials, and technology industries.


RE: Can this be true...
By Pneumothorax on 4/28/2011 2:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
Thank God, finally some voices of reason on this board. Further compounding the problem is our lame ass politicos including the President who do not do anything to better educate the public in this regard. Instead they just further whip up the paranoia. The way politicians talk, they want everyone else to work for free or donate 100% of their incomes to Washington.


RE: Can this be true...
By Lerianis on 4/29/2011 4:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed totally, TheRealArdrid. If the 'free market' was working as intended, with the economic conditions and the decrease in gasoline usage being taken into account, we should have seen gas price DECREASES, not increases!

I will be blunt: the free market FAILS for necessities. For non-necessities such as TV's, radios, computers (to a degree), etc.? The free market works.

With necessities however, it is WAY too easy for companies/speculators to cut down on production or whine about 'shortages' that really don't exist and manipulate prices.


RE: Can this be true...
By Iaiken on 4/28/2011 12:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The U.S. is a free market system and if consumers are happy to stand by and get "screwed" at the pump (in your words), the oil companies will be more than happy to oblige.


People who are too lazy to do their research and make informed decisions deserve what they get and have no ground to stand on when they complain. Seriously, the math isn't hard and there are even total cost of ownership calculators out there where you can figure out which car is the most affordable.

quote:
reduce our dependance on foreign oil


Simply switching to more fuel efficient cars isn't going to have a a significant impact as people will only swap when it becomes too painful to keep their fuel-chuggin SUVs. Any switch at this time simply prolongs that situation and won't bring the price of gasoline down in any meaningful way.

The only real way to do reduce that dependence is to transition to alternative fuels and electricity, but that has numerous hurdles in it's path as well. For electricity you have a non-existent charging infrastructure, range issues, electricity grid load issues etc.

Then there is the grand daddy of electric car issues: limited installed capacity. There simply isn't enough electricity as it is and looking at the plans for future installations show a massive disparity in the amount of electricity to be added to the grid vs the amount to be lost to the decommissioning of old plants. Factor in the rate at which consumption is growing even without throwing millions of cars into the picture and the fact that the electricity system simply will not be able to cope becomes obvious. You will simply trade that $240 gas bill for a similar increase to your electricity bill.

If we are going to push EV's as a solution then doors need to be opened, loans need to be made and red tape removed so that we can start breaking ground on new power generation. This all falls under the role of the state governments and even if the federal government tried to make a move on it, they would meet with staunch resistance from the states as well as from anti-federalists in the house/congress.

Good luck!


RE: Can this be true...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Can this be true...
By Iaiken on 4/28/2011 12:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But it's their roll to kill exploration, drilling, and refining domestically so we're burdened with overtaxed over imported resources at the mercy of OPEC?


Energy independence through exhaustion is not a plan.

"Drill baby! Drill!" basically translates to "The sooner the we use up all our oil, the better off we will be." Please tell me you see how ludicrous this sentiment is?

Hell, you're more at the mercy of Canada than you are OPEC, better invade them for making a piggish lifestyle hard to upkeep.

quote:
If we were drilling our own crude and refining it, the price per barrel would be a joke, like it used to be.


This is a false argument. If the US fell back exclusively on it's own reserves, they would be completely consumed in ~1000 days based on current rates of consumption. If prices went down, that rate of consumption would go up accordingly, just like it always has. After that 2.5 years of "Burn baby! Burn!" you would be completely at the mercy of foreign oil.

quote:
allow the energy industry to serve the needs of the people


Another false statement. The energy industry serves it's own needs and nobody else's. Oil companies spent over $1 billion dollars over the last 10 years to get the government on THEIR side, when the government is supposed to be on YOUR side. Some of them weren't even American corporations, Shell spent $124 million, BP spent $98 million. How is that not subversion of the government by a foreign power?


RE: Can this be true...
By YashBudini on 4/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: Can this be true...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/2011 1:14:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If the US fell back exclusively on it's own reserves, they would be completely consumed in ~1000 days based on current rates of consumption.


Come back when you don't have to lie to make an argument. As recently as 2008 two TRILLION barrels of shale were discovered in Dakota. The potential oil reserves in this continent would last FAR longer than 2 or 3 years. Where did you get that absurd estimate?

quote:
Another false statement.


Oh word games, fun fun. Like it or not, we need gasoline. And in the strictest sense of the word, they are providing a product and service to meet that need. So chill with the anti-Capitalist dogma please. At least pick and choose your fights, that was just silly.

quote:
"Drill baby! Drill!" basically translates to "The sooner the we use up all our oil, the better off we will be." Please tell me you see how ludicrous this sentiment is?


Wow, you really are that short sighted aren't you? And I love how you assume I'm suggesting cutting off ALL imports and just using our reserves. Where did I say that again?

I know to you the acceptable amount of oil we would use would be ZERO, but some of us live in the real world. And please try to remember oil doesn't JUST get used in making fuel. The cost of other products are high as well now.

quote:
better invade them for making a piggish lifestyle hard to upkeep.


Ah, your true colors. I can see that I'm wasting my time. Yup. we're all just a bunch of over consuming warmongers. Gotcha.


RE: Can this be true...
By Iaiken on 4/28/2011 2:15:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Come back when you don't have to lie to make an argument. As recently as 2008 two TRILLION barrels of shale were discovered in Dakota. The potential oil reserves in this continent would last FAR longer than 2 or 3 years. Where did you get that absurd estimate?


Somebody fell for a chain e-mail... do you believe such things just because you want them to be true?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp

Let me quote the 2008 government survey of the Dakota shale:

quote:
The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. Scientists conducted detailed studies in stratigraphy and structural geology and the modeling of petroleum geochemistry. They also combined their findings with historical exploration and production analyses to determine the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil estimates.


These figures have since been incorporated into the CIA fact book of US oil reserves of only 19.1 billion, a figure 102 times smaller than the one you are claiming as fact. Did you believe that hoax because it was so good that you wanted it to be true?

Even above recoverable oil faces technical challenges according to the Rand Corporation:

quote:
extraction requires the equivalent of about three barrels of water per barrel of oil


Wow, this couldn't possibly be too expensive to be of assistance now could it?

quote:
I know to you the acceptable amount of oil we would use would be ZERO, but some of us live in the real world.


That just shows you know ZERO about what I think and about as much about reality. I'm perfectly OK with people burning oil and gas, I design automated demand/purchasing systems for oil/gas/electricity retailers. In fact, it's practically irrelevant to me what people use to satisfy their energy needs. From my point of view I think it's absolutely silly that we aren't better exploiting our ability to produce massive amounts of cheap electricity.

Did you know that in the Ontario Market, the nuclear plants bid -$2000 in order to guarantee that they run at full capacity at all times and simply accept the market price because they are making money no matter what? The plants that get shut down at night are the coal fire and natural gas plants because they are better off burning that fuel tomorrow for a bigger profit.

This is what I do for a living, I help companies figure out how to get the most out of these limited resources by taking advantage of other installations to allow them to stretch their supply to their greatest advantage. I believe that the best solutions are blended solutions and not absolutes.

The example was in extreme to demonstrate to you just how small an impact such an endeavor would have considering that many reserves are not worth tapping until the prices rise significantly. Expansion of domestic drilling is basically an empty gesture and a temporary one at best. Anything else would require significant government subsidy in order to allow them to be competitive vs foreign oil. This brings it's own political pitfalls with it as any such move would be resented by OPEC.

Instead of looking at the idea behind the statement, you simply threw out the whole statement. Thank you for reminding me again just how dangerous it is to be closed minded.


RE: Can this be true...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/2011 9:01:14 PM , Rating: 1
LOL the CIA factbook? As if you can believe anything they say to the public. It's well known that our government downplays our oil reserves so they can keep demand and prices higher. Chain email? So I guess in 2005 the U.S Department of energy DIDN'T release those findings, I just made it up? Just because it's hard to process doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Sorry, they did indeed estimate two trillion barrels of oil in those hills. Not only that, and I quote, they claimed that we could wring "200,000 barrels a day from oil shale by 2011, 2 million barrels a day by 2020, and ultimately 10 million barrels a day."

Now if you have a problem with this, take it up with the U.S Department of Energy, but don't you dare call me a liar.

You left out the biggest reason why we can't exploit these reserves, Uncle Sam has put them off limits for "environmental reasons". So I guess it's a moot point anyway, how convenient...

So your stupid estimate of 3 years of oil reserves is completely false and not even honest. It only counts the reserves that we're currently allowed to exploit. To say nothing of tar sands in in Utah, Alaska, Texas and California, as well as in Alabama and Kentucky on federal and state lands that, by laws and administrative orders, are closed to mineral and petroleum development. Canada's tar sands turn out a million barrels a day!! So could we!

Something in the neighborhood of 90 billion barrels of oil sit beneath the ocean bed 50 to 100 miles off the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts. Presidential bans and congressional prohibitions have put the tracts off-limits to oil company exploration at least until 2012. Of course that's all shot to hell now with Obamas new bans.

And of course lets not forget The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge: About 10 billion barrels of oil are locked away here, with little possibility that federal lawmakers will open the door.

quote:
Even above recoverable oil faces technical challenges according to the Rand Corporation


So what? We're Americans. Jesus, if we can put a man on the moon we can get some oil out of rocks. No offense, but I'll take geologists opinion and the U.S Department of Energy's estimates over yours.

So you can pretty much take that "fact book" and shove it for how accurate it is. We have enough oil to meet demand for 100+ years, theoretically.

quote:
Wow, this couldn't possibly be too expensive to be of assistance now could it?


You are correct, it's not cheap. It was estimated that shale wouldn't be viable unless the price of sweet crude reached $60 a barrel. Well guess what? It's over $100 now! So you're damn wrong. At this sky high price, shale oil refining is more than viable.

quote:
The example was in extreme to demonstrate to you just how small an impact such an endeavor would have considering that many reserves are not worth tapping until the prices rise significantly.


UNTIL!? My god man, we're at $112 a barrel now!

quote:
I design automated demand/purchasing systems for oil/gas/electricity retailers.


I'm sure that looks good on your resume. Is someone qualified to be an economist because they can work the cash register at Food Lion also?

quote:
From my point of view I think it's absolutely silly that we aren't better exploiting our ability to produce massive amounts of cheap electricity.


Ok that's a shock. Because that certainly did not come off from reading your post. Here's a hint, if you are actually FOR exploiting and producing energy, don't repeat that ridiculous Liberalized "Drill baby drill" crap.


RE: Can this be true...
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/28/2011 1:06:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But it's their roll to kill exploration, drilling, and refining domestically so we're burdened with overtaxed over imported resources at the mercy of OPEC?


You forgot to mention killing development of new nuclear energy...

But yea, that's no good as well.

quote:
Aren't you getting "bailed out" if you take a 12k government handout for an EV vehicle? How is that any better?

This isn't about hoping big brother "bails us out". Big brother is CHOKING us. Our energy policy is ridiculous and you know it. Gas should be cheap, dirt cheap. If we were drilling our own crude and refining it, the price per barrel would be a joke, like it used to be.

But Liberals like you don't want to see that. Because then nobody would want EV's or Hybrids. Your post is absurd Jason, I can't believe even you would be so intellectually dishonest.


Wow, cool down, pal. To quote myself from yesterday:

I don't necessarily agree with the federal rebate as that seems like the federal government overstepping its intended function, but the Hawaiian one seems pretty reasonable -- after all if Hawaiians want to vote for state legislators who will approve it, well that's the definition of self-governance right?

I don't approve of the federal credit program, I believe programs like that are best left to the state or local level.

quote:
There's also a reason to wait until they are ready or viable. If you have to pay someone 11,000 dollars to purchase one, something isn't right there.


I said to add the numbers up and see what you get. If it doesn't make sense, don't buy it. If you're too lazy to find out its your loss. If you're too stupid to add the numbers up, its also your loss.

No one is forcing you to buy anything -- or at least they shouldn't be.

And this article wasn't just about hybrids. JD Power and associates was also ripping on clean diesel... Many diesel vehicles are VERY cheap and get great mileage. What complaints do you have about them??

Seems like you're jumping to a lot of wild conclusions and making a whole lot of inaccurate assumptions of my opinions... I'd prefer you avoid that and ASK me what my opinion is in the future, please.


RE: Can this be true...
By YashBudini on 4/28/2011 10:18:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd prefer you avoid that and ASK me what my opinion is in the future, please.

Requires thought and work. Just calling everybody who disagrees an idiot is way easier.


RE: Can this be true...
By YashBudini on 4/28/2011 12:23:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you don't like that consider options like diesel, hybrids, or budget EVs next time you purchase a vehicle. Carefully assess the price vs. gas savings and make an educated decision as a responsible consumer.

A ridiculous statement for a person who is having problems making ends meet. Add to that to invest in something that loses value as quickly as an automobile. Even the current batch of F/As couldn't sell something like that.

quote:
The U.S. is a free market system and if consumers are happy to stand by and get "screwed" at the pump (in your words), the oil companies will be more than happy to oblige.

More half baked truths. As if anyone can avoid being financially screwed, yeah we can stand up to K St.

He should be asking for 4 10 hour shifts or to work 1 day a week from home, or the most likely outcome when ends don't meet is to take a second job, a bicycle, or a Virago 250, a bus schedule. Your alternative is the least viable. Can you admit that or are you going to go all Reclaimer77 on my a$$?


RE: Can this be true...
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/28/2011 1:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He should be asking for 4 10 hour shifts or to work 1 day a week from home, or the most likely outcome when ends don't meet is to take a second job, a bicycle, or a Virago 250, a bus schedule. Your alternative is the least viable.


Sure those are all good suggestions.

But your suggestions all reinforce my original point. Take personal responsibility for your economic prosperity.

Sure, both the Democratic and Republican parties seemed fixated on the national level at handing tax breaks and otherwise funneling funding to special interest groups of their choice. But the situation is still not bad enough for the average Joe that you can't do well for yourself if you work hard and are well educated.

It's one thing not to LIKE $4 gas. I don't like it, either. But if you can't AFFORD it, you have bigger issues as obviously you're not making much money, have overburden yourself with debt, or in some other way have positioned yourself poorly financially...

quote:
More half baked truths. As if anyone can avoid being financially screwed, yeah we can stand up to K St.


We could have, if we ditched a two party system whose politicians are mostly funded/bribed/paid off by a wealthy minority during their campaigns and who fixate, while in office, on ways to funnel more money to their sponsors, while occasionally adopting a moralistic stand to pander to their voter base.


RE: Can this be true...
By YashBudini on 4/28/2011 3:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We could have, if we ditched a two party system whose politicians are mostly funded/bribed/paid off by a wealthy minority during their campaigns and who fixate, while in office, on ways to funnel more money to their sponsors, while occasionally adopting a moralistic stand to pander to their voter base.

Actually you just described why failure for the masses is inevitable. Those you address have already completely succeeded in the "divide and conquer" strategy, there's really nothing left to address. The truly sad fact is the number of the masses that are cheering them on.


RE: Can this be true...
By Hiawa23 on 4/28/2011 1:29:14 PM , Rating: 2
He should be asking for 4 10 hour shifts or to work 1 day a week from home, or the most likely outcome when ends don't meet is to take a second job, a bicycle, or a Virago 250, a bus schedule. Your alternative is the least viable. Can you admit that or are you going to go all Reclaimer77 on my a$$?

Where I live in Florida, there is no bus that goes from Apopka To nearly Kissimmee, but I have explored all those options. Really, what person would not explore all those options first. That's common sense. My hours are now back up to 55-60hours a week, so things are better, & I took a forbearance on my student loan until January 12. You guys say get a second job like it's simple. In this economy, most are asking where are the jobs. What jobs?


RE: Can this be true...
By Spuke on 4/28/2011 4:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In this economy, most are asking where are the jobs. What jobs?
I found some here.

http://www.monster.com/


RE: Can this be true...
By YashBudini on 4/28/2011 5:03:43 PM , Rating: 2
How many? Now divide that number by the number of unemployed. Now ask yourself if someone with opposing political interests would be allowed to what you just did.

Some. What a concept.


RE: Can this be true...
By Hiawa23 on 4/28/2011 12:36:49 PM , Rating: 1
Mick, you really can't be serious. My 2006 Lancer is not an old car, my Honda is old, but it still gets great mileage. You completely missed my point, which I think is the point for many Americans, atleast the ones who live in my area. My cars are fine, what causes gas prices to go up at the drop of a hat is not & like many things in our country are not fine, & no one seems to have a answer for that. That's the larger problem... Besides, most folks can't afford to buy anything thanks to the recession that many of us had nothing to do with, & those who did, seem to have gotten away, & gotten away with bonuses on top of that.


RE: Can this be true...
By Hiawa23 on 4/28/2011 12:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
I am all for free market & this fake fasad that things trickle down, but from where I am standing, & many middle or lower class, seems like it's just a license to screw over the lower classes, or middle class. The smallest % seems to be getting richer yet most others seems to be sliding the other way, but like you say, what a wonderful free market system we have.


RE: Can this be true...
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/28/2011 1:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am all for free market & this fake fasad that things trickle down, but from where I am standing, & many middle or lower class, seems like it's just a license to screw over the lower classes, or middle class. The smallest % seems to be getting richer yet most others seems to be sliding the other way, but like you say, what a wonderful free market system we have.


Well I agree with you there to some extent, and I agree the current state of things isn't great.

But at the end of the day, again, that's because consumers let themselves get doubly worked over by failing to use their buying power to promote personal prosperity, and then turning around and voting for politicians (e.g. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, etc.) who hand sneaky tax breaks and loopholes to companys like GE, while slowly shifting those corporations' tax burden onto your back.

Ever notice how almost no Dems or Republicans are supporting a flat tax? There's a reason why -- the interests of those corporation and the wealthy few that control them.


RE: Can this be true...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/2011 1:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
The U.S has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Also something like the top 10% income earners pay like 75% of the tax burden in this country for everyone else. So I don't know Jason, I don't feel I'm being screwed at all as a middle class citizen. At least not by them....

quote:
Ever notice how almost no Dems or Republicans are supporting a flat tax? There's a reason why -- the interests of those corporation and the wealthy few that control them.


Because going to flat tax would require about 40% of the U.S government to be restructured? Would kill about 300,000 federal jobs? I mean, I would love a flat tax, but let's be honest here. Who's going to get behind such a controversial decision from WITHIN the Government? Do you really think they would give up that much power? Claiming "corporate control and greed" isn't exactly being genuine imo.


RE: Can this be true...
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/28/2011 1:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The U.S has the highest corporate tax rate in the world


That's just a shell game. Some of the largest and most profitable corporations like GE shelter their profits off shore. They buy toxic assets in the U.S. to zero or red their balance sheet and buy lucrative ones overseas. Don't be among those deluding yourself.

Now mind you, I'm not criticizing ALL corporations . I'm just saying there's a certain number that game the system, and it's those I'm referring to in this discussion.

quote:

So I don't know Jason, I don't feel I'm being screwed at all as a middle class citizen. At least not by them....


Well I would say you're underinformed. You are being screwed in that you're shouldering the tax burden while the government's pet corporations shelter offshores profits. It's essentially evolving into fascism -- a corporate system backed by a singular federal government.

That's bad news for both citizens and for honest corporations who aren't looking to abuse the political system.

quote:

Because going to flat tax would require about 40% of the U.S government to be restructured? Would kill about 300,000 federal jobs


If it would really kill all those jobs, that says something about how useful they are in the first place.

In your effort to justify of why the flat tax is impossible, you've unwittingly provided a terrific argument in its favor. Nice going!

quote:

Who's going to get behind such a controversial decision from WITHIN the Government? Do you really think they would give up that much power? Claiming "corporate control and greed" isn't exactly being genuine imo.


Why not? The writing is on the wall. It's your own fault if you're too willfully ignorant and/or unintelligent to see it.

Clearly the primary concern of the government -- both democrats and republicans -- on the federal level is NOT the citizens' best interest. Their primary concern is in repaying those who paid for them to be in office.

Mind you these interests aren't JUST corporations. They're also coalitions of wealthy individuals -- for example certain investors or groups of large corn farmers.

But at the end of the day the special interests are making many a buck off your back. And your "yes guy" attitude is supporting that.

You seem at least mildly intelligent. Can you honestly not see that?


RE: Can this be true...
By Iaiken on 4/28/2011 2:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now mind you, I'm not criticizing ALL corporations . I'm just saying there's a certain number that game the system, and it's those I'm referring to in this discussion.


Any corporation that isn't doing this, is doing a disservice to their investors. If you look at the biggest 50 companies in north america, practically of them do this (alphabetically):

AIG, Altria, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cardinal Health Inc., Cargill Inc, ChevronTexaco Corp., Citigroup Inc., ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp., Ford Motor Co., General Electric Co., General Motors Corp., Google, Hewlett-Packard Co., Home Depot Inc., IBM, Procter & Gamble, Verizon Communications, Wal-Mart Stores

That's 21 of the largest corporations that payed no tax (or got a refund) AND posted a profit without any tax forgiveness for past filings (which is why I left Boeing off the list).


RE: Can this be true...
By YashBudini on 4/28/2011 3:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
The old joke is a guy was being interviewed for the job of tax accountant. He answered the questions well enough. As he was leaving the office the interviewer asked him, "What do the numbers say?" He looked back and said, "What?" The interviewer asked again, "What do the numbers say?" The interviewee figured it out and responded, "Whatever you want them to say." And he got the job.


RE: Can this be true...
By YashBudini on 4/28/2011 3:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Any corporation that isn't doing this, is doing a disservice to their investors. If you look at the biggest 50 companies in north america, practically of them do this (alphabetically):

Business ethics, the college class that's laughed at, let alone taken.

http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-S...
They look ordinary enough.


RE: Can this be true...
By YashBudini on 4/28/2011 2:31:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You seem at least mildly intelligent. Can you honestly not see that?

If you haven't discovered by now that he sees only what he wants to see then you're have more issues than he does.

Honesty over political alliance? You gotta by kidding.


RE: Can this be true...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2011 12:01:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's just a shell game. Some of the largest and most profitable corporations like GE shelter their profits off shore


So what? Their still responsible for creating jobs, growth, and wealth. Which gets taxed. If it's legal for them to shelter profits offshore, they would be idiots for NOT taking advantage of it. It's honestly not the end of the world if a few corporations don't pay the full amount of taxes they could. It's not some giant conspiracy, good grief.

I mean give me a break Jason. Is the premise of your argument that the Government actually NEEDS this ridiculous level of funding? They gross far too much in taxes already, and what they don't get they print from the treasury. In my opinion, the less the government gets the better! If you think MORE taxes are the answer, then you must think this level of Federal spending is acceptable. And I don't even know what to think about that...

On one hand you are advocating the flat tax, on the other you're making it seem like an atrocity if the Government cant gobble up every loose cent it can find from Corporations (aka the "rich").

quote:
Well I would say you're underinformed.


And I would say your class warfare tactics are getting old. They were old 10 years ago.

quote:
In your effort to justify of why the flat tax is impossible, you've unwittingly provided a terrific argument in its favor. Nice going!


Who said it's not possible? I'm not justifying anything, I'm simply telling you it wont happen and why. I learned long ago that hope was 4 letter word. Of course I'm in it's favor though.

quote:
But at the end of the day the special interests are making many a buck off your back. And your "yes guy" attitude is supporting that.


Ok how many personal attacks do you think you have to make here? Jason, we're just flapping our virtual gums here. Nothing we're typing is changing the world. I'm not supporting a damn thing that's effecting anything, relax.

quote:
You seem at least mildly intelligent. Can you honestly not see that?


Gee mildly, thanks. And no, I don't see that, because you're wrong.

Here's my problem Jason. I believe in this country and the system of government we have. No, it's not perfect. But the only way these problems of yours can be "fixed", is by turning this country into a communist state and shattering the First Amendment. So sorry, but as broken as things might be today, I know the alternatives are much worst.

And sorry if I seem apathetic, but come on, a Conservative can only read so much anti-business anti-everything-good crap on this site before he just tunes a ton of it out.


RE: Can this be true...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2011 12:13:39 AM , Rating: 2
By the way, my taxes went up because Obama knowingly allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire. NOT because of some mysterious omnipotent "special interest".


RE: Can this be true...
RE: Can this be true...
By Arsynic on 4/28/2011 11:50:37 AM , Rating: 1
Obama wants you to pay $5 for gas because he wants you to buy green vehicles. He doesn't care if you go broke doing so. I'm basing this on his own words.

You need to stop being selfish and care about the greater good. We all need to suffer so that we can save mother earth from evil carbon. So shut up and get in line.

/Obama


RE: Can this be true...
By nolisi on 4/28/2011 12:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure he never said or even implied he wants you to pay $5 for gas. If you have a quote that shows otherwise, I'd love to read it.

You want to know who wants you to pay $5 a gallon for gas- oil companies and speculators. They're the ones directly benefitting from the spike (mainly the speculators). Argue with me on that point... I beg you. It'll only make you look more foolish.


RE: Can this be true...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/2011 12:29:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm pretty sure he never said or even implied he wants you to pay $5 for gas.


No just every policy and decision he makes is directly leading to it.

If you don't think Barry want's us off the petrol and into a Volt or Leaf, you're smoking crack.

quote:
You want to know who wants you to pay $5 a gallon for gas- oil companies and speculators. They're the ones directly benefitting from the spike (mainly the speculators). Argue with me on that point... I beg you


Yeah that's sorta what happens when you declare war on Libya or any mid east nation. Oh ooops, did I say declare war? I meant invade. We have billions of barrels of oil right here in the United States, a stable NON wartorn nation, yet we refuse to use it. What do you expect speculators to do exactly?? Do you even know what they do and why they are so important?


RE: Can this be true...
By Dorkyman on 4/28/2011 12:39:16 PM , Rating: 2
It has been obvious that Obama implicitly wants high oil prices in order to make alternative energy practical. He nominated his Energy guy (Chu) a few months after Chu said what was really needed was for the price of gas in the USA to be as high as in Europe.

The oil companies are not the villans here. Their profit on a $4 gallon of gas is maybe as much as $0.25. No, take a look at several other factors:

(1) a president who forbids tapping the enormous reserves of his own country while berating other countries to produce more;

(2) the amazing shift in consumption from the USA to China for oil;

(3) the unrest in the Middle East, estimated to add about 15% to the cost of a barrel of oil;

(4) the stunning drop in the value of the dollar compared to all other world currencies, courtesy of your Federal Government and directed by, ahem, your Dear Leader. This matters because oil is still priced in dollars. In other words, oil is not that expensive to other countries, just to the USA.

Hope that helps clear things up. You need to read more than just the fringe lefty websites.


RE: Can this be true...
By Dorkyman on 4/28/2011 12:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, should have caught that error before posting. "villains"


RE: Can this be true...
By Iaiken on 4/28/2011 1:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the unrest in the Middle East, estimated to add about 15% to the cost of a barrel of oil;


Who caused that again by unnecessarily invading Iraq?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secr...

Looks like the Oil Companies pushed Britain into it.

Did you know that France was punished for not participating in the war by stripping away TotalFinaElf's oil shares in Iraq? Their pre-war share was 40%, post war they came out with only 20% (largely because of acquisitions and partnerships). Who picked up the lions share of the oil after the war? Why Shell and BP did, the same companies that pushed the British Government into supporting the Bush Administration in the first place. How quaint, but not as quaint as these memos having not made their way into the American media.

quote:
the stunning drop in the value of the dollar compared to all other world currencies, courtesy of your Federal Government


Incorrect, the control of the US currency is held not by the Federal Government, but by the Federal Reserve Bank. The FRB is a PRIVATE BANK with which the exchanges bonds for interest bearing loans. The bonds are then used to make fractional reserve loans to other banks at interest. That's right, the government is borrowing it's own money at interest so that the owners of the FRB can derive a profit off of both the government and the banks.

Contrast that versus The Bank of Canada which prints money and loans it out to the banks at interest. This facilitates trade at the same time as generating revenue for the government to support it's expenditures and programs. This also lead Canadian banks to being more conservative when it comes to giving over extending their loans because they can't simply ask the bank of Canada to drop off more money. Instead, further loans are made on the interest from other loans and the economy grows in a more natural way with far less en-masse-risk than the American economy saw.

You're barking up the wrong tree. If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at the FRB for making you (the tax payer) pay interest on the governments own money, your money. The ONLY people who benefit from this arrangement are the investors of the Federal Reserve Bank.


RE: Can this be true...
By MrTeal on 4/28/2011 1:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who caused that again by unnecessarily invading Iraq?


Because the region was nothing but bunnies and hugs before the invasion of Iraq?


RE: Can this be true...
By Dr of crap on 4/28/2011 12:40:12 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, but the rules, set by the govt controls, GIVE the speculators the right to drive the price of oil up.
Oil companies are just profiting from the fact that what they sell is selling for far more than what they need to sell it for to make a profit.

The oil price will fall if the investment bankers are kicked out of being able to play in the commodies futures market. Someplace that they were not intended to be, but muscled their way in.


RE: Can this be true...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2011 2:22:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm pretty sure he never said or even implied he wants you to pay $5 for gas. If you have a quote that shows otherwise, I'd love to read it.


“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Steven Chu told the Wall Street Journal in an interview less than six months before he became Mr. Obama’s energy secretary. Mission accomplished, Mr. Chu.

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” candidate Barack Obama said in 2008.


RE: Can this be true...
By Iaiken on 4/28/2011 12:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
Saying that it would take $5/gal fuel for people to start making the switch is not the same as saying you want gas to be $5/gal so people have no choice, but to make the switch.

The masses will continue to rely on gasoline until the market makes it too painful to do so, it's unfortunate, but it's true.

The ONLY people who want you to pay $5 a gallon for gas are the oil companies. The last thing they want to do is leave oil in the ground and money in your wallet.


RE: Can this be true...
By Hiawa23 on 4/28/2011 2:00:32 PM , Rating: 4
Obama wants you to pay $5 for gas because he wants you to buy green vehicles. He doesn't care if you go broke doing so. I'm basing this on his own words.

Can't really respond to nonsense like this. I guess Bush wanted higher prices, & every other president when gas prices spiked. Not sure Why Obama would want higher prices when higher prices will definitely affect his presidency negatively. Are you really serious? Birth document wasn't good enough for some I guess...


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki