Hello? Your $2.50 / ga. gas is here.

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: fallout man
I thought that we were at peak oil production! *doom* *gloom*

Good thing that all that drilling and crudding-up of the ANWR brought those outrageous prices down... ohwait.

Alright stop,
collaborate and listen,
Sarah Palin has a brand new invention.

Drilling fad,
grips the nation tightly.
Looking for oil daily and nightly.

Will it ever stop, yo?
I don't know.
But polar bears all need to go

To the north pole where they can huddle with camels
Rolling around and fishing for tasty salmon.

Energy,
Is what our country needs.
But the peace loving hippies won't catch our drilling disease!

Salmon at the north pole?

Fish, baby, fish!


On a serious note, if we could pay $2.50 per gallon for gasoline, and have it rise by only 10% per year, we should get down on our knees and shout with joy to the heavens for our good fortune.

Not to mention that most of the Industrialized World would cream in their jeans over $2.50 gas.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: IamDavid
It'll stop rising before 2.75, than tank again.. Demand is gone and won't recover for a long time....

Interesting is that the forecast for gasoline prices was to top out at $2.23 per gallon this year. It went to $2.25 a day later in Lexington, KY.

Best way to kill a recovery in the economy? Energy inflation!!!

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Well...instead of driving this summer it will encourage me to stay home.

People stayed home last summer.

People will do it this summer.

High Gas only hurts the entire US economy, especially during a recession.

fixed that for you!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: techs
btw Anyone who saw that my thread about how some FoxNews announces said under the right circumstans gas could go as low as .35 cents a gallon got locked with the stipulation that it would re-opened if I could show a link SHOULD KNOW THAT I DID SEND THE MOD THE LINK. THEN THE MOD DECIDED THAT HE WOULDN'T REOPEN THE THREAD ANYWAY.
SO, here is just some of the documentation:

http://www.americanprogress.or...s/2004/07/b122948.html
Murdoch has acknowledged his major rationale for supporting the Iraq invasion: oil. While both American and British politicians strenuously deny the significance of oil in the war, the Guardian of London notes, "Murdoch wasn't so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil." Murdoch said before the war, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." He buttressed this statement when he later said, "Once [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else." [Guardian, 2/17/03]

That in itself doesn't prove Fox said .35 a gallon oil, which they did by various of thier "newspeople" but it certainly lets you know that Murdoch himself saw 20 a barrel oil, which certainly would indicate that my claim that some commentators said .35 cents a gallon gas was possible under the right cirucmstances.

Where's my M*F*CKIN" OIL????

IF oil was free, I doubt you could get it the pumps for .35/gallon. Oil dipped down to the low 30s/barrel and gas dipped to 1.25/gallon. I dont see how anyone could predict 35 cents a gallon with the costs to make and deliver gas to the pumps.

 

[herm0016]

i still find it very amusing that you all think 2.50 a gallon is " OH MY WORD IM NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GET MY 5 DOLLAR 8 OZ COFFEE ANYMOREE AHHHH!!!!"

I bet none of you actually know what it takes to get a barrel of oil out of the ground, refined, to the station, etc... and to your tank.

what do you guys think the price of gas should be? and why do you think this?

keep in mind that the oil companies make around 5 to 8 % margin on their product. it costs millions to drill a little hole in the ground, another million or so to case and perforate the casing and to start the well producing. millions on pumping stations and pipe lines, a billion or more to build a refinery... etc... and these figures are rounded off for an on shore well in a well known field in a fairly moderate climate ( wyoming)

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: herm0016
i still find it very amusing that you all think 2.50 a gallon is " OH MY WORD IM NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GET MY 5 DOLLAR 8 OZ COFFEE ANYMOREE AHHHH!!!!"

I bet none of you actually know what it takes to get a barrel of oil out of the ground, refined, to the station, etc... and to your tank.

what do you guys think the price of gas should be? and why do you think this?

I'm dumb, I went to school in California, and a continuation one at that.

1. drill the ground via an oil rig
2. send it to refinery to be refined
3. truck it from refinery to gas station
4. I pump it into my tank <--- this one is ALL ME, they can't take any credit for the work, so they shouldn't be able to factor this into their cost analysis.

that pretty much sums it up. I don't know details, but I don't need to know much except the Oil companies make billions in profits. I want to pay 99 cents for a gallon of gas. And daamit I want to pay 99 cents per gig of memory for my computer. I simply cannot afford to upgrade to 6 gig with these $10 a gig prices

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: herm0016
i still find it very amusing that you all think 2.50 a gallon is " OH MY WORD IM NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GET MY 5 DOLLAR 8 OZ COFFEE ANYMOREE AHHHH!!!!"

I bet none of you actually know what it takes to get a barrel of oil out of the ground, refined, to the station, etc... and to your tank.

what do you guys think the price of gas should be? and why do you think this?

keep in mind that the oil companies make around 5 to 8 % margin on their product. it costs millions to drill a little hole in the ground, another million or so to case and perforate the casing and to start the well producing. millions on pumping stations and pipe lines, a billion or more to build a refinery... etc... and these figures are rounded off for an on shore well in a well known field in a fairly moderate climate ( wyoming)

What about investors who drive up the price of gas simply by buying a contract that says "oil" on it, yet they never take delivery of the physical oil?

I will never for the life of me understand how that works.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: techs
btw Anyone who saw that my thread about how some FoxNews announces said under the right circumstans gas could go as low as .35 cents a gallon got locked with the stipulation that it would re-opened if I could show a link SHOULD KNOW THAT I DID SEND THE MOD THE LINK. THEN THE MOD DECIDED THAT HE WOULDN'T REOPEN THE THREAD ANYWAY.
SO, here is just some of the documentation:

http://www.americanprogress.or...s/2004/07/b122948.html
Murdoch has acknowledged his major rationale for supporting the Iraq invasion: oil. While both American and British politicians strenuously deny the significance of oil in the war, the Guardian of London notes, "Murdoch wasn't so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil." Murdoch said before the war, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." He buttressed this statement when he later said, "Once [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else." [Guardian, 2/17/03]

That in itself doesn't prove Fox said .35 a gallon oil, which they did by various of thier "newspeople" but it certainly lets you know that Murdoch himself saw 20 a barrel oil, which certainly would indicate that my claim that some commentators said .35 cents a gallon gas was possible under the right cirucmstances.

Where's my M*F*CKIN" OIL????

IF oil was free, I doubt you could get it the pumps for .35/gallon. Oil dipped down to the low 30s/barrel and gas dipped to 1.25/gallon. I dont see how anyone could predict 35 cents a gallon with the costs to make and deliver gas to the pumps.

You couldn't. Anybody who thinks oil could be $.35/gallon doesn't understand anything about refining costs, storage, transportation, gas station profitability, and gas taxes. Even with oil free it could not be $.35/gallon. It would be 2-3X that, depending on state (taxes, transportation differences, etc.)

 

[johnbrown1776]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: IamDavid
It'll stop rising before 2.75, than tank again.. Demand is gone and won't recover for a long time....

Interesting is that the forecast for gasoline prices was to top out at $2.23 per gallon this year. It went to $2.25 a day later in Lexington, KY.

Best way to kill a recovery in the economy? Energy inflation!!!

Closing in on $3.50 here now. Been going up a dime a day.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: techs
btw Anyone who saw that my thread about how some FoxNews announces said under the right circumstans gas could go as low as .35 cents a gallon got locked with the stipulation that it would re-opened if I could show a link SHOULD KNOW THAT I DID SEND THE MOD THE LINK. THEN THE MOD DECIDED THAT HE WOULDN'T REOPEN THE THREAD ANYWAY.
SO, here is just some of the documentation:

http://www.americanprogress.or...s/2004/07/b122948.html
Murdoch has acknowledged his major rationale for supporting the Iraq invasion: oil. While both American and British politicians strenuously deny the significance of oil in the war, the Guardian of London notes, "Murdoch wasn't so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil." Murdoch said before the war, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." He buttressed this statement when he later said, "Once [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else." [Guardian, 2/17/03]

That in itself doesn't prove Fox said .35 a gallon oil, which they did by various of thier "newspeople" but it certainly lets you know that Murdoch himself saw 20 a barrel oil, which certainly would indicate that my claim that some commentators said .35 cents a gallon gas was possible under the right cirucmstances.

Where's my M*F*CKIN" OIL????

i have yet to see anywhere that oil will be .35 cents a gallon. What you claim is proof is not.

stop fucking makeing shit up.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: techs
btw Anyone who saw that my thread about how some FoxNews announces said under the right circumstans gas could go as low as .35 cents a gallon got locked with the stipulation that it would re-opened if I could show a link SHOULD KNOW THAT I DID SEND THE MOD THE LINK. THEN THE MOD DECIDED THAT HE WOULDN'T REOPEN THE THREAD ANYWAY.
SO, here is just some of the documentation:

http://www.americanprogress.or...s/2004/07/b122948.html
Murdoch has acknowledged his major rationale for supporting the Iraq invasion: oil. While both American and British politicians strenuously deny the significance of oil in the war, the Guardian of London notes, "Murdoch wasn't so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil." Murdoch said before the war, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." He buttressed this statement when he later said, "Once [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else." [Guardian, 2/17/03]

That in itself doesn't prove Fox said .35 a gallon oil, which they did by various of thier "newspeople" but it certainly lets you know that Murdoch himself saw 20 a barrel oil, which certainly would indicate that my claim that some commentators said .35 cents a gallon gas was possible under the right cirucmstances.

Where's my M*F*CKIN" OIL????

IF oil was free, I doubt you could get it the pumps for .35/gallon. Oil dipped down to the low 30s/barrel and gas dipped to 1.25/gallon. I dont see how anyone could predict 35 cents a gallon with the costs to make and deliver gas to the pumps.

They were saying a collapse in oil prices would give us 10 dollar a barrel oil. If gas is like 2.50 at 55 a barrel than yeah, you are in the .35 cents range, however that doesn't include the taxes, which I am not sure are based on the price of gas, or if its per gallon.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: techs
btw Anyone who saw that my thread about how some FoxNews announces said under the right circumstans gas could go as low as .35 cents a gallon got locked with the stipulation that it would re-opened if I could show a link SHOULD KNOW THAT I DID SEND THE MOD THE LINK. THEN THE MOD DECIDED THAT HE WOULDN'T REOPEN THE THREAD ANYWAY.
SO, here is just some of the documentation:

http://www.americanprogress.or...s/2004/07/b122948.html
Murdoch has acknowledged his major rationale for supporting the Iraq invasion: oil. While both American and British politicians strenuously deny the significance of oil in the war, the Guardian of London notes, "Murdoch wasn't so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil." Murdoch said before the war, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." He buttressed this statement when he later said, "Once [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else." [Guardian, 2/17/03]

That in itself doesn't prove Fox said .35 a gallon oil, which they did by various of thier "newspeople" but it certainly lets you know that Murdoch himself saw 20 a barrel oil, which certainly would indicate that my claim that some commentators said .35 cents a gallon gas was possible under the right cirucmstances.

Where's my M*F*CKIN" OIL????

IF oil was free, I doubt you could get it the pumps for .35/gallon. Oil dipped down to the low 30s/barrel and gas dipped to 1.25/gallon. I dont see how anyone could predict 35 cents a gallon with the costs to make and deliver gas to the pumps.

They were saying a collapse in oil prices would give us 10 dollar a barrel oil. If gas is like 2.50 at 55 a barrel than yeah, you are in the .35 cents range, however that doesn't include the taxes, which I am not sure are based on the price of gas, or if its per gallon.

Gas taxes are per gallon and in most states, taxes alone are at least 35 cents for state and federal sales taxes.

At 2.50/gallon oil is only about 50% of the cost of gallon of gas.
linkage

 

[Ackmed]

Hello? Its not $2.50 here.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: techs
btw Anyone who saw that my thread about how some FoxNews announces said under the right circumstans gas could go as low as .35 cents a gallon got locked with the stipulation that it would re-opened if I could show a link SHOULD KNOW THAT I DID SEND THE MOD THE LINK. THEN THE MOD DECIDED THAT HE WOULDN'T REOPEN THE THREAD ANYWAY.
SO, here is just some of the documentation:

http://www.americanprogress.or...s/2004/07/b122948.html
Murdoch has acknowledged his major rationale for supporting the Iraq invasion: oil. While both American and British politicians strenuously deny the significance of oil in the war, the Guardian of London notes, "Murdoch wasn't so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil." Murdoch said before the war, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." He buttressed this statement when he later said, "Once [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else." [Guardian, 2/17/03]

That in itself doesn't prove Fox said .35 a gallon oil, which they did by various of thier "newspeople" but it certainly lets you know that Murdoch himself saw 20 a barrel oil, which certainly would indicate that my claim that some commentators said .35 cents a gallon gas was possible under the right cirucmstances.

Where's my M*F*CKIN" OIL????

IF oil was free, I doubt you could get it the pumps for .35/gallon. Oil dipped down to the low 30s/barrel and gas dipped to 1.25/gallon. I dont see how anyone could predict 35 cents a gallon with the costs to make and deliver gas to the pumps.

They were saying a collapse in oil prices would give us 10 dollar a barrel oil. If gas is like 2.50 at 55 a barrel than yeah, you are in the .35 cents range, however that doesn't include the taxes, which I am not sure are based on the price of gas, or if its per gallon.

Gas taxes are per gallon and in most states, taxes alone are at least 35 cents for state and federal sales taxes.

At 2.50/gallon oil is only about 50% of the cost of gallon of gas.
linkage

Well, amongst other things this was back in 2003. Also, if you are arguing that the Fox talking heads were lying, well, I agree with you.

 

[mxyzptlk]

LOL, I've been walking/biking everywhere since march. Obviously, I haven't needed to check gas prices since then. Is 2.50 high now?

I'd laugh at gas prices more often if I could be arsed to stay aware of them.

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: techs
Where's my M*F*CKIN" OIL????

Iraq has been stuck at the same level of oil output for the past couple years because the country itself doesn't have the manpower or resources to work it's oil fields. They are also having a more difficult than expected time trying to get foreign oil companies to invest and agree to come in and start pumping, due to some of the rules they must agree with.

 

[blackangst1]

OH NOEZ gas is fluctuating again!!!

/dons tin foil hat

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: techs
btw Anyone who saw that my thread about how some FoxNews announces said under the right circumstans gas could go as low as .35 cents a gallon got locked with the stipulation that it would re-opened if I could show a link SHOULD KNOW THAT I DID SEND THE MOD THE LINK. THEN THE MOD DECIDED THAT HE WOULDN'T REOPEN THE THREAD ANYWAY.
SO, here is just some of the documentation:

http://www.americanprogress.or...s/2004/07/b122948.html
Murdoch has acknowledged his major rationale for supporting the Iraq invasion: oil. While both American and British politicians strenuously deny the significance of oil in the war, the Guardian of London notes, "Murdoch wasn't so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil." Murdoch said before the war, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." He buttressed this statement when he later said, "Once [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else." [Guardian, 2/17/03]

That in itself doesn't prove Fox said .35 a gallon oil, which they did by various of thier "newspeople" but it certainly lets you know that Murdoch himself saw 20 a barrel oil, which certainly would indicate that my claim that some commentators said .35 cents a gallon gas was possible under the right cirucmstances.

Where's my M*F*CKIN" OIL????

IF oil was free, I doubt you could get it the pumps for .35/gallon. Oil dipped down to the low 30s/barrel and gas dipped to 1.25/gallon. I dont see how anyone could predict 35 cents a gallon with the costs to make and deliver gas to the pumps.

They were saying a collapse in oil prices would give us 10 dollar a barrel oil. If gas is like 2.50 at 55 a barrel than yeah, you are in the .35 cents range, however that doesn't include the taxes, which I am not sure are based on the price of gas, or if its per gallon.

Gas taxes are per gallon and in most states, taxes alone are at least 35 cents for state and federal sales taxes.

At 2.50/gallon oil is only about 50% of the cost of gallon of gas.
linkage

Well, amongst other things this was back in 2003. Also, if you are arguing that the Fox talking heads were lying, well, I agree with you.

I dont recall any talking head suggesting 35 cent gas.

 

[BarneyFife]

Up to 2.99 now.

I thought 3.25 by July 4th.

I'm thinking more like 3.50 now.

 

[Cuda1447]

Here's something I don't understand, why is gas taxed higher than regular products? 50-60 cents a gallon. That's being taxed at like 50%, does anyone else not find that fucking ridiculous?!?

 

[BoomerD]

Gas is up to about $2.80 here in Nor-Cal.

The cocksuckers at the oil companies ALWAYS jack the price up for summer...

Cuda, you think GAS is heavily taxed? Compare that rate with the rate on cigarettes...gas taxes are cheap by comparison.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: herm0016
i still find it very amusing that you all think 2.50 a gallon is " OH MY WORD IM NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GET MY 5 DOLLAR 8 OZ COFFEE ANYMOREE AHHHH!!!!"

I bet none of you actually know what it takes to get a barrel of oil out of the ground, refined, to the station, etc... and to your tank.

what do you guys think the price of gas should be? and why do you think this?

keep in mind that the oil companies make around 5 to 8 % margin on their product. it costs millions to drill a little hole in the ground, another million or so to case and perforate the casing and to start the well producing. millions on pumping stations and pipe lines, a billion or more to build a refinery... etc... and these figures are rounded off for an on shore well in a well known field in a fairly moderate climate ( wyoming)

What about investors who drive up the price of gas simply by buying a contract that says "oil" on it, yet they never take delivery of the physical oil?

I will never for the life of me understand how that works.

I'd still like to hear an answer to this question.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Here's something I don't understand, why is gas taxed higher than regular products? 50-60 cents a gallon. That's being taxed at like 50%, does anyone else not find that fucking ridiculous?!?

Roads are not cheap to maintain, and I think that's mainly what fuel taxes go toward. Missouri for example has a pretty low gas tax, and they also have some pretty shitty roads as well if you've ever been there, at least compared to the roads in KS. There's a noticeable difference in maintenance on I-70 as soon as you cross the state line.

 

[umbrella39]

Demand up = price goes up
Demand down = price goes up

It's the great American way.

 

[frostedflakes]

Unfortunately demand from investors who have no intention of actually taking delivery of the oil can really wreak havoc on oil prices. Actual demand from consumers and producers is only part of the equation.