Oil thread 9-7-06:Former BP head of Pipeline invokes 5th

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari
Maybe you should live closer to your work if you need to use 50+ miles per day on your vehicle.

Maybe those people can't afford to move, or are two earner families and it wouldn't be worth to move because of the other, or maybe they own a farm on the side and the land isn't available. Simply stating "move" isn't always an option.

Moving costs money. Maybe they don't have all the money to move up front? Many people live paycheck to paycheck and don't have the credit to move or maybe don't have a desire to move.

I am at nearly 40 miles per day (total) and I have no intention of moving because of it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
Maybe you should live closer to your work if you need to use 50+ miles per day on your vehicle.

Maybe those people can't afford to move, or are two earner families and it wouldn't be worth to move because of the other, or maybe they own a farm on the side and the land isn't available. Simply stating "move" isn't always an option.

Moving costs money. Maybe they don't have all the money to move up front? Many people live paycheck to paycheck and don't have the credit to move or maybe don't have a desire to move.

I am at nearly 40 miles per day (total) and I have no intention of moving because of it.

He didn't read my post that there is at least 6 killings a day in the city where I work close to. Also home prices start at $500,000 now over there, already in a $120,000 house here which is enough.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
Maybe you should live closer to your work if you need to use 50+ miles per day on your vehicle.

Maybe those people can't afford to move, or are two earner families and it wouldn't be worth to move because of the other, or maybe they own a farm on the side and the land isn't available. Simply stating "move" isn't always an option.

Moving costs money. Maybe they don't have all the money to move up front? Many people live paycheck to paycheck and don't have the credit to move or maybe don't have a desire to move.

I am at nearly 40 miles per day (total) and I have no intention of moving because of it.

He didn't read my post that there is at least 6 killings a day in the city where I work close to. Also home prices start at $500,000 now over there, already in a $120,000 house here which is enough.

I guess when you're 18, everything seems easy and rosey.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I'll look around for a foreign car with no bells and whistles.

Hvae to see how much the wiper failure is going to set me back with the Van first.

$120 of gas a week?

Looks to me Dave like you are a gas guzzling rich oil baron. How can you claim to be a President for the people?

Why not? The current president is exactly the above.

P.S. I know people who drive cars that average 30 mpg and they use nearly that much gas per week because they drive in excess of 100 miles each way per day 6 days a week just to get to work.

Yep, spend more than an hr each way to get to work and most days I have to cross back and forth twice.

So thats almost 240 miles and 5 hrs commute time alone in one day, when on call have to that for 7 days straight.

The current president doesn't do this, he takes months off at a time.

Why do you go back and forth to work twice, and why drive a gasmobile?

The people drive Civics and commute maybe 30 mins to work 1 time. $120 is more than most monthy gas budgets.

It is a 24/7 365 days a year job. I get a few hours to eat, take a shower and catch a nap between shifts.

 

[conjur]

Well, the gas prices in the $2.20/gal range aren't affecting driving habits along I-75 from Atlanta on to I-10 in Florida. I had my cruise set at 72mph and I was relegated to the slow lane. I managed a nice 33mpg at 72mph with four people in the car, a full trunk, and the full tank of gas. Not too shabby.

Although, I come home today and see gas is at a record high here in Louisville: $2.39 - $2.46 for 87 octane.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Valero looks expensive...they seem to have mostly distrobution (gas stations) and refining operations; this inflates asset base. This is unlike encana, petro and talisman where they have large (many times larger assets) assets because of natural gas and oil reserves. Lots of production is not included in the earnings yet as they are still growth companies and drilling.

While Canadian companies have a higher P/E multiple, the assets for Encana are 30+ billion, Valero has 19b and most of that is distrobution.

I perfer to invest in stocks with reserves, accessable to drilling, piping contract connections and good governance.

Valero looks more like a Shell, Chevron, Exxon...but over-priced with the most recent run-up.

Just keep in mind a large portion of their refinaries can handle sour crude.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
Maybe you should live closer to your work if you need to use 50+ miles per day on your vehicle.

Maybe those people can't afford to move, or are two earner families and it wouldn't be worth to move because of the other, or maybe they own a farm on the side and the land isn't available. Simply stating "move" isn't always an option.

Moving costs money. Maybe they don't have all the money to move up front? Many people live paycheck to paycheck and don't have the credit to move or maybe don't have a desire to move.

I am at nearly 40 miles per day (total) and I have no intention of moving because of it.

He didn't read my post that there is at least 6 killings a day in the city where I work close to. Also home prices start at $500,000 now over there, already in a $120,000 house here which is enough.

But you must be a rich rightwinger with connections, investments, and ties in the oil industry if youre driving a rich rightwinger gasaholic car. I thought you said those are for the CEOs and the Exxon Mobil crooks turning America into a 3rd world nation?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
Maybe you should live closer to your work if you need to use 50+ miles per day on your vehicle.

Maybe those people can't afford to move, or are two earner families and it wouldn't be worth to move because of the other, or maybe they own a farm on the side and the land isn't available. Simply stating "move" isn't always an option.

Moving costs money. Maybe they don't have all the money to move up front? Many people live paycheck to paycheck and don't have the credit to move or maybe don't have a desire to move.

I am at nearly 40 miles per day (total) and I have no intention of moving because of it.

He didn't read my post that there is at least 6 killings a day in the city where I work close to. Also home prices start at $500,000 now over there, already in a $120,000 house here which is enough.

But you must be a rich rightwinger with connections, investments, and ties in the oil industry if youre driving a rich rightwinger gasaholic car. I thought you said those are for the CEOs and the Exxon Mobil crooks turning America into a 3rd world nation?

An old van now makes you rich? You're delusional dude! :laugh:

The man is talking about whether to scrap the van over a wiper motor for a cheaper car, and you're calling him rich?

Again, this doesn't deserve a ....but a pretzel would be very appropriate. Clue: Go to school for a while longer and learn the ways of the force.

 

[zendari]

A midsize SUV isn't a whole lot different than his van.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari
A midsize SUV isn't a whole lot different than his van.

That's not what you were posting about. You were calling him a rich right winder for driving a vehicle that gets poor gas mileage. There is quite a bit of difference between a new SUV and an older van. Oh, and depending on what type of VAN (as in minivan), then sometimes it can get much better mileage than a SUV.

Regardless, this is about you calling Dave rich over driving an older gas guzzler, nothing to do with comparing SUV's to vans.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
A midsize SUV isn't a whole lot different than his van.

That's not what you were posting about. You were calling him a rich right winder for driving a vehicle that gets poor gas mileage. There is quite a bit of difference between a new SUV and an older van. Oh, and depending on what type of VAN (as in minivan), then sometimes it can get much better mileage than a SUV.

Regardless, this is about you calling Dave rich over driving an older gas guzzler, nothing to do with comparing SUV's to vans.

According to Dave:

"You can't and we should not be justifying these beasts under any circumstance in 2005.

What is so hard in the concept of progress and movig forward not backwards??? "
"
Yes and no. No reason for the larger vehicle to be a behemoth that guzzles gas faster than a 1970's Bonneville, period.
"

"
Even if I was loaded I don't see myself wasting fuel and money like that on something like a Surburban.

Just goes against my grain that we as human race should be progressing and not regressing.
"

Curious how a suburban can get up to 20 mpg, not much different than his 22. It's no wonder libs can't afford health insurance, all the money is going into the big vehicles polluting the air!

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
A midsize SUV isn't a whole lot different than his van.

That's not what you were posting about. You were calling him a rich right winder for driving a vehicle that gets poor gas mileage. There is quite a bit of difference between a new SUV and an older van. Oh, and depending on what type of VAN (as in minivan), then sometimes it can get much better mileage than a SUV.

Regardless, this is about you calling Dave rich over driving an older gas guzzler, nothing to do with comparing SUV's to vans.

According to Dave:

"You can't and we should not be justifying these beasts under any circumstance in 2005.

What is so hard in the concept of progress and movig forward not backwards??? "
"
Yes and no. No reason for the larger vehicle to be a behemoth that guzzles gas faster than a 1970's Bonneville, period.
"

Was he talking about the basic necessity vehicle such as the "all he can afford old van" or the new huge Excursion?

Who says his van uses more gas than a 1970 Bonneville? Those things were measured in gallons per mile, almost.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
A midsize SUV isn't a whole lot different than his van.

That's not what you were posting about. You were calling him a rich right winder for driving a vehicle that gets poor gas mileage. There is quite a bit of difference between a new SUV and an older van. Oh, and depending on what type of VAN (as in minivan), then sometimes it can get much better mileage than a SUV.

Regardless, this is about you calling Dave rich over driving an older gas guzzler, nothing to do with comparing SUV's to vans.

According to Dave:

"You can't and we should not be justifying these beasts under any circumstance in 2005.

What is so hard in the concept of progress and movig forward not backwards??? "
"
Yes and no. No reason for the larger vehicle to be a behemoth that guzzles gas faster than a 1970's Bonneville, period.
"

Was he talking about the basic necessity vehicle such as the "all he can afford old van" or the new huge Excursion?

Who says his van uses more gas than a 1970 Bonneville? Those things were measured in gallons per mile, almost.

Holy crap the kid has issues. I crossed the lake and now back at work again and see this.

It's a 1998 Dodge Caravan with a V6. It is the short version of the van and I have no seats in it so it is as light as it can be. I keep the filters and oil changed, tires at max pressure for best mpg possible. Cruise control broke at 88,888 miles and now wipers are intermittent. Got in tonight and they were working.

If I am rich this Country is in deeper sh!t than any of us could imagine.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Curious how a suburban can get up to 20 mpg, not much different than his 22. It's no wonder libs can't afford health insurance, all the money is going into the big vehicles polluting the air!

Surburban is rated at 11 City and 15 highway. Dodge Caravan is rated at 20 and 26. Not much difference? Oh, let's say 90% higher city and 70% higher highway...nah, not much difference.

Surburban: 5,474 pounds (1500 model). 6.073 pounds for the 2500 model.
Dodge Caravan: 4,074 pounds (V6) and 3,908 for the 4 cylinder.

Price: Surburban 2500: $43,000
Caravan: $22,900

Yep, they are about the same. :roll:

Wake up kid.

 

[Engineer]

Another day, another new fear.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

BS cut out

What nonsense.

19 mpg, $37k msrp

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

BS cut out

What nonsense.

19 mpg, $37k msrp

KBB source. Says 11/15. Somebody (whether you's or mine) has the numbers goofed. Regardless, 15/19 isn't practically equal to 20 and 26.


KBB has it wrong on the 5.3 liter model. It's 15/19. The 6.0 liter model is 11/15.

Oh, and it's still not BS. Surburban doesn't compare to a Dodge minivan. If you think driving a Dodge minivan makes you rich, you're full of sh!t! (which you are anyway).

And since you like going with the lowest MSRP, then the Caravan comes in at a cool 18k according to your Yahoo site.

 

[GoPackGo]

Does all this mean that when oil hits $240 barrel, I'll only be paying $8 / gallon?

Doesn't sound too bad to me.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Does all this mean that when oil hits $240 barrel, I'll only be paying $8 / gallon?

Doesn't sound too bad to me.

Ah you've picked up on the phoney math finally too eh?

Based on the $63 per barrel we are at now, gas should be at least $4.50 gallon now.

 

[conjur]

It's pushing $64/bbl on the FUD about Saudi terror attacks. Guess the oil companies' profits weren't high enough and even the multi-billion dollar tax break in the new "energy" bill isn't enough either.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur
It's pushing $64/bbl on the FUD about Saudi terror attacks. Guess the oil companies' profits weren't high enough and even the multi-billion dollar tax break in the new "energy" bill isn't enough either.

Gas here just jumped from $2.20 to $2.49.

Luckily I got a BP before they raised theirs.

2006 I am voting all Democrats. Can they possibly do ANY worse?

 

[sonoma1993]

here in michigan in my area gas is $2.56 a gallon. The way this keep going up, looks like only the rich will only be able to drive.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Bush Signs Energy Bill

<Wash Post>

President Bush took a break from his August vacation Monday to sign into law a broad energy bill that provides $14.5 billion in tax breaks for U.S. companies to encourage more energy production and efficiency. He signed the bill as oil prices hit another record high on Monday.

"This bill is not going to solve our energy challenges overnight," Bush said just before signing the bill into law at the Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, N.M. "It's going to take years of focused efforts to alleviate those problems."


Bush said the 1,724-page bill would, however, "strengthen our economy and improve our environment and make this country more secure."

Bush signed the bill as crude oil prices surpassed a record $63 a barrel. High oil prices helped the administration put pressure on Congress to act after the bill, one of Bush's top legislative priorities, was stalled for almost five years. The law won't immediately affect the high price of gasoline in America, however.

NICE PART:
Analysts on both sides of the political spectrum said the bill does little to reduce U.S. oil imports, lower prices or deal with other energy issues facing the country. They said $14.5 billion in tax breaks and other incentives in the bill will not accomplish much more than transferring money to energy companies, some of which already are reaping huge profits.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Bush Signs Energy Bill

<Wash Post>

President Bush took a break from his August vacation Monday to sign into law a broad energy bill that provides $14.5 billion in tax breaks for U.S. companies to encourage more energy production and efficiency. He signed the bill as oil prices hit another record high on Monday.

"This bill is not going to solve our energy challenges overnight," Bush said just before signing the bill into law at the Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, N.M. "It's going to take years of focused efforts to alleviate those problems."


Bush said the 1,724-page bill would, however, "strengthen our economy and improve our environment and make this country more secure."

Bush signed the bill as crude oil prices surpassed a record $63 a barrel. High oil prices helped the administration put pressure on Congress to act after the bill, one of Bush's top legislative priorities, was stalled for almost five years. The law won't immediately affect the high price of gasoline in America, however.

NICE PART:
Analysts on both sides of the political spectrum said the bill does little to reduce U.S. oil imports, lower prices or deal with other energy issues facing the country. They said $14.5 billion in tax breaks and other incentives in the bill will not accomplish much more than transferring money to energy companies, some of which already are reaping huge profits.

Can we just go ahead and call this the Ken Lay Energy Bill?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Bush Signs Energy Bill

<Wash Post>

President Bush took a break from his August vacation Monday to sign into law a broad energy bill that provides $14.5 billion in tax breaks for U.S. companies to encourage more energy production and efficiency. He signed the bill as oil prices hit another record high on Monday.

"This bill is not going to solve our energy challenges overnight," Bush said just before signing the bill into law at the Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, N.M. "It's going to take years of focused efforts to alleviate those problems."


Bush said the 1,724-page bill would, however, "strengthen our economy and improve our environment and make this country more secure."

Bush signed the bill as crude oil prices surpassed a record $63 a barrel. High oil prices helped the administration put pressure on Congress to act after the bill, one of Bush's top legislative priorities, was stalled for almost five years. The law won't immediately affect the high price of gasoline in America, however.

NICE PART:
Analysts on both sides of the political spectrum said the bill does little to reduce U.S. oil imports, lower prices or deal with other energy issues facing the country. They said $14.5 billion in tax breaks and other incentives in the bill will not accomplish much more than transferring money to energy companies, some of which already are reaping huge profits.

Can we just go ahead and call this the Ken Lay Energy Bill?

No - How about "Big Oil - Bin Laden Project" - Mission Accomplished.