Yikes! Five Dollar A Gallon Gringo Gasoline? (!)

What is water?

USA prices based on speculation (overpriced!)

No drilling. No Keystone pipeline. Thank you Obama

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress No drilling. No Keystone pipeline. Thank you Obama

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Cooke Quote: Originally posted by Cypress No drilling. No Keystone pipeline. Thank you Obama You can't fault the President .. Do you remember the Deep Water Horizon spill?

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress No drilling. No Keystone pipeline. Thank you Obama

Keystone was supposed to run through Nebraska...but the Republicans said it might harm the environment/water table.....

Bajaboy, How 'bout another sip of that cool aid?

When the United States pulled out of the Bretton Woods Accord back in 71......oils prices sky rocketed a few years later ....70% just in one instance. Then that Opec oil embargo business was wonderful to deal with. I was in L.A. at the time. Bad place to be begging for gas.

Now this current price ...some folks are speaking of $5.50 by summer.

I just blame OUR government for not doing something about energy needs....that should had been seriously addressed back in the 70's.

[Edited on 2-24-2012 by mcfez]

It's not always awesome to have a Baja rig...

Seems to me Obama war FOR offshore drilling before the big oil spill off LA. And isnt he for drilling off Alaska and has all the enviros going nuts?

Sorry, I dont give much credence to a person who couldnt even catch a fish in the Sea of Cortez.

Think outside the Fox.

[Edited on 2-24-2012 by Hook]

Hook, Have rediscovered better fishing grounds and very happy with 'em. Thinking outside the Fox? Just stating the facts.

This is where I am REALLY happy to work in TJ a couple days a week. I also have changed the stock tank on my truck, and have two (not in the bed) tanks for a total of 95 gallons. I also have an in-bed auxiliary 105 gallon tank, which I don't normally carry. That's going to change. 200 gallons means I don't have to fuel for months. And it's diesel, so I pay less than gasoline. Eat your heart out Tacoma drivers.

All this and noise and stink, too!

[Edited on 2-24-2012 by Roberto]

200 gallons? who wants to drive around town carrying 1,600 pounds of fuel? i would rather pay a bit more for fuel than drive around with 4 drums of fuel in my car

Quote:

Originally posted by Roberto This is where I am REALLY happy to work in TJ a couple days a week. I also have changed the stock tank on my truck, and have two (not in the bed) tanks for a total of 95 gallons. I also have an in-bed auxiliary 105 gallon tank, which I don't normally carry. That's going to change. 200 gallons means I don't have to fuel for months. And it's diesel, so I pay less than gasoline. Eat your heart out Tacoma drivers. All this and noise and stink, too! [Edited on 2-24-2012 by Roberto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress Hook, Have rediscovered better fishing grounds and very happy with 'em. Thinking outside the Fox? Just stating the facts.

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress Bajaboy, How 'bout another sip of that cool aid?

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy Quote: Originally posted by Cypress Bajaboy, How 'bout another sip of that cool aid? Don't believe everything you read in a fortune cookie: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/22/us-oil-pipeline-ne... Nebraska governor signs bills to reroute Keystone pipeline Photo Tue, Nov 22 2011 By Michael Avok LINCOLN, Neb (Reuters) - Nebraska governor Dave Heineman signed into law on Tuesday bills to reroute the Keystone XL pipeline away from the ecologically sensitive Sandhills region. One bill puts into law a compromise agreed with Keystone pipeline builder TransCanada to move the route away from the Sandhills and the Ogallala aquifer. The second bill approves state funding for an environmental study for a new pipeline route not to exceed $2 million. By law, the governor now has the final say in state government on the new route. The U.S. Secretary of State has the final say nationally. After working with Nebraska lawmakers last week, TransCanada Corp. agreed to find a new route for its pipeline. Earlier this month, the State Department ordered the company to find a new route for the line in a decision that set back the $7 billion, Canada-to-Texas pipeline by more than a year. The pipeline would deliver 700,000 barrels a day of crude from Alberta's oil sands to Texas refineries. But environmentalists strongly oppose the project, because of concerns about spills and carbon emissions from production of oil sands crude. Nebraska lawmakers on Tuesday voted unanimously to move the pipeline and to spend money on the environmental study, sending the bills to Heineman's desk. He was quick to sign them, bringing to a close a 15-day special legislative session called solely to craft pipeline regulations. "Our work is done," Heineman said. "I want to say thank you to our citizens and our lawmakers." At issue was the potential environmental impact a pipeline could have on the Sandhills region and the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies water to many cities and ranches and supports the agriculture industry with water for irrigation. Nebraska forged ahead with pipeline legislation even after the State Department's decision to put off giving TransCanada a permit for the Keystone XL line until 2013. (Writing and reporting by Michael Avok; Editing by Mary Wisniewski and Greg McCune) Or another one that is obviously more fair and balanced: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/nebraska-gov-hein... Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman expects to seek Obama decision on Keystone before election Published January 19, 2012 | FoxNews.com Print Email Share inShare6 President Obama might be compelled to make a decision on the Keystone pipeline before the election after all. Though the president just rejected a permit for the controversial project, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman told Fox News that he expects to send the Obama administration a new proposed route for the pipeline well before Election Day. "I fully expect we could get it done certainly in the early September, August time frame," the governor told Fox News on Thursday. "I would send the letter back to the president of the United States saying we approve it and if he were decisive, he could turn around and approve it shortly thereafter, well before the November election." The White House, in justifying its decision to turn down the permit, blamed Republicans for forcing a decision in a tightened time frame. Congressional Republicans had attached a provision to last year's short-term payroll tax cut extension requiring a presidential decision on Keystone in 60 days, a time frame administration officials warned would not be sufficient. But all along, administration officials have also invoked the concerns over the pipeline of Nebraska officials, including Heineman, in justifying their handling of the issue. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, in reviewing the history of the dispute Wednesday, said "concerns were raised about the environmental impacts on the air and water quality in Nebraska." Yet while those concerns contributed to the State Department decision late last year to delay the federal review process, top Nebraska officials were not on board with the president's decision Wednesday to reject the permit. "Right now, I think they're looking for a convenient excuse to get it beyond the election. Let's do what's right for the country. Let's put America back to work," Heineman said. Nebraska lawmakers had earlier raised concern about the impact the initial pipeline route, which runs from Canada to Texas, would have on an important and vast underground water source in Nebraska. In November, the governor signed a bill that would pay for a new state-run environmental study of a new route that TransCanada agreed to pursue. But Heineman disputes any suggestion that the federal government needs lots of time to review his state's new study. He said the project already received initial approval from the State Department for the earlier route, before the department backed off upon objections from environmentalists. As Obama rejected the permit for Keystone saying there wasn't enough time to review at the federal level, Heineman questioned why -- since the state and the company have already agreed to reroute the pipeline through a less sensitive area. "So again, the State Department had already approved the route that was much more environmentally sensitive, and so in my view, he should have said 'yes' to allow this to move forward. There's so much at stake for this country," he said. Heineman said his state will have completed the new study by about August, and sees no reason for further delay. "I would send a letter to the Department of State saying in Nebraska, we approve," he said. "At that stage, all they've got to then say it's in the national interest. And again, I think you could say that today. They've been at this for three years." Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns echoed Heineman's concerns in a statement Wednesday. He said Obama's decision was a sign he "lacks faith" in Nebraska's ability to choose a new route. "By arguing that the Nebraska route could force them to deny the permit, he's implying Nebraska can't get it right. There is no legitimate justification for the delay. To suggest a few dozen miles of the route in Nebraska -- which will be identified by the governor, consistent with the law -- affects the overall public interest for more than 1,600 miles of pipeline is laughable and reeks of political gamesmanship," he said. But Obama and his team said Republicans forced his hand. Obama said in a statement Wednesday that his call was "not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people." Carney said Thursday it is a fallacy to suggest that anything other than the insistence by House Republicans to impose the 60-day deadline is responsible for the decision. TransCanada has already announced that it will seek a new permit at the federal level. Republicans in Congress also said they would not throw in the towel on the issue. Some called for Obama to reverse his decision. Yet the debate is steeped in election-year politics. Obama is caught between two factions of his base on the decision over Keystone, a reality that critics claimed contributed to the decision to delay the project in the first place. Unions are clamoring for the pipeline, saying thousands of jobs are at stake, while environmentalists are vehemently opposed to it. The environmentalists applauded Obama for his announcement Wednesday. "President Obama has shown bold leadership in standing up to Big Oil and rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline," Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, said in a statement. Fox News' Jim Angle contributed to this report. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/nebraska-gov-hein...

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666 Quote: Originally posted by Roberto This is where I am REALLY happy to work in TJ a couple days a week. I also have changed the stock tank on my truck, and have two (not in the bed) tanks for a total of 95 gallons. I also have an in-bed auxiliary 105 gallon tank, which I don't normally carry. That's going to change. 200 gallons means I don't have to fuel for months. 200 gallons? who wants to drive around town carrying 1,600 pounds of fuel? i would rather pay a bit more for fuel than drive around with 4 drums of fuel in my car

We'll all be walking and burning candles before those "renewable" energy resources are economically feasible. They govt. has already dumped a ton of $$$ into some of those "renewable" energy companies and both the companies and the govt. are going bankrupt.

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress We'll all be walking and burning candles before those "renewable" energy resources are economically feasible. They govt. has already dumped a ton of $$$ into some of those "renewable" energy companies and both the companies and the govt. are going bankrupt.

Prove your point with some stats

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress We'll all be walking and burning candles before those "renewable" energy resources are economically feasible. They govt. has already dumped a ton of $$$ into some of those "renewable" energy companies and both the companies and the govt. are going bankrupt.

MitchMan, Proof of my conclusions? Prove Obama is to blame? Can you provide proof that I'm wrong? No substance to my accusations? Reality! Next time you fill your vehicle up, give this a thought. Why am I defending an administration that has done everything possible to limit the USA's ability to produce it's own oil? The last I heard Obama was promoting algae as the answer to our energy needs. Good grief.

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress MitchMan, Proof of my conclusions? Prove Obama is to blame? Can you provide proof that I'm wrong? No substance to my accusations? Reality! Next time you fill your vehicle up, give this a thought. Why am I defending an administration that has done everything possible to limit the USA's ability to produce it's own oil? The last I heard Obama was promoting algae as the answer to our energy needs. Good grief.

Change the channel and you might learn something

Yikes! A FOX fan and now a gold trader. More doomsayers please, this is fun. And Mitchman, asking for facts to support statements, come on, you'll spoil the fun.

Where are the Illuminati foes?


[Edited on 2-24-2012 by SFandH]

MitchMan, Yea, I see. And you'll see also, but then maybe you won't. Know you've heard this before "You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts." The facts are out there, I'm not gonna waste my time providing the research info for you to debunk. Obama's desperate, too little too late. He's a one termer and he's gonna take a lot of Dem. cronies down with him. Wishing you a happy landing.

SFandH ... glad someone else saw that ...

Maybe we can use the spent fuel for _____________ and do't even think they® found to many State who wants "it" ... at this time....

"For low-level waste, three commercial land disposal facilities are available, but they accept waste only from certain states or accept only limited types of low-level wastes. The remainder of the low-level waste is stored primarily at the site where it was produced, such as at hospitals, research facilities, clinics and nuclear power plants."

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochur...

gnukid, Interesting.

Yah and we keep discovering more... like under North Dakota... DRILL BABY DRILL! Gives us plenty of time until we can master cold fusion or dilithium crystals for endless 'clean' energy to power our needs!

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666 Quote: Originally posted by Roberto This is where I am REALLY happy to work in TJ a couple days a week. I also have changed the stock tank on my truck, and have two (not in the bed) tanks for a total of 95 gallons. I also have an in-bed auxiliary 105 gallon tank, which I don't normally carry. That's going to change. 200 gallons means I don't have to fuel for months. 200 gallons? who wants to drive around town carrying 1,600 pounds of fuel? i would rather pay a bit more for fuel than drive around with 4 drums of fuel in my car

Some places.... That's called a car bomb, eh? .

let's increase the fuel taxes!

DK: fuel tax is not a government profit. the US govt does not generate a profit. in case you have not heard, government is non-profit, and currently spending more than revenue (so in "DK-speak," govt is operating in the red, experiencing a loss)

motor fuel taxes are great way to fund roads and highways. the biggest users of fuel are people driving heavy vehicles or long distances. perfect cost allocation method. biggest fuel consumers pay most taxes. your tax payments are proportional to your driving as measured by fuel consumption. it is perhaps a perfect tax! what else could you ask for? fuel tax is not a profit, capiche?

i also support using fuel tax to change peoples fuel consumption habits. i would support an increase in fuel tax jusst to encourage conservation. i think conservation is good for the USA in the long term. no one thinks conservation is bad. but the sad reality is that people act in selfish ways, so conservation will not occur via the carrot but will occur via the stick. oftentimes tax policy is used to implement social policy that is good for the USA, so let's increase the motor fuel taxes!

p.s. the oli companies make plenty of profit, have not seen them show a loss for quite a while -- heck, even my BP stock only took a short hiatus in paying dividends!

[Edited on 2-25-2012 by mtgoat666]

A Century of War

DK:
next time you drive south to mexico, as you drive down I-5, ask yourself how much does it ccost to build and maintain I-5, and which taxes should pay for I-5.

An intro on pricing

I was wrong again! LOL Oil companies don't make 10 cents a gallon... they make 7 cents!




See how much the government takes from you for every gallon vs. what the people who actually make the stuff get?

You want gas prices lowered? Blame BIG government, not BIG oil!!

The above graph from: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/04/gasoline-taxes-per-gallo...

[Edited on 2-25-2012 by David K]

Per Gallon... the profit vs. the sales price per gallon.
Profit for 2011 was less than 8 cents per gallon.

The above graph from http://www.forbes.com/sites/sageworks/2011/10/21/991/

Quote:

Originally posted by David K Per Gallon... the profit vs. the sales price per gallon. Profit for 2011 was less than 8 cents per gallon. The above graph from http://www.forbes.com/sites/sageworks/2011/10/21/991/

Did you even read the article This graph is for privately held natural gas and oil exploration producers. Last time I checked Exxon Mobil was publicly traded.

[Edited on 2-25-2012 by Bajaboy]

Quote:

Originally posted by David K I was wrong again! LOL Oil companies don't make 10 cents a gallon... they make 7 cents! See how much the government takes from you for every gallon vs. what the people who actually make the stuff get? You want gas prices lowered? Blame BIG government, not BIG oil!! The above graph from: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/04/gasoline-taxes-per-gallo... [Edited on 2-25-2012 by David K]

If that darn guy had never signed that one thing, those jerks would never have been able to fatten their pockets with that one thingy that put people out of work and led to that bill that made gas so expensive.

I could go for Tecate.

May I make you all feel better?

Americans often fret about the price of gasoline, which has surged dramatically in recent days, fueled by turmoil in oil-producing nations in the Middle East and North Africa.

But the price of gas in America lags far behind its European counterparts. While Americans tear their hair out at the pump, Europeans watch them enviously from across the Atlantic.

Most Europeans pay at least double what Americans do. Some of them, including the Greeks and the Scandinavians, shell out even more.

In the U.S., the nationwide average for the price of gas was $3.53 per gallon on Thursday, according to AAA. The price has risen for 16 consecutive days, jumping 34 cents.

But that's still less than half the $9.28 per gallon paid in Oslo, according to Din Side, a Norwegian search and news site that monitors gas prices, among other things.

Who's paying what: Most Europeans, including the British, the Irish, the Germans, the Italians and the French, pay somewhere between $7.50 and $8 per gallon, according to the International Energy Administration.

Danes paid $8.20 per gallon at the end of February, according to the IEA. Greeks -- no strangers to economic hard times -- were paying $8.45.

Many people may assume that Europeans pay a lot for gas because they don't have their own source of fossil fuels. In fact, they do.

Norway is awash in oil because of its thriving oil industry in the North Atlantic. The United Kingdom also has access to the oil fields in the same region.

Italy has deep corporate ties with Libya. Its oil production company, Eni, is the largest producer in Libya. But even in the best of times, without civil war in Libya, gas in Italy is expensive when compared to the U.S. Italians on average paid $7.77 a gallon at the end of February, according to the most recent data from the IEA.

"The difference between countries comes down to taxes and subsidies," said Tom Kloza, the chief oil analyst for Oil Price Information Service. "Prices are incredibly high in Europe because of the stiff taxes that EU countries put on fuel. The same holds true for many other countries."

The Japanese also pay more -- $6.30 at the end of February -- and so do the Canadians, at $4.49 per gallon, according to the IEA.

GAS

THIS is the sh-t hitten the fan !!!!K&T

[Edited on 2-25-2012 by captkw]

Name calling really advances your argument. As they say, " You just can't fix stupid." Why does Fox news have the highest ratings? They deal with facts, not propaganda.

Quote:

Originally posted by greengoes

On what planet do you live?

fox news,,give us a break !!

gas

not good for boat's and RV's,,car's not TOO much !!K&T