Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Gas prices got you down?
According to new figures from the Department of Transportation, the month of March showed the steepest decrease in driving ever recorded.
Compared with March a year earlier, Americans drove an estimated 4.3 percent less — that’s 11 billion fewer miles, the DOT’s Federal Highway Administration said Monday, calling it “the sharpest yearly drop for any month in FHWA history.” Records have been kept since 1942.
As gas prices climb higher–AAA said the national average for a gallon of regular gas reached $3.936–consumers will continue to seek out the cheapest fuel and modify their driving habits. Some are even resorting to desperate measures, while others are trying to find the humor in it all.
How are you handling higher prices at the pump?
Topic: Newsworthy, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top72 Comments to “Gas prices got you down?”
We’re combining as many trips into one as possible.
Report comment to moderator
This month our bank discovered that thieves in the NY area were using my debit card to buy gas. Not consumer goods or expensive vacations, but gas! It is the new currency.
Report comment to moderator
As far as stealing things goes, gas is a bad choice. Even at $4/gal, it would take 50 gallons to pay for your cordless drill. Then there’s the risk of explosion, the trouble carrying it away, the lack of a black market, the smelly hands….
If you’re going to steal things, watch “It Takes a Thief” on Discovery (?) for pointers, and become a burglar.
Report comment to moderator
That should make the roads last longer.
Which means the government should need less money for road building and maintaining.
Which means they should decrease the fuel tax.
On the other hand, fewer miles driven means less fuel bought means less tax income for the government.
Which means they should increase the fuel tax to take up the slack.
Which to do — that is the question, not the 2b stuff.
Let’s hope the bureaucrats and Democrats and aristocrats and all other crats are up to the decision.
Report comment to moderator
I’m with MIM — I either walk because I live close to a business district or I combine my travel errands. I also make a conscious decision to do without and/or stay home. But if I have to go somewhere, I’m not going to agonize over the fact that I have to put gas in my tank. It’s the cost of doing business, so to speak, there’s nothing more I can do to alleviate the problem. It is what it is.
Report comment to moderator
Hubby has been taking the train to work for years. We have cut down on trips. Our boys have discovered that you really can walk to the beach from our house and that getting there can be half the fun. And we are a family of distance runners so we have added some errands to our runs. The extra weight of library books makes for a better work out.
Report comment to moderator
We’re in rural Texas, 13 miles from the nearest town of any size with a big pickup and an SUV. So we’re combining trips as best we can, and don’t make any that aren’t necessary. We’re also looking for ways to minimize use of farm equipment. We used to use diesel with herbicides to spray mesquites, brush, briars, etc. Now we’re trying a formula that replaces diesel with water. We’ll see how well it works, so far it looks pretty good. Live and learn!
Stubob,
It sounds like you’ve given serious consideration to stealing gas! Glad you decided against it!
Report comment to moderator
Note that the high gas prices are largely the result of a low dollar.
The decreased travel and higher efficiency cars are a serious problem for highway agencies that get their funding from a fixed gas tax – it is set per gallon, not as a percentage of the sale, and it is seldom raised. And this as construction costs increase at twice inflation and as our infrastructure ages. Highways no longer can pay their way via the gas tax.
Tolling-type user fees for major interstate highways will replace the gas tax within a generation.
Report comment to moderator
largely – probably an exaggeration, sorry. I think the low dollar contributes a lot, but there is more to it than that.
Report comment to moderator
I avoid errands until absolutely necessary (I work on the north end of town, and the shopping area is way down on the south end). I wait until I’m on the south end for something else (like church).
When I move into the city next semester for grad school, I’m bringing a bike: exercise and save on gas at the same time! I’m excited (makes me feel like I’m in Europe again!)
Report comment to moderator
This past weekend we did travel to our DS and DIL’s for grandaughters 1st birthday. I did notice people are slowing down. We drove under the speed limit and still was in the flow of traffic.
We live in a rural area. To get anywhere, driving is about the only option. But there will be less of it.
Report comment to moderator
Here is more info
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/
Scroll down to “Big Oil”
This is on Power Line and has a chart that shows who controls oil production.
My conclusion is that we MUST drill for more oil until other forms of energy come online.
Report comment to moderator
We are driving more than ever. For me that is not saying much (my ‘83 Mustang just rolled over 48,000) but hubby signed the kids up for baseball before leaving town. Seems baseball involves 28 games strewn across two counties with lots of away games. That ends the end of June and then we are done for a while. Swimming pool and tennis are only a four mile bike ride away. The nine year old can do it so the fifty year old can do it.
Report comment to moderator
I’m increasingly drafting off trucks on the highway. It saves gas and fosters my long latent David Pearson fantasy.
Report comment to moderator
I am looking at my crystal ball…
Gas taxes will be replaced by a miles driven tax that will be recorded from a GPS system on each vehicle. This is already being considered in Oregon.
Electric cars ill be given an exemption from road user fees until
1. they cut into the taxes being collected.
2. the electric cars are plentiful.
3. there is a state tax crunch and the governor and state legislatures need more money.
Report comment to moderator
What electric cars Bob? Are there electric cars? I though big auto killed them.
Report comment to moderator
Since we live 15 miles from the nearest city with decent shopping, we have always combined trips, even when gasoline was $1/gal. I often stop at the store on my way home from work if Mrs L needs something (I go through said city to get to my job).
Interesting to me are all the people complaining about high gasoline prices, when compared to things like bottled water, gasoline is cheap! Do all you who buy those 20oz bottles realize you are paying around $6/gal? Not only that, but all those bottles are made from a petroleum product, which reduces the amount that can be used for gasoline. Why not buy a filter for your kitchen sink and get the water you are already paying for? It tastes just as good and at least you know where it comes from. Plus you are not filling the local landfill with plastic. If you must buy your water, do what we do. We get refillable gallon jugs from Wal*Mart for around $1(other stores have them too), then refill them for less than 50¢. The water comes from a Culligan® filtered dispenser, so we know we are getting good water. Since we are refilling the jugs, there is no waste plastic (who says conservatives don’t care about the environment?), and we save a lot of money over the smaller, non-refillable bottles, which have water that can occasionally be be questionable as to its healthiness.
’Nuff said.
Report comment to moderator
Xion (#16)- GM is working to produce electric cars, as well as hydrogen models. They have test models that are almost ready for mass production. The only problem is they will cost as much as a Cadillac, so only those who can afford high gasoline prices will be able to buy the cars!
Report comment to moderator
We combine trips wherever necessary, although the big trip from AZ to upstate NY is gonna hurt my wallet. Living in a retirement community (I’m still working) and driving a golf cart helps for run around errands.
Report comment to moderator
Peter L, drinking tap water may be smart but it isn’t cool. Refrigerating it won’t help. Being “with it” can also be expensive.
Re: #18. Electric cars may be expensive but they make a statement. Making statements is also expensive.
As I said before, a single hole in the tundra of ANWR would reduce the price of gasoline and service stations would soon be giving free glasses with a fillup.
Report comment to moderator
That’s true Chas, but I would prefer that this crisis will spur a vigorous effort for alternative energy. California is building a hydrogen highway. I think this is a step in the right direction. Now, if liberals will just let us build an offshore hydrogen production platform we’ll really be cooking with steam!
Peter L. Good point about bottled water. I am glad to hear electric cars are on their way back. All the major car companies had them a few years ago. People loved them. Then the car companies went out, retrieved all the cars (they were all leased) and crushed them. I never understood that.
Report comment to moderator
I hope people aren’t “slowing down” on the highways.
I know all that they say about slower speeds being more efficient, but only twice have I ever made 40 mpg in my Corolla, and both were on trips were I averaged 75 mpg–I suspect my car is more efficient at faster speeds, and certainly it isn’t LESS efficient.
I can’t cut back much on my driving unless I choose not to attend a church event, but I’m avoiding going out of town and being careful on errands. I’m wondering if our “leaders” have any clue how much these prices are hurting us, and if they have any plans to open up the markets and let new drilling begin. If not, can we do a mass recall and get rid of all of them and start over? Please?
Report comment to moderator
Here is an interesting article written by James Woosley.
As prices soar, oil imports add more than $1 billion a day to our trade deficit. There is also a security cost: The tight supply increases our vulnerability to disruptions by terrorists or other causes that could send prices even higher
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=686974&attrib_id=17451
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D- I think you mean 75 mph (miles per hour)? 75 mpg would be great!
One reason you got better mileage at 75 mph is because you did not have to slow down and stop at traffic lights every half mile or so. If you normally drive in heavy city traffic, you get lower mileage. So if you take an occasional long trip on the freeway, you are bound to get better mileage no matter what your speed. Actually, most vehicles (not all) get the best mileage between 55 and 60 mph, depending on when the transmission goes into high gear (or overdrive, if it has it). The higher gear means the engine is going at a lower revolution per minute (rpm) rate, thus working less to move you along. In city driving, the engine rarely gets to the best rpm, so your mpg goes down. You can see this best if your car has a tachometer, which shows you the rpm of your engine while you drive. Otherwise, try and feel when the transmission shifts into the higher gear (if you have automatic, that is). At that point, you are getting your best mpg. Unfortunately, most of us prefer to drive faster, so our mpg drops a little.
Report comment to moderator
When we had to replace a vehicle recently we settled for a used seven-seater with a 4 cylinder engine. Then I read a magazine article about how to hypermile and I try to use those techniques (some of which have been alluded to above).
Report comment to moderator
Some of the hypermiling stuff sounds like it’d be bad on the car: like turning off the engine every time you come to a stop light and coasting everywhere.
I try to drive smoothly and set my vehicle on cruise whenever I get a chance, but other than that, I try not to worry about it. (But I do: I discovered my beautiful little Taurus got 23 mpg this last tank, and it can usually get 26-27).
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly, et. al.
Do not turn off your engine and coast!
Some cars lock their sterring wheels when the ignition is off. It probably won’t do it at high speeds, but it’s a terrible idea anyhow.
Report comment to moderator
#18 PETER L
Ten or more years ago the head of the GM electric car unit was in our church. He lived next to my wife’s sister and brother-in-law. GM was ready at that time to produce electric cars.
They only lacked one thing, a battery that would last for a week of driving. They needed to be able to make a trip to Vegas (280 miles), drive to San Francisco (400 miles) with only one stop for a recharge (and how long would that recharge take?).
I have watched for that revolution in batteries. That is a real problem for electric cars. Batteries that don’t hold enough juice and that take too long to recharge.
Report comment to moderator
I’m popping champagne. The only way America is going to end its wasteful energy consumption, industrial food production policies, and staggeringly inefficient land use patterns is if the price of energy keeps going up and up and up. $6 gas? Bring it on!!
Report comment to moderator
Chas,
We had a kid try that here as he had seen his dad do it when he was low on fuel. Coasted right off the grade and plummeted about one hundred feet down, flipping the car a couple times along the way. He had to climb up the hill and hitch a ride home to tell his mom. Gave her his piggy bank for repairs. Meantime, hubby and BIL were first on the scene with the sheriff and they were scouring the hillside for the body. The boy attriutes his completely unscathed survival to God. Not even his glasses broke. I don’t think he coasts to save gas anymore. Not all survive.
Report comment to moderator
The Department of Energy released a report last week. The DOE concludes that bring ANWR oil on market would take ten years and only reduce the price of crude by $0.75 per barrel! At $133/barrel, that $0.75 isn’t going to do much for anyone.
Stop with the ANWR nonsense.
Report comment to moderator
Peter L,
I’ve heard all that, and it makes sense. The problem is, I’ve driven a lot of highway miles through the years–and I only got 40 mpg on those stretches of road where the speed limit was 70, not where the speed limit was 55. Some of it’s “luck” and highway conditions–I usually get only about 36 over the same highways. But surely a moderately large 14-year-old car would never do BETTER than 40 mpg, would it?
That’s what I’m saying, that all the experts aside, at 75 miles an hour I occasionally get a really exceptional gas mileage, and I doubt I could possibly do better by slowing down. And I know that slowing down makes a trip longer and leads to more highway fatigue, so I earnestly don’t want to see us going back to 55 on the highways!
Report comment to moderator
Chas … don’t worry. It’s always sounded like a bad idea to me.
Report comment to moderator
I coast a lot with the engine on–it still makes a noticeable difference.
I try to have the transmission shift at or less than 2K rpm (which just basically means driving like a little old lady).
I take my foot off the gas as soon as I see a stoplight or stop sign.
I’ve always gotten better than the posted mpg for whatever vehicle I’ve owned.
We watch the trends of gas prices in our area–today Sam’s Club was a dime cheaper, and since we were there, we didn’t even have to weigh whether it was worth driving out of the way.
We’ll drive nearly two thousand miles next month, but it’s worth it to see friends (including Chas!) and family.
Report comment to moderator
I was just reading up on HHO. (Hydrogen from Water). Seems to be a stealth energy source. Anyone have any opionions of it?
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly #26: Hybrids automatically turn off their engines when the car stops long enough (like a stop light). I was turning my car off at stop lights on my way to the family Memorial Day picnic…went to leave the picnic and my starter had popped loose so the car wouldn’t start without some emergency repairs. Not having your car start at a green light with a line of cars behind you would be bad news, so I use that trick with extreme caution now.
I agree that turning off your car when moving will be dangerous. I was a heavy accelerator, so just changing that behavior has helped me.
Report comment to moderator
DC Lawyer – thanks for caring about the fact that millions of Americans are going to have to choose between groceries and gas. I have never been a wasteful driver; I don’t consider driving to see family to be wasteful, and that is the only frivolous driving we do. The rest is driving to work and doing errands. We have always grouped our trips and stop on the way home from work. We will be taking few trips this summer, because we don’t have the funds for gas. We have nothing else to cut in the way of driving. But, it sure is nice that the liberals seem to care about the little guy, as they always claim to.
Report comment to moderator
The rental car company gave me a deal when I took my first child to college eight years ago (yikes!). Since I was only driving from LAX to UCLA to Santa Monica and back to LAX, I took the car–they warned the battery charge would only last 100 miles.
It was a really fun experience but very disconcerting. The car made no noise when it was on. My son starting saying “Vroom-vroom,” each time I turned the key so I’d know I could go.
I was paranoid about running out of juice over the two days, however. The voltage meter seemed to plummet much faster than it should have and I wondered if the car came with an extension cord in the back for me to plug in somewhere! (UCLA had plug in spots, but I wasn’t there very long).
The problem I see is the size of the battery needed for the car and the fact that ultimately the power has to come from somewhere. So, while I may not have a power plant in my backyard, my relatives in Utah resented their air being muddied so people in California could drive electric cars.
Sigh. My teenager is convinced we need nuclear energy back. Works for me, but it will take a long time to get power plants okayed and on-line; maybe in time for her dotage?
My other comment would be gasoline is the smaller expense over the life of a car; that doesn’t help when you’re spending so much at the pump, but from a budget counselor stand point, it is something to remember.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron–
Good to know I’m not the only one driving like an old lady. I hate my RPMs to go high, so I accelerate really slowly.
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly,
Of course, it drives my husband nuts for me to be a passenger!
Report comment to moderator
I appreciated Bob Buckles’s post in #12, showing who really controls the oil costs. I almost feel the sense of vindication for posting in this past Friday’s rant/Rave column (post 1). LLama excoriated me for ranting about the oil companies being pigs, in their ever-capitalist ways of goughing the price for refined petrol. In light of that, I suggest that LLama ought to really know what he’s talking about before “lecturing me” about economics. I am not an economist, but I am quite able to think for myself, thank you.
To insure you don’t miss a thing, Mr. Llama, I shall draw your attention to the aforementioned Buckles post in part:
With 94% of the world’s oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, Exxon Mobil, a small oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e, mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge Exxon Mobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up.
This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn’t have to be that way. The United States–unlike, say, France–actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela.
So, why doesn’t it happen? Because the Democratic Party–aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans–deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous shale oil deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers’ needs, but the Democratic Congress won’t allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don’t know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them.
In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the Democratic Party’s perverse energy policies.
Justus: So, ladies and gents, there is your homework assignment due November 11th. On election day, you must insure your future by voting true conservatives into Senate / US Rep offices…..because it is now in your hands.
Now, let’s see which of the Wow libs disagree with that!
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Report comment to moderator
Justus331: See post #31.
What we need to do is wait for the Russians to drill for the oil in their tundra.
We can wait for the Chinese to drill for oil off the coast of Cuba.
We can wish for a breakthrough in perpetual motion.
We can use corn for fuel and let people starve for food.
What we can’t do is disturb ANWR, oil shale or the offshore petroleum potential.
“It will take ten years to bring production online.”
If Clinton hadn ‘t vetoed the ANWR bill ten years ago, we wouldn’t be talking about this.
The stupidity of it all this agitates me considerably.
Report comment to moderator
“If Clinton hadn ‘t vetoed the ANWR bill ten years ago, we wouldn’t be talking about this.”
Chas- In no way am I defending Clinton, but do you really think ANWR is the answer? The Department of Energy released a report last week. The DOE concludes that bring ANWR oil on market would take ten years and only reduce the price of crude by $0.75 per barrel! At $133/barrel, that 75 cents isn’t going to do much for anyone.
Report comment to moderator
Godlumps- We get the picture. You do not have to point out the 75¢ per barrel every time someone mentions ANWR. Our point in bringing it up is that if we had drilled ANWR back in the 90s, oil would not be over $100/barrel now, thus making ANWR worth more to the consumer than 75¢! If we drill now, and ten years from now oil is still $133/barrel or even $150 instead of $200, wouldn’t that be worth it?
Report comment to moderator
You sure have funny math, Peter L. Show me how oil would be a third cheaper?
Report comment to moderator
Godlumps,
I guess I missed it–where did Peter L say that?
Report comment to moderator
Chas at #42: If Clinton hadn ‘t vetoed the ANWR bill ten years ago, we wouldn’t be talking about this.
The stupidity of it all this agitates me considerably.
Chas, the Republicans had the White House AND Congressional majority from 2001-2007. If it made sense to do it, your people have had the power much more recently than Democrats.
It’s not all Clinton’s fault, even though conservatives seem to be hardwired to blame everything including the rainout of a Little League game on the Clinton administration.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron: I guess I missed it–where did Peter L say that?
Right here: If we drill now, and ten years from now oil is still $133/barrel or even $150 instead of $200, wouldn’t that be worth it?
$133 would be one-third cheaper than $200.
Report comment to moderator
It’s not all Clinton’s fault, even though conservatives seem to be hardwired to blame everything including the rainout of a Little League game on the Clinton administration.
It’s his fault when he vetoes a bill put in front of him. Just like it’s partly Bush’s fault when he signs a horrendous farm bill put in front of him. In that case, Congress gets some of the blame for getting it to his desk in the first place.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron- see post 44 “if we had drilled ANWR back in the 90s, oil would not be over $100/barrel now”
100 is about a third less than 133.
Report comment to moderator
And yes. 133 is a third less than 200. Math is cool. Let’s see Peter’s.
Report comment to moderator
Good point Steve. With the R’s in charge of EVERY branch including the Judiciary, why on earth didn’t they do something if it was so beneficial. It wasn’t. It isn’t. ANWR is a red herring.
Report comment to moderator
Why shouldn’t we start bringing Rocky Mountain shale oil online?
Why shouldn’t we start bringing oil from the deep Gulf coast online?
Why not drill for oil off the coast of Florida?
What is the purpose of having all of the West coast off limits?
Report comment to moderator
I’m with you on some of those BUCKLES.
“It’s his fault when he vetoes a bill put in front of him. Just like it’s partly Bush’s fault when he signs a horrendous farm bill”
Why is it Clinton’s fault if he vetoes and only partly Bush’s fault if he signs a bill? Different levels of responsibility for different presidents doing the same thing? Partisan much?
Report comment to moderator
Chas, ANWR is not my only concern, although it it one of them. The oil companies are still in cahoots with federal beauracray and it sickens me. My apologies to Mr. LLama for “ranting” as I did. However, Chas, it has been duly noted that ANWR could have been online this month because our Congress voted down the idea 10 YEARS AGO! The fact is……the oil companies refuse to upgrade their oil producing technologies to todays standards. They also have not been drilling on American property, so as to allow other countries do it. President Bush has still refused to tap into the Strategic Oil Reserve for who knows why. I have some suspition.
It’s just frustrating, Chas…..I guess I just found this forum to my “venting place”.
Again, I apologize if I have offended anyone on this issue.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron on #49, of W.J. Clinton: It’s his fault when he vetoes a bill put in front of him.
You miss the point. The Republicans had six years in which they controlled both the legislative and executive branches. During that time they could have passed a law to authorize ANWR drilling, if they wanted to.
They had this period of time after the Clinton administration, so if they had done anything, it would have made his veto almost moot. That is, Justus complains that ANWR could be online this year had Clinton not vetoed the bill. OK, but if the Republican Congress had passed the bill again in 2001 and Bush had signed it, ANWR could be poised to come online in just three more years.
So:
1. Why didn’t the Republicans take advantage of their majorities in 2001-2007 to authorize ANWR drilling?
2. Why is it all Clinton’s fault, given the failure of the Republican majority described above?
(Just by way of noting confusion, Chas in #42 says Clinton vetoed the bill; Justus in #55 says Congress voted down the bill, which would mean Clinton never even had a chance to veto it. I do not know which one is right, but if Justus is, then the fault is even less Clinton’s because Congress was in Republican control 10 years ago.)
But my point is, Republicans are friendly to the oil industry and had six years in which they could have authorized ANWR drilling … and they didn’t. What does that tell you?
Report comment to moderator
It tells me that the Senate wouldn’t pass any ANWR drilling during W’s terms. It was not “filibuster” proof.
Report comment to moderator
The Oil Lobby has its meat hooks in both parties. Senator Leahy was joking and cutting up with the oil executives during the Dog and Pony show in DC. I downloaded and read the most engineering piece that I have read in a long time. It is about using the current Internal Combustion Engine and Hydrogen gas.
Here are some of the engineering properties of using Hydrogen as a fuel source:
3.2 Combustive Properties of Hydrogen
The properties of hydrogen are detailed in Section 1. The properties that contribute to its use as a combustible fuel are its:
• wide range of flammability
• low ignition energy
• small quenching distance
• high autoignition temperature
• high flame speed at stoichiometric ratios
• high diffusivity
• very low density
Report comment to moderator
1. Why didn’t the Republicans take advantage of their majorities in 2001-2007 to authorize ANWR drilling?
2. Why is it all Clinton’s fault, given the failure of the Republican majority described above?
Answer to #1: lobbyists, probably
Answer to #2: Because he, like all presidents, should be above influence from #1.
Report comment to moderator
I see where the Dept of Interior estimates that there are 112 billion (That’s a B) barrels of oil off shore and beneath federal lands. We could take those royalties and reduce taxes considerably. It would also “provide gasoline for 60 million cars for sixty years”. (or 120 million thirty years. By then, we could do something.)
I frankly doubt that Dept of Energy report about only .75/barrel. Do we have a link?
Report comment to moderator
#45 (I wish you would change your moniker. I feel like I am taking the Lord’s name in vain when I type G*lumps)–
If you knew how to read English, you would see that my example is hypothetical and not factual. Hypothetical means “guessing, supposing, speculating”. None of us could ever know how much cheaper gasoline would be if we had started drilling in the 90s, or even in the 80s.
Report comment to moderator
Chas-
MarketWatch: ANWR drilling could cut 75 cents from oil prices, DOE says
Report comment to moderator
PeterL-
Your phrasing does not sound hypothetical here. Perhaps it’s you who needs to learn to proof read what you write?
“Our point in bringing it up is that if we had drilled ANWR back in the 90s, oil would not be over $100/barrel now, thus making ANWR worth more to the consumer than 75¢!”
What makes you think oil would be $35 barrel cheaper now, wen the DOE says ANWR would only reduce oil prices by $0.75?
Report comment to moderator
They didn’t produce much evidence. It isn’t logical. Once commentator said that a DOE report in 1998 predicted flat oil prices for 20 years.
I’m sure these guys have their money in Monsanto.
Report comment to moderator
“Once commentator said that a DOE report in 1998 predicted flat oil prices for 20 years.”
Under that logic, ANWR would probably reduce the price of oil by a dime per barrel. A waste of time and resources for sure.
Report comment to moderator
I will say, if you could prove to me that drilling ANWR would produce enough oil to significantly lower the cost of gasoline (say, $1 a gallon or so) and for a longish period of time (15-20 years or more), I would be for it.
But mostly what I hear is “It MUST be good because the eeeevil America-hatin’ Democrats won’t let us do it.”
And I find that less than persuasive.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder how many people visit ANWR in a year?
Report comment to moderator
It’s not just ANWR we should be talking about. There are many places where drilling has been prohibited. These kinds of policies may make it less likely that new rich oil fields are discovered like in North Dakota. What effect will the North Dakota discovery have on oil prices? Any?
The other question would be regarding refineries. When was the last time a refinery was built in the United States? That would effect supply as well.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Buckles- (like the sound of that)
A good friend spent 2 weeks hiking and camping there last year. His pictures are beautiful and as a lifelong hiker he said it was the most amazing place he’s ever been. Wildlife, big mountains and meadows, uncrowded. I’m hoping to go next summer.
Wiglaf-
I read here somewhere that we aren’t using all of our refining capacity at this time. I haven’t verified it yet.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Buckles-
Here is some info on visiting ANWR from Travel Alaska.
ANWR contains the greatest wildlife diversity of any protected area in the circumpolar north
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Lumps,
Thank you for a most informative web site I learned much.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Lumps/#54,
The distinction isn’t partisan; it has to do with the vetoing versus signing.
It’s only partly Bush’s fault with the farm bill (imo) because Congress is equally guilty by passing the farm bill they put in front of him. If Clinton vetoed a drilling bill (acknowledging the confusion above) that Congress passed, the blame is squarely on him.
I would phrase it the same way regardless of party, but I can’t think of a reverse example.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!