High gas prices

[Addictedto6]

You make some good points oldfooter but one of the flaws in your arguement is that I DON'T NEED a gallon of milk to get to work and I can drink my coffee black made with dirty water from my back yard. I understand what goes into my tank (truck or bu) didn't come out of the ground that way from a drilling company in some Norman Rockwell town. I just think that there is a big difference between need and want. I admit that I don't NEED a gallon of gas for my BU...but I NEED a gallon of gas to get to work, to provide for my family, so I can buy that really expensive gallon of milk!!!

CLOUT1,

Good points, but I would add this. The volume has to do with profit margin as well. I can take a smaller profit margin if I am going to sell more.

Come back to me with this profit margin argument when I have to buy 18 gallons of milk (or bottled water) every 4 or 5 days in order to get to work. I think for my entire family, the most milk I've bought in a week is about 4 gallons. When I buy that much I usually try to find it on sale. The cost for a gallon of milk still ends up cheaper than a gallon of gas, even though the profit margin may be higher.

It's my understanding that all of the cows have unionized. They are demanding exorbinant salaries plus overtime, have very expensive taste in grass, will only milk when they don't have a headache and now require hourly leg massages by a liscensed masseuse when they work more than hours a day.

Let's stick to the facts and the real issues driving up prices in the dairy market.

Dang California Cows...

[chadellt85]

I just saw this article on Digg, it is related so take a look.

economics of Oil

I just glanced at it, but it brings up some good points.

My personal thoughts are that any corporation has the right to make a profit. I feel this way because a corporation either pays out dividends to shareholders or invests the money into the company(resulting in jobs at equipment manufacturers as an example). Granted the CEO's and others in management make a pretty penny, its not like there is one person making the $40 Billion in profit.

I don't enjoy paying $3.65 a gallon and I think that there are things that we should do to improve the situation(New sources of oil, reduce consumption, etc.).

I'm no expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt. Chad

[footnlongline]

I always here people complain about how much profit the oil companies are making but I rarely hear people complain about the group that makes the biggest profit, the government. Oil companies make about ten cents a gallon profit while the government (federal/state/local) makes about 45 cents on average. It makes me sick to see our legislators talking about how we need to regulate the oil companies because they are making too much money when in reality its them that are really raking us over the coals.

Excellent point!! The "government" makes more than the oil companies.

The points I want to make are (1) demand HAS gone up over the last 5-10 years for "oil"...both in the US and worldwide - around 2-3% per year, every year (2) the US still has one the the lowest prices for gasoline in the world - taxes in Europe drive gas prices to the $5-6 range (3) if oil companies could control prices, they would be high all the time! (4) it's supply and demand that determine the price of crude and gasoline...the higher the demand, the higher the price - until price balances demand....and, believe it or not, that will happen again (more later)! (4) we will never, ever, run out of oil......but.....we have run out of $20 oil, and $40 oil, and $60 oil....and we may have run out of $80 oil. But, and listen carefully now - supply and demand will eventually balance (via the pricing mechanism) - and we are at or close to that point today with oil at $117 per barrel. So, saying it simply, when the price gets high enough, people cut demand (more fuel efficient cars, people combining trips, driving less). And when that happens, the price will drop!!! So, this thread will live on for many years, and if someone is reading this in the year 2010, you will probably be looking at an oil price in the $70-80 range.....coming down to that level in a "soft landing" from the highs of $120+ in 2008!!!!

So, thats my forecast, and I'm sticking to it!!!

I can't vouch for the figures but I support the premise whole heartedly. If our congressional leaders were sincere about helping, I believe temporarily cutting tax on gas would do the most good(sorry Paul Tsongas). We want to have our cake and eat it too(I'm totally guilty of this, I love burning gas in toys and big trucks) but when we reach the price threshold where people revert back to economy cars, the price will fall. This isn't our first time dealing with this, look back to the seventies.

[WakeGirl]

So far this year the weather has had a much bigger effect on my on-the-water enjoyment than gas prices ever thought of. We had (yet again) another 3 inches of fresh snow on the ground this morning & while the weather might (said with a heavy dose of sarcasm, my bad foot says otherwise) clear up for the weekend, it's going to turn bad yet again next week. So gas prices aren't really the concern.

With the housing market being what it is, the mortgage crisis, the weak dollar, the war, an election year, & so many other factors that effect the economy to consider, gasoline is just one of the myriad of necessities to worry about paying for if things really go bad. Personally I'd rather pay almost $4/gallon to have to drive to work than not have a job to go to at all. (One thing that I am doing is practicing the art of coasting. )

[SCOTTDOMINE]

Anybody on here drink bottled water? How many of you purchase a gallon of milk at the grocery store? Ever wonder what the profit margin there is in that industry?

I hate it when my wife thinks that filtered water in not as good as what can be bought in the bottles sold at the grocery store. I try to tell her that the only thing they do is filter and bottle the water. Profits must be unbelievable.

Unlike the oil companies that everyone is down on...water/milk companies don't have to:

1. Explore for water/milk?....oil is not just in ocean pools, rivers, etc. but hidden miles underground...they have to find it first
   
2. Drill 10,000+ ft through the earth's crust or within thousands of feet of water
   
3. Contrary to some people beliefs, oil is not in vast caverns below the earths surface but in tight rock formations
   
4. Oil doesn't just come out of the ground ready to use.....Once oil is brought to the earths surface, it must have the water that is produced along with it separated and disposed of in some way. It can be cleaned up (to a level of 40 parts per million or less and dumped back into the ocean) or if it is not allowed to be dumped back into the ocean it must be pumped back up to a high enough pressure and re-injected into either the same oil reservoir or some other location.
   
5. Oil often comes along with some bad actors.....H2S.....hydrogen sulfide....highly corrosive and deadly in the smallest of quantities.
   
6. Oil is often discovered in the most remote locations or harshest environmental locations. Not easy getting people to work in desert locations, Artic environments, war zones......or third world countries plagued with AIDS, malaria, etc. You pay extra to have people to work in these locations and take the risk. Not sure the water companies build their plants in such locations.
   
7. Once oil is brought to the earth's surface it has to be shipped to refineries and processed to become a useful product such as gasoline. Ever wonder how much it costs to build pipelines, pumping stations,etc.....and to have to lay those pipelines on an oceans floor 1000's of feet deep for hundreds of miles. I'm sure the water companies don't have quite the costs associated with their production.
   
8. Oil companies have to give up a major portion of their production to host goverments for allowing them to tap their resources.
   
9. Oil companies must go in and build infrastructure to support their operations.....roads, buildings, and are often required to build communities, schools, hospitals, etc.
   

The list could go on and on....but the list above probably makes the point.

Now...the next time you drink bottled water ....think of the profit margin that may be generated? Or when you go to the grocery store and guy a gallon milk, consumer cost is comparable, but what about production costs? Which would be more difficult to produce...a gallon of water, milk or oil?

What are you talking about Milk Prices? Where do you figure that milk prices have a higher profit margin than oil? Milk comes from cows, correct Now, in order to feed those cows farmers must buy huge peices of very expensive land. Right? Then they must plant very expensive seeds to grow the food. Then they must buy hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment to harvest the crops. Think about a single farmer buying a $250,000 combine on their own. Pretty amazing! Then they have to have expensive cattle, barns, pipelines, mineral, verterinarian bills, etc, etc, etc...... On top of all that, they must work in these fields sometimes for days on end in order to get out and harvest crops between rain storms. Once knew a farmer back home that spent 6 straight days in a tractor in order to harvest hay before the rain came in and prevented him from getting into the fields. Being from a small farming community in WI, I could go on and on and on, but won't. Milk, my friend is CHEAP, when one considers the work and money put into producing it.

Now, bottled H2O, that another topic all together

[Bobby Light]

Whats your connection to the industry 06?

You really think the oil companies are squeaky clean? Because essentially all your posts defend it. I just want to know when Exxon is finally going to pay what they were ordered to after the Valdez spill.

They did pay already, it"s the several times they've been sued since then that are still in litigation. That Valdez spill was a disaster nobody can deny that and they paid a pretty penny for it, not only monitarily but also reputation wise. Alot of things have changed in the area of oil transportation since then. All oil tankers operating in Alaska have to be double hull. I think that's a good thing and think any oil tanker should be double hull. Let's just say I work in the industry and 90% of your facts are 100% false. What you say makes sense but it's just not true. That's why every single inquisition by every senator, state, etc.. have turned up absolutely nothing.

You are absolutely wrong. Jury verdict was entered 14 years ago, and Exxon has taken appeal after appeal after appeal and just this February the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case. They already managed to get punitive verdict cut in half, because who has the money to continue this fight for 14 years? The oil companies.

"They did pay already"

And you're not even right about the double hull, thats not required until 2015!

With all due respect, I think you need to check your facts, sir. Perhaps you got them from Wikipedia before the Wiki scanner caught people inside Exxon Mobile making modification to the Vadez spill entry to make it seem less severe (true story, according to wikipedia)

You crack me up, where are you getting this stuff. I told you they are in litigation from the punative damages lawsuit that was filed after. Let me school you on what they've already paid like I told you. After the wreck, Exxon spent an estimated $2.1 billion on cleanup. It paid $125 million in criminal fines and $900 million to Alaska and the federal government for environmental restoration. Exxon also paid $300 million in out-of-court settlements to parties claiming economic injuries caused by the oil spill. You're right they haven't paid anything. Get your facts straight, quit looking everything up on wikpedia or wherever you're getting this stuff.

You are almost correct about the double hull tanker comment, but not quite. By 2015 all single hulled tankers have to be phased out of US waters period (Oil Pollution Act of 1990). They are already using them in Alaska (read my post this is what I was talking about). There is only 1 tanker to my knowledge that operates in Alaska without a double hull on it. It is owned by Exxon. Tankers owned by Tesoro and BP are all double hulled that operate there. Look it up and get your information from a better source next time.

I do not work for Exxon by the way incase that is what you're thinking, and I don't like paying $4.40 a gallon for deisel either. Get off your high horse and read up on some facts.

Edited April 23, 2008 by 06vlx

[CLOUT1]

You make some good points oldfooter but one of the flaws in your arguement is that I DON'T NEED a gallon of milk to get to work and I can drink my coffee black made with dirty water from my back yard. I understand what goes into my tank (truck or bu) didn't come out of the ground that way from a drilling company in some Norman Rockwell town. I just think that there is a big difference between need and want. I admit that I don't NEED a gallon of gas for my BU...but I NEED a gallon of gas to get to work, to provide for my family, so I can buy that really expensive gallon of milk!!!

CLOUT1,

Good points, but I would add this. The volume has to do with profit margin as well. I can take a smaller profit margin if I am going to sell more.

Come back to me with this profit margin argument when I have to buy 18 gallons of milk (or bottled water) every 4 or 5 days in order to get to work. I think for my entire family, the most milk I've bought in a week is about 4 gallons. When I buy that much I usually try to find it on sale. The cost for a gallon of milk still ends up cheaper than a gallon of gas, even though the profit margin may be higher.

It's my understanding that all of the cows have unionized. They are demanding exorbinant salaries plus overtime, have very expensive taste in grass, will only milk when they don't have a headache and now require hourly leg massages by a liscensed masseuse when they work more than hours a day.

Let's stick to the facts and the real issues driving up prices in the dairy market.

OK mikeoolxi...you win...that's pretty damn funny!!!!!!

[JohnDoe]

Whats your connection to the industry 06?

You really think the oil companies are squeaky clean? Because essentially all your posts defend it. I just want to know when Exxon is finally going to pay what they were ordered to after the Valdez spill.

They did pay already, it"s the several times they've been sued since then that are still in litigation. That Valdez spill was a disaster nobody can deny that and they paid a pretty penny for it, not only monitarily but also reputation wise. Alot of things have changed in the area of oil transportation since then. All oil tankers operating in Alaska have to be double hull. I think that's a good thing and think any oil tanker should be double hull. Let's just say I work in the industry and 90% of your facts are 100% false. What you say makes sense but it's just not true. That's why every single inquisition by every senator, state, etc.. have turned up absolutely nothing.

You are absolutely wrong. Jury verdict was entered 14 years ago, and Exxon has taken appeal after appeal after appeal and just this February the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case. They already managed to get punitive verdict cut in half, because who has the money to continue this fight for 14 years? The oil companies.

"They did pay already"

And you're not even right about the double hull, thats not required until 2015!

With all due respect, I think you need to check your facts, sir. Perhaps you got them from Wikipedia before the Wiki scanner caught people inside Exxon Mobile making modification to the Vadez spill entry to make it seem less severe (true story, according to wikipedia)

You crack me up, where are you getting this stuff. I told you they are in litigation from the punative damages lawsuit that was filed after. Let me school you on what they've already paid like I told you. After the wreck, Exxon spent an estimated $2.1 billion on cleanup. It paid $125 million in criminal fines and $900 million to Alaska and the federal government for environmental restoration. Exxon also paid $300 million in out-of-court settlements to parties claiming economic injuries caused by the oil spill. You're right they haven't paid anything. Get your facts straight, quit looking everything up on wikpedia or wherever you're getting this stuff.

You are almost correct about the double hull tanker comment, but not quite. By 2015 all single hulled tankers have to be phased out of US waters period (Oil Pollution Act of 1990). They are already using them in Alaska (read my post this is what I was talking about). There is only 1 tanker to my knowledge that operates in Alaska without a double hull on it. It is owned by Exxon. Tankers owned by Tesoro and BP are all double hulled that operate there. Look it up and get your information from a better source next time.

I do not work for Exxon by the way incase that is what you're thinking. Get off your high horse and read up on some facts.

There is no need for any insults, I asked when they are going to pay what they were ordered to ($5B by the way, entered 14 years ago, and they haven't paid a dime). If you thought I meant for the cleanup, (who else would have been responsible for that?) I'll clarify: I just want to know when Exxon is finally going to pay what they were ordered to after the Valdez spill by that Anchorage jury in punitive damages. Do you think theres a lot of businesses out there who have the stomach and finances to fight for 14 years over something like this, when they stick a drunk behind the wheel of a freighter in Prince Edward? I think it takes a lot of gall for them to even assert that the verdict was unjust in my opinion.

As for the double hull, tell me where I'm incorrect and what facts I need to read up on. You said: "All oil tankers operating in Alaska have to be double hull." I said:"that's not required until 2015". Now you say there is only one tanker to your knowledge that is not double hull. Which is it? Do they have to be double hull or do you know of one thats not? Just cause I caught this, doesn't mean you have to get testy and say something like your last sentence. Incidentally, the Valdez spill would still have occurred even if it was a double hull, and the Valdez spill is far from being one of the most major spills.

I respect the fact that you work in the industry and I'm not saying everyone who does is bad, just that the oil industry as a whole isn't Betty Crocker. Ties to corrupt governments, price gouging, potential FTC rule violations, etc. are simply not things that I would associate with earning a "fair" profit which was my premise all along, and which I will stand by. I'm not saying that all industry workers are somehow involved in the shady side, (in fact I recognize that it's the vast minority) just that there are tenable arguments that oil companies are allowed to play by a different set of rules.

Make no mistake, I like oil, I like gas. I like my car, boat, even lawn mower. I like capitalism. I like it when businesses do well. But I don't like contribuitng to companies who behave as the oil companies have.

[Bobby Light]

Whats your connection to the industry 06?

You really think the oil companies are squeaky clean? Because essentially all your posts defend it. I just want to know when Exxon is finally going to pay what they were ordered to after the Valdez spill.

They did pay already, it"s the several times they've been sued since then that are still in litigation. That Valdez spill was a disaster nobody can deny that and they paid a pretty penny for it, not only monitarily but also reputation wise. Alot of things have changed in the area of oil transportation since then. All oil tankers operating in Alaska have to be double hull. I think that's a good thing and think any oil tanker should be double hull. Let's just say I work in the industry and 90% of your facts are 100% false. What you say makes sense but it's just not true. That's why every single inquisition by every senator, state, etc.. have turned up absolutely nothing.

You are absolutely wrong. Jury verdict was entered 14 years ago, and Exxon has taken appeal after appeal after appeal and just this February the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case. They already managed to get punitive verdict cut in half, because who has the money to continue this fight for 14 years? The oil companies.

"They did pay already"

And you're not even right about the double hull, thats not required until 2015!

With all due respect, I think you need to check your facts, sir. Perhaps you got them from Wikipedia before the Wiki scanner caught people inside Exxon Mobile making modification to the Vadez spill entry to make it seem less severe (true story, according to wikipedia)

You crack me up, where are you getting this stuff. I told you they are in litigation from the punative damages lawsuit that was filed after. Let me school you on what they've already paid like I told you. After the wreck, Exxon spent an estimated $2.1 billion on cleanup. It paid $125 million in criminal fines and $900 million to Alaska and the federal government for environmental restoration. Exxon also paid $300 million in out-of-court settlements to parties claiming economic injuries caused by the oil spill. You're right they haven't paid anything. Get your facts straight, quit looking everything up on wikpedia or wherever you're getting this stuff.

You are almost correct about the double hull tanker comment, but not quite. By 2015 all single hulled tankers have to be phased out of US waters period (Oil Pollution Act of 1990). They are already using them in Alaska (read my post this is what I was talking about). There is only 1 tanker to my knowledge that operates in Alaska without a double hull on it. It is owned by Exxon. Tankers owned by Tesoro and BP are all double hulled that operate there. Look it up and get your information from a better source next time.

I do not work for Exxon by the way incase that is what you're thinking. Get off your high horse and read up on some facts.

There is no need for any insults, I asked when they are going to pay what they were ordered to ($5B by the way, entered 14 years ago, and they haven't paid a dime). If you thought I meant for the cleanup, (who else would have been responsible for that?) I'll clarify: I just want to know when Exxon is finally going to pay what they were ordered to after the Valdez spill by that Anchorage jury in punitive damages. Do you think theres a lot of businesses out there who have the stomach and finances to fight for 14 years over something like this, when they stick a drunk behind the wheel of a freighter in Prince Edward? I think it takes a lot of gall for them to even assert that the verdict was unjust in my opinion.

As for the double hull, tell me where I'm incorrect and what facts I need to read up on. You said: "All oil tankers operating in Alaska have to be double hull." I said:"that's not required until 2015". Now you say there is only one tanker to your knowledge that is not double hull. Which is it? Do they have to be double hull or do you know of one thats not? Just cause I caught this, doesn't mean you have to get testy and say something like your last sentence. Incidentally, the Valdez spill would still have occurred even if it was a double hull, and the Valdez spill is far from being one of the most major spills.

I respect the fact that you work in the industry and I'm not saying everyone who does is bad, just that the oil industry as a whole isn't Betty Crocker. Ties to corrupt governments, price gouging, potential FTC rule violations, etc. are simply not things that I would associate with earning a "fair" profit which was my premise all along, and which I will stand by. I'm not saying that all industry workers are somehow involved in the shady side, (in fact I recognize that it's the vast minority) just that there are tenable arguments that oil companies are allowed to play by a different set of rules.

Make no mistake, I like oil, I like gas. I like my car, boat, even lawn mower. I like capitalism. I like it when businesses do well. But I don't like contribuitng to companies who behave as the oil companies have.

I was talking about all the fines they paid due to the spill even taking place, the rest are lawsuits from the communities which I explained to you. Let me give you an article on the double hull issue in alaska. This will clear some things up for you. There is one tanker that is single hull operated by exxon, it is only operating because it gets awards from the coast guard for being so safe.

Here's the article let me know if you have any questions, you sound like you're pretty sure you have it all figured out though. What insult are you talking about, guess I was just responding to everything that you think you know about the subject.

<a href="http://www.usnews.com/blogs/beyond-the-bar...-in-alaska.html" target="_blank">http://www.usnews.com/blogs/beyond-the-bar...-in-alaska.html</a>

Edited April 23, 2008 by 06vlx

[WakeGirl]

I think that he was responding to this statement:

All oil tankers operating in Alaska have to be double hull.

It sounds like you're saying that it's not actually required until 2015, but that most are already conforming to standards. Is that correct? So he caught you in a statement that wasn't accurate, semantics it sounds like to me.

[oldfooter]

You make some good points oldfooter but one of the flaws in your arguement is that I DON'T NEED a gallon of milk to get to work and I can drink my coffee black made with dirty water from my back yard. I understand what goes into my tank (truck or bu) didn't come out of the ground that way from a drilling company in some Norman Rockwell town. I just think that there is a big difference between need and want. I admit that I don't NEED a gallon of gas for my BU...but I NEED a gallon of gas to get to work, to provide for my family, so I can buy that really expensive gallon of milk!!!

I agree you don't have to have a gallon of milk, but at the same time you don't need a gallon of gas to get to work....before there were cars there were horses, bicycles, and feet! You choose to have the convience of a car which takes gasoline! I lived in Singapore a few years ago and I lived on the South side of the country and worked on the North side of the country (about 13 miles apart). Three days a week I rode my bike to work and back and ran to/from the other two days. I only took my car if it was raining at the time I left either work or the house. I didn't need a car...I chose to have it for a convenience.

[Bobby Light]

I think that he was responding to this statement:

All oil tankers operating in Alaska have to be double hull.

It sounds like you're saying that it's not actually required until 2015, but that most are already conforming to standards. Is that correct? So he caught you in a statement that wasn't accurate, semantics it sounds like to me.

Ok I didn't express my point properly. How about the oil companies are already complying with this standard today, little better?

[jjackkrash]

I think that he was responding to this statement:

All oil tankers operating in Alaska have to be double hull.

It sounds like you're saying that it's not actually required until 2015, but that most are already conforming to standards. Is that correct? So he caught you in a statement that wasn't accurate, semantics it sounds like to me.

Ok I didn't express my point properly. How about the oil companies are already complying with this standard today, little better?

The Amoco Cadiz was under distress in 1976 and refused assistance from a German tug for over 4 hours while it was leaking oil onto the French coast while the Amoco Captain negotiated the salvage rates with the Tug company. It ultimately dumped over 1.6 million barrels of oil on the French coast after its single hull cracked on the rocks. Most estimates put the damage done at close to 2 billion dollars, but the French government was only awarded $120 million dollars by a U.S. court in Chicago. The oil companies learned two basic lessons from this event: (1) double hulls are necessary to prevent massive ecological and economic damage to coastlines in the event of accidents, which are inevitable; and (2) it doesn't really matter because the companies won't be required to pay what they owe if they destroy an entire coast line. Case in point:

Ten years later, In 1986, Exxon took delivery of brand new vessel--a single hulled tanker named the Exxon Valdez. It was roughly the size of the Amoco Cadiz. It had roughly a 1.5 million barrel capacity, and--shocker--when it went down three years later due to human error it dumped about 1.3 million barrels of oil into Prince Edward Sound. Most agree that if it were a double hulled tanker it wouldn't have spilled most of its--let alone its entire--payload.

There is no legitimate argument that Exxon didn't fully appreciate the risks of putting a single-hulled tanker of that size into service--regulation or no regulation--after the Amoco Cadiz went down in 1976. So I hope you'll understand why I'm not sending my letter of thanks to the Exxon board for its "early" compliance with government regulations. And I'm also not going to cry if it has to pay a third of last quarter's profits (not factoring in 14 years of interest on the money it hasn't paid) in punitive damages after recklessly wiping out an entire ecosystem.

Edited April 23, 2008 by jjackkrash

[auto]

I agree you don't have to have a gallon of milk, but at the same time you don't need a gallon of gas to get to work....before there were cars there were horses, bicycles, and feet! You choose to have the convience of a car which takes gasoline! I lived in Singapore a few years ago and I lived on the South side of the country and worked on the North side of the country (about 13 miles apart). Three days a week I rode my bike to work and back and ran to/from the other two days. I only took my car if it was raining at the time I left either work or the house. I didn't need a car...I chose to have it for a convenience.

Great point, I lived in Chicago for 5 years, never owned a car. I have a buddy that biatches about gas prices, commutes 24 miles each way, has mass transit that drops him a 2 minute walk from work. When asked why he doesn't use public transportation? Response "I like to go out at lunch".

People just like to biatch. Why do you need to live around 24 miles from work when housing is right next to work? Oh don't like the schools. Plenty of private schools, uhhh don't want to pay.

What Americans like is the sense of entitelment to cheap gas, products, 3,000 sqft home, 2.5 cars, 2.3 kids, flat screen, vacation, eating out every night, gas guzzling SUV and any changes to this plan requires that blame be assigned.

[CLOUT1]

You make some good points oldfooter but one of the flaws in your arguement is that I DON'T NEED a gallon of milk to get to work and I can drink my coffee black made with dirty water from my back yard. I understand what goes into my tank (truck or bu) didn't come out of the ground that way from a drilling company in some Norman Rockwell town. I just think that there is a big difference between need and want. I admit that I don't NEED a gallon of gas for my BU...but I NEED a gallon of gas to get to work, to provide for my family, so I can buy that really expensive gallon of milk!!!

I agree you don't have to have a gallon of milk, but at the same time you don't need a gallon of gas to get to work....before there were cars there were horses, bicycles, and feet! You choose to have the convience of a car which takes gasoline! I lived in Singapore a few years ago and I lived on the South side of the country and worked on the North side of the country (about 13 miles apart). Three days a week I rode my bike to work and back and ran to/from the other two days. I only took my car if it was raining at the time I left either work or the house. I didn't need a car...I chose to have it for a convenience.

I hear what your saying and I suppose we could go on for days about this subject. When I worked in Boston I used the commuter rail 45 minutes each way and it was great. Now I work south of where I live by 40 miles...a pretty nasty bike ride in January not to mention pending death due to Massholes on the roadways. If I had an alternative I would be all over it...as a matter of fact I'm going to start commuting with someone that I work with a few days a week. If gas goes back under $3 a gallon which I believe it will, I wonder if the "commute" thing will be as important??? By the way...do you still bike to work??? I wish I could do that for not only the savings as far as gas goes but the mileage on my gas hog and the health benefits.

[JohnDoe]

I think that he was responding to this statement:

All oil tankers operating in Alaska have to be double hull.

It sounds like you're saying that it's not actually required until 2015, but that most are already conforming to standards. Is that correct? So he caught you in a statement that wasn't accurate, semantics it sounds like to me.

It was, but would not have been a big deal if 06's post did not state that 90% of my facts are 100% false. I simply felt compelled to show that actually his facts needed some clarification too. Sorry.

[Chia]

I hear what your saying and I suppose we could go on for days about this subject. When I worked in Boston I used the commuter rail 45 minutes each way and it was great. Now I work south of where I live by 40 miles...a pretty nasty bike ride in January not to mention pending death due to Massholes on the roadways. If I had an alternative I would be all over it...as a matter of fact I'm going to start commuting with someone that I work with a few days a week. If gas goes back under $3 a gallon which I believe it will, I wonder if the "commute" thing will be as important??? By the way...do you still bike to work??? I wish I could do that for not only the savings as far as gas goes but the mileage on my gas hog and the health benefits.

i suppose you could drive part way to work, park the vehicle and ride the bike the rest of the way?

[JohnDoe]

Whats your connection to the industry 06?

You really think the oil companies are squeaky clean? Because essentially all your posts defend it. I just want to know when Exxon is finally going to pay what they were ordered to after the Valdez spill.

They did pay already, it"s the several times they've been sued since then that are still in litigation. That Valdez spill was a disaster nobody can deny that and they paid a pretty penny for it, not only monitarily but also reputation wise. Alot of things have changed in the area of oil transportation since then. All oil tankers operating in Alaska have to be double hull. I think that's a good thing and think any oil tanker should be double hull. Let's just say I work in the industry and 90% of your facts are 100% false. What you say makes sense but it's just not true. That's why every single inquisition by every senator, state, etc.. have turned up absolutely nothing.

You are absolutely wrong. Jury verdict was entered 14 years ago, and Exxon has taken appeal after appeal after appeal and just this February the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case. They already managed to get punitive verdict cut in half, because who has the money to continue this fight for 14 years? The oil companies.

"They did pay already"

And you're not even right about the double hull, thats not required until 2015!

With all due respect, I think you need to check your facts, sir. Perhaps you got them from Wikipedia before the Wiki scanner caught people inside Exxon Mobile making modification to the Vadez spill entry to make it seem less severe (true story, according to wikipedia)

You crack me up, where are you getting this stuff. I told you they are in litigation from the punative damages lawsuit that was filed after. Let me school you on what they've already paid like I told you. After the wreck, Exxon spent an estimated $2.1 billion on cleanup. It paid $125 million in criminal fines and $900 million to Alaska and the federal government for environmental restoration. Exxon also paid $300 million in out-of-court settlements to parties claiming economic injuries caused by the oil spill. You're right they haven't paid anything. Get your facts straight, quit looking everything up on wikpedia or wherever you're getting this stuff.

You are almost correct about the double hull tanker comment, but not quite. By 2015 all single hulled tankers have to be phased out of US waters period (Oil Pollution Act of 1990). They are already using them in Alaska (read my post this is what I was talking about). There is only 1 tanker to my knowledge that operates in Alaska without a double hull on it. It is owned by Exxon. Tankers owned by Tesoro and BP are all double hulled that operate there. Look it up and get your information from a better source next time.

I do not work for Exxon by the way incase that is what you're thinking. Get off your high horse and read up on some facts.

There is no need for any insults, I asked when they are going to pay what they were ordered to ($5B by the way, entered 14 years ago, and they haven't paid a dime). If you thought I meant for the cleanup, (who else would have been responsible for that?) I'll clarify: I just want to know when Exxon is finally going to pay what they were ordered to after the Valdez spill by that Anchorage jury in punitive damages. Do you think theres a lot of businesses out there who have the stomach and finances to fight for 14 years over something like this, when they stick a drunk behind the wheel of a freighter in Prince Edward? I think it takes a lot of gall for them to even assert that the verdict was unjust in my opinion.

As for the double hull, tell me where I'm incorrect and what facts I need to read up on. You said: "All oil tankers operating in Alaska have to be double hull." I said:"that's not required until 2015". Now you say there is only one tanker to your knowledge that is not double hull. Which is it? Do they have to be double hull or do you know of one thats not? Just cause I caught this, doesn't mean you have to get testy and say something like your last sentence. Incidentally, the Valdez spill would still have occurred even if it was a double hull, and the Valdez spill is far from being one of the most major spills.

I respect the fact that you work in the industry and I'm not saying everyone who does is bad, just that the oil industry as a whole isn't Betty Crocker. Ties to corrupt governments, price gouging, potential FTC rule violations, etc. are simply not things that I would associate with earning a "fair" profit which was my premise all along, and which I will stand by. I'm not saying that all industry workers are somehow involved in the shady side, (in fact I recognize that it's the vast minority) just that there are tenable arguments that oil companies are allowed to play by a different set of rules.

Make no mistake, I like oil, I like gas. I like my car, boat, even lawn mower. I like capitalism. I like it when businesses do well. But I don't like contribuitng to companies who behave as the oil companies have.

I was talking about all the fines they paid due to the spill even taking place, the rest are lawsuits from the communities which I explained to you. Let me give you an article on the double hull issue in alaska. This will clear some things up for you. There is one tanker that is single hull operated by exxon, it is only operating because it gets awards from the coast guard for being so safe.

Here's the article let me know if you have any questions, you sound like you're pretty sure you have it all figured out though. What insult are you talking about, guess I was just responding to everything that you think you know about the subject.

<a href="http://www.usnews.com/blogs/beyond-the-bar...-in-alaska.html" target="_blank">http://www.usnews.com/blogs/beyond-the-bar...-in-alaska.html</a>

That article speaks only to Exxon. It has 3 tankers operating there and one left thats single hull per your article. What's your defense for the other companies who still have single hulls? (You said one tanker to your knowledge that operates witha single hull, my source says there are more). Whats your defense for Exxon and Chevorn's initial response to the law, which was instead of complying, shipped less oil per tanker so to avoid compliance? I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong, but the bottom line, in my opinion, is that Exxon, among most others, do whatever they can to avoid responsibility (which includes financial, social, and political varieties) and just focus on their profit. They were originally ordered to pay $5B in punitive damages. After 14 years have managed to reduce it to 2.5B. Now they refuse to even pay that, which per your article, is just 3 weeks of, not revenue...profit. I wish I could say I'm surprised. You do understand that Exxon has insurance for their laibility, right? However, punitive damages are NOT covered by insurance, so thats why they're making such a stink about this.

By the way, I don't think I know anything (because I don't). Anything I have stated has come from a source, other than my opinions. If my sources are wrong, you have the opportunity to prove so. Until then, I will take the position that oil companies are ruthless and irresponsible, and there's plenty of sources to support that position.

How about we outlaw oil companies' "good will" advertisements that have been on so much recently and instead just give customers a rebate!!!

[auto]

Until then, I will take the position that oil companies are ruthless and irresponsible, and there's plenty of sources to support that position.

So..... if you think oil companies are ruthless and irresponsible, how do you justify in your mind by putting in their pocket everyday? I can see you obviously don't vote with the pocket book.

[JohnDoe]

Until then, I will take the position that oil companies are ruthless and irresponsible, and there's plenty of sources to support that position.

So..... if you think oil companies are ruthless and irresponsible, how do you justify in your mind by putting in their pocket everyday? I can see you obviously don't vote with the pocket book.

I tried to one time, it didn't work too well, and my skiing went to pot.

As I have said a few times now, I'm not opposed to them making tons of money, but they need to play by the rules, or alternatively, at least curb its practices which are on the "shady" side. Certainly the majority of what oil companies do for us is good. We need it, they provide it. But there are many things they do which any other industry would be hamstrung for, in my opinion.

Edited April 23, 2008 by JohnDoe

[BLACK PEARL]

What Americans like is the sense of entitelment to cheap gas, products, 3,000 sqft home, 2.5 cars, 2.3 kids, flat screen, vacation, eating out every night, gas guzzling SUV and any changes to this plan requires that blame be assigned.

I thought that was the American dream.

Americans have come a long way from the House with a white picket fence and two cars in the drive way dream.

[UWSkier]

As far as mass transit goes, until our country adopts electric rail; I mean really adopts it, the airlines will continue to thrive and we'll continue to pay through the nose for fuel since demand won't drop. The majority of demand is due to necessity driven by a lack of alternatives for transportation. I have a 34 mile round-trip commute each morning. I drive a truck that gets 17 MPG hwy on a good day. I don't have room for another vehicle at my residence, and I can't with my lifestyle (or my physical attributes) own a small to mid-size car. I could move back to a smaller truck but only get 1-3 MPG improvement...

If I had the option of jumping on a train and heading to work and maybe walking a couple blocks, I'd do it in a heartbeat. After traveling in pretty much every large Asian population and economic center (except Hong Kong), I've come to appreciate just how convenient modern rail travel can be. Trains move hundreds of millions of people where they need to go every day and they do it safely, quickly, cleanly, cheaply, and on time. I'm talking both local trains and high speed cross-country trains. It's great that you can get from Asakusa to Shibuya Tokyo in 10 minutes on a train while the streets above are packed. It's great that you can get from Sentosa to Clarke Quay in Singapore in 15 minutes by train when it would take you at least twice that and cost much more to cab it. It's great that you can hop a Shinkansen in Tokyo and be in Hiroshima in 4 hours. It's great that you can hop a THSR in Taipei and be in Kaohsiung in 2 hours. It's fast, it's far more comfortable than air travel, it's cheap, and it's clean (not to mention, fun)! I'm flying to Vegas on Friday. It's a 3+ hour flight. If I could hop a train instead at half the cost and get there in 8-9 hours, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Even if they wouldn't do the cross-country thing, they should definitely build some regional lines, something linking Miami with NYC with stops along the way; something linking Seattle with San Diego with stops along the way, and something linking Minneapolis with Indianapolis with stops in Chicago, Milwaukee, and Madison. Amtrack isn't the answer. They're still diesel powered and overpriced. Electric is the only way to go.

[Mike00LXI]

Interesting article. Kind of puts it into perspective.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../MN9O108LBQ.DTL

[CLOUT1]

This is an example of why the increase in gas pisses me off. The dollar is strong today and oil is off by 3.5%. In the past month gas prices have gone up multiple times a day as oil trades higher during the course of the day. I bet a tank of gas in your BU that gas won't come down at your local station even though it should be down roughtly $.12 due to the drop in oil. I know, I lost you at buy you a tank of gas right...the catch is you have to drive to Wrentham MA to get it!!!!!!!!!!

[CedarLakeSkier]

This is an example of why the increase in gas pisses me off. The dollar is strong today and oil is off by 3.5%. In the past month gas prices have gone up multiple times a day as oil trades higher during the course of the day. I bet a tank of gas in your BU that gas won't come down at your local station even though it should be down roughtly $.12 due to the drop in oil. I know, I lost you at buy you a tank of gas right...the catch is you have to drive to Wrentham MA to get it!!!!!!!!!!

CLOUT1,

EXACTLY what I was pointing out in my previous post. Oil prices up and local stations increase, Oil prices down and local stations sit on the high price.