Fuel costs

[Paladin]

All I know is that at $4.00 + a gallon I will not be going much of anywhere.

I'm as stubborn and die hard as many others but $4.00 may end up being a deal breaker on the bus. 

[gmbusguy1]

You just enjoy Not driving your bus.

the cost of fuel WILL NOT GO DOWN.... EVER!

in a few short years we will be paying Much More per gallon and I for one Am not going to leave my bus parked and miss out on many fmily memories..

Those memories will cost a great deal more into the future

These are the good old days

Chris

[JackConrad]

   We have found that we can have just as much fun going someplace 50 miles from home for a weekend as we do going 200 miles.  Fortuanately, from our location in SW Florida, there is much to do and see without driving more than 100 miles.  Less fuel /cost and just as much fun! 
   When we do a longer trip, we try to sachedule it so that we make a loop, visiting severla events and/or friends in big loop.  Jack

[BillC]

Hi       here in northern Pa I just filled up with diesel and paid  3.99and 9/10s that is just to much. Yes I can afford it  but do I want  to  NO.                Bill  C

[jjrbus]

Hate to ruin anyones day, but oil futures for Jan 2009 delivery are US $200 a barrel!

[kingfa39]

Thats what happens when you appoint a president who has a vice president who are oil men, exxon made more money last year than anyother company i us history, they do as they please since there are no responsible leaders to stop them. enjoy
Frank Allen

[HighTechRedneck]

Thats what happens when you appoint a president who has a vice president who are oil men, exxon made more money last year than anyother company i us history, they do as they please since there are no responsible leaders to stop them. enjoy
Frank Allen

But of course the democrat controlled congress did so much better when they called in the oil execs last year and grilled them about the record profits didn't they?  It took them a whole 3 days to completely drop the inquiry.

The problem is much more complex than simply who is President/VP.  It is even more complicated than who is in Congress.  I don't proclaim to know the answer other than the citizens/companies taking steps to reduce consumption.  But even that won't help that much.  China and India are just getting started in the use of petroleum.  As they get full into it, remember, they have over 15 times as many people as we do.  Most of them don't even have cars yet but before long they will.

[NJT5047]

Prepare for much higher fuel prices.  Notwithstanding higher fuel prices fostered on us by requiring boutique fuels for various seasons and geography, our intrepid congress (led by H. Waxman) has offered up a law that will make most ethanol, coal to liquid, and tar sand extracted oil off limits to the US.
They set the asinine unattainable production standard of requiring that all manufactured fuels  not produce more greenhouse gases during manufacture than Saudi oil.   
Now I say..who in the hell needs enemies?  Our congress is enemy enough.
While ethanol is clearly not the answer, drilling for oil, coal, and oil extracts are 'bridges' to the future.  At least they could be a "gap" filler.  And so as to not leave any potential fuel relief, congress has also prohibited importation of cheap ethanol. 
We are going continue to kiss the asses of the Arabs and the likes of Chavez because our congress wants it that way. 
I believe that Bush is going along with this in name of saving our world from "global warming." 
We got a liberal Bush presidency, and anti-auto greens and their lacky Democrats running the show.  Oh, and now we'll soon have that genuis Obama for president!  Cool.  I suppose we could rent our buses as smallish condos...if we're not reduced to living in them.  High fuel prices are going to trash what's left of our economy. 
Don't take comfort when one compares our fuel prices with Europe's pricing...Europe's fuel tax pays for health care and education.  It ain't apples to apples.
The greens are going to be disappointed to find that when fuel costs reaches a magic price, po folk, as in third world countries, will burn anything for heat.  Get ready to cut some forests down! Po folk drive environmentally unfriendly cars too.  This is the law of unintended consequences. 
We are suckers.  And our leaders are fools that are rapidly reducing the US to third world living standards. 
That's what I really think!
JR
BTW, could some of ya'll out their in Cawlifornia help Waxman out of office? 

[JohnEd]

Henry,

Thank God you are alert cause I haven't even heard of this!  Can you tell me what the name of that piece of legislation is called and when that Waxman dude voted on it?  I still have relatives in Ca. and I would like to give them a heads up.  Thanks in advance for the information and may I propose that this piece of legislation be made a board sticky or at least a post of its own so we can all track this thing that will impact us all.  If we can do this without calling each other names or branding the posts by political party we should be able to drive this to a conclusion.  At least this one point and all get educated.

Great point about Europes gas tax going for education and medical care and just plain to reduce demand and protect themselves from a balance of payments disaster.  We started out oil independent so we never did that and BIG oil has been running the show since.

Thanks again,

John

[Nick Badame Refrig/ACC]

Well.....

Is there a STAND we can take??

I'm sure our little following of 1700+ members can do something together. We have some brilliant minds here. What can we do?

I'm all ears
Nick-

[NJT5047]

I hope I don't end up in jail for plagerism...or whatever, but this is a post on Fox News "Opinions"
If our mods have a problem with the reprint, feel free to remove it...no problemo. 
Enjoy, JR

By Steven Milloy

All the presidential candidates say they're for energy independence. So why didn't they do something about it when they had the chance?

Hillary Clinton rails on her Web site about Americans sending "billions of dollars to the Middle East for their oil." Barack Obama warns that Middle East oil is the "lifeline of Al Qaeda." Republican hopeful John McCain says that, if elected, his energy policy will "amount to a declaration of independence from our reliance on oil sheiks and our vulnerability to their troubled politics."

But Clinton and Obama recently voted for a bill that can only promote dependency on oil from the Middle East. And John McCain went AWOL, not voting on the bill at all.

A little-noticed provision of the ironically named "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007" that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush last December bars the federal government from purchasing fuels whose life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are greater than those from fuels produced from conventional petroleum sources.

Before we get into the energy independence implications of this provision, it's worth appreciating the obscurity of the provision and the fact that the media doesn't seem to understand its import.

I only learned of the provision while thumbing through the Feb. 15 Financial Times, serendipitously noticing the egregiously mis-titled article, "U.S. risks trade dispute with Canada on fuel." A bit of research turned up no other media reports relating to this particular section of the bill.

The Financial Times article reported on how section 526 of the energy bill prohibits the federal government from buying oil that was produced from Canadian tar sands, a reserve that holds about two-thirds the amount of recoverable oil as compared to reserves in Saudi Arabia.

Because it takes greenhouse gas-producing energy to extract oil from the tar sands, the article focused on the fact that the law could affect billions of dollars of trade in oil, particularly since the U.S. Department of Defense is the world's largest single buyer of light refined petroleum.

But while I give the Financial Times credit for reporting this story, it really dropped the ball with respect to understanding it — this is yet another effort by environmentalists and their congressional henchmen to cause chaos in our energy supply.

Sure enough, it turns out that Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., already are pressing the Department of Defense to comply with the provision. In a recent letter to the secretary of defense, Waxman and Davis asked how the DOD will ensure that the fuel it buys doesn't come from Canadian tar sands or from domestic coal-to-liquid processing.

Waxman and Davis apparently expect the military to expend the Herculean effort of tracing the source of the fuel it purchases and then to refuse North American oil from unconventional sources apparently in favor of oil from OPEC sources such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. How's that for energy independence and security?

It gets worse if you're one of those who believe that biofuels are the path to energy independence.

The plain language of section 526 also would seem to ban the federal government from purchasing biofuels like ethanol, since their life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are greater than that of conventional petroleum.

"Turning native ecosystems into 'farms' for biofuel crops causes major carbon emissions that worsen the global warming that biofuels are meant to mitigate," researchers from the University of Minnesota and the Nature Conservancy reported in Science (Feb. 7). Another study in the same issue of Science projected that the life-cycle greenhouse gas emission from ethanol over 30 years is twice as high as from regular gasoline.

Interestingly, Waxman and Davis specifically excluded biofuels from their letter to the DOD. Not to worry, though, biofuels likely soon will become fuel-non-grata as the environmentalists have already started to demonize them.

Similar to the case of compact fluorescent lightbulbs discussed in this column last week, The New York Times editorial page this week signaled that biofuels soon will become as politically incorrect as the Canadian tar sands and domestic coal-to-liquid fuels.

The Times opined that, "Done right, ethanol could help wean the country from its dependence on foreign oil while reducing the emissions that contribute to climate change. Done wrong, ethanol could wreak havoc on the environment while increasing greenhouse gases."

"Done right" for the Times is what's required in the energy bill — a 20 percent reduction in life-cycle greenhouse gases as compared to gasoline. But, of course, this is a next-to-impossible goal since the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions for ethanol are projected to be 100 percent greater than for gasoline.

It likely will require nothing short of a technological miracle for ethanol to achieve the energy bill's standards in the near or even distant future.

Now, if the federal government is barred from bio-, tar sand, coal-to-liquid fuels, how long will it be before such a ban spreads to contractors that do business with the federal government, to states and their contractors, and then, by default, to the nation as a whole?

It's hard to take the presidential candidates, President Bush and Congress too seriously on the energy independence issue when none of them opposed a bill that actually makes us more dependent on OPEC.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.




SEARCH

Click here for FOX News RSS Feeds

[jackhartjr]

I have sent many e-mails to the gas companies saying that they will have to account for what they are doing to us someday! 
When I fuel I make it a point to go in, ask for the manager and I say this; "Will you tell the folks that set these prices that they will have to answer for them someday." 
Sometimes I get this; ;We don't set the prices, we have to sell it for what we are told, we only make 3 or 4 cents per gallon!"  To them I say; "The guy that drives the get away car is just as guilty for robbing the bank!"
I feel better!
Jack

[Nick Badame Refrig/ACC]

JR,

That just sounds like standard politics... Isn't that how they all work?  Make a bill that is absolete before it's put in place....

Jack, I'm with you!

OK,

What is the route to take here. Do we start a global class action suite against the oil co's??

Or, should we just make it easier for them and just hit ourselvs over the head every 2 hours with a hammer so our money falls out of our pockets even quicker.....

I am a busisness owner and expierence tells me that when a product becomes too expansive, or the quality diminishes, I am forced to either shop for another source,

or in some cases I have had to fabricate that product myself. We have to look at this the same way. We as Americans are being railroaded with oil prices because we are

not able to make another choice as free will.. Even the alternitives are being forced by the wayside. Ethenol/biofuels, etc.  as explained by JR's artical.  This is a Freedom

issue, we are being taken advantage of because of our dependency on oil. What is next? AIR, WATER, DIRT ?? ??

Just Venting but not dead.

Nick-

[PP]

  I suppose we could rent our buses as smallish condos...if we're not reduced to living in them. 

Okay JR-I might be offended if it wasn't so much fun!
As far as sending big oil a message-everyone needs to cut back  (tough love-I know)

[Nick Badame Refrig/ACC]

  I suppose we could rent our buses as smallish condos...if we're not reduced to living in them. 

Okay JR-I might be offended if it wasn't so much fun!
As far as sending big oil a message-everyone needs to cut back  (tough love-I know)

The price for cutting back on oil usage will be even Higher Prices at the pump..... Cant take money out of the pockets of people who are used to it!

It's happening allready, we are in the earliest stages of alternitive fuels in new vehicles and that alone has caused futures to rise uncontrollably..

Nick-