[Andrew]

Originally Posted by BurntHombre

Yep. Last night I was driving around downtown Raleigh. Most of the gas stations were at the $2.54-$2.59 range, while a handful were up around $2.79. I'm sure by now they're all up to that range, if not higher.

My brother works in the Raleigh area, so I am fairly certain that you are at three dollars a gallon now.

[Ridley's Own]

This is called "price gouging" and if the Navy still had yardarms, we should hang people who do it from them. There are gas lines here in Macon at the moment, because there is a rumor that they're (who ever that is) is going to run out and shut down pumps.

[BurntHombre]

Originally Posted by Andrew

My brother works in the Raleigh area, so I am fairly certain that you are at three dollars a gallon now.

You are correct, according to this site.

Sigh. I guess now is a good time to get that 80 MPG motorcycle I've been jonesing for.

[exo]

At a gas station by my work today: $3.15/gallon for 87 octane.

[RubberDucky4JC]

in atlanta its $5 somthin

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by RubberDucky4JC

in atlanta its $5 somthin

That would seem to qualify readily for "gouging". I'd report such a price to the police.

[7jesusfreak7]

yes i do cous in canadagas went up from 89.9cents too a doller136.0in 3 monts bur rerembre a litre is a lot smaller then a gallon

[christian_boy_7]

hey, 7jesusfreak7, your spelling is terrible (i cn say that cuz he's my ittle bro )

[guitarmonkey<><]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

To go lower would require either an increase in production or a decrease in consumption (drive less, get rid of the SUVs, etc).

I suspect that the general upward trend will continue until someone has impetus to change their useage downward. China is only growing, and there's no sign of a signifigant increase in oil production (besides, oil production isn't sistainable indefinately anyway).

My familly of ten needs a SUV, not a Corrolla.

We have enough oil in Alaska and in the Gulf to compete with Saudi Arabia, yet we do not. We have a tiny amount of refineries and we need to build new ones, yet we do not.
Why?

*Cough* Clinton *cough* and his enviromental plan which has brought American oil trade to its knees, begging countries to sell us oil. They of course realize that America is sustained by oil and sell it to us at ridicuously high prices.

[JerryLove]

My familly of ten needs a SUV, not a Corrolla.

Actually, you'd do bettter with a minivan.

We have enough oil in Alaska and in the Gulf to compete with Saudi Arabia, yet we do not. We have a tiny amount of refineries and we need to build new ones, yet we do not.

I think you overestimate oil reserves in Alaska. Though personally, I'm happy to hive higher gas prices. Conservation doesn't occur without impetus.

If you'd like a good reason to under-produce domestically try this: As existing oil reserves run out, and worldwide consumption increases; oil will become *more* strategically and economically important; not less. We could suck the US reserves dry, giving us some increased level of power and autonomy now; and making us completely dependant with no recourse on foreign sources later; or, we could pump them dry while we have another option and then be the only people with oil left (until we run out too and there's none left).

I wonder what your great-grandkids will drive when they need an SUV and there's no gas.

*Cough* Clinton *cough* and his enviromental plan which has brought American oil trade to its knees, begging countries to sell us oil. They of course realize that America is sustained by oil and sell it to us at ridicuously high prices.

You mean unlike the non-reliance pre-Clinton? What have you been smoking?

How many refineries did Reagan build? How about Bush? Were we independant in the late 70s when OPEC enacted a trade embargo?

In fact, during the Reagan/Bush years of 1981-1989, the number of refineries in the US dropped from 324 to 204.

Clinton did oversee a massive upswing in oil drilling in the gulf.

Try http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

[guitarmonkey<><]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Actually, you'd do bettter with a minivan.

Those only seat seven to eight, less with three car seats.

I think you overestimate oil reserves in Alaska. Though personally, I'm happy to hive higher gas prices. Conservation doesn't occur without impetus.

If you'd like a good reason to under-produce domestically try this: As existing oil reserves run out, and worldwide consumption increases; oil will become *more* strategically and economically important; not less. We could suck the US reserves dry, giving us some increased level of power and autonomy now; and making us completely dependant with no recourse on foreign sources later; or, we could pump them dry while we have another option and then be the only people with oil left (until we run out too and there's none left).

That is why we better push hydrogen cells.

I wonder what your great-grandkids will drive when they need an SUV and there's no gas.

You mean unlike the non-reliance pre-Clinton? What have you been smoking?

How many refineries did Reagan build? How about Bush? Were we independant in the late 70s when OPEC enacted a trade embargo?

In fact, during the Reagan/Bush years of 1981-1989, the number of refineries in the US dropped from 324 to 204.

Clinton did oversee a massive upswing in oil drilling in the gulf.

Try http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

Clinton raised the import taxes, pushed for refinery limitation, and screwed us on Alaska.
What are you talking about?

[JerryLove]

Those only seat seven to eight, less with three car seats.

And what SUV seats more than eight?

This seems like an excellent case, in an overpopulated world, not to have 8 kids.. but perhaps much of your family is foster or adoption; in which case "cudos, you get a 'Jerry exempt pass" to buy a van"

That is why we better push hydrogen cells.

And how will you store the fuel? I'm all for hydrogen, but the push for it these past several years seems to be a scam to distract from alternatives that can be done *now*... letting the compaines off the hook by focusing only on utopian technologies that can come into production, maybe, eventually.

Clinton raised the import taxes, pushed for refinery limitation, and screwed us on Alaska.
What are you talking about?

Reality. What are you talking about.

Reagan takes office: 324 Refineries
Middle of Bush Sr.: 204 Refineries.

What were the numbers under Clinton? Support your claim.

[guitarmonkey<><]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And what SUV seats more than eight?

Our 99' Suburban seats Nine, and has ample storage.

This seems like an excellent case, in an overpopulated world, not to have 8 kids.. but perhaps much of your family is foster or adoption; in which case "cudos, you get a 'Jerry exempt pass" to buy a van"

You know, I am so pissed and wanting to yell shutup that I cannot even clear headedly reply to this.
All of my sisters are from my parents. And, it is really not your place to say whether or not a big family is right, may family is right. If you want to think that people should only have one kid, that is your problem.
You can save your "overpopulated" garbage for a brick wall.

And how will you store the fuel? I'm all for hydrogen, but the push for it these past several years seems to be a scam to distract from alternatives that can be done *now*... letting the compaines off the hook by focusing only on utopian technologies that can come into production, maybe, eventually.

Reality. What are you talking about.

Reagan takes office: 324 Refineries
Middle of Bush Sr.: 204 Refineries.

What were the numbers under Clinton? Support your claim.

http://www.gop.gov/item-news.asp?doc...sp?docId=36898



"Another issue that has slowed expansion, refiners said, was the cost of complying with environmental regulations set in the 1990's under the Clean Air Act. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that refiners have spent $47 billion over the last decade to meet carbon-emission standards and low-sulfur regulations, with more investments needed through 2007. That, refiners say, is money not spent to raise capacity."


http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2005/Sept.%2017.htm

That has some excripts. However, alot of it is on Global Warming and the idocity of its inaccurate projections. There is also something on Solar Power that was interesting.

However, quite frankly after the comment on large families, I really don't want to waste my time typing to you, it falls on death ears, and it's getting quite annoying.

[JerryLove]

You know, I am so pissed and wanting to yell shutup that I cannot even clear headedly reply to this.
All of my sisters are from my parents. And, it is really not your place to say whether or not a big family is right, may family is right. If you want to think that people should only have one kid, that is your problem.
You can save your "overpopulated" garbage for a brick wall.

Your position seems to be that it's not miy place to assert it's wrong; but it is your place to assert it's right. That's pretty egotistical of you, I don't recall electing you God.

Perhaps we can start a thread on why, in an overcrowded world full of parentless children, a family should have 8 of their own and not adopt. Seems rather selfish on its face.

"Another issue that has slowed expansion, refiners said, was the cost of complying with environmental regulations set in the 1990's under the Clean Air Act. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that refiners have spent $47 billion over the last decade to meet carbon-emission standards and low-sulfur regulations, with more investments needed through 2007. That, refiners say, is money not spent to raise capacity."

You are opposing the clean air act?!?

Firstly, I think it's a cop-out. $4.7 billion per year is not sufficient to offset income (the oil companies earned $53 billion in 2003, their 2004 and 2005 numbers are much higher).

The clean air act took my area and got rid of the smog. Why do you support pollution?

However, quite frankly after the comment on large families, I really don't want to waste my time typing to you, it falls on death ears, and it's getting quite annoying.

This too sounds like a cop-out. I cited actual number changes under the two adminstrations prior to Clinton, and all you have is the oil companies complaining that they can't pollute more. What were the actual numbers?

How many new refieneries were started under the first 5 years of Bush?

And actually, the large family topic seems far more on-topic than I had considered; as it goes to the heart of your position.

Clean Air act: saves the planet but costs more now so is bad.
Fuel economy: lowers pollution, prolongs the availabiliy of oild for our grandkids, but raises prices now so is bad.
Large families: Overpopulates the world, does nothing to help those in need of parents, consumes more reasources (such as gas); but gives me what I want now.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Jerry, you are out of line. You can decide how many children you want to have, but when you get to attacking larger families, you have crossed lots of lines that are NONE of your business. Thread closed.