Sticking it to the Big, Bad Oil Companies!

from JoeUser Forums

As the debates rage on about oil companies and their absurd profit margins, I am outraged by the number of Americans demanding government intervention to regulate oil companies' profits. It's the political "cause du jour" sponsored by the left, and, like the majority of the left's platforms, it stinks like rancid 2 week old catfish on a hot July day.

See, what these leftist leaders are convincing me is that they're unable to read their own writings. As they sneer at the lady with 6 kids getting into an SUV (which, by the way, is one of the few vehicle types large enough to HOLD their family of 8), and spam my email account with emails suggesting I boycott this station or that on this day or that, they are ignoring the message they've preached for over 30 years.

The message is CONSERVATION. As a child who went through grade school in the 70's, I got SEVERAL earsful of movies, TV shows, commercials and cartoons all telling me to "do my part" to reduce my impact on the environment. When "reduce, reuse and recycle" came into vogue, its message was plastered onto millions of posters (the ironic casualties being the trees that had to die to get the message out, but I digress), and since that time every soda can has carried the little triangle logo that expresses the concept.

See, if you reduce the DEMAND on the oil companies, they will have to sell their product at a lower cost. It's just that simple. The recent gas price surges, while obscene, were brought about by an American public that steadfastly REFUSED to reduce their consumption to bring down the prices. And if the left has the mandate it claims, being the victim of two stolen presidential elections and countless stolen Congressional elections (voice said DRIPPING with sarcasm in the absence of that much needed sarcasm font), then the left should have had a whole ARMY full of liberals who abandoned their vehicles for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Birkenstock and Schwinn stocks should have soared, rather than Exxon stocks. America's obesity problem AND our energy problem would have BOTH been solved in one fell swoop!

But it didn't happen. Because the vast majority of environmental pretenders would rather theorize and WRITE about solutions to environmental problems rather than DO something. And if THEY won't make the change, why do they expect US to do so?

politics
9,860 views 20 replies
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

When the gas prices first shot up I said that the American public should flex their collective arm and cut down on the amount of fuel they bought and consumed.  The oil companies have us over a barrle see (pun intended)...they know that they can charge what they want and that we will, like flocks of sheep, line up at the pumps and pay whatever it is they want to charge us for gasoline.

If America had a 'walk to work day', or a 'ride the bus day', and if those who were able to do so actually participated in such a thing....can you imagine the impact that would have?  I realize that not everyone can walk or utilize public transportation - but if those who could, did...well I firmly believe that it would send a clear message to big oil producers that we are tiring of their raping us.

But will Americans do it?  Are we prepared to be inconvienienced for a few hours?

I think that we've already demonstrated that we aren't.

Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

But will Americans do it? Are we prepared to be inconvienienced for a few hours?
I think that we've already demonstrated that we aren't.

Actually, my wife and I did.  Not like it was a big sacrafice as we just quit going to the country house (we use to go once or twice a week, but have only been there once since Katrina).  Where I use to buy 2-3 tanks of gas per week, since Katrina, it has been 1 per week.

I am a drop in the bucket.  But I wonder how many other drops are out there?

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
If America had a 'walk to work day', or a 'ride the bus day', and if those who were able to do so actually participated in such a thing....can you imagine the impact that would have?


Unfortunately, I think the Oil companies would simply calculate the projected loss for such a display by the American public and adjust their prices to compensate the other six days of the week.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

I am a drop in the bucket. But I wonder how many other drops are out there?

If we had enough drops, there wouldn't be as big of an issue.  People are changing, but it's going to be a long process.  The Big 3 are already feeling the hit on their truck and large SUV sales.  Hybrid cars are gaining popularity (will take time) and people are trying to learn to conserve.

But, people need to quit talking about what could be done and start *doing*.  If enough people decreased their need on oil by 5%, can you imagine the impact?  If companies could see profits in alternative fuel, they would be engineering for it.

My household has made a lot of changes over the past few years.  This is what we have done to decrease our use of oil and other resources:
1) We drive more efficiant cars (get 37-40mpg)
2) We drive slower (which is one of the ways we attain that mileage and commute together when possible.
3) We compost and recycle (throw away 1/2 bag per week)
4) We now use a Corn Stove for heat: http://karmagirl.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=90849
5) I shop on my way home when possible to avoid an extra trip.
6) we use synthetic oil in our cars (lasts longer than regular)
7) we run bio diesel in our truck and tractor

We're far from perfect, but we have decreased our consumption of oil products by quite a bit, and do what we can to decrease pollution.  Some people do more, some people do less, but if we all did *some* then we would be in a better way.

I have an owners manual for my 70' VW Karmann Ghia.  In the center is a whole section on how to "conserve" fuel by keeping the car running well, keeping tire pressure correct and tires in good condition, etc.  Do modern car manuals have that? None of mine do, but the info is still relevant.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
The recent gas price surges, while obscene, were brought about by an American public that steadfastly REFUSED to reduce their consumption to bring down the prices.


A bit simplistic (above, and my own comments here)...

Gas prices have surged because demand has remained high.

Demand has remained high because auto manufacturers have made vehicles that are just as wasteful as they have always been. Some vehicles (especially hybrids and other gas-sippers) get better MPG than their older counterparts, but most are continuing to get the same MPG numbers they always have. 25 MPG remains close to the average, if not the average. No matter the size of the vehicle (unless going up to the very large SUVs), the sweet spot is 25 MPG.

As an example, the little Neons that I used to drive. Chrysler designed and built them to get no better than 25 MPG. Their bigger brothers and sisters, the same. Their biggest brothers (the Intrepids, 300Ms and others) the same. The mid-ranged cars had large 4 cylinder engines or small 6 cylinder engines. The bigger cars had large 6, or small 8 cylinder engines. Whatever was necessary to move the vehicle at highway speeds while getting that mandated 25 MPG.

Things could have been much better though, especially in the Neons. Same engines, different transmission -- one with overdrive capabilities -- would have perhaps produced 10% - 20% better fuel efficiency out of the vehicle when used on the highway, perhaps even more if the vehicle is driven more environmentally friendly.

Why not make the MPG better? Because higher MPG has a stigma, or at least had one. Higher MPG = small car. Small car = dangerous. Too light to protect one in a crash against a bigger, heavier vehicle. Lighter = more fuel efficient, but again, that wasn't what the public was demanding.

Parents wanted safer vehicles for hauling children in, or for letting their teens and young-adult children to drive in. They bought light trucks for hauling, though they never haul anything anywhere. They bought mid-sized vehicles for themselves and their children because they wanted just a bit more room, and a bit more safety. And as long as gas prices were not in the stratosphere, no problem.

There has also been another important factor in our consumption since the tight times of the 70s. We've continued to explode our population. We, the kids of the 70's and 80's, have had kids of our own. Many of us have ignored the zero population growth mantra of the 60's and 70's, and we have those mini-van loads and SUV-loads worth of children in our families. Perhaps by direct choice, perhaps not, we have continued to add to the numbers of people in the country, and those numbers require transportation everywhere - to school, to after-curricular activities, to sporting events on weekends, to movies, to eateries, to jobs, to malls to spend money to buy clothing, and other things, etc.

That is part of why we have never cut our consumption, and may never cut it. We just don't want to make hard choices and be personally responsible. We should blame ourselves, but we don't. We instead want to soak the rich and take the money that we just handed them because they didn't work for it, and don't deserve it.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

But, people need to quit talking about what could be done and start *doing*.

How many insightfuls can I give?

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Whatever happened to the discount for bulk--the more you use proportionately the less the unit price? Though I believe in conservation--taught my kids that the light switch works both ways--oil profit has to do with price gouging, not demand.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Whatever happened to the discount for bulk--the more you use proportionately the less the unit price? Though I believe in conservation--taught my kids that the light switch works both ways--oil profit has to do with price gouging, not demand.


If you have 10 apples to sell and 20 people approach you at the same time, how do you determine which 10 get them? ANd nepotism is not an answer as all are strangers.

So you are a price gouger too, eh?
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I ride a bicycle everywhere I go. Screw the oil companies.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
ride a bicycle everywhere I go. Screw the oil companies.


How do you keep the chain and sprocket lubricated?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
See, if you reduce the DEMAND on the oil companies, they will have to sell their product at a lower cost. It's just that simple. The recent gas price surges, while obscene, were brought about by an American public that steadfastly REFUSED to reduce their consumption to bring down the prices...



...and there you have it.

Instead of taxing big oil for being the 'drug dealers' whey don't we look at them for what they really are: businesses.
Its 2005 and we have solutions to use stuff other than oil but we still use oil.

Vegetable oil and desiel engines can be used for cars and trucks and the only thing stoping that from happening is politics and a infrastructure to distribute vergetable oil as fuel.

Solar panels, and other energy efficient technology would be cheeper if mass produced.

The answer is right infront of us. The funny thing is that the profits big oil gets will just be in more companies hands because now solar panel makers and farmers selling vegetable oil will be making the butt load of money.



By the way, a family of 8 can fit nicely into a mini-van or van so they do not have to be in a SUV.
Plus many SUV's don'e even have seating for 8 let alone 6. For most people SUV's are for style, not for need. Same thing for sports cars and luxury vehicles.

I'm still geting my escalade EXT (if I earn more than a million a year) so your just going to have to be mad at me. Its gonna be totally tricked out with a sound/media system with a removable 24" plasma monitor in the payload (for Football games on the road and camping fun), hydrolics of lowering the hieght, 24" TIS rims, body work, suicide doors in the back (full 90 degree opening), black chrome finish details, under carraige lights (black light) and some other mods....

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
"We drive slower (which is one of the ways we attain that mileage and commute together when possible."


I'd point out that driving slower isn't necessarily more fuel efficient, unless you drive really fast. There is always a "sweet spot" for each car, and going faster OR slower isn't as efficient. It's about the weight of your car, momentum, and how hilly the road is. Someone who pokes along on a hilly road tends to use more gas, because they don't have enough momentum to get them up the next hill, and therefore have to give it more gas every time.

I remember back in the 80's my algebra teacher did a study on his car, and he found the most fuel efficient speed for his car was 55-60 mph on a moderately flat road. Faster and the car had to work to keep the speed, slower and he tended to bog down on long inclines and use more gas to regain speed. If I recall one reason the speed limits were adjusted upwards was to make driving MORE efficient, especially for heavy trucks.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
How do you keep the chain and sprocket lubricated?


I use a graphite-based synthetic non-petroleum lube.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
use a graphite-based synthetic non-petroleum lube.


Finest kind!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you have 10 apples to sell and 20 people approach you at the same time,


The extra ten people represent China. Granted this is a problem but the current oil reserves dispute this. Even Katrina, Rita and Wilma, other than power outages, met the demand. Obviously over time the demand will exceed supply and why conservation is imperative.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'd point out that driving slower isn't necessarily more fuel efficient, unless you drive really fast. There is always a "sweet spot" for each car, and going faster OR slower isn't as efficient.

I drive 30 of my 45 mile commute on expressway, so slower is more fuel efficient. 

Speed limits were not adjusted to be higher for fuel efficiency.  They were raised because we were not in a fuel crisis and people wanted to drive faster. 

On a moderately flat road, a car going 65 mph will use less gas than one going 75 mph.  Your engine cranks a lot more rpm's going 75 versus 65, therefore using more fuel.  I drive a manual shift Ion (manuals always get better mileage than automatics, anyway).  If I drive 68mph versus the "fast lane" flow of 75mph, I get about 4mpg better mileage.  Add that up over a year, and it's significant.  I used to drive a Monte Carlo, but it only got 28 mpg (at best), whereas I get 10+ mpg better with this car. 

With mileage and speed, it's really all physics.  It takes a lot more power to propel a car 75 mph versus 65 mph, and that power is greater for heavier cars than for lighter.  Driving styles also matter.  If you floor it after each stop, you use an extreme amount of power.

Of course, we could have a whole discussion about torque converters and cruise control in relation to gas savings, but that would be taking it a bit off topic

On another note, does anyone know of an inexpensive source for solar panels?  I would like to replace some of our electricity use with solar, but the investment seems extreme.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'd point out that driving slower isn't necessarily more fuel efficient, unless you drive really fast. There is always a "sweet spot" for each car, and going faster OR slower isn't as efficient.


Yes, there is a "sweet spot", and on most vehicles I've driven, I've found that sweet spot to hover somewhere in the 45 to 55 MPH range (on road trips, 55's about as slow as you can practically drive and actually GET somewhere, so it's where my cruise control is pretty much perpetually set). As you climb above 55, however, the mileage drops pretty quick; at 70 MPH or above, you might as well be dumping it out on the road on most cars unless the road is long and flat (let's not forget the role terrain plays in all this as well).
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's hard to defend an industry that makes PROFITS in the Billions. I say again this is profit and not gross we are talking about. Hmm...I wonder what kind of power and influence can you buy with billions at your disposal? Want to guess?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's hard to defend an industry that makes PROFITS in the Billions. I say again this is profit and not gross we are talking about. Hmm...I wonder what kind of power and influence can you buy with billions at your disposal? Want to guess?


They make billions, because it costs billions. When you go to invest your money, would you invest in a company getting a fraction of a percent return? They may make billions, but that is on investments of billions. So there returns, usually, are a very small percent.

Sory if I am not outraged by simple economics.