Toledo Talk

Gas to go up to $4.60 on Tuesday

Do not know how reliable this is, but was told to a friend by a gas station owner. More millions in profit for the gas companies.

created by meow2 on Apr 30, 2011 at 04:29:08 pm     Politics     Comments: 33

source      versions

Comments ... #

Yes - gas company profit, but let's not forget the millions of vehicles bring sold in China, as well as the other BRIC countries. The rising economies that are utilizing more oil will continue to push prices higher eventually.

posted by JJFad on Apr 30, 2011 at 05:05:22 pm     #  

yeah, we're not the big dogs on the block anymore.

posted by nana on Apr 30, 2011 at 09:20:38 pm     #

posted by CharlesBronson on May 01, 2011 at 12:41:00 am     #  

gas is over 4 bucks a gallon and I still see just as many cars on the road as before it seems.

All we have to do is decrease our gas usage. Anyone done that yet?

posted by hockeyfan on May 01, 2011 at 01:16:52 am     #  

Yes, because it's that simple..

posted by hunkytownsausage on May 01, 2011 at 01:31:18 am     #  

We have decreased our use, and got a more fuel efficient car. All the same the gas prices are painful.

posted by OhioKimono on May 01, 2011 at 07:36:28 am     #  

I should probably consider riding my bike to work.

posted by dino on May 01, 2011 at 07:42:39 am     #  

Anyone else find it as strange as I do that this time around, the media isn't hammering it home on a daily basis how the cost of oil/gas is crippling us?

And if I hear one more stinking politician get up and pontificate how we need to wean ourselves off our dependence on foreign oil, blah, blah, head may explode.

It's been nearly 40 years since the Arab oil embargo and what have we done to become more energy independent aside from a few so-called green initiatives that are more for show than anything else?

Global warming is being helped along by the endless hot air spewed from the mouths of weasel politicians.

posted by Foodie on May 01, 2011 at 09:36:45 am     #   1 person liked this

This is what we will need to do:

posted by milesdriven on May 01, 2011 at 10:21:56 am     #  

Foodie, my guess is the media isn't harping on it because Bush isn't in office, their messiah is.
I keep reading about how the US has more oil in the ground than the entire middle east. Trouble is we have so many regulations, it's not profitable to extract it.

posted by JeepMaker on May 01, 2011 at 11:57:39 am     #  

Out west they pump oil from the ground all over - we do in fact drill and pump in the USA...A LOT

posted by OhioKimono on May 01, 2011 at 12:33:49 pm     #  

The US is 13th in proven oil reserves per the CIA. What credible source suggests we have more oil than the middle east? We've tapped the easy sources, leaving the inaccessible domestic reserves to be tapped at ever greater expense.

posted by bam2 on May 01, 2011 at 04:41:38 pm     #  

Getting ready to go fill up now. Funny, when Bush was in office all I heard was that the President has little control over gas prices. But now that Obama is in I guess he is literally setting prices from his IPad. And ANYBODY still referring to him as a messiah is a hatless asshat.

posted by Ryan on May 01, 2011 at 06:03:08 pm     #   2 people liked this

The US had tons of oil in the ground. Then, we pumped it out and burned it in the last century. He is a graphic of US oil production against a bell curve. Note the high water mark for US oil occurred in 1971, 40 years ago.

Here is the production of the entire world shown in the same fashion.

The plots stop at 2000, but production has flattening out as predicted.

The area under the curve is equal to the total volume of extractable oil on earth. So, right now in 2011 we have extracted roughly 50%. We have half left so we are fine, right? No, unfortunately not. Before the halfway point supply meets demand at prices we consider "normal". Now with demand from India, China, Brazil and others all bidding on a shrinking oil supply, prices will soar year after year. We will never run out of oil because no one will be able to afford the last drop.

posted by hank on May 01, 2011 at 06:40:16 pm     #  

Gas is high because future supply, domestic and foreign is unknown, and presumed to be limited by our govt. and those worldwide. So the investors, drive up the price because of uncertainty.

If taxes, regulations, and restrictions on energy production were lifted, the future supply (at lest 50-60 year future) would be more certain, and investors "speculators" would drive the price down.

We each speculate every day we buy gas now believing it will be higher tomorrow, or hold off on filling up, thinking it will go down. The energy companies - call them oil companies if you wish - spend hundreds of billions to make tens of billions, AND they don't set the price. Sadly the administration and the left believe fossil fuels are evil, profit is evil, and green is the way. But, they have no solution for reduced govt. revenue if gas taxes are lost by reduced consumption, or how to provide the electricity needed for their hybrid car revolution. Look at California- now going to impose a mileage tax to make up for lost gas taxes.

Oil is the energy of this century, probably the next- only when it is profitable and necessary will an alternative be developed. And it will be energy companies who will lead the R&D. After all they are the experts in energy production.


posted by CynicalCounsel on May 01, 2011 at 08:54:15 pm     #  

Finance is a game that essentially rewards those who can either see a bargain when it exists or ride a bubble. Of course, bubbles can and do form but in the end they pop (remember the housing bubble). Supply will equal demand. As many problems as I have with Chicago Economics, this simple fact remains true. If we as investors speculate and drive up the market price over what main street is willing and able to pay for it, we'll have a lot of unused oil laying around. Eventually, we're going to have to sell it and for less than we, the investor, payed for it. We get burnt. We have a real incentive not to bid the price over it's true value. So while prices can temporally get out of sync, in the end, they have to mirror the conditions in the real world, the world of the graphs above.

The administration has nothing to do with the problem. The problem is not political; It's geological.

posted by hank on May 01, 2011 at 11:59:46 pm     #  

So the graph labeled "production vs year" is supposed to tell us that oil is running out? It says nothing about the oil amount anywhere. How are you getting this?

Still haven't noticed less cars or smaller ones yet. As a matter of fact, I still see plenty of gas guzzlers all over. Just saw a full size hummer yesterday. At what price will we really start to change the way we do things?

posted by hockeyfan on May 02, 2011 at 01:04:42 am     #  

If you imagine our oil producing capacity as being made of thousands and thousands of separate, various-sized wells, each starting at at random and then producing until they run dry, their total production will be a normal distribution. It's the face of resource depletion. On the front end we are adding more and more capacity each year and production climbs and climbs until these wells begin drying up. Total production hits a high point and then to curve turns and begins coming back down. We either are at that high point now or very likely will be within the next decade or so. If you look at the national production of practically every country minus Saudi Arabia, their output has already turned downward. Our increased thirst for oil should speed the decline, while higher prices should bring more expensive technologies online to mitigate that effect.

posted by hank on May 02, 2011 at 05:56:31 am     #  

"Still haven't noticed less cars or smaller ones yet. As a matter of fact, I still see plenty of gas guzzlers all over. Just saw a full size hummer yesterday."

I have a gas guzzler and I do not plan on getting rid of it.I can't justify what it would cost me to go out and buy another vehicle just because it gets better gas mileage.The sales tax alone would not make it worth the bother.Also,I would probably lose money trying to get rid a perfectly good vehicle that still has many years ahead of it.I just don't see our family buying one of those little shit boxes.There are many times we need the extra room for transporting three grand kids with their car seats,two adults and a 100 pound labrador retriever.Also,the four year old is now learning to play hockey and he has a lot of equipment.Try stuffing all that in one of those so called smart cars or even a Honda Civic.No thank you!I will keep my Jeep Grand Cherokee and pay the price for having room when I need it.Not everybody is ready or can get by with one of those little shit boxes.We will cut back by driving less and not eating out as much.I just can't see myself driving a compact car.I would rather walk than to drive one of those motorized roller skates.

posted by buckeye278 on May 02, 2011 at 11:18:47 am     #  

I hear ya! Not going to get rid of my 10-year-old SUV with only 60,000 miles. I spent a week in the hospital after some crazy idiot hit me the last time I drove a compact. I just don't feel safe in them.

posted by shortysmom on May 02, 2011 at 04:59:26 pm     #  

Many years ago I owned a VW Beetle and was T-boned by a red light runner with a much heavier vehicle.He walked away while I had to be hospitalized.After my surgery ,it took about five months of recovery before I could go back to work.I have not owned a compact car since and probably will not in the future.

posted by buckeye278 on May 02, 2011 at 06:39:30 pm     #  

"Getting ready to go fill up now. Funny, when Bush was in office all I heard was that the President has little control over gas prices."

Now I think that is funny.All I heard was that Bush and Cheney were big oilmen and that they were in bed with big oil.I used to hear almost daily that is was Bushes fault.What comes around goes around.Now it is time for Obama to take some of the same heat.

posted by buckeye278 on May 02, 2011 at 06:45:22 pm     #  

Dont forget Haliburton, they were being blamed too.

posted by Linecrosser on May 02, 2011 at 10:35:25 pm     #  

Remember Bush eats babies dipped in Saudi Oil.

I find it rather hilarious that OBL was taken down with information gain during "enhanced interrogation" at Gitmo, 2 things Obama campaigned against. This proves this failure of the "lets love everyone" Liberal foreign relation policies. Peace only works when both sides wish for it, not when one side talks about it while the other arms up or continues it's agenda.

I also find it very funny that "during the Presidency of George W. Bush, the HEROIC SealL Team 6 was routinely defamed by the Left. Seymour Hersh writing for New Yorker called SEAL Team 6 Dick Cheney’s personal assassination squad, but today, Obama’s SEAL Team 6 members are heroes, cleverly led by the “gutseist” leader of all time, who had to “evaluate” information from the World’s finest military and decide whether it was valid – the leader who had at his fingertips, all the proven and successful tools for fighting terrorism developed by G. W. Bush."

Great piece in the BH

"Now, I love a partisan throwdown as much as the next guy but c’mon — where’s the fight? American troops are still in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. In fact, we have more troops there than we did three years ago. We started (then abandoned) an air war on Libya and we’re making noises at the Syrians now, too."

So in 2012 when you go to vote for Obama remember all your funny little war mongering names for Bush because your voting for him again.

posted by dbw8906 on May 03, 2011 at 09:40:02 am     #  

I find it rather hilarious that OBL was taken down with information gain during "enhanced interrogation" at Gitmo

The only ones saying this are ex-Bush pro-torture lackeys. It looks like to me that the AP is being used by these Bush-era intelligence officials to justify their illegal actions.

It’s somewhere between sai and comical how the Bush/Cheney crowed are trying desperately to take as much credit as they can for OBL death. If Bush hadn’t taken most of our military and intelligence apparatus out of Afghanistan to invade Iraq, maybe it wouldn’t have taken so long to kill him.

posted by SensorG on May 03, 2011 at 11:41:29 am     #  

Oh I forgot ABC must dine with Bush while he salivates over newborns and 98 octane...

Oh yeah even Obama's legal team (who once wanted to book Bush) is even giving their respects..

"Alberto Gonzales, the top White House lawyer at the time of the attacks and later attorney general, along with his former White House Counsel’s Office aides issued a statement congratulating Mr. Obama and drawing attention to Mr. Bush’s efforts.

Mr. Gonzales’s statement said: “I congratulate President Obama and his team for this significant accomplishment. I also congratulate President Bush who carried the War on Terror to our enemies and adopted the legal framework for that effort that continues today.”

Last time I checked you couldn't call Reuter "Right Wing"

SensorG not all news drools out of HuffPo

posted by dbw8906 on May 03, 2011 at 12:06:31 pm     #  

Alberto Gonzales was a Bush's Attorney General. He was with Bush since he was Governor. Did you mistype, or did you really not know that.

posted by hank on May 03, 2011 at 01:18:27 pm     #  

Mistype, my bad.

posted by dbw8906 on May 03, 2011 at 01:28:47 pm     #  

That's cool. What did you really mean to type?

posted by hank on May 03, 2011 at 01:33:21 pm     #  

In the NY Times that information was gained during water boarding. I don't think the NY Times was a big supporter of Bush.

posted by Linecrosser on May 03, 2011 at 10:16:45 pm     #  

First, there is a lot of confusion right now about what information came from where. The problem with the "torture is good" argument regardless of where each pice of information came from is that we did torture people and eventually we did get Bin Laden. Just because those two things exist as fact now doesn't mean the one was necessary for the other. Frankly it seems that if anything, torture slowed the search for Bin Laden because of the amount of purposely confusing and misleading information it extracted. Given that the better part of a decade passed between the torture and the eventual apprehension of Bin Laden, I think we can say definitely, torture did not work. Good police work did.

If they roughed a guy up and a week later nailed Usama, yes, we could say torture worked but that didn't happen.

Torture is not worth loosing the moral high ground of our cause. Torture is not worth giving the enemy a powerful recruiting tool. Torture is not worth the additional American lives it cost. Torture is uncivilized and un-American. That's the line in the sand. Stand where you want.

posted by hank on May 04, 2011 at 05:57:54 am     #  

Torture is not worth giving the enemy a powerful recruiting tool. Torture is not worth the additional American lives it cost. - Well said

Unfortunately they hate us on a much deeper levels social economic, religious, and envy. Who where we subjecting to torture on 9/10/01? How many members of the USS Cole where water boarding Arabs?

While I agree with the vast majority of your post, it does ring of Stockholm Syndrome. If we pulled all troops out of the Middle East, released every captive at Gitmo, and shut down every CIA Black Site, you just couldn't make me believe it would end the radicalization of Islam. Their hate lies much deeper at a philosophical level, it gives them purpose when they wake in the morning. Someone willing chop the head of someone because they do not share your religion or skin color, or can strap C4 on to their chest and take out a neighborhood full of families really doesn't care about human suffering (torture) to begin with.

posted by dbw8906 on May 04, 2011 at 07:33:15 am     #  

If Bush hadn’t taken most of our military and intelligence apparatus out of Afghanistan to invade Iraq, maybe it wouldn’t have taken so long to kill him.

Bush botched it even before Iraq---

posted by McCaskey on May 04, 2011 at 01:58:27 pm     #