RV Fuel Issues & Prices - Post 'Em Here!

[Dick_A]

All other fuel threads will be automatically deleted. 🙂

[eltejano1]

Any Great Depression-style economic collapse would be considerably complicated by the demographics of the USA. It would be comforting to look to the socialistic and cultural adaptations of post-war Europe as a model for the future. But those societies are not comparable with ours. They are racially and culturally homogeneous while this country is virtually as divided as before the civil war - and we have a long history of violence when times get tough.

I agree with Bagman that each of us must make our own adjustments and plans based upon our particular situations - which means, at least for me, cutting back on my family's dependence on energy.

Jack

[topflite51]

onrecess wrote:
Yes, Texas crude went from $30 as barrel to $133. So let's see... OLD oil (already drilled and pumping) still costs big oil EXACTLY the same to get, refine, and transport. We use 50% our own oil. 26-28% OPEC. Now they base the price on OPEC's $133. And how exactly is that explainable if not outright theft??? Seems our avg cost (or oil's) is roughly $91. Strange that they charge you like it is $133. Shell started a program of shale oil in the last crunch which was only profitable at $50 barrel. So, why aren't they building it now? Lack of can-do? Bologna. Too much self-reliance would mean you couldn't pretend OPEC has you over a barrel. Prices could drop to $50. POOF! ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS of extra profit this year alone disappears.
How's them easter egss? I always preferred bunny ears... chocolate ones, that is.

Shell started a program of shale oil in the last crunch which was only profitable at $50 barrel. So, why aren't they building it now? Lack of can-do? Bologna.

As I wrote before, a Senate committee recently voted to ban obtaining oil from shale in Colorado. With this current enviroment, Shell should put it on hold.

OLD oil (already drilled and pumping) still costs big oil EXACTLY the same to get, refine, and transport.

Guess again. Big oil owns very little of those old oil fields. They are paying market prices for the oil.

[rather_be_travl]

When it comes down to even limiting pleasure rides on the Gold Wing, it's already past serious, and it's getting near to that point.

We should charge OPEC the same price per bushel of grain they charge us for a bbl. or oil.

[AO_hitech]

onrecess wrote:
Too much self-reliance would mean you couldn't pretend OPEC has you over a barrel. Prices could drop to $50. POOF! ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS of extra profit this year alone disappears.

[onrecess]

Yes, Texas crude went from $30 as barrel to $133. So let's see... OLD oil (already drilled and pumping) still costs big oil EXACTLY the same to get, refine, and transport. We use 50% our own oil. 26-28% OPEC. Now they base the price on OPEC's $133. And how exactly is that explainable if not outright theft??? Seems our avg cost (or oil's) is roughly $91. Strange that they charge you like it is $133. Shell started a program of shale oil in the last crunch which was only profitable at $50 barrel. So, why aren't they building it now? Lack of can-do? Bologna. Too much self-reliance would mean you couldn't pretend OPEC has you over a barrel. Prices could drop to $50. POOF! ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS of extra profit this year alone disappears.
How's them easter egss? I always preferred bunny ears... chocolate ones, that is.

[AO_hitech]

eltejano1 wrote:
The article also makes claims that aren't documented - like Shell admitting they demolished their Bakersfield refinery to stop competition - date of meeting, name of official making statement, etc are lacking. It's hearsay.

I missed this while I was gone...

I have seen the "leaked" memo from Shell on the Internet somewhere. I don't have time to find it now, but I assume it's still out there somewhere. Besides, do you really think congress would allow that kind of perjury without action?

[SpoiledRotten]

eltejano1 wrote:
WZ - I read farther down in the article and found several instances of refineries being shut-down or demolished - but no concrete evidence that it was done in order to drive-up prices. The article also makes claims that aren't documented - like Shell admitting they demolished their Bakersfield refinery to stop competition - date of meeting, name of official making statement, etc are lacking. It's hearsay.

A CLASSIC EXAMPLE of frustration with antitrust law is the recent attempt by Shell Oil to close its highly profitable refinery in Bakersfield, California. Already short on fuel and home to some of the highest prices for diesel and gasoline, Shell attempted to bulldoze the refinery rather than sell it. During initial open meetings with effected employees, the Shell spokesman claimed the company would never sell the plant. The bulldozing was desired to prevent a new competitor from entering the market. The company claimed the decrease in production at Bakersfield was expected to increase profits for Shell at its remaining refineries in Puget Sound, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Shell's intentions alarmed the entire West. Elected officials pushed Shell to sell the refinery rather than close it and some asked the FTC to investigate. The company claimed it was losing money in Bakersfield and its wells in nearby California fields were running dry. The FTC agreed to investigate and announced its report would be completed sometime after Shell was scheduled to send the bulldozers through the refinery.

I read the whole article and it certainly sounds like they have a special software package that is deceiving the public into high pump prices. I can see that happening very easily. But as long as the "people's" government is being spoon fed by the Big Oil in the way of big taxes, don't expect for it to get better.

[stevenicoldeact]

wing_zealot wrote:
Guess i believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy... (I also believe in the Easter Bunny in case you wondered)

What about Cupid? It sure seems to me that there needs to be a lot more love around here; geeze, people who don't wave is nothing compared to how little we show how much we really care about anything.

[SpoiledRotten]

Sorry.. Double post due to forum slowness.

[SpoiledRotten]

The Weekenders wrote:

eltejano1 wrote:
Hi Joe and Mrs J:

Those fellows, with the DMax and CTD, are trying in their own way to make a statement - a kind of one man Boston Tea Party if you will. Rather than being ridiculed, they should be commended for at least making some small effort to offer resistance rather than just lying there and taking it! If we had a few million more like them, diesel would be $2/gal. Maybe the guys that should be ridiculed are the ones who gleefully pay exhorbitant prices and then make fun of those who try to resist - now that's just nuts :-):-0

Love and Prayers, Jack

Mr J here,



A one man Boston Tea Party is liking using a shot glass to put out a forest fire. JMO

It's not a one man BTP. It's not using a shot glass to put out a forest fire. Some of us are taking action. You can't sit back and ask others to join in the fight if you aren't willing to pick up your weapon and fight some yourself. It takes starting with one person and see others gradually follow your lead. It's the shot glass theory that is keeping the prices up. The only way for us to fight this is to make individual statements in large quanities. I hope that makes sense to you.

I have a 2000 PSD, a 2002 Mazda Mallenia, and then bought a 2000 Jeep Wrangler a little over a year ago (the Jeep was going to just be a toy to play with). When the diesel prices started getting rediculous, I decided to make the Jeep my DD and park the PSD for anything except towing my 5er a couple of times a year. I'm doing it for the principle too. We can afford the fuel prices right now, I just don't have the heart to pay it "just to make the statement that I can". I choose not to appear arogant as other seem to do. If that stepped on anyone's toes, ... :B

[sirdrakejr]

The real problem is that the government went to far in their program to deregulate everything. That is a good idea UNLESS it involves REQUIRED utilities like gas, water, electricity and now fuels. When deregulation was accomplished it was felt it would allow for more growth. No one saw the futures market as a means to wealth since before then the futures for oil and gas were not held but sold when they came due. Now they are held and used to build a hedge based on a fictional market need rather then REAL CONSUMER DEMAND.
That is the problem and will continue to be as long as it puts money in the hands of investors without making them trade as was the original intent of futures.
Frank

[traxtermax]

Sorry, double post -- apparently a website problem.

[traxtermax]

winkyb wrote:
But just think how quite it will be.No airliners over head no SUV~s and big trucks.Yea, you'll be able to hear the gunfire in the cities. People out in there garden growing what they eat.That's why you'll hear gunfire in the cities, most don't have the space or knowledge to grow anything--it's easier to take it from those who have what they need. The lady down the street making what the neighborhood wears as you can`t go to Wall Mart.Is she going to grow her own cotton? In the northeast? For many reasons, we just aren't capable of living that type of life anymore..

I wasn't going to post this but Sea Dog's post was similiar, so I thought I would offer some support. People should realize that the "energy transition" will be painful at best or worse, generate some form of rebellion.

There are millions of people dependent on welfare in some form or another and if they aren't "fed", violence is a probable outcome. Now, some people will kill you for a jacket; think what they'll do for a hamburger—and they’ll do it every time they get hungry.

No, I'm not a survivalist but the energy transition will be painful and our standard of living will probably be degraded significantly but I hope it doesn't result in a calamity.

[Sea_Dog]

How are the people in the cities going to grow their own food?
Where would they grow it?
What would stop any food that is grown in cities from being stolen as fast as it grows?

Where would meat, milk, out of season produce come from?
Where would the food be stored?
If growing food for self consumption is indeed practical, why is it not being done now instead of the reliance on food banks?

Like making fuel out of water, theories abound but in a practical sense, only modern day, large scale low cost argricultural production can feed the masses.

[RevLeonidas]

bagman wrote:
Dick, no rants or raves from me, because I refuse to let the higher cost of gas and diesel get the best out of me. We made several changes in our personal habits and the way we manage our personal affairs, so that we actually come out ahead in spite of the higher cost of fuel. You have to look at this situation as a problem that has to be solved and all you have to do is find a solution or a way to solve that problem. That is the key! Regards, Chuck.

Us too, well, at least not anymore! Thanks Bagman, your words are the chill pill we needed to provide relief from this endless fuel rant!