Crude, gasoline supplies rise as demand falls »
Posted By STONERS 7 months, 4 weeks ago in Business & FinanceCrude inventories rose more than expected last week and gasoline stockpiles increased despite analysts' predictions for a steep drop, as demand for motor fuel fell slightly, according to government data released Wednesday.
Read Full Story at money.aol.com »
354 Views Share Story 19 Comments Report
Submitted By:
STONERS
Welcome to my profile...I've started a ""STONERS Daily News Group"" Please stop by and have a look and join if you like it ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 19 (view all)
-
100%
STONERS7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are too many people with No Job, No Money for these high Gasoline prices.
Reply
Crude inventories and gasoline stockpiles are huge. Gasoline and diesel prices should be much lower BUT big oil and the refineries hold back production to increase prices and profits!-
100%
BB647 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Big evil oil still has costs to cover. I don't mean bonuses or the like. Standard costs for refining and transport. I think we're going to stay around $ 2.00 / gallon including government graft. I mean taxes. I don't think that's a huge cost. I'm more concerned with the electricity and natural gas costs.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
67%
antibrainwasher7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Did anyone even notice that China is poised to destroy what is left of the US auto industry with electric vehicles, and all batteries for US hybrids are made in Korea, and Golbal warming is killing us all fast, and you still are bitching about high gas prices?
Reply
Cheap gas is the cornerstone of America, it fuels walmart chinese distribution slave labor, golf courses, endless suburban expansion, fertilizer, pesticides, and on and on, and it is NOT SUSTAINABLE. It is killing this country, as is Coal Fired Electric plants.
NOT SUSTAINABLE. Not environmentally, not economically. -
-
100%
FrankHummel7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
“Our” addictive dependency on other peoples’ oil?? After all, we in this country now KNOW FOR SURE --- originally by means of Hubbert-inspired statistical analysis of patterns of past discoveries of the stuff, now CONFIRMED by many years of rather exact explicit mapping out of reserves (applying sonographic and other techniques), that we have at this point in fact USED UP (and indeed rather profligately!) about 70% of “our OWN” Providential endowment of raw oil --- and specifically the “easy” stuff! The remainder, which the “drill, baby, drill” crowd is now hot to go after, is at this point to be found in low-capacity (only a few barrels a day) “stripper” wells, or under water, or somewhere north of the Arctic Circle, or WAY DEEP. (The largest known LIQUID oil reserve in the “lower 48”, several billion barrels up in the Dakotas, SOUNDS big, but is (1) ONLY ABOUT A HALF-YEARS’ U.S. SUPPLY, and (2) LIES FOUR MILES DOWN!) Such oil is very expensive to “produce” --- which means that it would NOT be possible to shave much (if anything) off the “price at the pump” merely by aggressively exploiting such declining resources!
Reply
Now indeed, THAT is what has ACTUALLY given rise in the first place to the whole current (ostensibly “lucrative”) “model” of AGGRESSIVE EXPROPRIATION (or very expensive ATTEMPTS thereat!) of the endowments of OTHERS elsewhere around the world --- and the subsequent (risky) transportation of the “booty” thousands of miles to be refined, distributed, and marketed over here (with, of course, endless opportunities for “profit” and “taxation” at every step along the way). All the while “we”, of course, PRETEND to each other and “our”selves --- BY ARTIFICIALLY EXCLUDING FROM EXPLICIT CONSIDERATION(!) all the “ancillary” (for example the “military”) costs, that actually DO ADD IN to the overall TRUE cost --- that the end result is somehow “cheaper” than the alternatives would be! People may not WANT to “connect the dots”, but $10 BILLION A MONTH for the care and feeding of all those Sunni Militias in Iraq in order to “keep the lid on and the OIL flowing” REALLY IS A “HIDDEN” PART OF THE COST OF THAT OIL! And merely recognizing THAT, of course, does not even BEGIN to address all the IMPONDERABLE costs of about a million or so people BUTCHERED and millions more MADE REFUGEES by way of all the “collateral damage” wrought / unleashed by “us” in the course of THAT whole obscene (misad)“venture”! -
100%
FrankHummel7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now of course the Oil Industry is NOT going to simply go away. Its products are VITALLY NEEDED as the CHEMICAL FEEDSTOCKS for MANY things that “we” manufacture and use every day --- especially various different PLASTICS and other types of basic materials --- among them ASPHALT for our roadways, and polyvinyl-chloride used in water and gas pipes and electrical conduit and all that SIDING used in building. But “we” DESPERATELY need, and have LONG needed, to QUIT BRAINLESSLY BURNING THE STUFF UP AS A MERE FUEL! So we are now STILL going to have to pursue the alternatives ANYWAY --- even AFTER having now FOOLISHLY BLOWN the economic advantages that “we” not so very long ago had enjoyed, which could have substantially EASED what will surely now be a very DIFFICULT transition --- BRILLIANT, people!!
Reply
__________
So what then might the alternatives for accomplishing THAT objective actually be?? Well FOR INSTANCE:
GM’s forthcoming Chevy VOLT (IF, of course, GM does not “go belly up” first!) is an ELECTRIC car with a battery that will carry it about FORTY miles. Thereafter, an INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE kicks in. But that (gasoline) engine is NOT coupled to the wheels MECHANICALLY. Rather, It drives a GENERATOR that supplies the ELECTRIC motors that power the wheels. And if you erroneously imagine that no such vehicle can get above 30 miles per hour or get out of the back yard --- well, be advised! All those MASSIVE LOCOMOTIVES on the RAILROADS, and the LARGEST SHIPS on the HIGH SEAS, are (and for MANY years now already HAVE been) propelled by ELECTRIC motors! And the speed record for ELECTRIC cars out at the Bonneville Speedway is somewhere north of 400 Miles per hour the last I heard.
Now the thing is, statistics show fully 75% of all automobile usage is “short haul” runs that would “fit” within the 40-mile “power budget” of the VOLT’s battery --- SO MOST OF THE TIME THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE WILL NEVER OPERATE! Ici voila!: THREE-FOURTHS of all petroleum consumption to power “our“ automobiles simply, straightforwardly ELIMINATED --- PERIOD! -
100%
FrankHummel7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The battery would be charged from the power grid, or (better yet, eventually) YOUR OWN PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY or WIND-POWERED-GENERATOR low-voltage auxiliary system, when the vehicle is not in use. (Using electrical power in such a way could render it PRACTICAL to DIRECTLY harness the abundant but intermittent / highly variable FREE energy that perpetually rains down on us DIRECTLY FROM THE SUN --- which “we” traditionally WASTE! For the car battery DOESN’T “CARE” if it is charged intermittently or at a variable rate as long as it ultimately gets charged up!) Or absent such FREE power, about 80 cents worth of "grid" power would “fill the tank”. (Eight such charges, or $6.40 worth, would carry the car for 320 miles --- about the equivalent of a tank of gasoline THAT COSTS ABOUT FOUR TIMES AS MUCH!) Beyond that, fuel consumption would depend on how the car is used --- but for ORDINARY usage the internal combustion engine WOULD BE AT MOST ONLY MINIMALLY ACTIVE!
Reply
And one simply DISPENSES WITH the whole elaborate TRANSMISSION and DRIVE TRAIN (!) --- utilizing simple, relatively UNbreakable MAGNETIC-force (rather than complex, fallible mechanical) drive elements. (There is NO transmission on a Diesel Electric locomotive! We could not even BEGIN to engineer a sufficiently heavy-duty clutch --- that is why the whole ELECTRIC-motor paradigm was developed for very HEAVY loads in the first place!) So now, think of all THOSE savings too!
Above all, though, note that the concept is really an adaptation to a MUCH LIGHTER application of VERY OLD, WELL-ESTABLISHED, HEAVY-DUTY technological innovations. The battery-powered car has been around since the EARLIEST days of the automobile, and the Diesel-electric LOCOMOTIVE (and similar systems --- for example, on the largest ships) have been around for ABOUT 60 YEARS NOW ALREADY. There has been no fundamental TECHNOLOGICAL reason why the adaptation to the mere AUTOMOBILE could not have been accomplished MUCH SOONER(!) --- had “we” but mustered the wisdom and the wit to do so! People really should now be thinking about the “FALSE(!) economics” reasons why the alternative was not pursued earlier, and how the rationales for not doing so now prove to have tragically MISLED “us”! -
100%
FrankHummel7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And people who are inclined to dismiss such “novelties” as the VOLT as mere “trivia” might ALSO be well advised to “read the handwriting on the wall” that is implicit in the fact that its EUROPEAN equivalent --- an initiative being jovially dubbed the AMPERE --- is NOW AHEAD in the “development derby”, having recently ACTUALLY BEEN FORMALLY UNVEILED at a major European auto show! Don’t look, Ethel, but notwithstanding smug, self-centered, Jingoistic attitudes that seem to STILL be prevalent among many foolish folk over here, “we” simply are NOT the ONLY center of technological advance in the world, and NEVER HAVE BEEN! (After all the whole “modern” automotive technological paradigm was actually initiated by a GERMAN engineer --- one Karl Benz, who INVENTED the internal combustion engine, way back in the 1880s! Today most people here do not even recognize the man’s name. But he had a beloved GRANDDAUGHTER --- who IS remembered, and revered the world over. Her name was Mercedes!)
Reply
I submit that it would now be appropriate for "Government" to fund GM (at BARELY above subsistence levels!) to sustain ONLY those "life functions" of the moribund "patient" that support RAPID, COMPELLED revolutionary progress AWAY from the currently FAILING "business model"! That assistance needs to be VERY SPECIFIC, being purposefully directed toward ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION, BRINGING INTO PRODUCTION, and more generally PUBLIC POPULARIZATION (through EDUCATION and indirect tax-forbearance SUBSIDIZATION) of such initiatives as the VOLT and all its sure-to-soon-follow derivative progeny --- and ALSO, more broadly, such OTHER "outside-the-box" initiatives as the Toyota / Hyundai / Ford pioneering of REGENERATIVE-BRAKING ENERGY CONSERVATION technology.
Indeed, it ALSO needs to begin to dawn on people that it will be advantageous to MARRY THE "REGENERATIVE-BRAKING" AND "ELECTRIC CHIMERA" concepts: doing so would about DOUBLE THE RANGE of any battery-powered system, just as it doubles the efficiency (and hence also the range) of the all-gasoline-powered Toyota Prius (which has a 21.5 miles-per-gallon-rated engine that ends up achieving around 45 mpg!). Maybe THAT is the initiative on which CHRYSLER should be funded to focus. (A little good-old-fashioned, "capitalistic" COMPETITION --- if REAL --- could be a very good thing!) -
Neutral
FrankHummel7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So then: eliminate perhaps FULLY SEVEN-EIGHTHS(!) of all the importation of oil to supply gasoline to fuel "our" automobiles! And by the way, while "we" are at it, lets also CONVERT all those BIG TRUCKS and other heavy motorized systems to NATURAL GAS --- which “we” have (for now) in ABUNDANT supply --- per the proposals being advanced by famed “oil”man T. Boone Pickens. Now THERE is FOREIGN OIL INDEPENDENCE for you! And it really COULD (and SHOULD!!) have been done MANY YEARS AGO NOW ALREADY!! --- which, by the way, would have simply AVOIDED bloody obscenities such as those for which “we” are now responsible, wittingly or unwittingly, over in IRAQ and elsewhere --- that are, after all, what has actually ENGENDERED the fanatical, murderous vengeance of an “al Qaida”, and which has now led to MONUMENTAL expenditures of NON-PRODUCTIVE time, effort, money, and LIVES wastefully SQUANDERED to “defend against” just A FEW (really) mere “terrorists”!
Reply
Moreover, SUCH are the sorts of initiatives now needed to ACTUALLY IGNITE A "GREEN-COLLAR ECONOMIC REVOLUTION", which if generally embraced could intelligently, CONSTRUCTIVELY RESTORE THE ECONOMIC HEALTH of this society (and which would SURELY be preferable to any cockamamie WAR like the one whereby "we" "escaped" from the so-called "Great" Depression!).
Now if my ideas come across as HERETICAL, then so be it. But you DON'T successfully treat a patient who is DYING OF LUNG CANCER (if it is indeed possible to do so at all) BY BUYING HIM OR HER MORE CIGARETTES! It appears that the OBAMA crowd (finally) is indeed smart enough to "get" that. EVIDENTLY THEIR PREDECESSORS WERE NOT!
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.