how to bring down the price of gas.
P.O.W.
"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:k3gdu3l6tmqlv9672...@4ax.com...
>
> From The Associated Press, 3/23/08:
> http://www.newsday.com/business/nationworld/ats-ap_business11mar23,0,6287327.story
>
> Lundberg Survey: Gas Prices Rise 7 Cents
>
> CAMARILLO, Calif. -
>
> A survey says the national average price for gasoline rose 7 cents
> over the last two weeks.
>
> The average price of self-serve regular gasoline on Friday was $3.26 a
> gallon, mid-grade was $3.38 and premium was $3.50.
>
> That's all according to the Lundberg Survey of 7,000 stations
> nationwide released Sunday.
>
> ________________________________________________
>
> Harry
THIS IS NOT THE 'DON'T BUY' GAS FOR ONE DAY, BUT IT WILL
SHOW
YOU HOW WE CAN GET GAS BACK DOWN TO $1.30 PER GALLON.
This was sent by a retired Coca Cola executive. It came from one
of
his engineer buddies who retired from Halliburton. If you are tired of
the
gas prices going up AND they will continue to rise this summer, take
time to
read this please.
Phillip Hollsworth offered this good idea.
This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain
day"
campaign that was going around last April or May!
It's worth your consideration. Join the resistance!!!!
I hear we are going to hit close to $ 4.00 a gallon by next summer
and
it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come down?
We need to take some intelligent, united action. The oil
companies
just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt"
ourselves by refusing to buy gas.
It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for
them.
BUT, whoever thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that
can
Really work. Please read on and join with us!
By now you're probably thinking gasoline priced at about $2.00 is
super cheap. Me too! It is currently $2.98 for regular unleaded in my
town.
Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned
us to
think that the cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50 - $1.75, we
need to
take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the
marketplace...not sellers.
With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers
need
to take action.
The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if
we
hit s omeone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And, we can
do
that WITHOUT hurting ourselves.
How? Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying gas.
But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to
force a price war.
Here's the idea: For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY
gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and
MOBIL.
If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce
their
prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to
follow suit.
But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of
Exxon
and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do! Now, don't wimp out on
me
at this point...keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach
millions of people!!
I am sending this note to 30 people. If each of us send it to at
least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) .. and those 300 send it to at least ten
more (300 x 10 = 3,000)...and so on, by the time the message reaches the
sixth group of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers.
If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends
each, then 30 million people will have been contacted!
If it goes one level further, you guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED
MILLION PEOPLE!!!
Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all!
(If you don't understand how we can reach 300 million and all you
have
to do is send this t o 10 people... Well, let's face it, you just
aren't a
mathematician. But I am . so trust me on this one.
How long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out
to
ten more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could
conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!!
I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did
you !
Acting together we can make a difference.
If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on. I
suggest
that we not buy from EXXON/MOBIL UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE
$2.00
RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. THIS CAN REALLY WORK.
Keep it going
.
--
when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
problems tend to look like nails.
max
<georgewspamk-14BC...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
" P.O.W." <george...@humboldt1.com> wrote:
>
> THIS IS NOT THE 'DON'T BUY' GAS FOR ONE DAY, BUT IT WILL
> SHOW YOU HOW WE CAN GET GAS BACK DOWN TO $1.30 PER GALLON.
loundeye amelican molon dort.
<http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/gasout.asp>
.max
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
Just A User
THIS CAN REALLY WORK.
>
>
> Keep it going
>
> .
>
Well one way to bring down the cost of gasoline is to use less. To some
extent the laws of supply and demand dictate the price of fuel. If
everyone used less the demand would decrease and therefore the price
would drop somewhat. Of course it's not all supply and demand. We have
been paying through the nose since W took office and the oil / gasoline
companies know that we will continue to buy their products at the
current prices. So why would they lower the price and cut into their profit.
The Henchman
"Just A User" <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote in message
news:BdadnZAr-JEVL3ra...@giganews.com...
Still cheaper now than in previous decades.
clams_casino
and to think it was <$1 / gallon in 1999.
George Grapman
I remember gas wars in the late 60's with 19 cent gas.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/23/gas.prices/
(CNN) -- Gas prices surged nearly 7 cents over the past two weeks to
reach an all-time inflation-adjusted high of $3.26 per gallon of
self-serve regular, a national survey said Sunday.
art.gas.ap.jpg
Gas prices increased by 7 cents in the past two weeks, a survey out
Sunday shows.
The previous inflation-adjusted record occurred last May 18, when the
price was $3.24 in current dollars.
max
That turns out not to be the case.
<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=gasoline++%22inflation+adjusted%22&b
tnG=Search>
max
George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
i've posted this before, but time for a recap.
for every year the cost of gas goes up by a penny, a billion dollars is
sucked out of some other part of the economy.
I was suprised when i calculated it, but ... well, we use a lot of gas
in america. it's actually "somewhat" more, but a billion dollars is
close enough.
Jeff
Demand is actually down. Gasoline stocks are high, and yet the price
is going up.
Jeff
mustangsally
| RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. THIS CAN REALLY WORK.
good god you must be the dumbest person on the planet.
REDUCE YOUR CONSUMPTION. it is what it is.
the price of a gallon of gas is a reflection of the perceived relationship
between supply and demand. move to a pedestrian-friendly city and ditch your
car if you really want to make an impact.
sheesh.
Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
>good god you must be the dumbest person on the planet.
>
>REDUCE YOUR CONSUMPTION. it is what it is.
>
>the price of a gallon of gas is a reflection of the perceived relationship
>between supply and demand. move to a pedestrian-friendly city and ditch your
>car if you really want to make an impact.
>
>sheesh.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Don't want to pay $4.00 a gallon? Well, then,
don't buy the stuff. It's not like we didn't see high gasoline prices
coming; they've been steadily increasing for the past five years and
yet I see more full-size trucks and SUVs on the road today than ever
before.
Natural gas prices are the next in line. U.S. gas production peaked
back in 1972 and Canada and Mexico which have been making up the slack
have now entered their terminal decline. And don't expect LNG imports
to save your sorry ass because 1) the U.S. didn't move quickly enough
and other countries have already locked in their long-term supplies
leaving little behind and 2) much of this foreign gas is incompatible
with your gas system and appliances due to its higher BTU content.
Trust me, not being able to drive the Hummer to the mall is the least
of your worries.
Go back some 30 years and you can get a sense of what to expect (the
CBS Evening News lead story begins about 3:30 into this clip). In
1977 over 500,000 employess were laid-off for up to three weeks due to
chronic natural gas shortages.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wlBilrYMoPo
These industry PSAs from 1971 foreshadow what was to come:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=39mRLTiwlz4
and
http://youtube.com/watch?v=upl65Yghfrs
Cheers,
Paul
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Derald" <der...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:13ufa6s...@corp.supernews.com...
> max <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>loundeye amelican molon dort.
> my thoughts, exactly
benny hill?
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Paul M. Eldridge" <paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:anthu3po1pnibfudg...@4ax.com...
> On 25 Mar 2008 10:56:10 GMT, mustangsally <mustan...@nym.hush.com>
> wrote:
>
>>good god you must be the dumbest person on the planet.
>>
>>REDUCE YOUR CONSUMPTION. it is what it is.
we just bought 2 bicycles. figured we'd get 'em before the rush :)
dh plans to ride 6 miles to work. now if i can just find a safe
way for him to do that.......
Paul M. Eldridge
<der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>we just bought 2 bicycles. figured we'd get 'em before the rush :)
>dh plans to ride 6 miles to work. now if i can just find a safe
>way for him to do that.......
Good thinking! There are some roadways I wouldn't go near and even on
quieter streets you can be taking your life into your hands. I take
it car pooling or public transit isn't a viable option?
Cheers,
Paul
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
are viable. it wouldn't be unusual for me to get a call this afternoon
with: "you're not gonna believe it"..... good thing we like soups, which
reheat easily.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"max" <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:betatron-2D684A...@news.ftupet.com...
> In article
> <georgewspamk-14BC...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> " P.O.W." <george...@humboldt1.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> THIS IS NOT THE 'DON'T BUY' GAS FOR ONE DAY, BUT IT WILL
>> SHOW YOU HOW WE CAN GET GAS BACK DOWN TO $1.30 PER GALLON.
>
>
>
> loundeye amelican molon dort.
snopes sometimes deliberately puts out false info, so when do you trust
them?
http://www.snopes.com:80/lost/false.htm
http://www.snopes.com:80/lost/
>
> <http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/gasout.asp>
>
Rod Speed
> On 25 Mar 2008 10:56:10 GMT, mustangsally <mustan...@nym.hush.com>
> wrote:
>
>> good god you must be the dumbest person on the planet.
>>
>> REDUCE YOUR CONSUMPTION. it is what it is.
>>
>> the price of a gallon of gas is a reflection of the perceived
>> relationship between supply and demand. move to a
>> pedestrian-friendly city and ditch your car if you really want to
>> make an impact.
>>
>> sheesh.
>
> Ding! Ding! Ding! Don't want to pay $4.00 a gallon? Well, then,
> don't buy the stuff. It's not like we didn't see high gasoline prices
> coming; they've been steadily increasing for the past five years and
> yet I see more full-size trucks and SUVs on the road today than ever
> before.
> Natural gas prices are the next in line. U.S. gas production peaked back
> in 1972 and Canada and Mexico which have been making up the slack have
> now entered their terminal decline. And don't expect LNG imports to save
> your sorry ass because 1) the U.S. didn't move quickly enough and other
> countries have already locked in their long-term supplies leaving little behind
Lie, most obviously with Australia.
> and 2) much of this foreign gas is incompatible with your
> gas system and appliances due to its higher BTU content.
Another lie.
> Trust me,
No thanks after those two footshots.
> not being able to drive the Hummer to the mall is the least of your worries.
Another lie.
> Go back some 30 years and you can get a sense of what to expect
Nope.
> (the CBS Evening News lead story begins about 3:30 into this clip).
> In 1977 over 500,000 employess were laid-off for up to three
> weeks due to chronic natural gas shortages.
Doesnt mean that its going to happen this time.
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=wlBilrYMoPo
> These industry PSAs from 1971 foreshadow what was to come:
Taint gunna happen like that, you watch.
And if it did, we can use nukes.
Paul M. Eldridge
<der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>there's public transport, but his hours can change up any time, so neither
>are viable. it wouldn't be unusual for me to get a call this afternoon
>with: "you're not gonna believe it"..... good thing we like soups, which
>reheat easily.
<chuckle>... I hear ya. I would hate to discourage anyone from using
a more energy efficient and healthy alternative, but any collision
between a bike and car isn't likely to be too pleasant and so I'd be
inclined to continue driving.... high speed traffic; bad road
conditions; inattentive, impaired, impatient or inexperienced drivers
-- somehow it doesn't seem worth the risk.
Cheers,
Paul
max
"AllEmailDeletedImmediately" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
i used snopes as a 2 sec. cite to save me the trouble of writing a more
nuanced response. The happen to be close enough on this to count as
correct.
snopes is also wrong about Annie Jacobsen.
Iron law of verity: if a post claims the "vice president of coca cola"
in its provenance, it's bullshit through and through.
Anthony Matonak
...
> we just bought 2 bicycles. figured we'd get 'em before the rush :)
> dh plans to ride 6 miles to work. now if i can just find a safe
> way for him to do that.......
It'll be easier when no one can afford to drive their cars.
All you'll have to watch out for then are crazy moped riders.
:)
Anthony
Jeff
> On 25 Mar 2008 10:56:10 GMT, mustangsally <mustan...@nym.hush.com>
> wrote:
>
>> good god you must be the dumbest person on the planet.
>>
>> REDUCE YOUR CONSUMPTION. it is what it is.
>>
>> the price of a gallon of gas is a reflection of the perceived relationship
>> between supply and demand. move to a pedestrian-friendly city and ditch your
>> car if you really want to make an impact.
>>
>> sheesh.
>
> Ding! Ding! Ding! Don't want to pay $4.00 a gallon? Well, then,
> don't buy the stuff. It's not like we didn't see high gasoline prices
> coming; they've been steadily increasing for the past five years and
> yet I see more full-size trucks and SUVs on the road today than ever
> before.
>
> Natural gas prices are the next in line. U.S. gas production peaked
> back in 1972 and Canada and Mexico which have been making up the slack
> have now entered their terminal decline. And don't expect LNG imports
> to save your sorry ass because 1) the U.S. didn't move quickly enough
> and other countries have already locked in their long-term supplies
> leaving little behind and 2) much of this foreign gas is incompatible
> with your gas system and appliances due to its higher BTU content.
> Trust me, not being able to drive the Hummer to the mall is the least
> of your worries.
Oh, how much worse it would be today if not for the actions of a much
maligned president:
The 1973 energy crisis raised electric generation fuel prices. In 1972,
oil accounted for 16 percent of total U.S. electricity generation, and
natural gas accounted for 21 percent. But most everyone seemed to think
that natural gas was running out; and the Energy Supply and
Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 required utilities to stop using
natural gas or other petroleum-based products to generate electricity.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3650/is_200601/ai_n17170736
Today, oil use for electric generation is negligible, and natural gas
is down to 15%.
Jeff
Paul M. Eldridge
> Oh, how much worse it would be today if not for the actions of a much
>maligned president:
>
>The 1973 energy crisis raised electric generation fuel prices. In 1972,
>oil accounted for 16 percent of total U.S. electricity generation, and
>natural gas accounted for 21 percent. But most everyone seemed to think
>that natural gas was running out; and the Energy Supply and
>Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 required utilities to stop using
>natural gas or other petroleum-based products to generate electricity.
>
>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3650/is_200601/ai_n17170736
>
> Today, oil use for electric generation is negligible, and natural gas
>is down to 15%.
>
> Jeff
Hi Jeff,
The most recent DOE EIA report (March 2008) pegs the natural gas share
at 21.5 per cent, up 10 per cent y-o-y.
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
In terms of planned capacity additions for the period 2007 through
2011, natural gas represents just over half of all new U.S. plant
construction -- 46 GW out of a total of 87 GW.
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epaxlfile2_5.pdf
The DOE projects a 23 per cent shortfall in natural gas supplies by
2025, with the presumption that this growing deficit can be met by LNG
imports. In fact, "[b]y 2030, 'almost all of the net imports will be
in the form of LNG, close to 3 trillion cubic feet in this outlook,'
Guy Caruso, head of EIA, said Tuesday during a speech in Washington."
Source:
http://www.projo.com/business/content/BZ_lngshortage20_03-23-08_QI9E9EI_v5.34acbb3.html
This same article notes that the U.S. is facing a shortfall in LNG
supplies because "[p]rocessing plants to liquefy gas aren’t being
built as quickly as developers of import terminals predicted [due to]
security risks in Nigeria and slower- than-expected development of
facilities in Russia and Iran."
In 2004, roughly 11 per cent of the world's LNG was sold on the spot
market (effectively spare or surplus capacity), with the balance being
sold under long-term multi-year contracts. In this same year, 70 per
cent of U.S. imports were purchased on the spot market which puts the
U.S. in direct competition with Japan, Spain, Italy, France, Greece,
Portugal, Taiwan, Turkey, Belgium and Korea. Historically, the share
of plant capacity dedicated to multi-year sales contracts varies
anywhere from 83 to 94 per cent so the spot market represents a
relatively modest percentage of total LNG production. And as
previously mentioned, this puts the U.S. in an unenviable position
because future expansion has been constrained as noted above, and
existing supplies have largely been locked-up by others.
Source: The 23rd World Gas Conference, June 5-9th, 2006, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
Cheers,
Paul
jo...@phred.org
If I remember correctly, the British Medical Association says riding in
London traffic with no helmet is safer than driving -- yes, the accident
risk is higher, but the health benefits daily exercise massively
outweigh the increased risk from accidents. And the British aren't
nearly as sedentary on average as Americans to begin with.
--
jo...@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
max
Paul M. Eldridge <paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Today, oil use for electric generation is negligible, and natural gas
> >is down to 15%.
> >
> > Jeff
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> The most recent DOE EIA report (March 2008) pegs the natural gas share
> at 21.5 per cent, up 10 per cent y-o-y.
>
> Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
>
> In terms of planned capacity additions for the period 2007 through
> 2011, natural gas represents just over half of all new U.S. plant
> construction -- 46 GW out of a total of 87 GW.
>
> Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epaxlfile2_5.pdf
i'm very fond of eia.doe.gov. For some reason their information is
interesting.
As nearly as i can tell, a large component of the increase in natural
gas stems from the costruction of turbine-generator "peaker plants",
which are tiny facilties tucked-in near areas where the electrical grid
is showing signs of undercapacity. They are almost undetectable from
the street, with lots of berming an landscape.
They feature very powerful powerful jet turbines. Ultimately they're
quiet and efficient and for their part, make good neighbors. and a well
regarded by he communities
This one is near me <http://tinyurl.com/2qtvmh>
Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
>In article <v2hju3pic43629231...@4ax.com>,
> Paul M. Eldridge <paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> > Today, oil use for electric generation is negligible, and natural gas
>> >is down to 15%.
>> >
>> > Jeff
>>
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> The most recent DOE EIA report (March 2008) pegs the natural gas share
>> at 21.5 per cent, up 10 per cent y-o-y.
>>
>> Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
>>
>> In terms of planned capacity additions for the period 2007 through
>> 2011, natural gas represents just over half of all new U.S. plant
>> construction -- 46 GW out of a total of 87 GW.
>>
>> Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epaxlfile2_5.pdf
>
>i'm very fond of eia.doe.gov. For some reason their information is
>interesting.
>
>As nearly as i can tell, a large component of the increase in natural
>gas stems from the costruction of turbine-generator "peaker plants",
>which are tiny facilties tucked-in near areas where the electrical grid
>is showing signs of undercapacity. They are almost undetectable from
>the street, with lots of berming an landscape.
>
>They feature very powerful powerful jet turbines. Ultimately they're
>quiet and efficient and for their part, make good neighbors. and a well
>regarded by he communities
>
>This one is near me <http://tinyurl.com/2qtvmh>
Hi Max,
That's indeed true. These peaker plants can be brought online quickly
to help meet daytime demand and to provide voltage support. They're
relatively small, clean, efficient (up to 60% in the case of some of
the newer combined cycle units) and thus easier to site in urban
areas. The speed at which they can be commissioned and their low
capital cost also makes them attractive. The drawback is that natural
gas is expensive and so their operating costs are quite high; in terms
of dispatching order, they're typically last-on, first-off unless, as
you indicate, there are other, grid-related reasons why they would be
required.
Cheers,
Paul
Jeff
> In article <v2hju3pic43629231...@4ax.com>,
> Paul M. Eldridge <paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>> Today, oil use for electric generation is negligible, and natural gas
>>> is down to 15%.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> The most recent DOE EIA report (March 2008) pegs the natural gas share
>> at 21.5 per cent, up 10 per cent y-o-y.
>>
>> Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
>>
>> In terms of planned capacity additions for the period 2007 through
>> 2011, natural gas represents just over half of all new U.S. plant
>> construction -- 46 GW out of a total of 87 GW.
>>
>> Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epaxlfile2_5.pdf
>
> i'm very fond of eia.doe.gov. For some reason their information is
> interesting.
>
> As nearly as i can tell, a large component of the increase in natural
> gas stems from the costruction of turbine-generator "peaker plants",
> which are tiny facilties tucked-in near areas where the electrical grid
> is showing signs of undercapacity. They are almost undetectable from
> the street, with lots of berming an landscape.
I was aware of the use of natural gas in peaking, but not the nature
and the extent of it. It certainly has environmental benefits over other
fossil fuels.
Still, I'm surprised to see that most of the power plants coming on
line will be natural gas fired and that most US imports are from Canada.
I remember years ago when Mexico burned off natural gas at the
wellhead rather than sell it at a low cost. It looks like even now that
Mexico is a net importer rather than the reverse..
I'm not sure where all this is headed, but with 80% of new wells
being drilled looking for gas rather than oil, it looks like trouble is
looming. It's hard to believe that you can feel less comfortable getting
energy from a source other than Middle East, but Russia and Nigeria are
the alternatives.
Jeff
Peter Bruells
> In article <0TVFj.185793$FE.1...@fe05.news.easynews.com>,
> "The Henchman" <don'tas...@iampoor.net> wrote:
>>
>> Still cheaper now than in previous decades.
>
> That turns out not to be the case.
> <http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=gasoline++%22inflation+adjusted%22&btnG=Search>
Don't forget that incomes have risen. What's important isn't how much
the price's in inflated adjusted dollars, but how long you have to
work for it.
max
wrote:
i know this is going to sound coy or argumentative, but isn't "how long
you have to work for it" roughly equivalent to "inflation adjusted"?
.max
Peter Bruells
> In article <m23aq97...@rogue.de>, Peter Bruells <use...@rogue.de>
> wrote:
>
>> max <beta...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>> > In article <0TVFj.185793$FE.1...@fe05.news.easynews.com>,
>> > "The Henchman" <don'tas...@iampoor.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Still cheaper now than in previous decades.
>> >
>> > That turns out not to be the case.
>> > <http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=gasoline++%22inflation+adjusted%22&btnG
>> > =Search>
>>
>> Don't forget that incomes have risen. What's important isn't how much
>> the price's in inflated adjusted dollars, but how long you have to
>> work for it.
>
> i know this is going to sound coy or argumentative, but isn't "how long
> you have to work for it" roughly equivalent to "inflation adjusted"?
No, it isn't. These are seperate issues.
These are numbers for Germany, but the principle's the same in the U.S.
1958: 16 Minutes work (at average income for 1 litre gasoline)
1960: 14 Minutes
1981: 4 Minutes
1985: 6 Minutes
1991: 4 Minutes
1997: 4 Minutes
1996: 4 Minutes
2000: 5 Minutes
2004: 5 Minutes
Lou
"Peter Bruells" <use...@rogue.de> wrote in message
news:m2sky96...@rogue.de...
I guess the other issue is that these are purportedly average figures. For
a given individual, things might be quite different. As people mature and
gain experience, their incomes tend to rise over and above the inflation
rate (if that wasn't the case, everyone at a given company would tend to
make the same amount of money). For myself, way back when I was a youth
(1960's) I had to work somewhere around 15 minutes to buy a gallon of gas.
Today, for me it's less than the 5 minutes Peter reports.
Another wrinkle is that cars generally get better mileage than they did back
then. If I look at my time worked to buy enough gas to drive my car one
mile, today it comes to a couple of seconds, more or less. Back then, it
was more on the order of a minute.
Paul M. Eldridge
Further along these same lines:
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/413800
I understand Alberta's natural gas production is something in the
order of 12 billion cubic feet per day and that 1 billion of this is
currently used by the province's tar sands operation. The latest NEB
forecast is calling for production to fall to 9 BCFD by 2012, at a
time when 6 BCFD -- a full two-thirds -- will be used by the tar
sands, in large part to power the new SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity
Drainage) plants now under construction. That suggests our natural
gas supplies for domestic use and export will fall from 11 BCFD today
to as little as 3 BCFD in less than five years.
Cheers,
Paul
Paul M. Eldridge
<paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
One more addendum:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=aEgx5Q2ut9tw&refer=energy
"Natural gas advanced on shrinking liquefied natural gas imports and
rising crude oil prices."
Shipments of LNG to the U.S. have fallen as higher prices available in
Asia and Europe attract cargoes...."
"LNG imports are averaging about 900 million cubic feet a day this
month compared with 3.2 billion cubic feet a day in April of 2007,
said Stacy Nieuwoudt, an analyst at Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co.
Houston...."
"Imports of Canadian gas will probably decline by an average of 1
billion cubic feet a day this year, Dane said. The U.S. imported 3.77
trillion cubic feet, or about 16 percent of total consumption, from
Canada in 2007, according to the Energy Department."
As of 21h04 this evening, the Nymex Henry Hub price is $10.12 per
MMBtu, double the front-month close price of just eight months ago.
What's more significant is that inventory levels are continuing to
fall at a time when they normally rise in preparation for the summer
power generation draw-down; that suggests natural gas prices will be
under even more pressure in the months to come.
Cheers,
Paul