Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Gas Prices Continue To Fall

First time accepted submitter nmpost writes "Earlier this year, as gas prices hit record highs in the winter and spring for that time of year, experts warned we were headed for all time records this summer. Something strange happened before every motorists recurring nightmare happened: gas prices actually started dropping. In fact, prices have fallen over $.50 since they peaked in the spring. Experts have now flipped their projections, and believe prices will continue to tumble through the fall."

398 comments

  1. Is this pump price? by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

    Or wholesale? FP, by the way.

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    1. Re:Is this pump price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than .50 here. From 4.15 to 3.41. East coast.

      Thank science I no longer live in California!

    2. Re:Is this pump price? by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Anecdote =/= data, but that's definitely pump price in my area... we went from $3.69 (or higher) a few months ago to $3.03 this afternoon.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    3. Re:Is this pump price? by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      in the UK in 2008 petrol was 89p/litre. April this year, it spiked to £1.42, now it's down to £1.33... crude is at US$20/barrel (what?? I remember not so long ago it was over US$110!) and it's definitely going up again in August by 5p/litre - pretty much wiping out the reduction in pump prices we've had over the last two months as the oil giants will use it as an excuse to gouge the fuck out of us..

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    4. Re:Is this pump price? by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Interesting that Rolling stone magazine wrote this article a while back. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

      Note the whole thing about oil prices having been spiked as a bubble, and in the process of being respiked. Also note the whole thing on carbon tax credits etc. If true, I wonder how much longer the world at large will put up with such shenanigans?

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    5. Re:Is this pump price? by ToadProphet · · Score: 4, Informative

      crude is at US$20/barrel

      It's actually at $80USD a barrel.

      --
      It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
    6. Re:Is this pump price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prices go up because there is not enough demand. Prices go up because there is to much demand. WTF? Reminds me of 1984, and the perpetual war against Eastasia or is it Eurasia. I forgot who is the enemy is this week.

    7. Re:Is this pump price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Although I was not the person who wrote that, I think I should point out that Slashdot's fascist leadership have officially banned me in perpetuity from posting while logged in. And perhaps rightly so, because my edgy wit smoked bitch-ass motherfuckers like you and fucked your girlfriends.

      So no, fuck you, shill account. Also, gas prices are low because Obama wants to be re-elected. Idiots.

      -- Ethanol-fueled

    8. Re:Is this pump price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought gas prices are falling because since Iran's saber rattling has finally turned out to be just saber rattling, and the Arab spring isn't going to overthrow any important oil producing places right now (speculation that it might do so was part of what pushed prices over $120 for brent crude iirc), and since oil inventories are increasing because people are using less oil because there is less demand for manufactured items and travel coming out of places like Europe where there are austerity measures coming into play and the concomitant global deleveraging due to repercussions because of bad decisions by leaders of certain governments like Greece in hiding debts in order to sneak into the Eurozone which wouldn't have been an issue if the global economy hadn't slowed down in 2008 (and thus decreased overall global economic expansion speeds), the 2008-2009 slowdowns probably occurring in part because of some bad decisions by certain people that caused home values in the U.S. to deflate which was caused by people repackaging things into abstract concepts which were too far removed from the things they represented, which was of course perfectly legal at the time (and probably still is) causing money to concentrate into places where it couldn't find its way back out into the pockets of those who actually spend it on things like ... gas.

      And when there's less money to spend, people get afraid and spend less, meaning people make less money. The world just needs to get drunk and spend recklessly and it'll all get fixed. Not sure why government is spending less, they should be spending more to get more money into the hands of people who spend it. Inflation shouldn't matter too much since there's a shit ton of money just sitting in giant bank accounts, it's not like that money is going to do anything but get hoarded anyhow.

    9. Re:Is this pump price? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      No, American thick crude is 80. North sea crude is much more valuable, since it requires less refining.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    10. Re:Is this pump price? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If true, I wonder how much longer the world at large will put up with such shenanigans?

      The real question is how much longer the world will put up with the economic shenanigans that our financial god-kings have been pulling for at least the past thirty years, with bankers getting parachute drops of free money which they then set on fire, while the people are being told to "tighten their belts".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    11. Re:Is this pump price? by ToadProphet · · Score: 3, Informative

      Brent crude is around $90, only about a $10 premium over WTI.

      --
      It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
    12. Re:Is this pump price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naah, oil prices are clearly correlated with the Doomsday Clock..

      Also note the whole thing on carbon tax credits

      That is indeed another mechanism with the potential for causing artificial energy crises. Nobody needs to scam the system, for the system causes crises the stronger inter-dependencies are. The moment the actual cost of the carbon credit is removed from the system and the speculation based on derivatives starts the bubbles start to form. There is no way that a valuable piece of paper giving rights for production of goods and services would be priced according to, say, the Marx's model of value. That would lead to corruption, inefficiency and misuse of power as one part of the value generating system would work according to different set of rules than the other.

    13. Re:Is this pump price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This happens every election year. It happened in 2008 as well.

    14. Re:Is this pump price? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      West Texas Intermediate is a light sweet crude. It's actually lighter and sweeter than Brent (North Sea) and thus WTI requires less refining. WTI is currently trading at $80/barrel.

    15. Re:Is this pump price? by Slugster · · Score: 1, Troll

      ...I wonder how much longer the world at large will put up with such shenanigans?...

      As if they had any choice.

      Its very simple, really.
      There's a few very rich and powerful people running the world.
      Sometimes they make money selling petroleum futures, and other times they make money selling carbon credits.

      You didn't really believe Al Gore won that Nobel prize fairly, did you?

    16. Re:Is this pump price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I confess, every time I see the phrase "light sweet crude", it makes me envision a Texas oil tycoon with a big hat tasting some oil off his swagger stick, smacking his lips, and then saying "that's light sweet crude, yaah!"

    17. Re:Is this pump price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He could easily be right since all oil isn't the same quality and shipped the same way. Since neither of you referenced a specific oil patch or point of transport the numbers mean nothing.

    18. Re:Is this pump price? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Down to $3.06 and falling here from nearly $3.75 just a couple of months ago, north central AR.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    19. Re:Is this pump price? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      And that's the sign of the peak... the easily refinable light sweet crudes going up and up, the total extraction volume being kept up by heavy sour crap with tons of arsenic that tends to poison the Va catalysts in standard refineries. Well, drill, baby, drill for those EROI 3 tar sands, we'll keep up business as usual for centuries, good citizen... ;)

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    20. Re:Is this pump price? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Brent is more easy to transport but has higher sulfur content so it is historically at a discount to WTI. WTI is pipeline constrained by its settlement point in Cushing, Oklahoma.

    21. Re:Is this pump price? by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why was this labeled flamebait? Did everyone forget the S&L scandal of the 80s, with everyone getting golden parachutes while the taxpayers got the bills, Worldcom and Enron of the 90s, companies getting tax breaks to send jobs overseas in the 00s?

      Whether you like it or not you could put the holders of 85% of this country's wealth in your average HS gym and have seats left over, and whenever you have wealth concentrated THAT much its gonna become what we have now, bribery and backscratching and screwing the peasants to concentrate ever MORE wealth, simply because there is no such thing as too much wealth and power for those at the top.

      I have to wonder if this is why no democracy has lasted as long as we have, or no empire survived more than a few hundred years. Money simply gets too concentrated, the peasants get tired of living like animals, and eventually the whole thing just falls down. I know it would be damned hard to argue that the average American is better off now than they were 30 years ago, with nearly half paying no taxes because they are too poor and the welfare and disability roles exploding.

      Oil manipulation is just one of many abuses of the system we have seen,and in everything from the housing bubble to the dotbombs we've seen those at the top never seem to lose. that's no accident, that is having enough power to game the system, to make sure you are declared "too big to fail" and getting paid even if you lose.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    22. Re:Is this pump price? by rockout · · Score: 1

      Your sample size of 2 might be a bit small to declare "this happens every election year". Just as in 2008, speculators are running from oil due to perceived weakness in the economy - obviously the first time was while our economy was crashing, and this time because Europe is scaring everyone. That fact that both times were election years is (mostly) coincidence.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    23. Re:Is this pump price? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      The more consequences you suffer because of your behavior, the more resistant you are to changing your behavior; the admission that you're doing something really stupid becomes harder and harder the longer you deny it and the more consequences accumulate. You're a pretty good example of that common human flaw.

    24. Re:Is this pump price? by Genda · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What strikes me as particularly egregious, is that the last time the price of oil got this high, there was suddenly tremendous research into alternative fuels and particularly synthetic fuel from algae growth. Just as it became clear that algae was a viable technology and dozens of researchers were beginning to set up pilot projects to begin producing fuel, the price of oil crashed and wiped them all out.

      I expect this will be a precise repeat of that exercise. It seems to me that the dog is shaking off the fleas. Perhaps its time for someone to subsidize the production of alternative fuels outside of the price of oil, until we have a product that is capable of competing with oil under any circumstance. Adding to the fact that we can slowly swap synfuel into the economy by taxing regular petroleum, and ultimately have a completely green fuel economy. Of course this presumes having federal legislators that don't own knee-pads or have the ability to whistle Dixie while tying a cherry stem in a knot with their tongues. Too much to ask for?

    25. Re:Is this pump price? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There is no "peak" in the oil supply. There's only a steady upwards slope which will make it economical to start extracting oil from more expensive and complicated sources.

      The only place we're likely to see a peak is in demand. Once the bowser prices start to drive people into ... not driving or buying more fuel efficient models.

    26. Re:Is this pump price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It SHOULD be $20 / bbl but the Federal Reserve decided to destroy the value of the dollar they conned us into using in 1913.

    27. Re:Is this pump price? by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Common man pays tax on his income.
      Business/investors pay tax on profit.

    28. Re:Is this pump price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good idea, a viable synthetic substitute will also act to regulate oil prices through market competition - rampant speculation is probably only viable because there's no competitor to oil, and good point about periodic price crashes to wipe out this sort of research, it's something to think about.

    29. Re:Is this pump price? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Business/investors pay tax on profit.

      ...in theory.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    30. Re:Is this pump price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have evidence that such research projects have all been wiped out, and that the very recent crude oil price crash is what wiped any of them out? I suspect that what really happened is that other news (including the drop in oil prices, some important SCOTUS rulings, and whatever foolishness the Kardashians are perpetuating this week) has overshadowed news on research topics about which the typical person just doesn't understand or care very much.

      Not that I disagree with awarding meaningful subsidies for biofuel research (biobutanol would be my preference), but I haven't seen news of any research projects being shut down because pump prices are slightly less expensive this month. Research in these areas is necessarily long-term, and the long-term projections on oil/energy demand haven't changed much regardless of short-term commodity fluctuations. To the extent that projections have changed, it is mostly due to anticipation of continued or worsening global economic outlooks.

      - T

    31. Re:Is this pump price? by NewYork · · Score: 1

      ...in theory.

      Wish it was true.
      Buffett's secretary Bosanek pays a tax rate of 35.8 percent of income, while Buffett pays a rate at 17.4 percent.
      http://news.yahoo.com/warren-buffett-secretary-talk-taxes-221442297--abc-news.html

  2. Maybe by Squiddie · · Score: 2

    But a lower price will drive up demand again, no? I'm thinking this is why prices fell, because people were expecting the worst and cutting back on travel.

    1. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Prices fall because of presidential elections. My super paranoid conspiracy theory is that oil and gas companies do not want to be the subject of discourse during the elections.

    2. Re:Maybe by tomhath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Demand is low because we're in a world wide recession. They'll go back up when the economy recovers, but that could be a while because we're still coming down off the 90's bubble which knocked everything out of line.

    3. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My paranoid conspiracy: Incumbents have to pay exorbitant amounts to get the prices brought down. Otherwise, the prices inflate so the opposition can blame the incumbent.

    4. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was never a supply/demand problem. It was speculation that demand would go up, which it hasn't and that the U.S. would go to war with Iran, which they haven't.

      It was a speculative bubble.

    5. Re:Maybe by trdtaylor · · Score: 1

      Actually it was believed that the Texas Light Sweet Crude oil (which is what the "price for oil" references) was being held up to such lofty heights by large amounts of speculation. The Iran war cutting off the Strait never happened, Canada is producing a significant amount of oil, etc etc.

      Fun fact, the trader who bought the first barrel of oil for over $100 did so because he wanted to have the first trade in history to do it. He sold it at a loss later in the day

    6. Re:Maybe by Mabhatter · · Score: 1

      Well prices went through the roof when Bush was a lame duck and dropped when Obama got into office... Maybe there is something to that? Let's see what happens in September-October....

      Prices are more to do with supply and demand and if refineries are running well prices stay down because we don't have "emergencies". Remember too, CONSUMER usage has been going down, and modern efficient cars are keeping the numbers flatter than in the past when it would go up. Thats why truck fuel (traditionally less than consumer fuel) has been steadily higher the last few years, because it used to be a "byproduct" of making gasoline. Trucks can't "not drive" like people do, so the numbers had to adjust.

    7. Re:Maybe by guises · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Supply and demand doesn't apply to oil the same way it does to other products. The OPEC countries decide what the price of oil should be and they adjust how much they pump based on that. The price of oil has been very high in the last few years as a result of the Arab Spring - the Saudis needed tons of money to fend of talk of revolution in their country. If the price of oil is falling then it's because they've decided that is no longer of primary importance. You could guess their reasons: maybe they want to squash all this talk of wind and solar power, maybe they're trying to do something about Syria, etc. It's hard to say for sure.

      The OPEC countries are very careful about maintaining their control over the oil supply and making sure that it isn't subject to typical market forces. One interesting consequence of this, albeit unrelated to the topic at hand, is that the United States has essentially no influence over the price of gas in their country. At least not in the long term - this is interesting, I think, because people talk sometimes about drilling in the nature preserve in Alaska or offshore drilling as a way to reduce gas prices, but doing so would have, at best, a short term effect. The OPEC countries would quickly cut their supply and stabilize the price. Since oil is a global commodity there's really no difference between "foreign oil" and "American oil" unless some major war breaks out that stops international trade.

    8. Re:Maybe by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Prices dropped after Lehman brothers went bankrupt and were no longer manipulating prices. Coincidence? Conspiracy?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    9. Re:Maybe by Mabhatter · · Score: 2

      Ideally, fuel efficient cars will keep the peaks down. There for a while we were PHYSICALLY using less gas, not just using less than PROJECTED.

      This is such a silly thing. We all talk about USING less gas, and now we ARE. Rather than tell everybody "good job" we have to keep up with the FUD that we're hurting their profits?

    10. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prices fell because the economy weakened. The economy weakened because prices went up...

      Price falls->Economy strengthens->Price rises->Economy weakens->Price falls->Economy strengthens

      I'd wager we'll see this pattern over the next decade at least.

    11. Re:Maybe by manu0601 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Demand is low because we're in a world wide recession. They'll go back up when the economy recovers, but that could be a while because we're still coming down off the 90's bubble which knocked everything out of line.

      But you will have more bubble bursts and more crises. The system is just instable since neoliberal policitians removed all the safeguards that were set up after the 1929 crisis: the, Glass-Steagall Act, an higher income tax for the wealthie...

    12. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prices are more to do with supply and demand

      But for oil it has more to do with speculation instead of real demand. With the volume of trade, you can't just buy 50 bajillion barrels overnight. It takes time to produce that amount and with the instabilities in the middle east the supply was not guaranteed. Thus, the higher prices.

    13. Re:Maybe by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Informative

      On average, cars were more fuel efficient 30 years ago. The problem is with pollution controls.

      Engines attain maximum efficiency when they run hotter, the problem with hotter running engines is that they produce more nitrogen oxides and cause more smog. So, in the 1980s, they imposed pollution controls to reduce the nitrogen oxides and therefore smog. The only way car makers could meet this was to make engines run cooler, and in so doing reduced the efficiency of the engines.

      Miles per gallon hasn't changed much in the average family sedan, but 30 years ago the cars were bigger and heavier and used a lot more steel.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    14. Re:Maybe by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What on earth makes you think that any American financial firm has the clout to get OPEC, Russia and the other petroleum exporting countries to change prices at whim?

      They cannot of course. The price drops have much more to do with demand destruction - less money, less gas. No speculator conspiracy, no Wall Street conspiracy, no oil company conspiracy.

      Turns out the petroleum price is pretty elastic, at least in the short term.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    15. Re:Maybe by humphrm · · Score: 2

      OPEC only has so much control, and they're not united in their controls. They don't control demand, which has fluctuated wildly lately. Saudi Arabia, for instance, has been quite reticent in their controls and have been flooding the market as long as it makes them money. The anti-US contingent in OPEC would love to pull back production but the countries that actually make a profit aren't biting.

      --
      -- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
    16. Re:Maybe by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      We're not using less gas. We have more cars.

    17. Re:Maybe by Papaspud · · Score: 3, Informative

      The OPEC countries can only cut so much, and then they will start going broke. For many, if not most, of these countries this is their only source of revenue. If they don't sell oil, they have no money. If US could get all of it's supplies here in the US, it really doesn't matter how much they cut their own throats trying to raise prices, instead they will start pumping more and bringing down the prices to try and regain market share. They don't have as big of a stranglehold on the worlds market as they once did, and they have gotten used to getting all of that money and spending it.

      --
      Everything above is my opinion....YMMV
    18. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more like prices dropped in 2008 because nobody could figure out what the fuck was going to happen near term other than everything going to shit. People got out while they could to cut their losses. That's when you get panic selling.

      For now, I think if either Romney or Obama winning, both are going to have the same foreign and energy policy, so the other comment about oversupply is also my suspicion. Someone is oversupplying the market; could be Iran making deals to other countries, which reduce their demand for non-Iranian oil.

    19. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Prices fell because someone wasn't willing to buy at the higher price, and others followed.

    20. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prices are more to do with supply and demand

      Bullshit, it was speculation in oil futures over the heated election year rhetoric from Israel, the USA, and Iran that drove the price up. Now that everyone realizes that it was all BS to hype the incumbent politicians to the nutjob base in all 3 countries without intending to do a damn thing, the price has naturally come down.

    21. Re:Maybe by dlp211 · · Score: 1

      No, cars weigh more today then in 1982 and we get better gas mileage then we did then too by about 3 MPG.

    22. Re:Maybe by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      On average, cars were more fuel efficient 30 years ago.

      As a driver for 35yrs, I call bullshit. OTOH if you're american your idea of a 1980's family sedan is probably closer to my idea of a small truck.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    23. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the definition of speculator that for every barrel they buy, they have to sell a barrel? Otherwise they are in the oil storage business. How can someone who has to sell whatever they buy cause the price to increase? What would stop a real buyer from waiting until the speculator was about to be forced to take delivery (and panicking) and then buying? I don't get it.

    24. Re:Maybe by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      What on earth makes you think that any American financial firm has the clout to get OPEC, Russia and the other petroleum exporting countries to change prices at whim?

      They cannot of course. The price drops have much more to do with demand destruction - less money, less gas. No speculator conspiracy, no Wall Street conspiracy, no oil company conspiracy.

      Turns out the petroleum price is pretty elastic, at least in the short term.

      Well for one Oil is traded in dollars.

      Second why is it traded in dollars? The answer is because the worlds wealth is almost all based in the US. CHina is rapidly catching up to change this but the US has the most money and buys and sells oil in thousandths of a second with HFT supercomputers and day traders. They set the price.

      Because it is speculated and not truly economical and supply and demand it became elastic. Speculators got greedy a month or two ago feeling their is a full recover back to the good old days. Meanwhile Peter Schiff, and others have been saying the crises never went away as Europe did not get hit yet and now traders who stock piled on oil bought too much. US bonds are going up record number because it is a safe heaven and investors are dumping oil. This is all wall street.

      Yes OPEC is a small ant compared to Wall street and they can change prices on a whim because every wealthy American has more money than Russia to counter it. At least currently.

    25. Re:Maybe by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Miles per gallon hasn't changed much in the average family sedan, but 30 years ago the cars were bigger and heavier and used a lot more steel.

      Bigger, yes, heavier, no. Modern cars don't creak like those cars of 30 years ago, because much more steel is used to make a stiffer unibody than in the past. The modern mini, while slightly larger than the original mini is almost twice the weight. My 5-passenger car weighs the same as the 7-passenger minivan that it replaced.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    26. Re:Maybe by smellotron · · Score: 2

      the US has the most money and buys and sells oil in thousandths of a second with HFT supercomputers and day traders. They set the price.

      Having the most money does indeed enable price manipulation (the guy with the widest stop-limits an deepest margin accounts wins in a game of chicken). But what on earth makes you think that trading faster allows one to "set the price"?

    27. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I smash my ass down on your snap?

    28. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gas prices went down during 2008's election season as well. Bush set the bar low on his departure to help resist the need for alternative energy, and to make his successor look bad if he didn't find a way to keep them low. What do you know.. the pipeline is getting built, nothing substantial has happened with the BP gulf oil spill, the banks have been bailed out, and Obama gets rewarded handsomely. Mark my words -- after November, the prices shoot back up. We'll be in the middle of two new wars, Iran and Syria.

    29. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same excuse GW Bush supporters used when all the Democrats were screaming about Bush's Iraq war for oil, manipulation by OPEC, etc. Now that they are in power, you are parroting the exact same bullshit excuses.

    30. Re:Maybe by Pi+Is+A+Rational · · Score: 1

      Didn't they actually start jetting carbs to run leaner once the limits were imposed? I may be wrong, but I know old motorcycles made after 1979'ish (give or take a year where you lived) started having leaner jetting to reduce emissions. And running leaner == hotter? I could be totally wrong though.

    31. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truck fuel went up because of the switch to ethanol. 2% MTBE became 10% Ethanol, but you "crack" only as many barrels as you need to make the gasoline. Diesel as a byproduct went down in supply considerably because of that switch.

    32. Re:Maybe by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      The price drops have much more to do with demand destruction - less money, less gas. No speculator conspiracy, no Wall Street conspiracy, no oil company conspiracy.

      [Citation needed]
      Even a cursory google search will give you two basic facts
      1. Saudi Arabia is pumping the most oil in decades (~10 million bbl/day), over the protests of other OPEC members, in order to keep oil prices down.
      2. Some refinery shutdowns/closures from the last year have been resolved, thus increasing capacity and lowering gasoline prices.

      The real chokepoint these days is refining capacity and it's nearly impossible for them to make money with oil >$100/bbl.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    33. Re:Maybe by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the price of oil is falling then it's because they've decided that is no longer of primary importance. You could guess their reasons: maybe they want to squash all this talk of wind and solar power, maybe they're trying to do something about Syria, etc. It's hard to say for sure.

      Saudi Arabia is pumping like crazy in order to balance the supply disruption from the embargo on Iran.
      They're also pumping a bit more, which is causing the price of oil to go down because the Saudis are oversupplying the market.

      Sooo... no need to guess their reasons.
      It's because the Europeans are trying to squeeze Iran.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    34. Re:Maybe by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      The real chokepoint these days is refining capacity and it's nearly impossible for them to make money with oil >$100/bbl.

      This is only of concern if you're a refining company. Few of those exist. Most refineries are positioned strategically to the retail market and it's quite acceptable they make a loss. Hell our local refinery made a loss for 14 years straight. About the only refineries that can turn a profit are newer mega refineries who don't have sky-rocketing maintenance costs, refineries in 3rd world countries where labour and compliance is cheap, and refineries which have special enough configurations that they can make some weird and wonderful premium products.

    35. Re:Maybe by DragonTHC · · Score: 2

      it's not paranoid if it's true.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    36. Re:Maybe by ppanon · · Score: 2

      Isn't the definition of speculator that for every barrel they buy, they have to sell a barrel? Otherwise they are in the oil storage business. How can someone who has to sell whatever they buy cause the price to increase? What would stop a real buyer from waiting until the speculator was about to be forced to take delivery (and panicking) and then buying? I don't get it.

      Oil storage business?. It's a staring content. The one who blinks last wins. The consumers of crude oil (such as refineries) need the supply or else they lose money because the refinery is idled while the refinery owners still have to pay the cost of capital (often in terms of the interest on loans used to purchase the capital equipment). That pretty well works the same down the whole consumption line to the guy who needs to fill his gas tank to get to work. Gas and crude prices shift wildly because most of the demand is very inelastic, so when supply drops...

      Saudi Arabia are pretty smart in adjusting supply to keep prices down. What the other OPEC nations don't seem to understand because they are so focused on lost short term profits, but which Saudi Arabia appears to, is that if oil prices are too volatile and/or high, then customers will start looking more aggressively for alternatives/substitutes. That could lead to more research investment and discovery of a power source that might make most oil production obsolete and drastically drop the price. You play the fish just right or else either the line will snap or the hook will tear out.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    37. Re:Maybe by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      Ideally, fuel efficient cars will keep the peaks down.

      They'll help, but OTOH every single person in China wants their own car now, and many of them can now afford to buy one as well, traffic and smog be damned. So the likelihood of the world ever seeing a significant gas surplus is small.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    38. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prices were sky high when Bush was in office because there was a rush into oil futures as a hedge against losses when the economy collapsed. And yes, a lot of the people controlling the money in the markets knew it was going to happen. When the banks collapsed, so did the ability to hedge trillions of dollars and there went the oil prices.

      As for diesel fuel being more expensive, there are more refinery steps needed now. The EPA made them remove most of the sulfur content in highway use diesel fuel and because the sulfur acted as a lubricant, additives needed to be replaced into the fuel in order to stop it from destroying everyone's engine. And for the last few years, we are talking about since the late 1990's and into the 2000's when diesel started costing more then gas in most places.

    39. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol @ grasping at straws.

    40. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those 'safeguards' would not remove the instability of bubbles. If you lower peoples time preference for saving for longer term projects in favor of immediate consumption by inflating currency and putting the money into the financial sector, you are guaranteed bubbles. It is inescapable. Bubbles are a function of both malinvestment and overestimation of resources as pricing signals are distorted by monetary manipulation that confuse investors and entrepreneurs. Glass Steagall has no means of solving the price calculation problem that arises.

      The following article does a great job introducing the idea of bubbles while addressing some more common rebuttals: http://mises.org/daily/6068/When-Anticipation-Makes-Things-Worse

    41. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html

      The above link shows that fuel efficiency is significantly better than in the 80's. It appears that you are suffering from Libertarian hallucination or else you are a blatant liar. NOX is addressed by the catalytic converter. One thing that has changed is the weight added for auto's to meet safety standards. The mileage went from 24.3 to 33.8 mpg from 1980 to 2011. In case you haven't noticed, auto size has generally increased. Even the move from cars to SUV's has not resulted in an overall decrease in mileage as new trucks get 24.5 which is more than the 24.3 of passenger cars in 1980. I have no idea what would make you honestly believe what you asserted as the difference between now and then is blatantly obvious to anyone who actually experienced both times and the literature is clear.

    42. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1980 24.3 mpg. 2011 33.8 mpg. Please stop entertaining the falsehood that cars have not improved in mileage.

    43. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neoliberal???? I don't think so. Centrists because they bent specifically on points concerning regulation of corporations but not neoliberal. Centrist because they want the black, female and gay vote but are in the hands of the corporations so economically conservative. Neoliberal is just a way to kick true liberals who are few and powerless in this country but they are dangerous to the current suicidal political leadership as their ideas are far superior.

    44. Re:Maybe by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      A lot of analysis sites think the Saudis will have problems in increasing the production any more, their oil fields are aging and even with the new production methods, the cost of getting anything down below will increase. Eventually the pricess will go over the roof.

    45. Re:Maybe by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2007_fcvt_fotw475.html

      Heaviest weight from 1987, but still a good bit less than 50 years ago. Weight rises every year, unless there's some emergency.

    46. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What on earth makes you think that any American financial firm has the clout to get OPEC, Russia and the other petroleum exporting countries to change prices at whim?"

      You don't get it do you? Slashdot has become a place for peddling crackpot conspiracy theories about the United States and not a place for rational discussion like it use to be.

    47. Re:Maybe by bef · · Score: 1

      It is traded in dollars because the dollar is the reserve currency, not because most of the world's wealth is in the US. It isn't. The US economy is smaller than the EU economy.

    48. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dont need to be opec to fuck with retail gasoline prices. You just need to know the right people. Doing it right makes it look legitimate too. A scheduled maintenance here, an upgrade there, a "safety" check somewhere else, next thing you know production/distribution is reduced, causing ripples in the market. Get several people to do that at the same time, and the ripples turn to waves.

      Where wall street comes in, in that they own a big share of the petro industry and know all the right people.

    49. Re:Maybe by khallow · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Only economic collapses are part of the neoliberal divine portfolio.

    50. Re:Maybe by inthealpine · · Score: 1

      Speculators are now saying the price will drop, so do we blame the speculators on falling gas prices, or do we only blame them when the prices go up?

      --
      "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
    51. Re:Maybe by tomhath · · Score: 3, Informative

      Depends on who you mean by "we". Much of the oil imported by the US is refined and exported as gasoline and diesel fuel; China imports a lot of it.

    52. Re:Maybe by tomhath · · Score: 2

      Iraq war for oil

      Please. Saddam was pumping as much oil out of the ground as he could. Nothing the US could do would add any more of Iraq's oil to the world's supply.

    53. Re:Maybe by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Supply and demand doesn't apply to oil the same way it does to other products. The OPEC countries decide what the price of oil should be and they adjust how much they pump based on that

      What part of restricting supply to drive up prices isn't consistent with supply and demand? It's the same as any other mechanism used to restrict supply (e.g. labor unions, quotas, whatever).

    54. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to check the votes for the repeal by party, sparky.

    55. Re:Maybe by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2

      The answer is because the worlds wealth is almost all based in the US.

      LOL.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    56. Re:Maybe by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but have to call bullshit on that one. Looking at diesel standby engine generators, the fuel consumption per MWh for a low-emissions unit over a "standard" unit is about a 9% delta. Comparing an engine from (about) 1970, you would see nominally a 30% higher number.

      1970 - ~90-100gal/MWh
      2012 Tier 2 - 73 gal/MWh
      2012 non-tiered - 65 gal/MWh

      The improved performance is mainly from tighter manufacturing tolerances and higher compression ratios and EFI.

    57. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US uses ~ 18 _million_ barrels of oil per day, with ~ 60% of that being imported. Per your story, the US is exporting a net 439K barrels per day. That works out to something like 2% of what we use, and 4% of what we import. It would be fair to say that "much" of what you write is bullshit.

    58. Re:Maybe by shiftless · · Score: 1

      The only way car makers could meet this was to make engines run cooler, and in so doing reduced the efficiency of the engines.

      This is bullshit. Cars don't run any "cooler" than they did 30 years ago, that is nonsense. In fact they run hotter in most cases: the average thermostat temp in a modern vehicle is 195* or higher, whereas 30+ years ago they were 180-190* or lower. The average car today is far more efficient and a much better car overall than an average vehicle produced in 1982.

    59. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes - Even my Hyundai Accent hatchback weighs 2600 lb. For reference, in the first year they were produced, Dodge Caravans weighed only 2900 lb. Granted, between 1984 and 2008, a lot improved and changed, but nonetheless, a minivan from less than 30 years ago weighs essentially as much as a 2-door hatchback from 4 years ago does today.

      My Accent uses less fuel, but only about 25% less - it has the same amount of horsepower and weighs only 10% less. But it's 24 years newer. But I can't put lumber longer than 6 feet inside it and plywood bigger than 4x3' inside it.

    60. Re:Maybe by DaleSwanson · · Score: 1

      The OPEC countries can only cut so much, and then they will start going broke. For many, if not most, of these countries this is their only source of revenue. If they don't sell oil, they have no money. If US could get all of it's supplies here in the US, it really doesn't matter how much they cut their own throats trying to raise prices, instead they will start pumping more and bringing down the prices to try and regain market share. They don't have as big of a stranglehold on the worlds market as they once did, and they have gotten used to getting all of that money and spending it.

      With all that money flowing in for decades they could have made revolutionary infrastructure investments. The entire area could be a economic powerhouse by now. Instead, in the next decades as their only source of income dries up they will be in worse shape than ever. But I guess gold Bugattis are cool too.

      See also:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

    61. Re:Maybe by karnal · · Score: 1

      Running lean does make the engine hotter (as I can attest to on my air cooled v-twin.)

      --
      Karnal
    62. Re:Maybe by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      The US had 40 MPG cars back then they're just now able to reproduce that level of efficiency. The body shape and weight are about the same though now the crash survivability and emissions are much better. I disagree that some of the land yachts and trucks were fuel efficient back then.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    63. Re:Maybe by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      The entire point of EGR is to lower combustion temperatures to reduce nitrogen oxides.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    64. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the someones who weren't willing to buy at the higher price felt that way because they didn't have a large pile of excess money to throw around like confetti. The reason they didn't have that giant heaping pile of excess money is because the economy had weakened. Funny how that works...

    65. Re:Maybe by Pope · · Score: 1

      Yep. My 1980 Honda's manual shows that US models had Pilot Screw limiter caps that had to be installed once a full tune-up was done, and they prevent the screws from being turned out to make the mixture richer. You can only turn them in to make it leaner. A lean bike will run a bit hotter, but these old 400cc engines were pretty cold to begin with.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    66. Re:Maybe by Pi+Is+A+Rational · · Score: 1

      That's why what this guy is saying isn't making sense to me.

    67. Re:Maybe by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Extracting OPEC oil is not expensive. It's about $5 per barrel.

    68. Re:Maybe by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      1980 24.3 mpg. 2011 33.8 mpg. Please stop entertaining the falsehood that cars have not improved in mileage.

      The stats that you quote are skewed because of electric vehicles, hybrids and the mileage "credits" that manufacturers are given for producing alternate fuel vehicles.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  3. Fall, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I guess that's one way to look at someone raising the prices extremely high then dropping them down a bit. The gentlemen who manage the prices are very good at planning ahead. Now Obama can use this information to swing votes.

    I wish everyone had a better memory.

    1. Re:Fall, really? by fightinfilipino · · Score: 3, Informative
      you might be right in one sense: Obama really should not be claiming credit for dropping gas prices.

      that being said, he can't really be blamed for their insane increase, either. we have Egypt, Israel, Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, gas price speculators, BP, and a whole slew of other bad actors to blame for that

    2. Re:Fall, really? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, because the prices at the local gas pump are under the direct control of an international cabal of "gentlemen" who can make the prices jump like a flea circus.

      *facepalm*

      What's actually happening is a combination of seasonal events, international events, wars, lack of wars, uncertainty of supply, shutdown of local refineries, state of global economy and local supply prices. In other words, gas is based on a globally traded resource that is processed somewhat locally and sold very locally.

      So yes, they did *fall*.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:Fall, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly Republican, Presidents don't control the price of gas.

    4. Re:Fall, really? by bky1701 · · Score: 2

      Everything is a conspiracy, eh? Anything bad that happens proves Obama is evil and/or incompetent. Anything good that happens proves he is just manipulating the American people. You know, these arguments are basically the same but inverted as the ones given for why an all powerful god would allow evil to exist... ie, not coherent internally, even ignoring the lack of evidence which would be required to take them as fact.

    5. Re:Fall, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you did a regression equation for the features that cause gas prices to go up, I bet the irrational emotions of traders would be the most significant. When they fall, they're coming back towards the real cost of extracting the resource.

    6. Re:Fall, really? by meglon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are right, Obama has no control or input what so ever on the price of gas. However, most people will not forget the blathering, frothing at the mouth, idiots that the republicans became when prices were going up trying to blame it on Obama.

      Interestingly enough, most of the fluctuations in prices in the US comes from speculators gambling on the commodities markets. Occasionally we get changes because of world events, but those world events in reality only drive speculators changing their speculations. OPEC, the great evil cartel, unlike in the mid to late '70's, is almost a wall flower in the day to day, week to week, changes.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    7. Re:Fall, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because the prices at the local gas pump are under the direct control of an international cabal of "gentlemen" who can make the prices jump like a flea circus.

      They're called OPEC for short.

    8. Re:Fall, really? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, because the prices at the local gas pump are under the direct control of an international cabal of "gentlemen" who can make the prices jump like a flea circus.

      You say that as if something like OPEC doesn't exist. There are relatively few petroleum exporting countries, and many of them collude. There are very few companies, all of them globally oriented, that control the supply chain all the way from exploration to refining capacity. There is also quite a lot of politics involved, from local to international, that affect the price of oil, and eventually gasoline.

      So while the demand portion is a very normal market, the supply portion is in no way anything close to a free market. As such, it is quite reasonable to question whether a price change of oil or gasoline is due to typical market conditions or price manipulation.

    9. Re:Fall, really? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      You say that as if something like OPEC doesn't exist.

      No, I say it as if OPEC doesn't have the type of price control it used to have, and not anywhere near the price control it wishes it had. Here's a nifty little link: http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/shareopec.html OPEC currently controls about 45% of global output. The Persian Gulf sits at below 30%. Furthermore, OPEC is definitely not the single entity a lot of people make it out to be. Yes, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are pretty much in lock step. You know who else is part of OPEC? Iran, aka mortal enemy of Saudi Arabia.

      So yes, they do influence the market. But they are clearly not able to control the price to the degree you intimate.

      The same applies to your argument about companies, by the way. And then, as you rightly guessed, politics are also thrown in the mix. And the global economy. All in all, you make my point: while there are some entities that have more control over price than others, there are so many that it is ludicrous on the face of it to argue that there is even the possibility of a cabal. And then there's the data, which conclusively proves that individual actors have very little influence on the price of gas in the US.

      While it might be reasonable for someone to question whether prices are subject to global manipulation, it implies that that person has never looked closely at either gas prices or who the players are.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    10. Re:Fall, really? by Locutus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I did notice that it wasn't until Obama threatened to investigate the increasingly high gas prices that the gas prices started to decline. Quite the coincidence I would say.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    11. Re:Fall, really? by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Interestingly enough, most of the fluctuations in prices in the US comes from speculators gambling on the commodities markets.

      If you want to see a real world example of what happens when speculators are driven out of a market, look at silver.
      The Chicago Mercantile Exchange pumped up margin prices 8 times last year and the price of silver plummeted as speculators had to get out.
      They've since cut margins twice, but silver prices have not rebounded, because the gamblers have moved on to less hostile commodities.

      This is a good example of how to drive out speculations, but...
      A lot of traders are more or less accusing the CME of manipulating prices by fiddling with the margins
      (they increased silver margins 5 times in 2 weeks) and have been claiming the whole thing is a big scam.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    12. Re:Fall, really? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      All in all, you make my point: while there are some entities that have more control over price than others, there are so many that it is ludicrous on the face of it to argue that there is even the possibility of a cabal.

      No, most certainly I don't. First, we've established that there is a cabal, and we know its name. We're only considering its relative efficacy, which certainly makes the question worth asking and answering as to the source of price increases.

      And then there's the data, which conclusively proves that individual actors have very little influence on the price of gas in the US.

      I don't know what data you're referring to, but it would be damned hard to imagine any data proving that point. When you have a single unified entity controlling half the world's production, and a handful of about 5 companies controlling all the refining, it would be hard to imagine that that very point itself wouldn't be completely laughable. Further, history is decidedly against you, unless we are to pretend that 1974 didn't actually happen.

      Larger point is, if you think oil is a completely untainted free market, then all I have to say is that you're a sweet kid, and I've got a shiny new bridge with your name on it.

    13. Re:Fall, really? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 0

      First, we've established that there is a cabal, and we know its name.

      So is the the local tree house gang. The real question is: what can they do? But I guess we agree on that.

      I don't know what data you're referring to, but it would be damned hard to imagine any data proving that point.

      Uh, yes. It's in the price of oil, and the price of oil that OPEC has repeatedly tried to set. The fact that you don't even know what the data would look like that could falsify your position tells me you have actually never looked at the data.

      When you have a single unified entity controlling half the world's production

      And this is how I know you have no idea what you're talking about: http://www.princeton.edu/~pcglobal/conferences/environment/papers/colgan.pdf, as well as this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/opec-fails-to-ratify-proposal-to-boost-the-oil-cartels-output/2011/06/08/AGrHSzLH_story.html These are just a few, small instances of the general failure of OPEC to do much coordination.

      a handful of about 5 companies controlling all the refining

      And again, you show your total ignorance. Here's a quick link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#United_States. And that's just the US.

      unless we are to pretend that 1974 didn't actually happen

      Number 1: that's a single data point. There's no trend to be made of it. Number 2: that was almost 40 years ago, and the oil landscape, as the world, has changed significantly.

      Larger point is, if you think oil is a completely untainted free market

      Last point is, if you want to argue, you might want to make sure you actually have your facts straight, or you come across as the living embodiment of truthiness, and just as much of a joke.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    14. Re:Fall, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speculators speculate in order to make money. Their speculation certainly does not increase the production of petroleum. The money they make comes from the purchasers of petroleum. The money speculators make has to come from somewhere. It doesn't come from increased production. It doesn't come from reduced cost. It doesn't come from magical money trees. It can only come from one place. The purchaser of petroleum.

    15. Re:Fall, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What data? You present no data. Consider this. Forgert about crude. Let's say that the few suppliers of gasoline in the US decide to collude and raise the price in concert. The way that can be stopped is by federal law and regulation enforcement. These enforcement activities occur in the federal government. The federal government has an executive who does indeed have the power to determine whether or not enforcement is allowed to proceed. That's a few corporations and one politician who can greatly affect the price of gasoline.

          Your notions are contradicted by facts.

    16. Re:Fall, really? by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obama has no control or input what so ever on the price of gas. However, most people will not forget the blathering, frothing at the mouth, idiots that the republicans became when prices were going up trying to blame it on Obama.

      I believe that it was Harry Truman, a Democratic president, who said, "The buck stops here." Like it or not, the sitting president always gets the blame in the minds of the voters. This is especially true with gas prices, inflation and unemployment. No president since Jimmy Carter has faced an election with such a high Misery Index as Obama is facing now and we all know how that one ended. Reagan asked the voters if they were better off after 4 years of Carter than they were before he was elected. Unless an economic miracle arrives sometime between now and November (unlikely), Obama will be joining the ranks of the unemployed. It certainly would be a fitting punishment for his failure to fix things. Are you better off than you were four years ago? Maybe we should blame Bush in November because hey It could have been worse, right? Put that in your bong and smoke it.

    17. Re:Fall, really? by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ....which is exactly what the republicans in congress have been putting 100% of their effort into. Had those fucking pieces of shit actually been trying to help this country out of the recession instead of using it for a power play, everyone would be better off right now. It doesn't take more than a couple brain cells to understand that, although i do realize that's a couple more than most fucking republican ideologues have.

      Hopefully they'll be enough people with basic common sense to understand this and vote out all the lying piece of shit republicans so democrats can pull this country out of another mess the fascist republicans got us into.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    18. Re:Fall, really? by trout007 · · Score: 1

      The economy is just people freely
      Deciding how to spend their resources. Mainly time (work/leisure) and money (value of previous labor). The only thing governments can do to the natural pace is slow it down through taxes and regulations or speed it up temporarily via creating new money.

      So it is logically correct to blame them for hurting the economy and at the same time not give th credit for helping it. They can only help it by removing previous restrictions.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    19. Re:Fall, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So while the demand portion is a very normal market, the supply portion is in no way anything close to a free market. As such, it is quite reasonable to question whether a price change of oil or gasoline is due to typical market conditions or price manipulation."

      Yes, it is a legitimate question. But the answer is "both". OPEC can push the price a little. They can't completely control it because they aren't a monopoly. This was well demonstrated by the 1970s oil crisis, where OPEC tried to artificially drive the price up, succeeded, the global economy collapsed, followed by demand collapsing, and then the price was lower all through the 1980s as the world was in global recession and new production areas came on-line (e.g., the North Sea). They've learned their lesson and track the supply with the actual demand fairly closely. The best they can do is fiddle with probably the last 10-20% of the price.

    20. Re:Fall, really? by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

      Well, starting an invasion in the Middle East is certainly not going to lower gas prices...

    21. Re:Fall, really? by inthealpine · · Score: 1

      Obama can only be blamed for production on gov't land, which does account for nearly 50% of the land making up the US. Production on gov't land has gone down during the Obama administration and the perception Obama has put out is that the US will not be exploiting her resources.
      Can't blame any president for gas prices, but the office does play a role.

      --
      "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
    22. Re:Fall, really? by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      he can't really be blamed for their insane increase,

      - wrong. The trend in the oil prices is to go up, but it's not the oil that is getting more expensive, the opposite is true. Oil is getting cheaper, there is more supply than ever and the demand is lowest in 11 years.

      It's not the prices for oil that are going up, it's the currency that is being destroyed, devalued by printing, and this is directly related to the policy of the government to spend money and monetise the debts with loans and via central bank 'credit' (money printing).

      The blame for the rising prices of EVERYTHING is squarely on the shoulders of the governments that are destroying the fiat currencies, and USA is the primary mover there, because it doesn't produce anything but it likes to buy stuff that others produce (thus the huge monthly trade deficit), so USA prints, and then everybody else prints to 'catch up'.

      This is inflation, not oil supply/demand curve, and it's not speculation. Speculation discovers the prices, and now speculation is moving prices lower, speculation is a bet that in the future there will be more people with more money to buy the stuff or fewer people with less money to buy it, that's all speculation does.

      Inflation is the trend setter.

    23. Re:Fall, really? by inthealpine · · Score: 1

      You want to see frothing about gas prices look back at the Bush administration and how every media outlet and liberal hack, like yourself, blamed Bush all day long.
      The president can control perception on US oil exploration (US gov't owns much of the oil in the here), speculation is that US production will increase, prices go down. By your own logic the president DOES control some of the effects on prices.

      --
      "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
    24. Re:Fall, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I disagree, the President has been fighting a hostile GOP that won't even allow him to put into place conservative ideas. Obamacare? Well, that was about 90% GOP suggestions and all of the controversial ideas were from the GOP to start with.

      The GOP has yet to actually provide a plan for dealing with the current crisis that isn't more of the same and absolutely refuses to let the Democrats do anything that might help? And why might you ask? Because they're #1 priority isn't fixing the economy or bettering the country, their #1 priority is taking the Presidency back for white people.

    25. Re:Fall, really? by IICV · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight - you actually think that people will vote for Mitt Romney?

      Sure, Obama isn't the greatest president ever, but at least he's not a Mormon robot. Romney is the republican John Kerry, for goodness' sakes, and I just don't see him getting elected.

    26. Re:Fall, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we have Egypt, Israel, Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, gas price speculators, BP, and a whole slew of other bad actors to blame for that

      I know it's fashionable to blame "them Jews" for everything, but seriously?

    27. Re:Fall, really? by fsck1nhippies · · Score: 0

      ....which is exactly what the republicans in congress have been putting 100% of their effort into. Had those fucking pieces of shit actually been trying to help this country out of the recession instead of using it for a power play, everyone would be better off right now. It doesn't take more than a couple brain cells to understand that, although i do realize that's a couple more than most fucking republican ideologues have. Hopefully they'll be enough people with basic common sense to understand this and vote out all the lying piece of shit republicans so democrats can pull this country out of another mess the fascist republicans got us into.

      This is exactly what they should do. That political stalemate may annoy you and others that would love to see the country slide quickly to one side or the other, but is also the only good thing we have going for us right now. The problem is really in the fact that we have so many people that feel that anyone who doesn't share their feelings on a topic is a "dumbocrat", "libtard", "teabagger", or "republican warmonger" that we forget that the best thing about this country is everyone can have a difference of opinion. The fact that "not much is getting done in washington" is a good thing. The last time the democrats had a majority, the passed healthcare reform. The republicans gave massive tax breaks. Both of them hell bent on getting the rest of the country to agree with them. If they would only pass a budget and let the country know what is in store, I think their approval rating would go up quite a bit. Regulation is good. People argue that regulating the size of soft drinks will help obesity. Obesity costs people the country and its taxpayers money. This is just crazy. Why not regulate the length that people can cut their toenails. I bet the medical assistance programs see a lot of claims on ingrown nails. Why not mandate that everyone must back into their driveways so when they exit they can see the children playing on the road. Cutting taxes is good. Dropping them for everybody to the same level, not so good. Percentages don't really cut it when we have so many loopholes that allow people to avoid paying. Why not give tax incentives for people to reinvest in the country. We have some of these now, but they need to be broader. Unemployment benefits are good. Letting everyone skate through life because the government will take care of them is not. Why not reduce minimum wage to $3.00, create a standard of income, and drop unemployment benefits to 6 months. The state government subsidizes the individuals income up to the standard and the federal government gives a tax credit to that money spent by the business. That puts people back to work, gives cost effective labor to help keep product costs low, gives an incentive to hire the people, provides vocational rehabilitation to the people, and over time when the people begin to get raises to burden on the states and federal government are reduced. If the Federal government started offering those jobs, and did away with the top four tiers of the gs pay scale, we could probably afford to provide universal health coverage (not that we want it) to everyone. Unfortunately, nobody wants any of these things because they do not help them get re-elected. Democrats giving everything to everyone that wants it, Republicans doing the same. OWS' main purpose is to destroy that middle ground, the people that believe in liberty. How it should be; Start a forest fire(gun or campfire)? Pay up or government service. Can't get a job to pay taxes? Government service(and drug tests). Can't pay your mortgage? Lose your home. Arrested 3 times? Get 2 appeals each and then public hanging. We have become so accustomed to the lack of personal responsibility that we now need to regulate everything.

    28. Re:Fall, really? by CodeBuster · · Score: 2

      So let me get this straight - you actually think that people will vote for Mitt Romney?

      The temptation for many people will be to throw Obama out as long as Romney maintains a good family man image and doesn't do or say anything too crazy. The problem for the Obama campaign is that Romney actually does meet that standard. He's a successful business man and all around American dad with an attractive wife and a clean-cut family. He will appeal to middle of the road "family values" voters who are tired of the recession and Obama's east cost ivy league "elitist" attitude and quasi-socialist policies and rhetoric. They will want to give Obama the old heave-ho in November and all Romney has to do in the meantime is to stoke the fires of their discontent. Are they better off now than they were four years ago? For many of them the answer to that question is a resounding, "No", so come November they'll take that anger with them into the voting both. No need for expert political analysis and pollsters here; a blind man could foresee all of this.

    29. Re:Fall, really? by fsck1nhippies · · Score: 1

      I disagree, the President has been fighting a hostile GOP that won't even allow him to put into place conservative ideas. Obamacare? Well, that was about 90% GOP suggestions and all of the controversial ideas were from the GOP to start with.

      The GOP has yet to actually provide a plan for dealing with the current crisis that isn't more of the same and absolutely refuses to let the Democrats do anything that might help? And why might you ask? Because they're #1 priority isn't fixing the economy or bettering the country, their #1 priority is taking the Presidency back for white people.

      No plan to help the crisis? How about STOP TAXING PEOPLE AS MUCH AND PASS A BUDGET! Seems like a pretty good idea that was shot down by the senate and the president made a spectacle of it as well. Stop trying to push everything to a racial argument. The reason why they are not letting the democrats do anything is because there are a large number of people that believe that tax, spend, and regulate will not help the situation. You use the race card and talking point diversions to provide validity to an argument without ever addressing the point. You should take Carney's job (You should also stop posting as an anonymous coward). I do have to thank you for elaborating on my point that anyone who sees things different is in some way flawed. Way to be a robot! If you believe that either side has your best interests in mind, you are going to have a big wakeup call one day.

    30. Re:Fall, really? by fsck1nhippies · · Score: 1

      Worked on Carter

    31. Re:Fall, really? by Alomex · · Score: 1

      This is especially true with gas prices, inflation and unemployment.

      Actually this is particularly false with gas prices, as most polls showed at the time. That is why no other candidate piled on Newt's "lower gas prices" bandwagon. They were not getting traction.

      It is true when it comes to inflation and unemployment. Carter had a Volcker-caused recession and Reagan a Volcker-created jump start of the economy and in each case Carter and Reagan got the blame/credit as if they had personally destroyed/created every job.

    32. Re:Fall, really? by Alomex · · Score: 1

      No, I say it as if OPEC doesn't have the type of price control it used to have, and not anywhere near the price control it wishes it had.

      However you forget to mention that there is general agreement that over the last ten years, non-OPEC countries such as Mexico, Russia and Brazil had informally coordinated with OPEC in ways they never had before.

      Yes, OPEC doesn't have push button control over prices, but is a very important agent and it has managed to set prices close to the levels they have wanted for the last while.

    33. Re:Fall, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More partisan blinders blathering on /.? I'm shocked. Where were you when Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, were blaming "oil men" in the White House for "high gas prices" during the Bush years? You only like the argument because it's being made by the side you support. You're a simpleton and played like a cheap violin.

      Even the WA Post picked up the disparity in blame apportioned and assigned some of the reason to partisanship:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/a-double-standard-on-gas-prices/2012/03/29/gIQAVMHRjS_blog.html

    34. Re:Fall, really? by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      It's all Republicans blocking the Democrats from fixing the country, eh? That's what your post sounds like.

      You're just like the idealogues you criticize.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    35. Re:Fall, really? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Sanity.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    36. Re:Fall, really? by fsck1nhippies · · Score: 1

      That could not be in response to me??

    37. Re:Fall, really? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It wasn't in response to you, but if you feel you deserve it, go ahead and take it :)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    38. Re:Fall, really? by fsck1nhippies · · Score: 1

      Not anywhere close, I agree with you 100%

    39. Re:Fall, really? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      That is why no other candidate piled on Newt's "lower gas prices" bandwagon.

      No, the reason is because Newt was an idiot. It had nothing to do his specific wild claims on gas prices. Witness Cain's temporary immense popularity with his bullshit 9-9-9 "plan." People will believe anything a person says if they like a guy. The problem for Cain of course was his plan was complete bullshit and was quickly exposed as such, which destroyed his credibility.

      In Obama's case, he has lied to and ignored the American people time and time again the past four years, and by the time the vote rolls around will have been thoroughly exposed as the fraud and puppet he is. When Ron Paul faces him at the polls in November, he is fucked.

    40. Re:Fall, really? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight - you actually think that people will vote for Mitt Romney?

      Why do you automatically assume Romney will be the Republican nominee? He does not have enough delegates at this time to secure the nomination on the first round of voting. In fact, a large number of his delegates are suing the GOP as we speak to ensure they have the right to vote for whomever they want, i.e. Ron Paul, who himself currently has a much more sizeable chunk of delegates than the media is reporting.

    41. Re:Fall, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're doing exactly what Mitt Romney wants people to do: forget what things were actually like "four years ago."

      Hell yes, most people are better off now than they were four years ago.

      Four years ago, the economy was in free-fall. Four years ago we were losing 700K jobs a month, with no sign of the bottom.

    42. Re:Fall, really? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Admittedly, the Democrats basically had about 9 months (out of 6 year Senatorial terms and 2-year Representative terms in a 4-year Presidential term) when they actually controlled enough seats in both the House and the Senate to pass their agenda over the filibusters (which have become routine, against all prior wish and Constitutional intent) of the Republican minority. So blaming Republicans for their open and professed obstruction tactics makes a lot of good sense, actually.

      Now, whether the Democratic agenda really would have helped the country all that much, that's another question. Personally, I feel like having the center-right in power instead of the far-right isn't much of an accomplishment.

    43. Re:Fall, really? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      East Coast Ivy League? That's what they're throwing at Obama? Didn't Romney go to freaking Harvard?

      In 2004 we had Yale versus Yale. In 2008, Harvard versus US Naval Academy. Now, Harvard versus Harvard. Now I like my academic elitism, but if you don't, I recommend voting for someone who didn't go to the Ivy League, ever.

    44. Re:Fall, really? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      No, it was actually quite stunning to see the incompetence of the democratic party, in their inability to get anything reasonable passed with such a large majority. Even Bush was able to do better than that.

      Blaming republican flibustering is just a way to distract from the incredible incompetence of one of the parties to come up with a healthcare plan that would be popular.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    45. Re:Fall, really? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      You're right. I'm right. They're not mutually exclusive. The Dems are "incompetent" (scare-quotes because I swear they're doing it deliberately) and the Repubs are evil. Sum the two and you get 90% evil.

    46. Re:Fall, really? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Is it evil to follow you constituency? Then surely Dems are evil for voting to support the Iraq war when Bush wanted them to.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    47. Re:Fall, really? by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Extracting oil is not expensive. It's about $5 per barrel.

  4. Experts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You say expert. I say idiot. No one predicts gas prices right. Except for maybe: Spring forward in the spring, fall back in the fall (sounds familiar...).

    There you go. Anything in between is wildly inaccurate.

  5. Meh! by Nethead · · Score: 2

    I live on the west coast you inconsiderate bastard!

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    1. Re:Meh! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The prices on the West Coast are the choice of the voters, for good or ill.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Meh! by Nethead · · Score: 3, Funny

      We voted to have the fire at the Cherry Point refinery? I missed that one.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    3. Re:Meh! by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Funny

      We voted to have the fire at the Cherry Point refinery? I missed that one.

      See what happens when you forget to vote?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  6. Where are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the Right is ominously silent. They couldn't talk about it enough when prices were high.

    1. Re:Where are they? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Standard operating procedure. Suddenly finding whatshisface in contempt is the most earth-shatteringly-important thing happening right now.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:Where are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, soon enough it'll be all about how Obama is colluding with terrorists for cheap Terror-Oil, in a bid to fund another attack before the election, or something equally absurd. Lord only knows the dim-witted conservatard fucks can't lap that shit up fast enough.

    3. Re:Where are they? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      See, it's already working. Heh.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    4. Re:Where are they? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I could ask you that. When the prices go up, it's O's fault. But when they go down....

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  7. In other words by godrik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Experts have no clue what will happen and guess like everybody.

    1. Re:In other words by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Well they sure don't have any clue. I agree with that, but back a few years ago when oil was $80/BBL we were paying around $0.82/L for fuel here in Canada. It's still right up around $1.19 where I live. Of course, now that the provincial government(which is the liberal party) allowed two companies to buyout the majority of the distributors I'm sure you can figure out what's happened.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:In other words by green1 · · Score: 1

      Price per litre in Canada trended upwards with the price of oil right until about $1.20/L (at about $120/barrel) then the price of oil fell and the price of gas... well... that never really falls. And don't blame the provincial government either, it's the same in all provinces. You can't really blame the federal government either though, because they don't have much of a hand in it. Unless you count their continued refusal to investigate price fixing by the major gas station chains... (Funnily enough, every time they actually do investigate they find the chains guilty, but they usually refuse to investigate)

    3. Re:In other words by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
      "It's the economy, stupid".

      Plus the speculators have given up.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    4. Re:In other words by Idbar · · Score: 2

      Indeed. I can read two point extrapolations too: if the slope is negative is going down, if it's positive it goes up, and if it's zero I keep my mouth shut.

    5. Re:In other words by khallow · · Score: 1

      You'd make a lousy economist. Two point extrapolation is a complex process with a lot of subtle considerations. But to summarize crudely, you say what your sponsors, the people writing your paychecks, want you to say. And if things don't turn out the way you said, then it's a surprising and unexpected deviation from your sophisticated economic models which warrants further study. Or whatever.

    6. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Experts have no clue what will happen and guess like everybody.

      I read an article once (wish I had the link) that talked about a study which showed that in general, experts’ forecasts are no better than flipping a coin. Experts were however much better in their guesses than non-experts, who did much worse than random.

  8. Saudi Arabia by ihatewinXP · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Saudi Arabia is currently flooding the oil market to drive down prices in an attempt to destabilize the economies and governments of Syria and Iran and weaken their broker Russia.

    More or less anything else that might be conjured up to explain this precipitous drop (aside from a worldwide recession that is driving down consumption and demand) is just nonsense. This is an odd byproduct of economic warfare. My only question is looking for the bottom so I can maximize returns after this economic war turns into a shooting one.

    --
    ---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
    1. Re:Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bullshit. Barrack Obama *personally* lowered gas prices though sheer fiat of will. Newt Gingrich was going to do it if he got the Republican nomination, but he lost to Romney. Barack decided to just go ahead and do it since Michelle is busy with her book tour. Note that Mitt Romney doesn't have the power to make gas prices rise and fall--only Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich have this power--Mitt's magic underwear prevents it.

      Newt gets his power from sucking the souls of the babies of the poor. Barack's power source is just sheer awesomeness.

      This "supply and demand" stuff is just a big pile of bullshit, just like science, economics and compassion. That's why the Republicans don't believe in any of it. They just use "common sense".

    2. Re:Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, this has no relation to half the OPEC countries just having major changes of leadership. Oh, I forgot, anything other than your pet theory is "just nonsense" right... sorry.

    3. Re:Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USA and Saudi Arabia has agreements, including undisclosed ones. They might be acting together.

    4. Re:Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When gas prices are high it's because of Barack Obama's failed policies. When gas prices are lower it's because of market forces and deregulation.

    5. Re:Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Major changes also are initiated by USA agents, and Saudi Arabia is major partner of USA. BTW, when it comes to partnership, USA forgets about lack of democracy.

    6. Re:Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you're getting it!! You could get a job at Fox News with skillz like those!

    7. Re:Saudi Arabia by samkass · · Score: 1

      One factor you forgot: natural gas. A *lot* of cheap natural gas is coming online right now in the United States, displacing oil in electricity, industry, and home heating needs. Oil's "competition" isn't "no oil", it's natural gas, and it has to get cheaper to compete. Combine that with China's growth slowing, Europe slowly imploding, and certain oil-producing nations needing some cash (I'd put more weight on Venezuela and their election than Saudi Arabia and their interests), and yeah, you get cheap(er) oil.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    8. Re:Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No I think everyone realizes this is some sort of artificial manipulation of the market.
      There is no reason on earth for gas prices to be dropping during their peak period and the turmoil going on in all the countries that produce it.

      Fishy.

    9. Re:Saudi Arabia by mjwx · · Score: 1

      My only question is looking for the bottom so I can maximize returns after this economic war turns into a shooting one.

      Buy stocks in munitions companies.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    10. Re:Saudi Arabia by zaft · · Score: 1

      Not really. Almost no oil is used for electrical generation. We had a very warm winter in the NE US which is about the only area of the country that uses oil for heating. Cheap natural gas is mostly being used for electrical generation and industry (esp. feed stocks for plastics).

    11. Re:Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What portion of the OP has anything to do with deregulation?

      It makes perfect sense that Saudi Arabia--a nation that fears a nuclear Iran, and that will remain rich regardless--would abuse its oil reserves to hurt Iran. Similarly, a destabilized Syria hurts the region, as well as increases the chances of similar riots in the non-democratic kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

      In addition, oil speculation was likely to further drive down the price of oil because of the down economies across the globe.

    12. Re:Saudi Arabia by M1FCJ · · Score: 2

      Not at all. The prices are driven by the long-term speculators. The speculators banked on a war between Iran and US which would bring the Arabian Gulf production to almost a standstill and drive the petrol prices rocket high. The war (so far) has not happened. The economic recovery in Europe has not happened, UK and many other European countries are going through a dual-dip recession (i.e., we're fucked) and there's not enough business to go around. Everyone is making savings, driving less, driving shorter, do stuff over the phone / internet instead of shipping someone around. Families stay at home, they don't have money to spend as if it was a decade ago. Everyone is selling their old clunkers and buying more efficient cars, diesels if they can, all over 45-50mpg. Even Chinese economy is not growing as fast as it was a couple of years ago because less people can afford to buy stuff.

      All of this reduces the global prices, you guys get a free lunch out of it. Enjoy.

    13. Re:Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, so you must be another of those clueless Obama supporters. Time to wake up and smell the lies coming out of the whitehouse...that "awesomeness" isn't any more than incompetence to Obama's presidential abilities. We're not in 2008 any more, get out of your Hopium&Changium stupor and see how the US is rapidly declining, thanks much to Obama. Thing is, you probably think everything is ok, just as good little sheeple would think. Wake up sheeple!

    14. Re:Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Arabian Gulf ...

      404: The Gulf you are looking for has never existed, and still does not exist except in your head.

    15. Re:Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRT gasoline (rather than crude) prices, the industry is also generally in oversupply of refining and transportation capacity.

    16. Re:Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, It is all Obama's fault.

      - climbs into bunker and seals hatch -

      Oh wait, this is not CNN/Fox/MSNBC. D'oh

    17. Re:Saudi Arabia by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Could another possible explanation be the fact that a significant portion of trade has moved from USD based to Euro based, and the poor performance of the Euro recently is pulling the USD price down?

  9. Continues to fall until... by PNutts · · Score: 1

    Until the week of July 4th. Then they'll drop until Labor Day weekend. Halloween is a good holiday to go for a drive, except for the egg thing.

    1. Re:Continues to fall until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they'll drop until Election Day. Election Day is a good holiday to go for a drive, except for voting for the lesser of two evils thing.

  10. Gas prices peak in the late spring by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, gas prices peak in the late spring around Memorial Day. Refineries have less capacity in May as they transition from making home heating oil in the winter to summer gasoline blends. Last winter was one of the mildest on record, so less home heating oil was needed. Also, cheap natural gas and popular migration to warmer areas of the country are leading to less use of home heating oil in the northeast. So refineries were able to stop making home heating oil earlier than normal this year. The gas price spike happened earlier in the year than normal, at a time that coincided with Iranian sabre-rattling about closing down the Persian Gulf. Now, as TFA mentions, weak economic growth worldwide is holding down demand, and prices are dropping.

    Why does anyone listen to stupid news reports predicting future gas prices anyway? You only get on the news by predicting extreme change or extreme hardship. When you say it will be about the same as always, there's (magically) no air time available for that report. This goes for all predictions that masquerade as news. Predictions are not news, and no one know the future. Stop listening to them.

    1. Re:Gas prices peak in the late spring by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Damn straight, buddy.

    2. Re:Gas prices peak in the late spring by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      With all the business news sources doing their "Chicken LIttle" routine of saying that a European sovereign debt default will crash the economy, no wonder why everyone is closing their pocketbooks and conserving liquid assets like mad--all done out of fear. That's why the price of gasoline is nosediving--the demand has dropped through the floor.

    3. Re:Gas prices peak in the late spring by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      smartest poster in the room

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  11. Election season by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Incumbent qualifies for another term... Need i say more?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Election season by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incumbent qualifies for another term... Need i say more?

      I was about to post the same thing. this always happens around election time. it'll shoot up just as high again after the elections are over.

    2. Re:Election season by fermion · · Score: 1
      Gas prices probably don't effect the election that much. During Bush II gas prices pretty much increased continuously from the low of around $2 to a high around $3.50. As has been publicized greatly, the prices fell during the election year, but McCain still lost even though he could claim the Republicans gave us lower gas prices. This is of course not true as Clinton gave us the lowest gas prices, maybe ever, yet Gore lost. Now if you take the Bush low and compare it to the Obama high, it looks like Obama significantly increased gas prices. Which is not true. Bush just happened to leave office when prices were falling. In fact Bush doubled gas prices.Right now gas prices a little below the Bush high.

      Which makes not difference because the battle is really being fought over who is going to provide low skilled private sector job and semi-skilled high paying government jobs. Through loss regulation and war, bush provided these jobs. Obama, through the reduction of government and enforcement of regulation, is killing these jobs. If you have a government job, or a unskilled job, you are screwed right now. Skilled educated workers, and has been stated by the president, has no trouble finding a job. Which is where Romney comes in. More government jobs through the military machine, he wants to increase the military budget to a statuary percentage of the GDP, as well as push 18th century technology instead of new initiatives. Where would we be if candles were subsidized because people are afraid of the incandescent light bulb. Where are we going to be if incandescents continue to waste our resources because people are afraid of CFL. Romney could win on this along with the fact that he is a white man of mexican descent.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:Election season by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you should: what exactly do you think happened? That Obama opened the strategic reserve? That he magically got a supply of oil from somewhere? That he regulated the gas industry until their prices went down?

      The natural explanation is to look at the supply and demand, and realize prices have gone down as a result. What sort of conspiracy are you thinking of?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  12. We need demand destruction. by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Demand destruction benefits the US enormously. We now export gasoline and now care about fuel economy.

    Use less fuel, keep more of your money.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:We need demand destruction. by NewYork · · Score: 1

      US is exporting inflation to rest of the world.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma

  13. Re:Now the question is by dmbasso · · Score: 2

    Too late, the AC before you already did that.

    But the real point here is: economists continue to have no clue about the economy, yet are still taken in consideration for policies. What about asking some astrologers too?

    [I'm overgeneralizing, but how to find the REAL economists, not the clueless ones?]

    --
    `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
  14. Not in my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much of this is due to currency fluctuations? The US dollar has risen in value against many other currencies lately, particularly against the euro. Since we're valuing oil in USD couldn't this be largely due to the USD value going up relatively?

    Your dollar is buying more so imported goods seem cheaper.

  15. Oil prices fall until after the election... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    after which the Saudis stop over-pumping. Before that, however, the "wall of oil" (http://www.safehaven.com/article/24788/saudi-arabia-aims-to-deliver-wall-of-oil-to-us-) promised by the Saudis has brought prices down enough to give a mild boost to the economy which insures Obama's re-election.

    Fundamentally, nothing's changed. The amount of oil in the continental USA and the Gulf are still relatively trivial. We are and always will be dependent of foreign oil to maintain our current standard of living. This is a blip. Diminishing supply, and more importantly, lousy energy return on the world's remaining oil guarantee higher prices over time.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Oil prices fall until after the election... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I suspect the primary reason for Saudis to do that is to destabilize Iran (which relies on oil as one of the two biggest exports to prop its economy, the other one being natural gas). That it also helps Obama is probably a convenient but minor side effect.

  16. Price dropped $0.50 in 3 months? by CompComp · · Score: 2

    Experts Agree: With this trend, by this time next year gas will cost $1.50, and 2 years from now, they'll be paying US $0.50 to take away a gallon of gas!

    1. Re:Price dropped $0.50 in 3 months? by green1 · · Score: 2

      Mandatory XKCD
      http://xkcd.com/605/

  17. This is not new, guys by Khyber · · Score: 0

    Did everyone already forget our current Administration saying they'd try getting gas prices below $2.50/gal by election time?

    Ahem, it's election year, folks. Pay attention.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:This is not new, guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did everyone already forget our current Administration saying they'd try getting gas prices below $2.50/gal by election time?

      Bullshit. Nobody in the Obama administration with any credibility with the media EVER said ANYTHING like that.

      Newt Gingrich made some promises that sounded like that, though.

    2. Re:This is not new, guys by ewieling · · Score: 1

      Did everyone already forget our current Administration saying they'd try getting gas prices below $2.50/gal by election time?

      Please cite your source.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    3. Re:This is not new, guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      He confusing Barack Obama with Newt Gingrich. Easy mistake. I do it all the time. Black people look alike to me.

    4. Re:This is not new, guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mod points expired last night :*-(... gold Jerry gold.

    5. Re:This is not new, guys by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Ahem, it's election year, folks. Pay attention.

      Hah!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  18. Quick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone claim Republicans successfully destroyed the Communist Muslim Obama's plan to force us into capitulating to the Brown People over yonder.

    In other news, Presidents don't control the price of gas.

  19. what would help keep it this way by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Why the hell won't Obama make an executive order making it illegal to invest speculatively (so basically at all) in gasoline and oil? That would solve half the problem right there. It's a pretty damn direct path from my pocket book at the gas station to some asshole investor's portfolio balance when they buy up a bunch of gas just because they think it will go up and that makes it go up even more. It's a non-congress, simple executive order caliber thing and it really does sound like something that would be inline with his politics. Hopefully he reads slashdot lol.

    1. Re:what would help keep it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does an executive order prevent speculation in other markets, such as the London stock exchange?

      Traders will switch markets.

    2. Re:what would help keep it this way by repapetilto · · Score: 2

      No that would solve nothing, you have never speculated on anything in your life. Stop talking about things you know nothing about.

      Go find the correlation between Gas price and Gold price. It is steady since the 70s, you'll find pearson's R is above .90. It is all inflation/deflation.

    3. Re:what would help keep it this way by repapetilto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sorry R^2 is above 0.90. Pearsons R between average gas price at the pump in the US vs Gold/oz from Jan 1976 to Feb 2012 is 0.833. And pearson's R assumes a the most simple (linear) relationship. This has likely only become stronger recently. You can look at what gold and gas prices have done recently on your own.

    4. Re:what would help keep it this way by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Well, I messed up the math but whatever (I have my reasons for failing), there is a strong correlation.

    5. Re:what would help keep it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Could turn it around and say why didn't Bush make an executive order to end speculation.

      Purpose of the speculators it to create the market. The speculators will buy contracts and sell them to refiners at the end of the term (I don't know the right terminology sorry). Problem is there is so much speculation that the price is highly elastic wrt actual demand.

      One suggestion I read was to force the speculators to take delivery of the crude when the term is up. Point is to make it so that speculators would have to build and pay for storage which would increase the overhead to do delivery. But the speculators were already doing this -- renting supertankers to store crude and have them sit out in the ocean or building storage facilities. Financial institutions are doing this. The only reason they will stop is if they get burned bad through the speculation, but you just know they'll research what went wrong and come back and try even harder the next time.

      There is no good solution. You have to believe in the free market to deliver a fair price in the long term.

    6. Re:what would help keep it this way by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      George W. Bush got the price of gas down to $1.80/gallon when he left office

      Yes, that's one consequence of letting the economy crash by removing all the safety barriers, then refusing to pay attention to all the warnings because he was on vacation all of the time.
      I can see a trend - the extremists in the Republican party want someone far crazier than Reagan at his worst and lazier than Bush when he was asleep. I'm sure they'll do a "heck of a job".

    7. Re:what would help keep it this way by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

      Why the hell won't Obama make an executive order making it illegal to invest speculatively (so basically at all) in gasoline and oil?

      Because the instant he did it, he'd be hauled into court for 'overstepping his authority' and rightly so. There's a reason why the federal government was meant to be relatively weak, it was to keep the tyranny of the minority to a minimum and stop the various states from exporting their various stupidities nationwide.

      Course, ol' Honest Abe said 'We'll see about that, now, won't we?'

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    8. Re:what would help keep it this way by codepunk · · Score: 2

      "Because the instant he did it, he'd be hauled into court for 'overstepping his authority' and rightly so"

      That does not seem to be slowing him or his administration so far.

      --


      Got Code?
    9. Re:what would help keep it this way by bosef1 · · Score: 1

      I agree. I understand how speculation based on short-selling can have negative consequences in the stock market; but I've not heard anyone explain how speculation, especially of the regular "buy low, sell high" type, has negative consequences in the commodities market. I can see how you could occasionally have a commodities "bubble", but that wouldn't be different than in any other market.

    10. Re:what would help keep it this way by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Every president since LBJ has been nudging the system. Nobody's really blatantly come out and tried for a total power grab yet. They're content for now to keep nudging it in the direction they want it to go, to completely give ultimate poewr to the presidency and the executive branch. You can pass all the laws you want, hold all the show trials you want, but at the end of the day, when you have the cops and the troops working for you, who's gonna stop you?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    11. Re:what would help keep it this way by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      If you outlaw/regulate short-selling it basically means the price will be more likely to rise. This is artificial. Eventually it will crash, and the crash will be much more extreme than if shortselling was allowed the entire time. Then the crash will be blamed on "speculators". Interestingly enough if short selling in a market is banned/discouraged usually a government is investing in that market.

    12. Re:what would help keep it this way by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, people who think in the same terms you do are the problem.

    13. Re:what would help keep it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell won't Obama make an executive order making it illegal to invest speculatively (so basically at all) in gasoline and oil?

      Because 1) That'd be contrary to the wishes of the elite 2) It'd be highly unpopular for the State to limit economic interests that way 3) The media would eat him alive.

      tl;dr: Because he isn't suicidal.

    14. Re:what would help keep it this way by dbIII · · Score: 1

      How?
      Advocating that a leader should actually lead is in what way part of the problem?

    15. Re:what would help keep it this way by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      When talking about politics, mentioning the terms republican or democrat is becoming obsolete. They are the same where it matters.

    16. Re:what would help keep it this way by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      In part because, while speculation that oil prices are going to rise causes oil prices to rise sooner, it also causes oil prices to not rise as far when the event that causes the price spike actually happens. Additionally, oil speculators cause oil prices to start falling sooner as well. Basically, if he was able to actually outlaw oil price speculation, it would make matters worse, not better.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    17. Re:what would help keep it this way by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Not being from the USA I understand very clearly that in other places they would just be factions of the same party, however the word "extremes" should have been the clue that I'm not just mindlessly cheering for either team.

    18. Re:what would help keep it this way by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Investment in oil futures is important for people who consume oil to allow them to be able to even out price fluctuations. You cannot outlaw this.

      However Obama has requested regulatory changes.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/9209891/Barack-Obama-cracks-down-on-oil-traders.html

      However oil is a global market; any regulation in the US is not going to have a material effect on world trade in a commodity like this.

      The idea that the US President can affect oil prices is utterly laughable. Anyone saying such a thing needs a good slap on the side of the head for stupidity.

    19. Re:what would help keep it this way by amorsen · · Score: 2

      Speculation is what allows to deal with problems before they get REALLY bad. Would you have preferred gas prices to stay at $30 until the moment where demand can't be met, with a sudden jump to $200? Complete with a drop straight back when the Western economy collapses because people can't afford to drive to work?

      Speculators make sure that we know of the problem while we still have some leverage to fix it. Improvements in energy efficiency get profitable earlier, and as long as a price hike is only speculative, there are various options for dealing with it. Once you hit the actual production limits, there is not much you can do if you haven't prepared.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    20. Re:what would help keep it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look! It's a partisanly convenient memory that attacks Republicans on /.

      I'm sure you mean to refer to the Depression-era banking regulation "Glass-Steagall Act" as one of those "safety barrier." It was Democrat Bill Clinton who signed legislation to "modernize" banking and remove those protections back in 1999. The best friend of "modernizing" banking in the 1990s was Chuck Schumer, Democrat Senator from NY.

    21. Re:what would help keep it this way by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      I was being a dick, sorry. Don't drink and slashdot.

    22. Re:what would help keep it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, he did oversee $6/gallon gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Hurricane_Katrina), the largest loss of wealth our nation has ever experienced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market_crash_of_2008), started 2 un-winnable wars, helped export or eliminate a few million jobs. But he was the kinda of guy you would want to have a beer with, and stocks were really cheap when he left office.

  20. Re:Now the question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Complaint: Gas isn't delivered free to my car every morning by a government employee.

    And if that did happen, then it'd be the Government is stifling the free market by providing it through taxes or something.

    Heaven help them if the Water Car was ever real.

    It's not, but if it were to be developed, by government-funded research, they'd cry about the massive unemployment.

    (No, Ayn Rand devotees, you aren't the only ones who can make up such situations!)

  21. put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so is the gas price cheap compared to a year ago? two years? what about 5 years? yeah.. It's sad but gas prices are so high that even a $0.50 drop is not very meaningful.

  22. Re:Now the question is by bky1701 · · Score: 1

    "It's not, but if it were to be developed, by government-funded research, they'd cry about the massive unemployment."

    Don't worry. They'd sell the taxpayer funded research to the highest bidder, to allow them to strangle the market for the technology with patents. There would be no need for any worry about post-scarcity economics, since we have already shown that scarcity will be legally enforced by those who currently profit from it if it ceases to exist. That's why we have copyright.

  23. I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Will those people who put signs up at gas pumps blaming Obama for rising gas prices put up signs giving him credit for the drop in prices?
    Because the US President clearly has a whole hell of a lot of control over the price of a global commodity.

    1. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all Obama's fault that these gas prices are dropping! He's ruining the small gas station business owners! They're Job Creators(tm)!

  24. 3.38 in ME today by Frederic54 · · Score: 0

    not bad I think, especially for my 7MPG vehicle!

    --
    "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
  25. As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... an "expert" is just a drip under pressure.

  26. the day after election day by JustNiz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No matter who wins, the day after election day it will go right back up again and then some.

  27. Always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this not *always* happen during an election year?

  28. California by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

    Cheapest in my area (central coast California) is $3.85/gl and the California state average is $3.83/gl. Trending down, but still much higher than national average.

    Overall, sustained higher prices will benefit the US in the long term. It's putting upward pressure on fuel economy so we're finally making progress catching up with the rest of the world. We have a long way to go still but it's improving. Electric cars are just starting to become viable for the American worker's commute, now price just needs to come down. They are still over twice the price of the ICE versions.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    1. Re:California by DamienNightbane · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, here between Houston and Texas City, my local gas station is at $3.12/gal and drops several times a week.

    2. Re:California by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      California requires a gasoline blend that is only available in California, Nevada, and Arizona. Small wonder why prices are high here, but the price is still dropping like crazy (the station near my house was charging US$4.15/US gallon a few months ago and now about to drop it fo US$3.65/US gallon very soon).

    3. Re:California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody touts the benefits, but what of the consequences? A fender bend costing 3500 to replace the bumper because it shattered due to being made of light weight plastic. The rear view camera that costs 650, the

  29. California Gas Prices by billstewart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    California's gas prices are always a bit higher because we have about 50 cents more tax per gallon than most states - but it mostly goes to road maintenance, and otherwise it would just be built into the income tax or sales tax (which are also very high, but that's a separate problem.)

    The other issue is that California requires somewhat special mixes of gasoline to reduce pollution, and that means there's less flexible supply chasing our demand, so we're likely to have higher prices and higher variability than states that let you burn anything. It's arguable how much of that is necessary - we could probably have more flexible definitions of low-pollution gas that would still keep our air clean, especially since car engines are more efficient and cleaner today than 10 or 20 years ago. (With my old telecommuter-friendly car, I also noticed that I consistently got about 10% worse mileage with winter gas than summer gas, though I'm not sure if my current car is as sensitive.)

    By the way, if you're buying a new car, expect to spend about $1M / YourMPG on gas over the lifetime of the car. It'll last about 200K-250K miles, and gas will cost $4-5 much of that time, so you'll end up spending $20K if you buy a 50mpg Prius, or $50K if you buy a 20mpg car. (Your miles per year don't affect the total, just the variance - you can burn up your car in 5 years or keep it around for 20, you're still buying the same amount of gas before it dies. If you sell the car while it's still working, obviously the gas cost gets pro-rated.) I figure my current 30-33mpg car will cost me about $30-33K in gas, so $10-13K more than a Prius (which would have cost about $8K more to buy.)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:California Gas Prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How about the 1990 Honda Accord that got one million miles and over 30 mpg?

    2. Re:California Gas Prices by Quila · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I figure my current 30-33mpg car will cost me about $30-33K in gas, so $10-13K more than a Prius (which would have cost about $8K more to buy.)

      Does that count the couple battery replacements the Prius will likely need during that lifetime?

    3. Re:California Gas Prices by Alex+Zepeda · · Score: 4, Informative

      Considering that the total tax for on the road gasoline in California is less than fifty cents a gallon, you might want to check your numbers. That's combined state and federal excise taxes as well as a variety of other fees added by the state.

      http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-gasoline-tax-rates-january-1-2012

      --
      The revolution will be mocked
    4. Re:California Gas Prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California also requires gasoline sold in-state be refined in-state, which bumps up the price, too.

    5. Re:California Gas Prices by FlipperPA · · Score: 1

      Slightly OT, but California is doing a great thing. I used to be IT Director for a company which did environmental testing of gas stations for compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. All states (some better than others) follow California's environmental need. CARB, the California Air Resources Board, has done more to ensure gas stations (at least) don't do nasty things like spill gasoline into the water table any more, and have good vapor recovery systems in place than any other entity I can think of. They're sort of the opposite of the schill filled and lobbyist group, the PEI. If you want to see a news story about a virtual environment I designed showing how VR systems work for training our new employees (yes, in Second Life, I know ), I've got it up here: http://www.peregrinesalon.com/blog/2007/02/wfmz-feature-crompcos-innovation-in-virtual-worlds/

      Cheers.

    6. Re:California Gas Prices by Mistlefoot · · Score: 2

      You are looking at up to $3.60 per gallon in L.A right now per gasbuddy.com.

      California, per the link you provided charges $0.48 per gallon tax PLUS 7.5% state sales tax plus 2% local tax in many areas. "May include" does not mean "does include".

      http://www.caltax.org/research/calrank.html

      The state tax portion adds $0.27 to the tax and the 2% another $0.07 for a total tax of between $0.75 and $0.82 in California.

      Per you link which shows most States with no sales tax to be added and taxes of under $0.30 per gallon, you are validating the grandparents claim that the tax is $0.50/gallon higher....

    7. Re:California Gas Prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the second time in a week I've seen schill. Stop it already, before all the wogs start copying it.

    8. Re:California Gas Prices by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      Your miles per year do matter quite a lot, because no car is going to last 70 years just because you don't drive it much. For example my car is under 60K miles, but it's a 1998 with rust issues and I doubt it'll live to 100K since I've been driving about 3K/yr lately. To get 200K miles out of a car before it dies of old age you have to do a ton of driving.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    9. Re:California Gas Prices by Garnaralf · · Score: 1

      We're at 3.64/gal here in Milford, CT. And no, we're not some hick town either. We're right on I-95, the NY to Boston Corridor.

    10. Re:California Gas Prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think this guys has any sources for his info.

      Interesting, but I think it's mostly misinformation, to be honest.

    11. Re:California Gas Prices by Alex+Zepeda · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you even bother to read, well, anything other than your bullshit tea bagger propaganda? The link you provided is nothing but failed reading comprehension and awful scare tactics. High property taxes even with Prop. 13? Two percent of a McMansion in Malibu is still going to be a lot more than a twenty percent tax levied on a yurt in Oklahoma. Blame big government. lawl.

      The link I provided broke out the taxes into excise and other taxes. So that's state+federal excise taxes plus other things like "environmental fees, storage tank taxes, other fees or taxes, and general sales tax" for a combined rate of forty-eight and six tenths cents per gallon. That's also based on the API's February 2012 prices.

      If you want to look at the link that you provided, go ahead. The fear mongers come up with higher numbers that aren't directly comparable to the ones I provided. Look at the API data the tea baggers use. California's at 69.0 cents (same #2 rank) per gallon, with an average of 49.5 cents. Per the link you posted, including DC, the only state with less than 30 cents per gallon in combined taxes is Alaska.

      So, no California does not charge fifty cents more per gallon of unleaded gasoline in taxes than most states.

      --
      The revolution will be mocked
    12. Re:California Gas Prices by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Please mod funny not insightful. Everyone knows the packs last the life of the car, guaranteed like forever, and the cost of a pack is a bit less than your rounding error above. This is a topic near and dear to my heart as my wife's Prius is nearing the end of its aesthetic life, trashed internally, dinged out externally, its really showing signs of age, and sooner or later I'll have to replace the car. Battery failures are extremely rare, so I'm not concerned about that.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    13. Re:California Gas Prices by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      no car is going to last 70 years just because you don't drive it much

      That's news to a lot of antique car owners. You drive a 14 year old car and you've put less than 60K on it? Maybe you need to get out a bit more. I've had my pickup truck for about 9 months and have already put 24K miles on it.

    14. Re:California Gas Prices by Junta · · Score: 2

      my wife's Prius is nearing the end of its aesthetic life

      Curious as to how long you think a car should last. In our household, we have a 1999 vehicle with no plans to replace in the near future (no significant mechanical issues that drive repair cost higher than its worth. While you might live in Japan or have imported on older Prius, I doubt your prius is as old as '99. Some of us amortize the cost of our vehicles over a longer period of time.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    15. Re:California Gas Prices by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      You should also consider the Nissan "Leaf".

      Net cost of ownership after 8 years comes out to about $16k after federal tax credits and gasoline savings.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    16. Re:California Gas Prices by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Batteries will be at 80% capacity after 8 years.

      The nasty thing is the feedback loop.

      Say electric cars become popular.

      As a result, the price of gasoline will fall.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    17. Re:California Gas Prices by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      GST wouldn't be included in those numbers as it is a percentage of the total, not on a per-gallon basis. Ref. http://www.boe.ca.gov/sptaxprog/tax_rates_stfd.htm#9f.

      That puts the total tax on gasoline at about $0.84 in California, and the delta to Alaska would be close to $0.50.

      Relative to national averages though, I agree it is less than a $0.25-30 difference.

      Not that I really give a shit... I ride my bike.

    18. Re:California Gas Prices by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      With kroger discount, paying $2.41 to $2.90 a gallon in texas.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    19. Re:California Gas Prices by billstewart · · Score: 1

      No, nor does it count the new engine my old Chevy van needed after 110K miles :-) Nor does it count the ridiculously overpriced headlights for my Chrysler that it needed because the lenses aren't separately replaceable, nor the paint job it's going to need because the shiny black paint isn't very sturdy and wears off. Nor whatever surprises Kia has in mind for me. Obviously repairs and quality issues are going to affect lots of things.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    20. Re:California Gas Prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the environmental cost of recycling that which has lost its aesthetic value (no doubt due to poor care by its owner)?

    21. Re:California Gas Prices by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      We're at 3.64/gal here in Milford, CT. And no, we're not some hick town either. We're right on I-95, the NY to Boston Corridor.

      You know...I couldn't actually tell you what the cost of gas is here. I just never look...gas is a necessity of my life, have to have it to drive to work, shop, etc. So, I just drive to the pump....grab the premium gas (turbo car)...fill it, and leave. I don't even look at the price really.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    22. Re:California Gas Prices by Toonol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "...aesthetic life...".

      Good lord. Some times I wonder if humanity deserves to live. Should a species that has a concept such as a car 'nearing the end of its aesthetic life' survive?

    23. Re:California Gas Prices by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Four cylinder? Even and especially if it's a V6.....feels fucking fantastic having all that power and getting 25-30+ MPG all day long, doesn't it? (Except when you hit the gas of course....lol.)

      Mustang SVO owner here, not giving a rat's ass what fuel costs.

    24. Re:California Gas Prices by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      You bring up a very good point. When people compare electric cars to gas cars (prius is a hybrid, but bear with me), they tend to compare gas prices vs battery replacement costs. What they forget, is that other than the batteries, electric cars have WAY less maintenance costs. There is no engine oil to replace, no exaust system to rust out, no piston rings to wear out, no alternator to die suddenly, no spark plugs to clog up, no head gasket to leak, etc. Electric cars have less maintenance because they are just simpler. Unless there is a manufacturer's defect, batteries are basically the only maintenance the drive-train of an electric car will ever need.

    25. Re:California Gas Prices by Quila · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows the packs last the life of the car, guaranteed like forever, and the cost of a pack is a bit less than your rounding error above.

      Parent referenced 200,000 - 250,000 mile life of the car. Battery is warrantied for 100,000 miles, 150,000 miles in CA. Under this scenario, replacement on your own dime is a definite possibility. Replacement cost including labor is $3,000-$4,000. So if it dies, hope it dies just before your warranty ends or you're likely to have to pay for a new one yourself if you keep the car that long.

    26. Re:California Gas Prices by Quila · · Score: 1

      Say electric cars become popular.

      I like the idea of electric cars. You have to worry about the battery and electric motors. That's about it. No gasoline, fuel pumps, engine oil, transmission oil, air filters, oil filters, large cooling system, reciprocating parts that wear, etc. No engine system to have to repair some time down the road. In general, the extreme physical complexity of an internal combustion engine system is gone. This makes battery replacement comparatively trivial in the long run compared to the long-term maintenance of an internal combustion engine.

      Then you have the hybrids, giving you the worst of both worlds -- an engine to take care of and fix, and a battery to replace eventually.

    27. Re:California Gas Prices by Genda · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well you forgot some very fancy "Maintenance Scheduling" in California recently, closing multiple refining sited down simultaneously creating artificially high prices in California (and this isn't the first time.) I just get the feeling the Oil industry doesn't like being told what it can or can't do, and if somebody (like California) does, they make certain that there's a little thank you in the bill. Thank you from the Oil Industry :-)

    28. Re:California Gas Prices by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      You are aware that many states are dropping the vapor recovery thing since it does nothing but drive up the cost of the pump, right?

    29. Re:California Gas Prices by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 2

      Those people take often take better care of the car then they do people.

      I think the parent leaves their car outside in the elements. Not everyone has a garage to keep their car in. Many apartment/condo places do not have a place to wash your car, so you have to go to a car wash. I have always found that hand washing and waxing does a better job then a car wash does. Just my personal experience with my 11 year old car that people think is 1-2 years old. I also not have a garage. I just wash it at least once a month and wax it 3-4 times a year.

      Take car of your car both cosmetically and mechanically.. It should last and look good if you do.

    30. Re:California Gas Prices by Pope · · Score: 1

      (With my old telecommuter-friendly car, I also noticed that I consistently got about 10% worse mileage with winter gas than summer gas, though I'm not sure if my current car is as sensitive.)

      How could your car get worse gas mileage if it never left the garage? Or do you have some new-fanged definition of telecommuting?

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    31. Re:California Gas Prices by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Two percent of a McMansion in Malibu is still going to be a lot more than a twenty percent tax levied on a yurt in Oklahoma. Blame big government. lawl.

      You laugh, but for what it costs to get a McMansion in Malibu (or pretty much anywhere along the coast in California) you could buy a very nice "McMansion" at around 9k square feet for a lot less than the 6 million it'd cost in California - except it'd come with acres of land. A 2,000 square foot house in good condition won't cost much more than 100k throughout most of the region between the Rockies and the Mississippi/Missouri.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    32. Re:California Gas Prices by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      "Aesthetic life" only matters is you value your worth by the shine of your baubles; I don't. I'm not part of the mammon religion. My car is nothing but transportation to me, all I care about is good gas mileage, reasonable performance, a comfy seat, good HVAC, and a killer stereo. When it costs more to repair it than payments would cost, I'll get a different one. Until then I don't care what it looks like.

    33. Re:California Gas Prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah. i find that if I fail to hide my 23 year old rusted piece of shit car, I don't really command any respect at my job. course, 'merica, I should quite and get a new one.
      fuck you.

    34. Re:California Gas Prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The link I provided broke out the taxes into excise and other taxes. So that's state+federal excise taxes plus other things like "environmental fees, storage tank taxes, other fees or taxes, and general sales tax" for a combined rate of forty-eight and six tenths cents per gallon. That's also based on the API's February 2012 prices.

      You are wrong. Both links referred to data gather by the American Petroleum Institute. The Tax Foundation link lists the combined tax and fees for each state but does not include the Federal excise tax on gas which is currently 18.4 cents per gallon. The API.org data does include the Federal excise gas in it's total gas tax/fees chart, so the two charts do in fact match and are the result of the same data set.

      So, no California does not charge fifty cents more per gallon of unleaded gasoline in taxes than most states.

      A quick glance at the chart you provided clearly shows that you are correct in this assessment.

    35. Re:California Gas Prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you replace your Prius, would you be looking to trade it in? Do you think the age of the battery pack could bring the trade-in value down to near zero?

    36. Re:California Gas Prices by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Average car age in the US is about 11 years

      I was a little surprised it is that old, most of the cars I see look newer than that. My car is old enough to be a senator, so I am dragging the average age up a bit.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    37. Re:California Gas Prices by quarmar · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the Prius had a *very* short aesthetic lifespan.

    38. Re:California Gas Prices by billstewart · · Score: 1

      I still drove it, but for five or ten years I didn't usually drive it to an office (or if I did, it was usually to one of my customers' offices, rather than my own.) Grocery stores, restaurants, general shopping, etc. don't go away just because you're not driving to work.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  30. Charts by Ronin441 · · Score: 3, Informative

    And here I expected a story about changes in the price of something over time would include a chart.

    To remedy the lack of charts: http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/02/27/how-high-have-gas-prices-risen-over-the-years/

    (This is a good link because it includes an inflation-adjusted chart.)

    1. Re:Charts by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      Best comment from the side in your link, someone said:

      "I think that they shouldnt let the crude oil prices affect the gas prices ,,,"

      I have nothing to add to this gem of a comment.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  31. This doesn't seem so strange by ComfortablyAmbiguous · · Score: 1

    In the mean time demand from Europe has fallen off a cliff, and demand from China has turned down. The US is not doing half the growth economists were predicting 6 months ago. All in all, it would be strange if we weren't seeing a significant drop in crude prices and the associated gas prices.

  32. AND THE REPUBLICANS SAY, LET'S START A WAR !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Preferably in the Middle East !!

    BP says, Jolly Roger Me !!
    Cheney says, Fuck with me and I'll shoot you again !!
    Bush says, yay !! can i play the red guys this time ??
    Mobile/Exxon/Shell/Esso/Phillips/Conoco says, let's do it for the children !!

    And Israel says, fuck iram !!

  33. "Experts" by tyme · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Experts who claim that prices will continue to rise when prices have been rising, or continue to fall when prices have been falling, are nothing but weather vanes. These are the same idiots who have denied that we were in the last half dozen bubbles; the same idiots who were excited about DOW 30,000; the same idiots who claimed that stock/housing prices could just keep going up and up FOREVER!

    --
    just a ghost in the machine.
    1. Re:"Experts" by phorm · · Score: 1

      the same idiots who claimed that stock/housing prices could just keep going up and up FOREVER!

      They pretty much can if you factor in devaluation of currency (not a good thing, but not impossible to happen)

  34. Peak demand for oil happened in 2008 by dbIII · · Score: 2

    Peak demand happened in 2008, so supply actually exceeds demand sometimes. Technically peak production happened then as well, but so many people bring their own unrelated baggage to "peak oil" when it's just the maximum point on the production graph. In this case the decline has happened because people we unwilling to buy more oil, for mostly economic reasons, and to a much lesser extend which is only really kicking in now, because other sources of energy become increasingly popular the longer the oil price is high.
    Personally I'm hoping for a very slow slide down the oil production graph instead of a sudden drop to nothing which is what some people think of with "peak oil". Before people start arguing about irrelevant stuff, you should note that's liquid oil, the easy to get stuff, not the more expensive per Joule stuff like oil from tar sands, shale, made from coal or whatever. That stuff will be our liquid fuel of choice only when mineral oil is scarce enough to be very expensive to obtain.

    1. Re:Peak demand for oil happened in 2008 by Ronin441 · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping for a very slow slide down the oil production graph instead of a sudden drop to nothing

      Typically production of a limited resource is approximately symmetric, so you can expect production of oil to tail off over about the same time period that it ramped up. There's no point at which we "finish" the "last" of it, but expect us to be mostly done with oil dug up out of the ground somewhere in the 22nd century.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

    2. Re:Peak demand for oil happened in 2008 by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      not a valid point in the case of fossil fuels, we can make any hydrocarbon chain out of any other, longer or shorter. For example, coal can be made into diesel fuel or gasoline or kerosene. Natural gas can be made into them too. We have fossil fuels sufficient for hundreds of years, there will be no "peak" of fossil fuel use due to production limitations

    3. Re:Peak demand for oil happened in 2008 by Ronin441 · · Score: 1

      Yep; that's why I said "oil dug up out of the ground". I agree that there's a very good chance we will continue to use gasoline/petrol and diesel in applications like transport for quite some time, by manufacturing them from something other than fossil oil. That something else might be coal, or bioreactor algae, or some other option.

      Liquid hydrocarbons have a fabulously high energy density and are easy to transport, internal combustion engines have a lot of desirable properties, and we've got all this existing infrastructure.

      But the stuff dug out of the ground? Gone in a century.

    4. Re:Peak demand for oil happened in 2008 by legont · · Score: 1

      If we are still talking about the US gasoline, the peak was in 1998. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=A103600001&f=M It dived more than twice since then.

    5. Re:Peak demand for oil happened in 2008 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have fossil fuels sufficient for hundreds of years, there will be no "peak" of fossil fuel use due to production limitations

      Because hundreds of years is a really long time, and the Rapture will have happened by then?

    6. Re:Peak demand for oil happened in 2008 by dbIII · · Score: 1

      What seems to be missed by many (like rubycodez above) is that the alternatives cost more energy to produce liquid fuel so give diminishing returns.
      For instance, the problem that has killed oil from shale just about everywhere is that the volume actually expands when you change it enough to get oil out of it. The grand plans to drill holes, pump stuff down and get oil up have all failed because the drill holes close up. That leaves digging it out and processing it, just like really hard coal that's not much easier to turn into a liquid fuel than coal itself (which I should point out has only been considered worth it during wartime scarcity).
      Anyway, the above poster probably knows all this even if the GP poster thinks it's all magic.

    7. Re:Peak demand for oil happened in 2008 by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      "alternatives cost more energy to produce liquid fuel " yes, so what? they will be done as easily recoverable crude goes above some cost, say $120 a barrel.

  35. Always trust the experts by neros1x · · Score: 1

    "Earlier this year, experts predicted higher gas prices....Experts have now flipped their predictions, and now believe prices will continue to fall." Would be more simply said, "'Experts' admit they have no fucking clue what gas prices are going to do."

    --
    The penguin made me do it.
    1. Re:Always trust the experts by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Oil prices are strongly correlated with world GDP at this point, with a bit of uncertainty about the Middle East. Predicting oil prices require predicting the world GDP, and if you can do that accurately, you can probably find more profitable ways to spend your time instead of TV appearances.

      I wonder what the proper term for "world GDP" is... Surely if we are talking about the whole world, "domestic" does not make sense?

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    2. Re:Always trust the experts by rk · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Always trust the experts by amorsen · · Score: 1

      That makes an awful lot of sense, thank you!

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  36. nonsense? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    like falling demand due to anemic world economic performance?

    ockham has a razor, you should use it on your crazy man beard some day

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:nonsense? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1
      The OP did suggest that that might be an alternative explanation.

      More or less anything else that might be conjured up to explain this precipitous drop (aside from a worldwide recession that is driving down consumption and demand) is just nonsense.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  37. Supply and demand by NetNinja · · Score: 1

    Supply and demand

    1. Re:Supply and demand by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Plus feedback loop which makes behaviour a little chaotic.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  38. Gasoline by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

    At least call it gasoline man - gas is something which is gaseous in nature.

    I expected an article about Natural Gas.

  39. Scumbag Bankers by hackus · · Score: 1

    As a side note, in case you missed it. Bank Holidays are all the rage now in Europe. With even one bank in the Brits saying, oh, we had a bad software upgrade so we have to shut everything down for a few days....

    Yeah. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggght.

    Gas and everything else is in a huge decline because western civilization is collapsing and is corrupt from top to bottom.

    1% take 99% of everything while the 99% get less than 1% of anything.

    We have a corrupt society, where huge numbers of resources go to people who don't do, or make anything of value for society.

    So as the economic collapse happens, prices are going to plummet as people like me can't afford to run a car let alone the gas to run it.

    People working at Apple's stores can't even afford the products they sell and they are so called Geniuses?

    Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

    The whole thing is coming down, and it is going to all end very badly.

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    1. Re:Scumbag Bankers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -Hack

      Well, you got at least one thing right, you're a hack.

    2. Re:Scumbag Bankers by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      It looks like you don't know what a bank holiday is. The business people hate bank holidays because they have to pay their staff but gain no monetary gains out of it (i.e., no work is done). There were calls to reduce the even tiny amount of bank holidays UK has since they cost too much to the economy.

  40. Re:Now the question is by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

    But the real point here is: economists continue to have no clue about the economy, yet are still taken in consideration for policies. What about asking some astrologers too?

    The problem with economists is, they get tied up into their own little school of thought and won't budge an inch. Any significantly large system will have rules it seems to run by, and once you figure out the rules, predicting it is reasonably possible. Where everybody falls down is, some people look at the ruleset, game the shit out of the system for their own gain and fuck the rest. Just because there are rules doesn't mean everybody will play by them fairly. They won't. And bending the shit out of the rules past the point where they break fucks up the models.

    Marx figured this out in the 1800's, but was so wedded to his model of Communism that he couldn't let go of it to take the data he was seeing to its logical conclusion - once you let human beings into the system, the system will break down. It's the main reason that Engles had to finish Das Kapital, for Marx had lost his faith and wouldn't admit it. If he'd manned up and finished up with what he was seeing, he'd be hailed as a major economic prophet today instead of being relegated to the 'also-ran' pile, and there would have been no Communism as we had inflicted on us.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  41. How did you miss it this badly? by dbIII · · Score: 1
    IT IS A VALID POINT WHICH I ADDRESSED VERY CLEARLY ABOVE

    you should note that's liquid oil, the easy to get stuff, not the more expensive per Joule stuff

    Also it's OIL not "peak fossil fuels". There is a lot of coal around for instance but for a variety of applications it's not as convenient as oil so it's availability has almost never had any impact on the price or availability of oil. You don't drive a Stanley Steamer so it's an expensive and lossy process to get coal to produce the energy to move your vehicle (even if it's electric).

    1. Re:How did you miss it this badly? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Does't matter if the process to get ultra clean diesel is lossy, since there is no shortage of energy to do it. And we will be transitioning to the other plentiful fossil fuels, already in motion with coal and natural gas reserves. Absurd statement about coal and electricity as plenty of coal fired stations exist, that provides half the power in my area (Chicago) and nuke the other half. Peak oil is irrelevant and will cause no problems.

    2. Re:How did you miss it this badly? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      since there is no shortage of energy to do it

      Um ... no. You do realise that the discussion is about an energy source? Losing a lot of energy to make it is entirely pointless and of course would make everything using it just that bit more difficult and expensive. If you cannot grasp that much why do you think you have anything at all of worth to contribute?

    3. Re:How did you miss it this badly? by swillden · · Score: 1

      I see two people debating a topic on which I'm not very knowledgeable. One of them consistently focuses his comments on factual statements, the other occasionally veers into histrionics (shouting) and attacking his opponent's intelligence.

      To which should I give more weight, assuming I'm not willing right now to go investigate the merits of their respective factual claims?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:How did you miss it this badly? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Look at the comment far above instead of the reply that deserved nothing but contempt (although instead I simply highlighted the point missed in bold - "shouting" indeed) and you'll see it was far more fantasy than "factual".
      Also intelligence is not an issue one way or another when it isn't being applied to the topic but instead wanders off to think about the magic of completely free energy.

    5. Re:How did you miss it this badly? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Two-thirds of the energy produced at your power plant is lost before the one-third gets to your appliance to use. What is this phrase "losing a lot of energy" supposed to mean? That's already the norm because in this universe we have thermodynamic principles that seem to govern energy transfer. It matters not from supply perspective that it requires energy to make hydrocarbon fuel, since we have centuries of supply. There likely are and will be pollution issues, though, and we of course have plenty of other smarter energy sources on this earth.

    6. Re:How did you miss it this badly? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Very well, you are certainly free to ignore my perception of how your style damages your arguments.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:How did you miss it this badly? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Well, it does appear that you took only the bold capitals into account and not the quote or the above post they were trying to highlight so you do have a point. If making it stand out comes across as "histrionics" and encourages people to ignore everything else after it then that is a poor style, but I thought I'd try something other than repeating a sentence that was ignored in my first post above and didn't think it would come across that way.

  42. Re:Now the question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Marx figured this out in the 1800's, but was so wedded to his model of Communism that he couldn't let go of it to take the data he was seeing to its logical conclusion - once you let human beings into the system, the system will break down. It's the main reason that Engles had to finish Das Kapital, for Marx had lost his faith and wouldn't admit it. If he'd manned up and finished up with what he was seeing, he'd be hailed as a major economic prophet today instead of being relegated to the 'also-ran' pile, and there would have been no Communism as we had inflicted on us.

    I thought you just got done saying the system will break down once you let human beings into the system. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, so many others, were very much human.

    At most, others would have taken the same roles, into the same directions, with any difference being questionable.

    Unless you have a Hari Seldon level of computation anyway.

    You don't.

  43. its election time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stupid!

  44. and you call them experts? by Pirulo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    if it's going up, they'll say it will be higher,
    if it's going down, they'll say it will be lower,

  45. Please tell me by publiclurker · · Score: 2

    you are not using those old BS battery life numbers that were trotted out a few years ago. I'd like to think that there are some new fantasy stories out there to laugh at.

  46. Re:Now the question is by compro01 · · Score: 3, Funny

    What about asking some astrologers too?

    Nancy Regan did. That alone should get Republicans on board with it.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  47. Not just bankers... by Dainsanefh · · Score: 0

    Jewish bankers.

    --
    Twitter: @dainsanefh
  48. Gas ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why do you call petrol gas, it is a liquid.

    1. Re:Gas ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't expect Americans know anything about science, do you? If it's not in the bible, it's not true!

  49. Future oil prices by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    Here's one guys take on The future of oil prices. He basically expects the price of a barrel of oil to bounce between $85 and $125 for the next couple of years.

  50. Gas prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thank GOD that our hard working President Obama has FINALLY gotten the price of oil down from the crazy high that Bush and his oil cronies driven it to. The oil is coming down because the economy is doing better and the world knows that he will be reelected. I lost my job last year and had almost given up until I heard him say that the private sector is doing fine. I knew after I heard that I was going to be OK. Obama Biden 2012 HOPE AND CHANGE!!!

  51. Price also fall in europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your argument is invalid.

  52. Re:Now the question is by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

    Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot all proved the point. Communism would work wonderfully if it weren't for human beings. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al gamed the system, and eventually the system fell apart.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  53. Presidential Election Year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The prices are falling simply because it's an election year. It happened the same year Obama got elected.

  54. Source? by daninaustin · · Score: 1

    I don't find anything that verifies this and it seems like mandating that gasoline be refined in-state would be violation of the US constitution.

  55. The "experts" were wrong about $5 and they are by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    still wrong.

    Some Saudi oil costs under $10 to produce a barrel of oil.

    The lower the price, the less oil it is feasible to produce.
    The higher the price, the more oil it becomes feasible to produce.

    It is quite likely for the price of oil to return to $20 to $25 a barrel.
    http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historical_oil_prices_chart.asp

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  56. The explanation is simple by shiftless · · Score: 2

    It's the collapse of the European economy. Duh. Back when these forecasts for high oil prices were made, the "experts" were also forecasting all kinds of other B.S., like economic recovery in the Euro zone. Guess what, it didn't happen, and isn't going to happen because the Euro is going to collapse--with massive economic fallout. It's happening now. The reduction in demand due to this catastrophe explains the drop in oil pricing.

    The problem is, a) low oil prices are now making certain oil fields too costly to explore, plus b) worldwide supply is now at peak, a future spike in demand is going to send prices skyrocketing. It's only a matter of time.

    1. Re:The explanation is simple by inthealpine · · Score: 1

      Thank you! It's like no one here even understands basic economics.
      Go to any store that sells a large variety of wine and talk to them about how easy it is to restock. Warehouses in Europe don't want to be holding on to stock when the music stops on the economy. Businesses are getting a 2008 feeling and look what happened to gas prices when 2008 happened. Demand drops, speculators re-assess and the price goes down.
      Quite simple.

      --
      "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
    2. Re:The explanation is simple by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 0

      Before you rant on about "understanding basic economics", I'd suggest you have a look at the physical and geological background behind the oil business. Won't fit with your RAH RAH TEH EUROPEAN SOCIALISTS ARE FAILING-theme, though. Quite simple, indeed. For the simple-minded.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    3. Re:The explanation is simple by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you could enlighten us as to where our argument is wrong.

  57. When Will You Idiots Learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Republicans control the gas prices. During an election year right around the same time gas drops before November....

  58. No - the global crude oil production graph by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I wasn't describing refined petrol/gasoline in the United States but instead the global production of crude oil which does have an effect on that price.

  59. Stop calling car fuel gas by GoodnaGuy · · Score: 1

    Could I please ask our American friends to stop refering to the stuff you put in cars as gas? Its very cinfusing for the rest of us English speaking people where gas means light stuff that floats around in the air like oxygen or something. Please call it petrol or go juice.

    1. Re:Stop calling car fuel gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because gas is short for gasoline, which is exactly what it is. What is petrol shorted from? Petroleum ? That makes petrol even more of a vague 'name' for it? It could be anything that is derived from crude oil... road tar, the CO2 bubbles in your shitty watered down english fizzy drinks...

  60. Plenty of gas just we use too much by Grayhand · · Score: 1

    The reason we run out all but completely by something like 2055, it may be 2060 now because of drop in demand, is we use too much and waste too much. If we cut usage by 50% we'd still have nearly a 100 year supply. Sound outrageous? Hardly. When you factor in older gas guzzlers like older SUVs, we are only managing 25 or 30 miles per gallon. Doubling that is 50 to 60 miles per gallon which some cars already do. Come up with sensible hybrids and we can probably make the average 60 to 80. By sensible I mean limited or no battery storage. Most of the waste is from constantly changing engine speed. Make the engine run at optimal speed then add in a limited battery storage just to buffer excess and cars wouldn't need to cost much more. The reason is the gas engine would be radically smaller since the car would be run by electric motors which are more efficient. There's extra hardware so the buy in would be a little higher but cutting your gas bill would save you money. Also with regenerative braking in city would be only a little lower mileage than highway since the engine is running at the same speed. You'd have unlimited range as well. Make the cars smaller and lighter and you save even more. It's why I always say conservation is the only real solution in the short term. Everyone says to build more nuclear plants which are very expensive. Switch to efficient appliances and bulbs as well as improve insulation and you save a bundle and we can shut down some coal plants instead of opening new nuclear plants as a stop gap. I used to live a half hour from my mother. She just redid her house with new windows and insulation and she had to replace her AC unit anyway. Her power bills are under a $100, usually $80. My bills for a similar sized house were $150 to $250. FYI why didn't I do the upgrades, I was renting. Most people would save the most for the cost of investment just by replacing their fridge which is the biggest energy pit. I'm against fracking but the up side of poisoned well water is cheap gas. Forget coal and nuclear build gas fired plants. Less pollution and you can build one in a quarter the time you can a nuclear plant. Decommissioning one is radically cheaper and they have a longer service life. There are fixes to get us through the next century and lessen environmental impact we just need the will to do it.

    1. Re:Plenty of gas just we use too much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who has done the math on hybrid cars will find that they cost more over the life of the car when compared to a small fuel efficient gasoline only car of about the same size. The Prius is nothing more than a fashion statement, and for Toyota, nothing more than an experiment to develop a car that may eventually be powered from something other than something directly refined from oil You're never going to get much better than 30mpg no matter how you get the energy to power your car... http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/100-mpg-on-gasoline/

  61. The dollar by Rolgar · · Score: 1

    If you compare oil, gold, and the stock markets, they all move in unison. The price of gas has dropped about 15%, the S&P dropped about 10%, and gold dropped about 7% over the last 6 months. This is driven by monetary movements. The dollar has been getting stronger (due to the Euro crisis) driving down the price of commodities (priced in dollors, but demand influenced by how expensive they are in foriegn currency).

    When the dollar goes up, commodities and investments drop, but we get deflation because oil and food markets are lower. When the dollar goes down (like from 2009-2011), you get inflation and higher investment prices. The weak dollar can help domestic employment because it is relatively cheaper to employ somebody here than when the dollar is strong.

    Bernanke and Obama have been playing with the dollar the entirety of Obama's term. While they've been saying they are for a strong dollar, they let it go weak, angering the Chinese and oil nations, who threatened to move markets to a non-dollar currency. The weaker dollar did allow employment to drop from near 10 to 8.5 percent. I predicted months ago that eventually, the administration would flip a switch, and allow the dollar to strengthen, thus driving gas prices down leading into the election despite the damage that would be done to investment portfolios.

    I don't know if Obama and Romney understand this because they all blather on about the same nonsense about job creation, and whether this is Obama's fault or Bush's. You know what, the fault for this lies with the 60+ years of Democrats running things (control of Congress) from 1930-1994, never bringing spending under control and paying off the debt and justifying creating Social Security, Medicare and the (Un)affordable Health Care Act which are eventually going to bankrupt our government. I think those programs can be done by government, but they must be done at the county level, not the federal. Unfortunately, we may be permanently handicaping ourselves with these stupid programs.

  62. Politics: don't be fooled our leader have a say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama made a deal with OPEC, just like he was caught on an open mic pleading with the Russians that he can be more flexible with them ( yielding to them ) after the election. OPEC wouldn't deal with Bush because of what his dad did in the 1st Iraq war. As Obama has promised, "under my plan energy cost will skyrocket" - if he gets reelected will see $5/gallon as the norm shortly after.

  63. Cap-and-trade can be pretty awesome by F69631 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The carbon credits you refer to, otherwise known as cap-and-trade, is pretty simple and great system that combines the best of free markets and government regulation. There is a consensus that we need to lower emissions and most people agree that some form of regulation from the government is needed. The problem is that it's very difficult to create a set of rules that work as intended.

    For example UK recently built a massive power plant that runs on biofuel and what actually happens is that they transport the fuel all the way from Canada to be burned in UK. Why? Environmentally it would be better to burn it in Canada but UK provides greater incentives for such power plants. We could try to fix every small issue like that - both internationally and inside countries - but we'll always be left with incomplete (and increasingly complex) set of regulations that encourage to do stupid things. We need a free markets based solution that discourages polluting, not regulations that encourage finding workarounds.

    Cap-and-trade is exactly that system. Rights to pollute are auctioned and the acceptable amount of pollution is slowly reduced over time, which encourages solutions that efficiently reduce pollution but discourages expensive solutions that provide relatively little benefits. The economic incentive for any environmental decision is directly relative to how much it actually helps the environment.

    Now... that all said, there are some flaws. First of all, for the system to work perfectly, (nearly) all countries should participate and all pollution (be it traffic, energy, industrial...) should be distributed like that. Certain aspects need tweaking (For example, a ton of greenhouse gases released to the upper atmosphere by airplanes are about as harmful as two tons of such gases released at ground level...) and others are difficult to handle just through cap-and-trade (relatively small amount of pollution to a very important wildlife sanctuary, for example) and one can argue that the way that the pollution rights are currently distributed is unfair towards developing countries... even so, the concept is great and with a little more effort put into cap-and-trade, it could allow us to abolish huge amounts of inefficient regulation and incentivize us to reduce pollution as efficiently as possible.

    1. Re:Cap-and-trade can be pretty awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "simple and great system" just has us paying more for the same old shit. It would be an awful thing for the global economy if ever realized.

    2. Re:Cap-and-trade can be pretty awesome by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. What it does is assign a cost to CO2 emissions. People end paying the actual costs of economic production, rather than having governments (and thus tax payers) pay all of the costs of dealing with global warming. The people arguing against carbon taxes or cap and trade systems are essentially saying "I'd rather have government levy taxes to cover the costs incurred by corporations than have the corporations (and their customers) pay the costs".

      In the past, similar systems have not had any significant impact. That's because corporations actively seek to minimise costs so what we've found is that if you assign a cost to an activity the amount of that activity declines rapidly and substantially. It happened with both CFCs and Sulfur Dioxide. Despite predictions of disastrous consequences, none were ever realised. Once the laws were passed, pollution levels declined and profits rose for the industry. As counter-intuitive as it may seem to hard core free marketeers, the regulations actually made the industries more efficient and more profitable.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  64. The reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    world recession.

  65. US gasoline half of NZ price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give or take. I just moved to Alaska from New Zealand, it's sure is good to fill a car for under $50 again, what we pay here is what we were paying in NZ 10 years ago. In NZ we pay the equiv of 6 to 8 US$/gallon. Running a cheap efficient car is a costly exercise - it was costing me $130 to fill a 1999 Ford Mondeo (2L inline 4 and 5 speed manual trans) which is by american standards, a small station wagon like a Subaru Legacy - that would get around 30mpg highway. We also pay over $300 a year in yearly car registration / licensing costs, thanks mostly to a thing called ACC levies that pays for other peoples time off work when they have an accident. It adds up really fast. You really just dont realise how good you all have it in this country! I sure do, and Iove it :)

  66. Re:Now the question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty much. The whole fuel economy thing is something that's already got a solution. Whenever the price goes below a certain amount you ratchet up the tax on it. Use the tax to pay for maintaining the crumbling infrastructure. It's why Seattle beats the crap out of the other major cities on fleet efficiency. It's not solely a matter of environmentalism, the gas is expensive and taxes make sure it stays that way. Same sort of thing goes for water consumption, keep the price high enough and people find ways of reducing their demand.

    What's worse is that Jevon's Parodox has been known for well over a century, and yet we continue to pretend like it doesn't apply to fuel consumption.

  67. election year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    does everyone always forget that gas prices fall during an election year? they don't want it to be an issue during campaigning.

  68. And they will rise again by Cat_Herder_GoatRoper · · Score: 1

    On the second Wednesday in November

  69. Experts? by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    If the "Experts" and I use the term very lightly, already claimed that gas price would rise and they were completely wrong, then why should we believe them that this time it will continue to fall. I could ask my 5 year old cousin and get the same answer, so I guess he's an expert.

  70. still dropped by more in the US than UK by martin · · Score: 1

    we've dropped about 10p in last 3 weeks, yes once again we're getting stuffed royaly in the UK.

    (£1.30 a litre is the cheapest I can find anywhere. $7.63 a US Gallon)

  71. Perhaps another influence? by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    Anyone wonder if it's partly because this is an election year? I don't usually watch these heads on TV talk about their half-empty promises or any political accolades they take credit for, but if he hasn't done it already, how long until Obama starts blasting about fuel prices?

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  72. Re:California Gas Prices and AB32 by Whatsmynickname · · Score: 1

    Exactly, the differential between CA gas prices is NOT because of extra taxes, it is the result of bill AB32's Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

    AB32's LCFS mandates a special formulation which will change for the next few years, so refineries will be constantly having to change to accommodate this. There hasn't been any increase in refineries or production on the West coast as far as I know. Therefore, this is a reduction in supply, thus the increase in CA price over other states (such as AZ).

  73. I did try to head it off with the initial comment by dbIII · · Score: 1

    You seem to be nearly there with that first sentence - diminishing returns. My point is all the options to produce a liquid fuel from coal, shale, natural gas etc require more energy to produce than from crude oil so more effort (and expense) is required to fill the tank - thus more expense and diminishing returns so that's why running out of crude oil is such a big deal. The "centuries of supply" made from a far more expensive energy source that would better used as it is (eg. coal or natural gas as is instead of made into a liquid fuel) is not very useful after a point. Running out of crude oil potentially marks a point where cheap shipping of goods as we have it today doesn't happen anymore and nearly everything becomes far more difficult and expensive, whether it's more expensive synthesised fuels or more infrastructure to move things around using generated electricity. With a slow change (as the other energy sources are taken up or less reliance on liquid fuel) it will be more inconvenience than disaster, but a few years ago it looked like it would be a rapid change which is why peak production was seen as a big deal.
    I'm trying to get the point across that using a lot more energy to do the same thing makes things just that more difficult and expensive. I'm sorry for being rude before but I did try to head all this off in my comment above and thought you were deliberately pretending to misunderstand it as some sort of "peak oil denier" than mistakenly thinks they are doing a good turn for myself and others in the oil industry by pretending it's going to last forever and badly twisting the meaning of a very simple term. When it gets to be more of an economic and energy consumption pain to get the difficult to produce oil than it is to move coal seam gas around in vehicles then the shift occurs to that form of energy for example.

  74. Let's try it a different way by dbIII · · Score: 1

    More resources per Joule. Using a lot of energy to provide a more convenient energy source really chews through resources at a rapid rate, which means digging up a whole lot more of whatever you are making the oil out of and putting it through a very lossy process instead of just using it to provide energy directly. That takes more effort and expense than with crude oil, so it really means once the crude oil is gone road and sea transport will never be cheap again unless there are some very major changes (once again expensive in energy and economic terms).
    Burning a lot of energy to make an energy source is a bit of a fools game when you can do something with the original energy source instead of throwing most of it away.

  75. Quit whining about gas prices ... by Dark$ide · · Score: 1
    • One dollar USD == 0.641519 pounds GBP (today's rate from XE.com)
    • One litre of gas costs me GBP £1.319 (USD £2.056)
    • One US gallon == 3.78541178 litres.
    • So one gallon of gasoline (or as I call it "petrol") costs USD $7.78.

    When your gas price gets that high you can shout about it from the top of the Empire State Building, until then STFU.

    --

    Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

  76. Re:Now the question is by amorsen · · Score: 1

    To be fair, Marx predicted that capitalism first had to fail by concentrating all wealth into the hands of very few. No such thing happened in any of the countries which turned "communist"; most of them went there straight from a society based on agriculture without significant industrialism. This did cause a number of headaches for the communists in China and Russia, but those governments were very good at maintaining cognitive dissonance and various explanations were invented.

    Meanwhile, capitalism succeeded in spreading the wealth among everyone -- not equally of course, but most everyone saw their economic situation improve and they also saw their children have more opportunities. In such an environment, thoughts of revolution are unlikely to take hold. Just like they are not taking hold in China today.

    Now, if instead people ended up in a situation where it was clear that there was wealth enough for everyone available, yet their own situation was markedly worse than say 10 years ago. That is what Marx expected to happen in fairly short order in the Western world, but people were smarter and managed to avoid it. Hopefully we will all be equally smart in the future.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  77. Gasoline costs just as much in the US by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107374/Fuel-tax-British-motorists-pay-60-duty-VAT-petrol.html

    Without all of the UK taxes, gas would be 53p/liter.

    That was back at the end of February when gas was $3.77 per gallon in California. Gas tax is about $0.68 of that (35c CA gas, 15c CA/local sales tax, 18c federal), so $3.09 actual gas cost.

    That's $0.82 / liter or (wait for it) about 52p per liter, or nearly exactly the same cost for gasoline.

    Excuse me while I grab my bullhorn and get a train ticket to NYC.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  78. Re:Now the question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more I study economics, the more I think that any economist who claims that a theory is wrong is right, and any economist who claims that a theory is right is wrong. Classic example: Marx was wrong about communism, but right about capitalism.

  79. Proof / Reference? (Saudi flooding the market) by fantomas · · Score: 1

    Interesting. Do you have a reference or proof? would like to find out more, e.g. usual volume of release of oil on to the market compared to what you see happening now. cheers.

  80. Re:Let's try it a different way, Economic Reality by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    Let's try it another way, when it is economical to do so, it will be done. It IS being done, e.g. tar sands are 15% of U.S. crude imports. e.g. shale oil ramps up whenever crude prices and demand stay high for sufficient time. you lose, engineering and economics win. environment loses.

  81. Re:Let's try it a different way, Economic Reality by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    Let's try it another way, for every one barrel's worth of electricity delivered to your home, two more barrels are eaten by your power plant. None of the processes I mentioned are that bad.....your phase "a lot" means nothing and shows your ignorance of engineering.

  82. $3.26 by assertation · · Score: 1

    I paid $3.26 a gallon for gas this morning. A short time back it was pushing $4 a gallon in my area. Gas prices always go up in the summer, yet this year gas prices are coming down.

    I'm still seeing Republicans who are fighting for Mitt Romney getting stopped in video interviews after claiming that President Obama has "done nothing about high gas prices".

    I don't think the President can do much about gas prices at all, though I would love to give credit to President Obama.

    BTW, I highly recommend this site and paying in cash. You will get a MUCH better deal than you could hope to get with any gas/credit card and the place you will get it at will likely be around the corner from where you live or work:

    gasbuddy.com

  83. El Presidente by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Saudi's are pumping at an incredible rate at the request of our Commander-in-Chief. They give a little now and get a little after the November election.

    Obama Viva 2012!!

  84. News for nerds? by MacDork · · Score: 1

    US fuel prices?

  85. I can dream. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So maybe by November gas prices will be the $1.85 they were when Obama took office?

  86. Gas prices always fall around election time by Rooked_One · · Score: 1

    Its happened every election since 2000 (and maybe more - I didn't pay attention before then)

  87. Give credit where credit is due by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Informative

    Obama put in place several regulations to control oil speculation. During the Bush administration the laws governing commodities trading where changed (laws, not regulations) so that you no longer have to take delivery of a commodity to buy it. Before that, if you wanted 40,000 barrels you had to have someplace to store them. They did it for food too, which is why the cost of food went up 40% and there were food riots in Mexico...

    Obama pushed through several regulation to control what they could do (sadly, he did not restore the laws about commodity trading). The is why you're paying less at the pump. He also has used the threat of flooding the market from the national reserves to keep the speculators in check. He did these things well over a year ago, but it takes that long for the savings to make it through the pipeline.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Give credit where credit is due by clayski · · Score: 1

      {insert favorite politician here} ...

      put in place several regulations to control oil speculation.

      Actually, you've hit on the precise reason for the brief drop in US gasoline prices - politics. The oil and financial sectors vote with the price of our commodities. No valid long-term conclusions can be drawn from a small dip that occurs just months before a US election.

  88. It's an election year... by Kili · · Score: 1

    It's a presidential election year. Nothing to see here. Move along... ;-)

  89. Re:Let's try it a different way, Economic Reality by dbIII · · Score: 1

    you lose, engineering and economics win. environment loses.

    I see why you are deliberately pretending to be ignorant here. Look kid, I'm not arguing ideology but instead physics and the economic consequences of such. If you want to cheer blindly for some political team or another and "bait greenies" then please jump on a political discussion instead of trying to create one here - or grow up!

  90. Re:Let's try it a different way, Economic Reality by dbIII · · Score: 1

    shows your ignorance of engineering

    Those masters students I taught that graduated in 1999 before I went back to the private sector had a different idea Mr MSCE (if that) coder.

  91. You do not understand the scale by dbIII · · Score: 1

    An optimistic expectation from a newly developed oil from coal process is 1.5 barrels of oil per ton of coal (2011 - East Texas lignite coal) and there are other energy inputs into the system to give you that liquid fuel. It's not about losing just half the energy, it's about losing "a lot" of energy, to put that in easily understandable terms.
    Existing methods are worse than that.

  92. Fox news says....low prices are a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last month, they eviscerated Obama for rising prices, now they blame him for lost jobs as prices fall..lol.

  93. Isn't it obvious? by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

    There's only one explanation for the drop in gasoline prices. Let me remind you that the news reports a few months back referred to the wave of greed being exhibited by big oil and the gasoline retailers. That being the case, the only reasonable explanation is that there has new been a wave of altruism affecting big oil and the gasoline retailers, cancelling the earlier wave of greed.

    ~Loyal

    --
    I aim to misbehave.
  94. Election? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, seems there's an election coming... Prices should be below $3 / barrel by November.

  95. Experts Say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The experts say prices will now drop.
    Definition of an expert: A drip under pressure.

  96. It's the Fracking, stupid... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    That's not gas prices are plunging. Gas prices are plunging fracking right now is producing the same amount of oil and natural gas monthly as previous modest releases from the SPR....

    --
    This is my sig.