Posted on 05/19/2008 9:55:47 AM PDT by kellynla
Perhaps we are to blame for not getting ourselves motivated to conduct a March on Washington to protest the Government’s actions (Dems and some idiot Republicans like McCain!) to block Drilling everywhere in the USA and along our coasts.
According to this morning’s report of the latest Zogby poll, there are now 52% of the people in the country who are in favor of drilling in ANWR. However, the reporter went on to say that the 48% who want to block drilling are much more vocal so they will continue to get their way.
It is time for us to demand that the Drilling start here now.
RamS
Look, mister...if you can’t be any more polite than you have been,
don’t ask me for information...
gezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Look, mister...if you can’t be any more polite than you have been,
don’t ask me for information...
gezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
“You want me to buy the BS?”
and before I leave you to your RUDENESS,
I couldn’t care less whether you “buy the BS”...
I merely posted the article and the information from the EIA...and for my troubles, did I get a “thank you” or “please”....NO, I get more rudeness...
Maybe you can get that Soldier son of yours to teach you some manners while he’s home on leave. LMAO
Good Day!
You are sticking to the company line that suggests that distribution, marketing, and profits together comprise 10 cents of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. My being polite or not being polite does not detract from the fact that this claim is pure BS. You can't even respond to my question regarding how you square the fact that by your own post, at $3.859 for a gallon of gasoline, 30 cents of that price makes up the costs of marketing and distrubution (your post indicates that 8% of the cost of a gallon of fuel goes to marketing and distribution without profits being a part of that). Balls in your court. Either you should back up your claim or bow out.
If you take things this personally, perhaps you should refrain from posting, especially information that is 1) incorrect, and 2) guaranteed to generate comments that might offend you.
You still have not addressed how the article (or you) defends the claim that profits, distribution, and marketing make up approximately 10 cents of the cost of a gallon of gasoline when, by your own post to me, the approximate cost for marketing and distribution for a gallon of fuel at $3.859 is 30 cents. Or, are you just interested in being rude to me for asking for validation of said claims.
So is the pipeline(s) to wND/eMT started yet?
From Alaska?
since my name was mentioned in your post and that of Izzy Dunne (without a ping to me) I’d thought I’d respond so there’s not confusion. First, I don’t trust information that comes from sources that have irons in the fire so to speak. I’m looking for independent confirmation on this claim. Second, a couple of other people posted to me claiming that EIA estimates 8 percent of the cost of a gallon of fuel goes to marketing and distribution. Doing the math that equals 30 cents per gallon, not the 10 cents that this article claims, and this is only for marketing and distribution. So, where do profits fit in? There’s a lot of misinformation out on the issue of the cost of fuel, and until some completely independent source comes out with information I’m skeptical.
Although I don't use this product, since people are starting to use bicycles more, people might be interested in this autoshifting bicycle.
Autoshifting bicycleAlso, I'm keeping an eye on developments in bio-fuel production.
First, the bad news about ethanol. Ethanol fires are evidently harder to control than gasoline fires.
Ethanol fires hard to control 1Hopefully, ways will be developed to make controlling ethanol fires easier.
Ethanol fires hard to control 2
On the brighter side concerning ethanol, there's now evidence that people might get as much, or more, bang per buck for their gas dollars with gas / ethanol mixtures.
Gas-competitive gas / ethanol mixturesAlso, I was surprised by the introduction of a machine (popularly known as a still) for making home-made ethanol.
EFuel100In stark contrast to the 1700 gallons of water required to make one gallon of corn-based ethanol as indicated by the OP, the EFuel100 uses only 170 gallons of water to produce 35 gallons of ethanol In other words, the EFuel100 uses less than 1% (about 0.2%) as much water as corn ethanol, under five gallons, to produce one gallon of ethanol.
But also note that the water used in the EFuel100 process does not take into account the water needed to grow the sugar that is used for this process.
And watch out for fines for violating biofuel regulations.
Fines for violating biofuel regulationsAlso, progress is being made in the development of other non-corn ethanol production technologies as well.
Non-corn ethanolFinally, I've also been hearing good things about biodiesel production but need to find some links.
I'll agree that there's confusion.
The graph here plots margin "per barrel of petroleum products sold". and shows about $3.00 in 2006.
But a barrel of gasoline doesn't come from a barrel of crude, so something is missing.
And the graph in post #20 doesn't really help. The 8% number is useless, except at that one price. If the price of crude goes up, the taxes don't go up, the refining costs don't go up, so tying it to percentages is pointless.
FWIW, I read somewhere (around tax time) that Exxon made a profit of about 9.5c per gallon last year. I can't back that up right now, though. That was based on tax returns.
A year ago, folks there on the radio were complaining about the low, local crude prices as there was no free capacity on any pipelines passing through the area to transport their output.
Well, we’re still looking at building the biggest pipeline ever anywhere. In study phase since 1963 or so. Not exactly of global interest either.
Now, I can understand how a 9.5 cent per gallon profit might be valid. But, this article is claiming that 10 cents of each gallon goes to distribution costs, marketing costs, and profit, and that just does not add up. That is what I was referring to as BS. As for that 8% claim, it doesn’t even work at the price given as 8% of $3.249 is nearly 26 cents per gallon, and still does not include that portion which is profit (Marketing and Distribution only). This article is nothing more than misinformation from what I can glean.
Americans are pissed that oil companies are making huge profits. But Americans ARE pissed that those oil companies, making huge profits, don't look like they are doing too much to reduce prices (ie - increase supply).
That's the issue that needs addressing.
Whoops, that should read "aren't pissed that...".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.