What if you could get 200 miles per cat?

What if you could get 200 miles per cat?

Sigh.

I'd rather walk...

.All we need is an engine that can go 60 miles a day (about 99% of all driving) without using gasoline. I don't care if that engines runs on CNG, electricity, dry leaves, or kittens.

Especially kittens.

Not oil co's...they have merged into a few and hold hands as they do whatever they want.


Simply not true. Just because you only know a handful of "household names" doesn't mean those are the only producers. I can't name another chicken company other than Tyson, but that doesn't mean there aren't chicken farmers out there that add substantial amounts to the supply chain.

Besides, seriously, it's not like American companies account for even HALF of our petroleum consumption. So a lot of your arguments fall moot or are otehrwise pointless.

Yes, there are countless hundreds of smaller outfits that produce locally and together do make up a substantial amount of oil and gas production

In short, we don't need competition in the oil market, we need competition to the oil market.

Good point. Like the argument against building any more refineries, no one wants to invest their money in an industry that has passed maturity and is entering a declining period in its life cycle.

There are thousands of production companies out there, most of them are small and they sell to the commodities market. It's at the refiner/retailer level that has had the most consolidation...and the fact that many of them are foreign owned/controlled doesn't help.

Kerry, there again, you keep associating my argument with the commodities side of the situation and I thought I had re-clarified in my last post that my argument had nothing to do with the commodities market. On the receiving end of the small group of large oil companies that sell the refined product to us... NOT THE PRODUCERS...NOT THE BUYERS...THE OIL CO'S THAT ARE REFINING AND SELLING TO US. Not that the commodities side isn't a problem too, but that's not at all what I said.

Kerry, I never said or implied that more oil co's were the solution...Where did I say that? I made reference to a healthy competition in the food market that you seem to think does not exist by stating that ultimately I can only buy from ONE source at the market.

I did make clear that competition and fair pricing have been thrown out the door due to the fact that the oversight has mostly been removed.

You seem to think that competition TO the oil co's is going to come flying in on some magic carpet to save us. While the science cannot be held back, progress toward legalizing any alternative's sale in the market can easily be held back by the oil co's great ability to lobby against it--and now they've got a great reserve of cash to do so...you think that the bailout stuff is gonna be a giveaway...Ohhhhhh my...wait till you see what the oil companies can do with those politicians in washington when an alternative of any kind tries to take market share. Dont get me wrong, I STRONGLY AGREE with you that we need competition TO the oil industry--I just think you underestimate how they are going to be able respond when that competition comes along. You think they are going to just let that competition take market share from them? With all that cash reserve from record profits to defend themselves and Washington's easy ability to "illegalize" anything that doesn't please their lobbyists?

OKCMallen, those "household names" you refer to are the only ones that are allowed to sell the refined product to us (or retail product as bluedog called it). That is the point I have been on from the beginning. It is not a moot point, and plently of America would take quite an issue to you defining my argument as pointless. Chicken in the Rough made a good point, once again. Do you actually think the oil co's would allow us to have small companies, or any companies outside the small group, sell to us directly? Of course not. That would break the bubble...not only would there be healthy competition, driving the profit margin down, but it would be clear as day any spikes in markup.

The fact of the matter is that the small group of oil co's that sell to us have merged into a small group that controls the game. In this administration, the agency that was created to keep a watchful eye on that activity has been downsized and limited in their ability to act on suspicious activity. They lobbied for it and they got it! Therefore, there is no argument that can say, for fact, that any of those "household names" that are selling us gas are not gouging or flexing their profit to their benefit at anytime. Period.

Check out the history of Standard Oil. They tried that and the price of oil products was so low they drove everyone out of business. It worked so well for them the government made what you just described illegal.

Ha ha ha...yup. The small group of controlling co's actually had a competitor bust past them and was able to get out there and give them some stiff competition to worry about. Now, I'm not endorsing Standard's business conduct by any means, but the competition was there...and keep in mind that many industries get perks and discounts based on the amount of product they move. That is business in the free market...it aint pretty, but in the end, we the consumers win because we get decent product for a reasonable price.

While I agree with the breakup of Standard, I believe we took a wrong turn in the equally opposite direction some years back when this administration scaled back that agency that was keeping an eye out for monopolistic activity.

Kerry, there again, you keep associating my argument with the commodities side of the situation and I thought I had re-clarified in my last post that my argument had nothing to do with the commodities market. On the receiving end of the small group of large oil companies that sell the refined product to us... NOT THE PRODUCERS...NOT THE BUYERS...THE OIL CO'S THAT ARE REFINING AND SELLING TO US. Not that the commodities side isn't a problem too, but that's not at all what I said.

I just think you underestimate how they are going to be able respond when that competition comes along. You think they are going to just let that competition take market share from them? With all that cash reserve from record profits to defend themselves and Washington's easy ability to "illegalize" anything that doesn't please their lobbyists?


So your problem with oil is at the retail level? Just because a gas station has Exxon on the sign doesn't mean it is owned by Exxon. They are franchised just like any other business. Here are some gas stations you can buy in Jacksonville and you can get it on the "scam" yourself
Jacksonville Gas Stations and Convenience Stores For Sale (http://www.loopnet.com/Florida/Jacksonville_Gas-Stations-For-Sale/)

Even the suppliers of gas sell across brands. Jacksonville has 2 tanks farms, one is owned by Hess and I forget who owns the second one. You can drive by the Hess tank farm and see tanker trucks from multiple brands (even independent tankers) filling up at the same pumps.

As for the lobby effort by the oil (and auto) industry, tell me about it. I wanted to adapt my wifes Armada to run on CNG only to find out the EPA won't let me. You are only allowed to adapt trucks from three manufactures. Care to guess which three they are? You guessed it: GM, Ford, Dodge. Go figure.

Good grief! With all due respect Kerry, you're all over the place here from a to c and I've been talking about b since the beginning. I know the gas stations are mainly franchised...again, I didn't say gas stations...the gas stations dont refine oil...

The OIL CO'S THAT REFINE OIL...not the BUYERS, not the GAS STATIONS, but the OIL CO'S that are refining the stuff...th gas station you speak of with the Exxon sign...they are not getting their refined gas from venuzuela or the middle east, they are getting the finished product from one of the big ones, possible Exxon. That is who I've been talking about. And everyone knows gas stations make nothing on gas any more. I get the feeling that you're messing with me here...certainly you must be. :poke:

On the conversions, I am glad you see what is happening. Now, if they are doing that now, imagine what they are gonna try when real competition comes along.

Sorry SGRAY - I got it now. I will have to research the refining industry but you are correct that refining capacity is the bottleneck. As I said earlier, gasoline in Florida is higher because we have to ship it in from Aruba. There is one way to fix the problem in a hurry. Make a law that says no more shipping of refined gasoline across state lines. Let each state build and support their own refining capacity.

Sorry SGRAY - I got it now. I will have to research the refining industry but you are correct that refining capacity is the bottleneck. As I said earlier, gasoline in Florida is higher because we have to ship it in from Aruba. There is one way to fix the problem in a hurry. Make a law that says no more shipping of refined gasoline across state lines. Let each state build and support their own refining capacity.

1. That would NOT be an efficient way to produce gasoline.
2. That would most likely run afoul of the Constitution.

1. That would NOT be an efficient way to produce gasoline.
2. That would most likely run afoul of the Constitution.

It might not be the most efficient way to produce gasoline but running out of gas in Georgia and Tennessee every time a hurricane blows through the gulf coast isn't a very good system either.

The US Constitution clearly says congress can regulate interstate commerce

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Midtowner has had Con Law since I have, but restricting the flow of goods amongst the states would run afoul the Commerce Clause.

Midtowner has had Con Law since I have, but restricting the flow of goods amongst the states would run afoul the Commerce Clause.

You are actually in a much better position to comment on the subject than I am so I will take your word for it. On a related note, why was it once illegal for Coors to be shipped outside a 9 state region?

That's an excellent question. Are you sure it was actually illegal or just their choice to do so? E.g.- If Missouri (home of Anheuser Busch) made a law making it completely illegal for, say, Coors to cross state lines into Missouri, that would almost certainly be considered an unconstitutional law due to the negative implications of the Commerce Clause (called the Dormant Commerce Clause). It's a very nuanced part of Con Law that's not easily explained or understood...I know I still have trouble with it.



The “Dormant” Commerce Clause, also known as the “Negative” Commerce Clause, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Commerce Clause expressly grants Congress the power to enact legislation that affects interstate commerce. The idea behind the Dormant Commerce Clause is that this grant of power implies a negative converse — a restriction prohibiting a state from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce. The restriction is self-executing and applies even in the absence of a conflicting federal statute.
Dormant Commerce Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause)

Kerry- I've heard the same thing about Coors, but I haven't looked into it enough to know for sure.

On the gas thing, your point about georgia is valid. You guys had quite a time getting fuel during that shortage. Did you notice a lot of influx on Marta when that happened...just curious. I use Marta (mainly the rail part) whenever I am working down in ATL.

OKCMallen and SGRAY – Check out the courts distinctions between manufacturing and commerce with regards to regulating interstate commerce.

It had more to do with Coors manufacturing capacity than it did laws, they were still pretty much a regional beer until the 80's like many beer companies were and still are. They didn't attempt to expand east of the Mississippi until Coors Light came into being, they now make it in both Golden and West Virginia but the original Coors is still made just in Golden.

In most cases to be legally sold you have to have state liquor board approval and a distributor willing to seek it. There are some beers not available in Oklahoma because there has not been a distributor willing to seek approval, I know that I could not find Kirin Lager in Oklahoma for a long time but I could in Texas. Also, sometimes the state boards do not allow some for strange reasons, like Dixie Brewing Co. Blackened Voodoo Lager in Texas for a long time because of the "black magic" connotation.

Kerry- I've heard the same thing about Coors, but I haven't looked into it enough to know for sure.

On the gas thing, your point about georgia is valid. You guys had quite a time getting fuel during that shortage. Did you notice a lot of influx on Marta when that happened...just curious. I use Marta (mainly the rail part) whenever I am working down in ATL.

MARTA did pick up some riders but it is already a well used system. Most of the people I know just worked from home. I bought gas just before hitting metro Atlanta on my way in for the week so I was never impacted. The problem with MARTA is two fold. It doesn't make it out to the suburbs and there isn't a circulator system around downtown so once you get there you have to walk. Keep in mind that downtown Atlanta is way larger than downtown OKC and it only has 4 rail stops over a 3.5 mile stretch. This is why I mentioned the Perth model for OKC in another thread.

Hey Kerry, I thought you might like this video (if you havent seen already) of the lawmakers today grilling the CEOs and at times making them look pretty stupid. And believe it or not, a lot of grilling was coming from good old-school democrats (such as Paul Kanjorski (D) PA). Watch the whole thing if you havent already.

Big Three auto CEOs flew private jets to ask for taxpayer money - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/19/autos.ceo.jets/index.html#cnnSTCVideo)

I thought it was great that they seized on the fact that all the execs flew their individual corporate jets to washington, as well as the moment that Mr Kanjorski left the GM ceo puzzled when he asked for specific estimates of money needed to keep them from going under.

I heard all I needed to hear in the first 3 seconds. They don't know if they can survive bankruptcy. Look, if you can't survive bankruptcy then you can't survive period. The real reason they don't want to go into to bankruptcy is because the stock will be zeroed out and they will lose all of the money they have been stealing from their own company. These CEOs have a lot of their networth tied up in their own stock. By stealing, I mean they have received compensation for work they have not been performing to a satisfactory level.

Rick Wagner at GM said they were burning through $5 billion per month and expects to get between $10 billion and $12 billion from his share of the money. That is 8 to 10 weeks of money. What good is it going to be to spend all of that money if it only last 2 months?

Now the Auto Execs have been instructed to provide a report showing how they would use the money. What? They are asking for $25 billion to $50 billion and they don't know what they would use it for yet? If they don't know what they would use it for then how do they know they are asking for the correct amount.

Note to self - if I ask for $25 billion I need to be able to explain how I am going to spend it.

hmmm, I thought detailed plans were only required if you were asking for mid 3 figures :)

What does any of this have to do with Boone Pickens? This thread is so far off topic it's ridiculous.

What does any of this have to do with Boone Pickens? This thread is so far off topic it's ridiculous.

...as are many other threads here...nothing new. What's ridiculous are the christmas presents these CEOs are taking home while the actual workers are being laid off. I suppose at some point the thread will die, probably on the subject of food. :)

Kerry, in regards to your link on the CEOs, did you see the video report today on the CEO of Japan Airlines? If that doesn't make our business leaders look bad, I dont know what would.

Check it out here:

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/business/2008/11/02/lah.japan.ceo.pay.cut.cnn)