Posted on 09/15/2005 9:21:26 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
The energy used at the consumer outlet is much cheaper than that from gasoline. A recharge maybe costs 50 cents. Of course the car needs gasoline to accelerate and to maintain speeds suitable for highway driving. So some gas is consumed, but less than an ordinary hybrid.
You have FReepmail.
Buying back shares is not bad news. It benefits shareholders--you know, the folks to whom Exxon's directors and officers are responsible, not sniveling whiners.
Gee how can you have profits when you have to repair old equipment when you can't build new facilities, have to repair rigs that were damaged rebuild port facilities.
------
Isn't it amazing? And remember too, in spite of what the fuel industry says, their entire operation does not revolve around the Gulf area either...and many refineries are reporting they are back on line....amazing, isn't it? Yet too, in California we have been told our natural gas, for heating, is going up FORTY PERCENT this winter.
Yes, there will be more trouble if the government intervenes. But the publicly perceived greed is going to lead to just that. The PR is not good.
The problem is that there is no assurance the price of crude will stay that high. The oil industry has been burned before when they have poured money into investment when prices are high, only to see prices fall by the time the exploration reaps product.
In California, because of housing cost, you cannot believe the number of people who have moved to outer areas where they can afford housing. The cost of commuting is growing tremendously. What do you think this is doing to truck drivers? What will it do to the cost of everything we buy?
Bank of Amercia's profit margin is twice as high as ExxonMobil's.
People don't borrow money in Boston?
Of course those prices have to go to repair damages and lose production.
You gun grabbing eco nuts deserve whatever happens to you out in mexifornia.
Truck drivers have generally weathered this storm much better than people have expected. For one thing, more and more of them have been buying fuel under long-term contracts and therefore aren't as seriously affected by short-term price spikes as they used to be. Also, the trucking industry seems to have a lot of price flexibility on the up side -- prices charged by the industry have generally been increasing for several years now, due to a chronic driver shortage that raised their labor costs.
That's CA and any price increases are the result of government inefficiency, thank god.
----
Try DU.
I see your point, but I'm not sure we could find enough abundant reserves in large enough number to really bring the price down that much, especially with worldwide demand growing so fast...
Good for them! Clever bunch, them Japanese!
Meanwhile, GWB has ties to oil and Exxon makes it look like conservatives think this is all OK.
Exactly what direct tie to Exxon does Bush himself have, again?
The plain truth of it is that the actual cost of producing a gallon of gas, on average, hasn't changed much, but they have made billions on the fear created by the crisis.
Oh, really? The cost of crude oil rising from $30 to $60 per barrel has absolutely nothing to do with the matter? And the fact that Americans (and their international counterparts) are buying record amounts of gasoline, which now costs more to refine and distribute, also has nothing to do with it?
Really. Come now. Please. You're embarrassing us.
I don't want the government to get involved. Unfortunately, whether real or only perceived price goughing, perception is everything. This is going to play right into the hands of Hillary and the RATS. It is more of a problem than you are willing to recognize.
It's called a License to Steal.
Comrade my butt..........I think I will send you a bill for the air you are breathing...because it is mine. Send me a check for 1 billion and say to yourself....so what.
After all you need it and I own it...so..... so what!
don't have the money...so what......get it.
SO what.
Oh the government is allowing our borders to be wide open.....let it be...so what.
Is it just me or do cars get lower mileage now than twenty years ago? I bought a new Pontiac Pheonix in 1980, it had a four speed manual with fourth gear being overdrive, a 2.5 liter engine and was roomy enough for me (well over six feet and well over two hundred pounds) the car got 34 miles to the gallon at interstate speeds with four riders and heavy luggage in the trunk. For that matter the first car my older brother owned was a 52 Mercury that was big and roomy and it got 22 miles to the gallon highway with a full load. I am hearing all these reports now of vehicles that get very low mileage and I don't understand it. I know for a fact that Ford had one model of F-150 pickup in the early eighties that was EPA rated at 29 miles in highway driving and I knew a couple of people who owned one who claimed they got 27 on the highway. I can't find a Ford salesman now who will even admit that the truck ever existed.
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.