Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

America Has Oil on the Brain

By Terrence McNally, AlterNet. Posted May 12, 2007.


Lisa Margonelli traveled thousands of miles from her local gas station to oil fields half a world away to try and understand how Americans can buy 10,000 gallons a second without giving it much thought.
41d22fthd0l
Advertisement

Americans buy ten thousand gallons of gasoline a second, without giving it much of a thought. Where does it come from? How far does it travel? Why does it cost so much? Who's making money along the way?

Lisa Margonelli traveled thousands of miles from her local gas station to oil fields half a world away. Along the way she stopped at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the New York Mercantile Exchange's crude oil market, oil fields from Venezuela to Texas, to Chad, and even an Iranian oil platform. I jokingly call her book, Fast Fuel Nation. She calls it Oil on the Brain.

I spoke with Lisa about her book, the economy of gas stations, and how oil money can hurt a developing country like Chad.

Terry McNally: What kind of car do you drive? Where do you normally buy your gas? How many miles per gallon do you get?

Lisa Margonelli: I drive a 2000 Honda Civic hatchback that gets about 35 miles to the gallon. I actually buy my gas at a Shell station that is quite cheap and relatively near the freeway entrance near my house. But ideally, if it were convenient on my route, I would buy from an independent gas station.

McNally: Why?

Margonelli: Because the independents exert pressure to keep the prices down, and I support the struggling independent work ethic. But the Shell station is extremely convenient, and normally I never think about gas until my tank is almost empty.

McNally: Where do independents get their gas?

Margonelli: They get it from wholesalers called jobbers who buy it on the spot market. It comes from all the same refineries that are owned by the chains. They put their surplus each day on the spot market -- it's exactly the same gas.

McNally: There's a major right now running commercials warning about low quality gas...

Margonelli: -- Chevron.

McNally: Chevron with Tech-Ron and their little talking cars...

Margonelli: -- "Avoid the hazards of low quality gas."

McNally: What are the hazards of low quality gas -- lower prices?

Margonelli: Yup. Techron is apparently a special additive, but we'll never know because it's a trade secret.

McNally: Of course.

Margonelli: I don't know of any statistics on Techron. But the independents sell their gas with a standard detergent package that is perfectly adequate to clean the car.

You know there are nice looking independents and then there are super crappy ones. When I started the book, I had this impression that perhaps the very crappy looking independents were putting water in it or something. Of course water and gas don't mix, so that's a very naive idea. No, it's all the same gas, all the tanks are inspected by the same inspectors, it all comes from the same big pot.

McNally: How much was gas going for when you started the book?

Margonelli: Gas was really cheap in 2001. In 2003 I think it was $1.61 a gallon. It's been an amazing time to watch the market.

I got to see was how all the different economic wheels are pushing against each other and meshing. We tend to think of the oil industry as this big monolithic thing, but in fact it's made up of so many moving parts and so many different agendas, that you can't really predict where it's going.

McNally: You could predict that sometime it's going to run out, and before that it's going to get more expensive.

Margonelli: But we had big oil experts in 1998 lamenting the possibility that oil was soon going to be $7 a barrel.

McNally: I'm guessing you didn't set out to be an energy policy wonk. Tell me a little bit about the evolution -- of you and this book?

Margonelli: In the beginning, I was fascinated by the world at the other end of the pike, in Iraq or in Alaska. I just wanted to hang out along this supply chain. I also really wanted to get into places that were off limits, onto oil fields and into refineries.

I'm really curious too about how huge policies or huge historic trends actually impact individuals, because I think that's the way we understand them. So I thought the way for me to do oil, was to get to know individuals along the way and see how they understood their place in the supply chain.

What started as a project of understanding individuals turned into a project of trying to understand a large economy. And then as I was beginning the writing of the book, I got a fellowship from the New America Foundation, kind of a centrist think tank. For the first time I wasn't just standing outside shaking my finger. I was trying to do something constructive and that opened up a new world to me.

McNally: I've started calling the book to myself, Fast Fuel Nation.

Margonelli: That's a better title. Thank you.

McNally: Eric Schlosser did for a Happy Meal, how it got here, who and what got hurt along the way, connecting the dots... It seems to me you're doing the same thing for a gallon of gas at the pump.

Margonelli: I certainly hope to. I used to buy hamburgers without thinking about it. Then all of a sudden every time I picked up a fry, I was thinking about the man who changed the potato farming process in Idaho. I don't expect people to agonize about buying gas, but when people fill up, I hope that they have a sense of where it came from and what it cost along the way.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gasoline, lisa margonelli

Interviewer Terrence McNally hosts Free Forum on KPFK 90.7FM, Los Angeles (streaming at kpfk.org).

Interviewed author Lisa Margonelli is currently an Irvine Fellow at the New America Foundation. She has written for the San Francisco Chronicle, Wired, Business 2.0, Discover, and Jane, and was the recipient of a Sundance Institute Fellowship and an excellence in journalism award from the Northern California Society of Professional Journalists. She is based in Oakland, California.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
"Top Tier Fuels"
Posted by: UnEasyOne on May 12, 2007 1:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Toyota, Honda and other manufacturers recently complained that the detergent in most gasoline was inadequate to keep modern engines clean and established the "Top Tier" standard, which not all gasoline providers agreed to meet. Exxon is an example of one who did not. Shell is one who did. Previously I used the cheapest gas in my Toyota and had to pay to get the engine "decarbonized."

Maybe I am being scammed - maybe not. I thought that point was worth mentioning though. I do use regular gas, which is perfectly adequate for most cars. If your owners manual says to use a higher octane grade, do by all means. However if it doesn't specify premium, you can save by getting 3/5 tank of regular and topping off with premium.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Heads up! Posted by: schokoprinz
Why Americans have oil on their brains
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker on May 12, 2007 1:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are roughly the same number adult men in the United States as women.

Because the draft was eliminated in 1973, most adult males today have never served in America’s armed forces. They never learned military discipline and do not understand what real patriotism means.

Also, those same males did not experience the 1974 energy crisis when OPEC embargoed oil to the United States because it backed Israel in the Yom Kippur War, resulting in long lines at gas stations, odd-even buying days and a national speed limit of 55 mph.

On average, the end result of those demographics is a country made up of impatient, self-centered, greedy citizens who are sacrificing nothing during wartime and only care about the price of fuel for their gas-guzzling SUVs. Like spoiled children, they need to be taught a civics lesson only sky-high oil prices can bring.

For the TRUTH about Iraq, Bush 43 and his treasonous neocon cabal, visit the following patriotic websites:

CommonDreams.org
FreedomCentralUSA.com
PhonyFighterPilot.com
VoteVets.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» There is no war Posted by: eddie torres
» Real Patriotism?? Posted by: Sparks56
What Does "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Have to Do With 9/11 and Peak Oil?
Posted by: BillDouglas on May 12, 2007 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the mid 1970's world oil production began to peak, meaning the world's oil reserves had peaked in production and would only go down from that point.

Since then revolutions occurred in technology that would have weaned America off of fossil fuel dependency. A documentary on the EV-1, the first full electric plug-in car, shows that in the mid-1990's GM had produced a full electric car that could accelerate fast as any teenager could dream of, smoking tires out of a parking lot. It could go hundreds of miles on a charge, and the equivelant cost would be about .50 cents per gallon if that same car used gas.

If this technology had spread, the price of trillions of dollars of unpumped oil . . . would plummet. There was a panic in the halls of power, as the oil barons now running our nation, would not only lose money, but also lose their strangle hold on the world's unrelenting need for oil. They would lose world control.

Before Bush got elected much of his main men, were members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), including Rumsfeld, Cheney, William Krystol, Feith, etc. They devised a visionary projection of America's future power. It called for a militaristic policy to control energy resources worldwide. However, in this vision statement, they acknowledged that Americans would not go along with such a policy UNLESS there was a cataclysmic attack on the American homeland, like a new Pearl Harbor. In other words, they needed a 9/11 attack.

They needed Afghanistan in order to run a pipeline through it bringing oil from the Caspain Sea area down to the ocean for sale to Europe & Asia, etc. Unocal had been working on plans, along with Enron, to do that until the Taliban pulled out of the deal. Members of the Bush Admin. meeting with them pre-9/11 were reported to have told them, "go along with this pipeline and get a carpet of gold. Refuse and get a carpet of bombs." Again, this was BEFORE 9/11.

A little known but easily discovered bit of reality, was that Halliburton's subsidiary got contracts to construct detention centers in Guantanamo in Cuba, BEFORE 9/11.

Some one at a CIA connected investment institution, AB Brown Trust, which had been investigated by Congress before . . . made $5 million dollars by betting AGAINST United and American Airlines THE DAY BEFORE 9/11. The current head of AB Brown on 9/11, a friend of the previous head of AB BRown, Buzzy Krongard, now Executive Director of the CIA on 9/11/2001 . . . resigns on 9/11/2001 . . . with no questioning about the insider trades.

The WTC towers, and WTC Building 7, were according to a forensics investigation using debris analysis and computer modeling found that the towers had to have been brought down with controlled demolition, some charges being set off BEFORE the plane strikes. In order for demolitions to occur the charges had to have been set weeks or at least many days BEFORE 9/11. GW Bush's brother and cousin sat on the board of Securicom which was in charge of WTC security leading up to 9/11/2001.

When 9/11 occurs, Bush's approval rating goes thru the roof. PNAC's vision of controlling Afghanistan and Iraq oil fields is implimented. The emerging reality of a full electric car economy that could lift America and the world as energy prices plummet . . . was buried along with every other focus on human uplift, while America became a Spartan like warrior state of revenge and raw military power and intimdation.

Fact is, we could have a clean, cheap, electric car economy now. We could be exporting the technology worldwide, and be building car plants rather than closing them.

It took a BIG SCAM to get America distracted from limitless promise that an unfolding cheap energy economy was unveiling. It took a BIG SCAM to keep the entire world sucking at the udder of oil dependence. 9/11/2001.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shell Oil is inconvenient.
Posted by: Megaera on May 12, 2007 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm surprised, after all of her research, that Lisa Margonelli can buy gasoline from a Shell station because it's "convenient".

I don't buy from Shell, Chevron/Texaco, and Exxon/Mobile because of their abysmal record of complicity with people who traffic in slaves, who kill labor leaders and environmentalists, who rape and pollute the land, and who steal from and commit cultural genocide against the people of the lands where the oil is drilled and refined.

Shell, in particular, was an unapologetic ally of and complicit with the apartheid regime in South Africa. Now they are guilty of complicity with people who commit horrific human rights abuses and do irrevocable environmental damage in Nigeria. Workers in Nigeria had to strike because they hadn't been paid by the Shell Oil groups for over a year. Even when they are paid, their pay is sub-standard and their health concerns go unheeded by the oil companies. Also, Shell has fomented troubles between tribes in Nigeria where they have disregarded environmental and cultural concerns in order to extract the oil from the land. And that's only one country in which they drill.

Americans refuse to take responsibility for what our dollar does when put in the pockets of companies who do not care for anything but the bottom line. I agree with Ms. Margonelli that we need to think more about using less. Beyond that, I think we need to take responsibility for what our oil habit has done to so many people around the world. We need to be willing to walk away from cheap oil if the cost is in human lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Shell Oil is inconvenient. Posted by: moenbailey
» RE: Shell Oil is inconvenient. Posted by: dangerouslysane
» They are all inconvenient Posted by: edith
Notice that energy has been stripped out
Posted by: ReallyBearish on May 12, 2007 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Notice that the fraud known as the consumer price index has stripped out energy and food (along with housing prices), and is called the "core" rate of inflation. Oil is the single most important factor in world inflation. The talking face liars on CNBC blather on about "core" inflation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

my morning oil
Posted by: twocreeks on May 12, 2007 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I served in the Army (drafted 1970), experienced gaslines (so still remove my front plate - by the time I got the gas pumping it was too late for anyone to tell me it was the "wrong" day:) and agree that the uncritical and apathetic masses take for granted (as required so the mass market and capitalism can grow) myths such as the "American Dream" -, specifically, cool cars (and carbon fuel) , lawns, unlinited food, comfort...

Yet this stands out in Lisa Margonelli interview:"...a conversation I had with a professor who had been a member of Parliament. He was a very thoughtful man, very mellow.
He said that the Parliamentarians hadn't really been allowed to sign off on the oil proposal, but they had been expected to ratify it." So, we are not so different than Chad, with our Congress "signing off" on s__t, as in a war to keep us in oil for the drivers, what a circle... It's so sad what humanity has come to in our addiction to status/comforts. Peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fidel Castro:
Posted by: rwa on May 12, 2007 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Transforming food into fuels is a monstrosity.

Capitalism is preparing to perpetrate a massive euthanasia on the poor, and particularly on the poor of the South, since it is there that the greatest reserves of the earth’s biomass required to produce biofuels are found. Regardless of numerous official statements assuring that this is not a choice between food and fuel, reality shows that this, and no other, is exactly the alternative: either the land is used to produce food or to produce biofuels.

Studies made by the Belgian Office of Scientific Affairs shows that biodiesel causes more health and environmental hazards because it creates a more pulverized pollution and releases more pollutants that destroy the ozone layer.

With regards to the argument claming that the agrifuels are harmless, Victor Bronstein, a professor at the University of Buenos Aires, has demonstrated that:

·It is not true that biofuels are a renewable and constant energy source, given that the crucial factor in plant growth is not sunlight but the availability of water and suitable soil conditions. If this were not the case, we would be able to grow corn or sugarcane in the Sahara Desert. The effects of large-scale production of biofuels will be devastating.

·It is not true that they do not pollute. Even if ethanol produces less carbon emissions, the process to obtain it pollutes the surface and the water with nitrates, herbicides, pesticides and waste, and the air is polluted with aldehydes and alcohols that are carcinogens. The presumption of a "green and clean" fuel is a fallacy.

The proposal of agrifuels is unviable, and it is ethically and politically unacceptable...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fidel Castro: Posted by: Trazom
» RE: Fidel Castro: Posted by: heftysmurf
Expensive Gas is Good News
Posted by: jane funk on May 12, 2007 10:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. Margonelli wants to “keep the [gas] prices down”, but you know, and I hate to admit this because I simply loathe the Bush administration, I consider one of the more positive things they have done is enact policies that have allowed the price of gas to rise significantly – though admittedly not nearly enough IMHO. As I walk and bicycle around my small town, an absurd two-hour commute through a mountain pass, from a large metropolitan area, I have wondered at the fathomless idiocy of the sole occupant Hummer commuters with the “Support the Troops” magnets on their tailgates, and in consideration of them and the issues of global climate change and national security, and all of the associated issues on which these touch, I have secretly and silently rejoiced at the simpering and complaining over the “pain in the pocketbook” rising oil prices have generated. Unlikely as it seems, I still hold hope that the pain will generate some some miniscule progress toward sanity in our energy and transportation policies, and I gaze fondly on the gas station price banners each time I note a 10 cent/gallon uptick. But I’m not holding my breath.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Expensive gas is the best news Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: xpensive Gas is Good News Posted by: Lincoln fan
$5 gas, $10 minimum wage...
Posted by: SteveB on May 12, 2007 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gas isn't too expensive, it's too cheap. Let's set the price at a fixed $5 per gallon, with taxes adjusting automatically to make up the difference between that $5 price and the cost to the retailer.

$5 gas would trigger a reduction in demand, which would trigger a reduction in price, so over time, the tax share (which could be used to fund green energy sources) would grow.

And, to cushion the blow to the working poor, let's tie the $5 gas price to an increase in the minimum wage to $10 per hour.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How do we get there? Posted by: SteveB
» RE: $5 gas, $10 minimum wage... Posted by: richholland
» RE: $5 gas, $10 minimum wage... Posted by: richholland
» wrong on three counts... Posted by: SteveB
» RE: wrong on three counts... Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: gas tax scheme Posted by: Dboy
Here's the math...
Posted by: SteveB on May 12, 2007 12:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone driving 10,000 miles a year in a car that gets 25 miles/gallon and paying $2.50 extra per gallon in taxes would pay $1000 extra in taxes in a year.

The same person, working 40 hours per week at $7 per hour, gains $6240 in extra income from a raise to $10 per hour.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here's the math... Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Here's the math... Posted by: EdinIowa
» RE: Here's the math... Posted by: EagleMB
» Where do I start? Posted by: SteveB
» RE: Where do I start? Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Where do I start? Posted by: SteveB
» RE: Where do I start? Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Where do I start? Posted by: SteveB
» RE: Where do I start? Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Where do I start? Posted by: SteveB
» RE: Where do I start? Posted by: EagleMB
Mass Transit and Re-Designing Cities
Posted by: sofla100 on May 12, 2007 2:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A big part of the problem is the layout of most major American cities; it's an abudance of freeways and a lack of mass transit. I don't therefore agree that raising the price of gas is a good idea. it would just hurt a lot of working poor people who have to get to their jobs across town. The problem: our cities and way of life are designed for the automobile. Bus routes that do exist are crowded, infrequent, and dangerous to use. Existing mass transit lines, such as in NYC and DC, are widely used and significantly reduce automobile traffic. We need to do two things. First of all, quit building freeways and start building mass transit lines such as subway systems, next, re-design our cities and way of life so that it is not necessary to travel so far to get to work. Busnesses and schools need to be closer to the population centers and people need to stop insisting on having 1/4 acre home lots in the suburbs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Response (Part 1) Posted by: mjabele
» RE: esponse (Part 1) Posted by: EagleMB
» Response (Part 2) Posted by: mjabele
» RE: esponse (Part 2) Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Correction... Posted by: EagleMB
» Well, because Posted by: edith
» Fortunately... Posted by: SteveB
The same people complaining are spending $3-5/gallon for water
Posted by: elfinito on May 12, 2007 3:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last year the cost of water in LA was estimated at $0.004/gallon. That's 4/10 of a penny. Yet, the average consumer spends $3-5/gallon for their drinking water. I know that this is only a small portion of the water we use in the home, but it shows that people are willing to spend for a healthier, better product.

Yet, if better energy solutions came out, and they cost, say the equivalent of $6-7/gallon, do you think consumers would buy it, if gas was around for even $5/gallon? I don't think so.

We're selfish creatures, with water people actually do not like the tatse of their tap water, so they are willing to spend to have what THEY WANT. Even if it means a mark-up of 10,000X the cost of tap water.

But, if the negatives of the cheap alternative are SOCIETAL, and not part of our Instant Gratification mind-sets, we would not even be willing to pay twice the amount.

So maybe the only answer is too keep the price of oil as high as possible...b/c the only thing the average American consumer cares about is "ME", and unless the product is directly affecting "ME," by emptying my wallet, no change will be made.

The high price of gas is what it finally took for the average American to start demanding alternative energy...we are truly a sad, egocentrical people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

G*O*D
Posted by: wisewebwoman on May 12, 2007 3:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And this is what makes the sad and sick economy of the world go round. I am far from being an expert on economics but acknowledge that it is all tied to Gold, Oil and Drugs. Illegal drugs generate a huge part of the economy and we have become so oil dependent and not just in our McHappy Motoring but our very food supplies are reliant on petroleum product fertilizers meted out by the huge GM'd agri businesses.
We are in a sad and sorry state and pushed ever further from reality by deceptive standard of living indices.
And yes, first priority in Afghanistan was planting those poppy seeds, first priority in Iraq was removing the meters from the oil wells and check any country with gold underneath it to ascertain its bloody history.
We need to re-build our communities from the ground up and yes, reconnect with that ground and grow our own food from self-seeding organic plants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: drugs Posted by: Dboy
It's Vanity, Stupid . . .
Posted by: MAD on May 12, 2007 4:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Americans buy ten thousand gallons of gasoline a second, without giving it much of a thought. Where does it come from?"

Americans normally have one thing on their mind - KEEPING UP APPEARANCES. That we consume thousands of gallons of gasoline a minute to power ostentatious and wasteful vehicles is a perfect example of our predominant "form over substance" mentality. I am somewhat perplexed as to the inspiration behind this article - I think a four-year-old could have deduced that vanity is the (no pun intended), driving force behind it.

The fact of the matter is that most Americans would accessorize with rings and earings made from the bones of Indian street children if they thought it made them appear more attractive. The Escalades, Hummers, Yukons, Benzos, Range Rovers and F-350s cluttering America's highways, chugging away at 11 MPG, are a mere reflection of the shallow and oh-so-frail American psyche. As long as Americans continue to define success in terms of maximum accumulation of shiny baubles, then nothing short of $8 a gallon will stop them. The same can be said of homes, boats, designer clothes, sunglasses, cell-phones, i-pods . . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's Vanity, Stupid . . . Posted by: richholland
» Luddites can be right Posted by: moflard
Alternative Reality!
Posted by: williameon on May 13, 2007 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Efficiency!
Conservation,
Alternative energy,
Energy Independence,
Media Intemperance,
Public Financed Elections,
Would bring?
Corpirate Independence,
Freedom from Religion,
Stop outsourcing,
Say No to
Mono-Saint-Co’s
Franken Corn,
A Livable wage,
A Livable Planet.
These are a few of the things
That would bring positive change.
When GREED rules/ruins the Planet,
We All LOOSE.
REBOOT!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Alternative Reality! Posted by: ray burchard
Can't help remarking on the irony...
Posted by: SteveB on May 13, 2007 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of someone who "traveled thousands of miles... to try and understand how Americans can buy 10,000 gallons a second."

Hmmm... could it be because we're all "travelling thousands of miles"?

Just a thought.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All of the cheaper, independent gas stations in my area
Posted by: Ellie1 on May 13, 2007 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
suddenly went out of business in a matter of weeks. Wonder why that happened?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another doom and gloom article never fighting for real solutions.
Posted by: maxpayne on May 13, 2007 2:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never mind that fighting to legalize and put hemp out in the market as a better and harmless biofuel that causes no global warming, funding and letting solar, wind, hemp, geothermal, etc ... compete in the market instead of keeping a RIGGED market and calling it "free" is all it takes ! Never mind, the far right and the far left are the strangest bedfellows you'll ever see !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America Has Oil on the Brain...
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 13, 2007 8:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and little else...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: America Has Oil on the Brain... Posted by: Logic's Edge
The Long Emergency - Running Out Of Oil
Posted by: Sprocketman on May 14, 2007 3:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you're really interested in this subject, a 'must read' is James Howard Kunstler's "The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century". To put it mildly, it is an eye-opener. The premise is that the ‘age of oil’ is a blip on the radar screen of Mankind, and the fruits of the so-called “Industrial Revolution” are likely not to last. If it weren’t for the excellent references to facts and statistics he cites, it might be considered just another ‘doomsday book’. It is not. It is a thorough explanation of how we got where we are in our energy-dependent civilization, and where it’s likely to lead. He does not draw a pretty picture, especially of the future of suburbia. Indeed, he calls it “the greatest misallocation of resources in human history”.

To put it succinctly, we are running out of oil. In fact, oil production peaked years ago, and are on a downturn. W.W.II was fought on American oil. The Iraq war is being fought on Arabian oil. Automobiles are a passing fad, and suburbia will not be viable. There is nothing to replace oil, and he goes into great detail about why alternative fuels are a fantasy. In fact, horrifying as the prospect may be, nuclear energy may be the only reliable source of electricity to “keep the lights on”. But even there, he states that we would have to have an immediate crash program to build reactors to satisfy the demand ten years from now.

There is hope in the story. He sees the world turning back to its agrarian days, as the miracle of agribusiness crop production fed by oil-based fertilizers fails. People will live in closer communities just to share the burden of making enough food, and the US cities which survive will be more European, with farmland encircling the cities. Electric-powered rail will likely be a solution for our transportation needs, and the horse will again become a common feature of the landscape.

Whether or not you agree with his findings, it is a banquet of food for thought about the issues concerning our future. It will give you pause to consider every time you throw a light switch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lisa has oil IN her brain
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on May 14, 2007 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just drove by a sign that said 3.59

And I couldn't help but wonder will this be the year america collapses under the weight of all its SUVs?

Either way, things are a bit more serious than the fluffy nonsense in this article. Gas stations may seem relevant, but they really aren't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lisa has oil IN her brain Posted by: xconservative
Assumptions about growth feed oil vulnerability
Posted by: chay on May 14, 2007 11:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are facing imminent increased decline in global oil production that so far appears to have peaked in 2005 (See The Oil Drum).

Meanwhile, every mainstream economist, businessman, and politician continues implicitly or explicitly to push exponential growth. It's a recipe for overshoot.

--
Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast? (video clip: 8.5min)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

who is fooling us?????
Posted by: richholland on May 15, 2007 1:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Dutch expects to have 30 % more cars from now till 2015.
The government did every thing i. e price is 10 $ an American gallon.
For many groups in society mass transportation is nearly free.

In Asia every year more new cars??
Ideas about ethanol instead of peak oil are cosmetic. Fact is our world cannot excist anymore without OIL.
So donot believe that higher oil prices will change the thing.

Good news is the small CANTAcars in Europe( you donot need a driverslicense, highest speed35 miles, i liter oil = 25 kilometers.
A very old man in a big car is mostly considered to be a pimp.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iraq War: it was OIL, not WMDs, stupid!
Posted by: danielet on May 16, 2007 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For several years a secret process unfolded in Iraq policy making without much discussion about it, except in left and libertarian anti-war circles. It was the issue of Iraq's oil. In fact, there are 'classified" papers that make clear that the intelligence that drove policy was not about WMDs but about the oil situation. Whatever fate befalls Iraq after American withdrawal, it is sure that Bush seeks to leave the per gallon rise in cost of oil to European levels for the President who follows him. Until then, we will get occasional at the pump shocks and the lost potential profits will be absorbed by the oil companies.

Academics would do well to be more "global" in their analysis of our Mideast policies. We have been in competition with China for Mideast oil for a long time now. A "perfect storm" of 1) American oil interests, 2)Israel's desire for dominance of the Mideast and 3)Saudi determination to remove Saddam before his diplomatic "footsie" with Iran would bring him under Shia control, resulted in a green-go-light for a war that Bush was at first literally too frightened to initiate. Now that time ran out and nothing has been done to remove from the minds of Iraqis that the only thing America wants is control of their oil, we find ourselves with only the negative option of an either/or, stay/go, situation available to us. That is the single greatest catastrophe in our Iraq experience: our demonstration to the Arab oil states that we would do anything to insure oil flow but are very limited in how much effort we can invest to that end. Weakness, now matched only by dumbness, will parent an incredible pump shock by January 2009.

Daniel E. Teodoru

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and go seasonal too!
Posted by: Scott on May 18, 2007 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and along with that most will have to go back to eating seasonal foods, no more tomatoes in december, no more shrimp out of fishing season, just more beans and taters and maybe a scrap of meat, cause if you don't have a cow or neighbor with a bull, you won't be trucking america's food all over the country, oh, and no more grapes from Chile either! Yep a big change is coming to america, glad I'm not so young as to live long (more) enough to see it come true....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

are we to be stone agers?
Posted by: Scott on May 18, 2007 4:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and so the solution is to do away with all the things we have invented, made life easier, better, healthier and return to the days of old, do you wish to go as far back as the stone age? THIS complaining against modern life if it was successful in getting rid of all the poster doesn't like, would be to make his or her family a stone age family, children die at birth, live no more then 23 yrs., run around in skins, travel maybe 10 miles on foot from your home campfire. IS THAT what those against ipods, hummers, tv, puters, etc. want? now really, be serious, the WORLD is not ending, it never will and besides Jesus is COMING BACK very soon to make it all Eden again. But if you ain't ready, you get no big mac mansion in heaven.........

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]