Trains.com

Whose Ready for $3.00 a Gallon Gas

11329 views
262 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: MP CF161.6 NS's New Castle District in NE Indiana
  • 2,148 posts
Posted by rrnut282 on Sunday, August 14, 2005 7:19 PM
The reason the price of gas continues to climb is we continue to buy it. Until the demand flattens, the price can and will go up. Why do investors buy futures? Because they think (and are betting it will) go up. When demand drops, the speulators will get scared and get out of the market. What can we do? Slow down. Combine trips. Buy less fuel. Spendmore time time track-side watching trains go by instead of sitting in traffic wasting gas[:)]

Someone mentioned ethanol a few posts back. Most cars can handle 10% without modification. It shouldn't be too difficult to come up with the technology to run vehicles on a reversed ratio. This is the next boon/bust industry. There are 6 proposed plants in Indiana alone. This is great news for railfans. Ethanol plants are rail-intensive. It takes a lot of corn (hauled in by rail) to distill ethanol. The "waste" product can be used to feed cattle. It should be generated in volumes to justify rail transportation also.

The biggest benefit of ethanol is that it will keep the current gasoline-based tax structure intact. It wasn't just the oil companies that suppressed new technology in automobiles.
Mike (2-8-2)
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 14, 2005 7:13 PM
Oh George Bush is the problem? I disagree.

I will still pay 5 dollars for a gallon of gas if necessary. Looking at my income and outflow I can afford 6.00 a gallon before having to shut the vehicles down or move to a city with mass transit or move closer to my job. I have stated these options including purchasing Hybrid vehicles as another possible.

I still say bring it on. There are no new refinerys being built in the USA, no new oil fields being opened and brought on line soon and I think very little change in our driving habits in face of high prices.

I still maintain my position bring it on. I dont blame Bush for this. I blame years of inaction to build, equipt and maintian new technolgies and sources of gasoline supply. We had this problem back in the Oil Embargo and every time we are at war.

Looking back to world war two I see gas ration cards that are so severe that today's average joe schmo would NEVER tolerate such restrictions on his personal auto use. Perhaps it is because passenger trains reached into every little town and it isnt difficult to get around on the trains.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 14, 2005 5:25 PM
The real reason the price of gas is up is not, ahem, not: greedy oil companies, or George Bush. The real reason are spot oil is bid on; people are buying into future people are saying that they think they can sell the oil later for over $60 a barrel. These people are driving the oil price up, many of them are Chinese who is sucking down a lot more of the worlds oil. The oil companies aren't the ones speculating, although speculating is the cause, this is a bubble. Like what happened to gold in the late 70's. Some of the people buying these futures would panic if they had to get the oil and store it. What they do is they sell the contract and make money and drive the price up. Other reasons affecting the price of gas are the fact that a new refinery hasn't been built in 25 years. Every area of the country uses a different government mandated formulation of gasoline. So if one refinery has a problem one producing the same type of gas may be n the other side of the country.
To those who say bring it on; you must not realize the effect fuel prices have on everything, no just fuel and shipping. But every thing will cost more, plastics are oil based, everything requires shipping. $5 for a gallon of gas would affect everything you buy. Why do you want that?
James[C):-)]
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Sunday, August 14, 2005 4:08 PM
Futuremodel....I'm not necessary talking just about transfering spending from "toys" to fuel....almost all products we purchase....those in the necessary category count too and all will be effected if this fuel condition is here for long term....and not every one In the economy can make that transfer so easily. Say "larger truck capacity" anyway one cares to and my feelings on that will be the same.....If we're going to continue to mix autos and trucks on our main highways...{and It sure seem we will}, I think it's wrong to allow their size and load cap. to increase from where it is now. Slamming down one grade to get a jump on the next hill climb is bad enough now...Let's not make that even worse than it is.

Quentin

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 14, 2005 2:06 PM
Add axles add weight but only so far.

80,000 pounds gross is not that much less than 120,000 pounds gross. And the 600 Horsepower CAT which I think is a very good engine for heavy duty vehicles equippted with a Rockwell Transmission and final drive with all the latest technology will yeild only 5-7 mpg.

Those extra axles will cost more to maintain and the damage to the highways somewhat increased. Some drivers are not very good at controlling 40 ton. What makes you think hauling 60 will be better? Sure.. a few more dollars in revenue.

I rather put that freight on two trucks with 400 detroits and auto transmissions and have them get about 8 mpg and make a buck.

Until we use technology that will enable Class 8 vehicles to have 600 horsepower and burn fuel at 6 gallons/hour or less (Or about 15-25 miles per gallon) and using gensets for sleeping and improving the revenue income by raising the rates charged to make the haul.... we will always be struggling to make a dollar per 100 spent as we have these last 20 years.

I started out in the late 80's my pay was equivilant to .20 a mile and two meals with all the trimmings per day was less than 10 dollars. Now my pay is close to .42 cents and two meals cost near 30 dollars a day. That truck is STILL getting 7 miles to the gallon and have gotten much more intensive in the shop and cost at the dealer.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 14, 2005 12:24 PM
Modelcar - The real danger to the economy of high fuel prices isn't in the transfer of consumers' discretionary income from toys to fuel, because the economy can absorb such internal transfers. The real danger is if high fuel prices cause an inflationary reaction for our goods due to higher transportation costs. One way to placate that possibility is to allow a greater load factor for truckers that can offset higher fuel costs, keeping the delivered price of goods nominal. Even if it is just temporary until the speculation diminishes, it is still the best and easiest way to avert the inflationary affects.
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Sunday, August 14, 2005 6:59 AM
...Dave you cite many truisms.....but to completely disband EPA restrictions we'll be headed back to smog so thick cities once again won't be able to breath....Must be a happy median in there {in specs.}, somewhere.
Totally agree we have way too many gasoline blends to fool with and put up with it's contribitution to shortages and prices.....Need to redo those specs too...
But if you are suggesting a formula to increase tonnage for truckers...{by adding axles and changing specs}, that I totally disagree with....There's enough weight slamming around right next to us as it is when we travel on our interstates now.
And if it requires government backing for the shale oil and other projects, to that I say.."bring it on"....

Quentin

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Austin TX
  • 4,941 posts
Posted by spbed on Sunday, August 14, 2005 6:50 AM
I heard on CNN that is more costly to produce ethanol then gas. In the 70s I use to buy "gasohol" but it never caught on with the driving public & it was finally not produced any longer. The time line then was $0.30 PG to $1.00 PG in short order[xx(]


Originally posted by uspscsx
[

Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR  Austin TX Sub

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Austin TX
  • 4,941 posts
Posted by spbed on Sunday, August 14, 2005 6:45 AM
Friday I filled up car #1 it was $2.45 a gallon. Same gas station for car #2 on Saturday it was $2.63 PG. G'rrr[V]

Originally posted by Modelcar

Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR  Austin TX Sub

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Still on the other side of the tracks.
  • 397 posts
Posted by cpbloom on Sunday, August 14, 2005 3:45 AM
http://www.gasbuddy.com/

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 14, 2005 1:10 AM
If it can be guaranteed that crude will stay above $50 a barrel, then at that price the coal to liquids technology becomes profitable. Problem is, a coal liquification plant is a long term investment, and if the oil bubble bursts, those who invested in such plants will lose their shirts. The same thing happened to the shale oil industry during the 70's oil price bubble, the price of oil dropped suddenly and the investors got burned. That's why these guys are hesitant to jump in to this technology without some kind of federal loan guarantee, such as that in the new (and far less than what it could have been) energy bill. Since so much of the current spike is speculator driven, there is no assurance that there won't be a bursting of the bubble.

For what it's worth then, a $3.00 a gallon fuel price should be the plateau over the long haul, and that price is in line with the inflation adjustments. If it goes above that in the short term, then the economy is in trouble.

Of course, there is so much that could have been done to check both the oil price rise and the inflationary affect it will have on other goods. We should have opened up ANWR 5 years ago, then we'd be getting that oil by now. We should have lifted all moratoriums on coastal drilling off California and Florida (after all, don't all those oil rig-hating Florida tourists depend on fuel to actually get there in the first place? What irony if fuel prices caused in part by such drilling moratoriums results in a loss of tourism to those states!) We definately should have provided incentives for new refineries long before now. And do we really need 40 different gasoline blends? If Bush can be faulted for anything, it's the fact that he did not rid the EPA of all those eco-idiots that brought us to this situation.

What to do now for the sake of expediency besides what is in the new energy bill? Get rid of the GVW standards for truckers and replace it with a per axle maximum, the better to increase the load factor to juxtapose fuel price surcharges. Suspend all EPA mandated fuel blend requirements, and allow our refineries to produce more economical quatities of single fuel types. (It should also be noted that suspending these regulations would allow the importation of "non-compliant" gasoline and diesel to supplement domestic production.)

Other than that, just realize that it was a problem years in the making due mostly to environmental feel good legislation, and it will take years to correct.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 14, 2005 12:55 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602

QUOTE: Originally posted by eolafan

Part of the problem is that no new refineries have been built in the last 25 years stateside. Once upon a time, the petroleum companies were allowed to writwe off depreciation of their refineries. Once this allowance was removed by the Carter Administration, there was a serious financial discouragement to build new refineries, or even to upgrade and add capacity to the existing ones. The demand has increased, but there is a major league bottleneck in the supply chain. The refineries have a challenge producing the 40-odd blends of gas that are mandated by law here in the States.


We can thank many tree huggers and green peace types for not allowing companies to start up new refineries. I some times wonder if they have a different agenda.


Also remember that China and India, 2 nations with populations of over 1 billion each, have been industrializing. This places more demand upon the existing market of raw petroleum.


The answer to that is one of 2 or both, stock holders demand they bring the manufacture and outsourced jobs were the belong, or we quite buying at Walmart, look for US made products only and send a message back to those stock holders that don't care about our economy. If Chian and India didn't have that new source of income, then they wouldn't be able to buy new cars or the gas that goes in them. I for one am a little tired of NAFTA and CAFTA. Seems we aren't seeing a fair balance in the treaties.

[censored] [soapbox] [censored]
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Anywhere there are trains
  • 578 posts
Posted by Train Guy 3 on Sunday, August 14, 2005 12:37 AM
Fuel prices are just BULL[censored]! There is no shortage of crude oil and there is no shortage of gasoline. Prices are only up due to speculation. Oil companies speculate that because a Humvee got blown up in Iraq today there will be a huge disruption in the crude oil flow thus costing them half a penny. So they must raise there rates to compensate for this speculation. Speculating is just like assuming.

Exxon-Mobil reported a 50% increase in profit over last year. Now how does this not set off alarms in the goverenment. If my dad business reported a 50% proffit increase the IRS would be comming out of the woodwork asking questions. 50% profit increase.... someone is getting screwed and that someone is us.

TG3 LOOK ! LISTEN ! LIVE ! Remember the 3.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 14, 2005 12:34 AM
Time to start reinvestion in passenger and mass rail transit systems, but as usual old Bush gives billions to the highways, millions to keep the airlines running, and a tin cup and some spare change to Amtrak. My wife and I both drive fairly fuel effeciant cars, but I alas must have a truck to pull the boat to the lake, but its an older diesel and gets good mpg for a truck. But with the gas prices soaring, even the boat hasnt been run much and I might just sell it in the spring if this keeps up. The local car lots here in Erie are flooded with used SUV's and Pickups and small cars and espicaly VW TDI's are fetching full price or more. Glad I have a wood pellet stove for winter heat, keeps the gas furnace from running up the bill!!!
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Saturday, August 13, 2005 11:40 PM
I forget what our rate is (both federal and provincial), but it is something like 70 cents on the dollar. So, if the true cost of the gas rises by 10 cents a liter, the government stands to clear 7 cents! Whoa! Why intervene?
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:36 PM
....But aren't our tax structures as different as apples and oranges....affecting pricing somewhat.

Quentin

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:24 PM
Today up here in BC I paid $ 4.60 a gallon CND $$$
Works out to $ 3.83 usd.
Cost me $ 140 to fill up ( yes big SUV )
We make the stuff up here and you can buy it cheaper than us.
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:17 PM
....I just did a run over to the east in the past week and there aren't too many trucks having trouble on mountain grades on interstates anymore....In fact it's almost an unbelievable site to have a truck climbing a 5% grade alongside of your auto doing 70 mph....But I know that take horsepower to accompli***hat, hence a bunch of fuel oil....I don't know what our brilliant minds might be able to come up with for an alternative sourse but I sure hope we get to seriously working on the problem. As we can easy see we're pretty much at the mercy of all kinds of forces now...And for even our national security, that's really not acceptable.

Quentin

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:53 PM
I would love to say "Chunk the oil.. we dont need it.." but the truth is rooted deep into our lifestyle based on one american with one or more cars.

I recall a study done long time ago to place rails into the interstate roadbed and have heavy trucks float above them drawing power for traction motors similar to slot cars. I suppose for a variety of reasons this did not work too well. This study was done to see about reducing the load on a desiel going up a mountain grade.

I have a feeling there are alot of very smart people working very hard and we may yet be able to wrench this nation out of the tar pit and reduce our need for oil someday.
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:03 PM
...No I don't buy the alledged fact our rising pricing is JUST a reflection of demand / production....Gas prices have risen and fallen here at times fast enough to make one's head spin...and in so doing 10 miles from us it was as much as 20 cents different in price....What I do agree with your suggestion is: It's time to put the massive program on to decide once and for all we can do it a different way and eventually let the Arab nations do what they care to with what they pump out of the ground....And hopefully we would be able to say....Chuck it, we don't need it.

Quentin

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Saturday, August 13, 2005 8:43 PM
It is simplistic to blame greedy companies. It is the markets that are driving up the price, and only then due to speculative buying.

It is true that in Canada the price of gas is largely due to taxes. How else can a government in power promise all things to all people? But our prices are rising, too, and since the rate of taxation is fixed, the revenue to the government is rising proportionally, and who in government would not want to have that revenue to offer inducements to re-elect them come the time?

Your prices are a reflection of demand/production, Economics 101. If you , as a nation, decide that it is getting too expensive, you have a history of doing what needs to be done....this time, it might be a whole rationalization of your energy use and infrastructure. What better time to get off the foreign oil tit, and become self-reliant?
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 13, 2005 7:59 PM
Ouch. Here it's $2.459, $2.559, and $2.659. That's Regular, Plus, and Premium. Oh, and it's 3 cents cheaper for Regular, 5 for Plus, and 7 for Premium at the place that adds up to 10% ethanol to their gasoline. One place is selling it much cheaper than that, but they have a tendency to have crappy gas and they seem to never update their price board.

uspscsx
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 13, 2005 5:32 PM
Today's just went up to an all time high of ,E10.....$2.49. Regular.....$2.59. Diesel.....Same. Allan.
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Saturday, August 13, 2005 5:20 PM
I suspec that there will start to be signs of searches for options. Increased ridership on public transportation, greater sales share for more fuel efficient vehicles, car pooling or not driving as far from home or just staying home.

Those options aren't possible for everybody, but unless one has money to burn, I'll bet everybody is taking a look, or soon will when the bill from the gas credit card arrives. It is probably one thing when the price sneaks up ten percent over a little time. At best most will think that a little reduction in driving will handle that and the budget hit goes almost unnoticed. Pop a 50% increase on anything and you will get some attention.

Jay

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 13, 2005 4:32 PM

Current price in San Francisco

I'm getting a new chain for my bicycle
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, August 13, 2005 3:55 PM
..Brian, I paid 2.49 at that gas station there at the Somerset Turnpike interchance this past Tuesday morning as we entered to head west.....And today here in Muncie I've seen it at 2.559. If nothing changes {from the way it's going now}, I don't see it too much of a stretch to reach 3.00.....

Quentin

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, August 13, 2005 3:48 PM
....Everyone is entitled to their opinon...Personally, I won't be challanging the oil Co's to bring it on because without even encouraging that, they are......And I don't need to spend the money to drive to work being retired....but plenty do have to. I have lived through the mini prices too....Family had an Esso Station for 45 years and originally saw advertising for "6 gal. for $1.00.....!

Quentin

  • Member since
    February 2001
  • 415 posts
Posted by bbrant on Saturday, August 13, 2005 3:42 PM
I haven't read all the posts so maybe this has already been mentioned. My own opinion is that gas prices are high now so that if/when it comes down to $2.25 or so it will seem like a bargain.

I travel about 150-160 miles to work and I fill up daily. Last year at this time gas was $1.75. And within the last 4 or 5 years I can recall it being .99 cents. The other day when I left for work, gas was $2.35. By the time I came home it was $2.45.

As of today, I've seen it for $2.49 - $2.51 in my town. I don't expect to see prices hit $3.00 around these parts (western PA), at least not in the foreseeable future. The price hasn't kept most people from driving so who knows for sure what will happen. Hopefully I'm not proven wrong.

Brian
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 13, 2005 3:30 PM
Recreational? I dont have too much. Occasionally a hobby shop or two a month and sunday morning services. Everything else is here at the house (Satellite, Internet and Library DVD movie list that does not cost anything to rent)

That is why I share the attitude of "BRING IT ON" to gas prices. We will simply deal with it.
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, August 13, 2005 3:28 PM
....eastside....Just a bit of misunderstanding...I was responding to the post before yours.

Quentin

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy