Drivers need to adjust their attitudes before we can save fuel BY ERIC RETZLAFF For The Sunday Gazette Eric Retzlaff lives in Rotterdam. The Gazette encourages readers to submit material on local issues for the Sunday Opinion section.
Itake the same route to work every day. That’s not just because my job and home are in the same locations. I go the cheapest way, gas prices being what they are: four city miles at an average of 20 miles per hour. Sounds pokey, that’s just the average. Sometimes my velocity is zero at a red light I can’t avoid. As with most people, I don’t have the luxury of buying a new, more fuel-efficient auto, such as a hybrid, whenever I feel like it. So I drive a car with 136,000 miles and counting. If someone came up with a car that could get 100 miles per gallon, most people wouldn’t live to see even half the motorists owning one. Solving the current energy crisis requires real effort by three groups: the government, free enterprise and the people. While American free enterprise is in overdrive developing answers to the energy crisis, Congress recessed still debating what to do. I see no recourse but to learn from the abundant advice available in the news on driving more economically. With good vehicle maintenance, an effective fuel additive that cleaned my engine, and careful driving techniques, I’ve increased my fuel efficiency by six to 15 miles per gallon, depending on traffic. I spend $40 to $45 a month on gas. Besides saving money, motorists like me are making the country less dependent on oil from hostile or unstable nations. This seems to be common sense, but despite the billions of fewer miles Americans have driven this year compared to last year, I don’t see much obvious change in the way people are driving the miles they do drive. A few examples: Traveling at the old 55-mile-perhour speed limit is one of the loneliest experiences you can have. You lose only seven minutes over 30 miles driving at 55 instead of 70, and at 70 you are penalized 17 percent in fuel efficiency, according to a U.S. Department of Energy estimate. Slower speeds are also more relaxing. Self-defeating drivers will race from stoplight to stoplight even though, just chugging along, slower-accelerating motorists usually catch up with them at one of the lights. Many motorists will also tailgate in a line of city traffic even though they waste gas in continual stop and go. I have a hard time feeling their “pain at the pump” when I see two women yakking or a guy eating an ice cream cone with engines running. Some people will drive around the block on a simple errand that could be done in a 10-minute walk. We’d have a healthier country if we exercised our bodies more and our cars less. I’ve never written the president to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I’ll take a short walk instead and recoup some of my own contributions to the national unwanted fat repository. The federal government’s inaction on energy since the oil embargo of 1973 by the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries and Congress’ slowness to act now irk me as much as anyone. I sign petitions and send e-mails. But the nation’s energy dependence is so precarious that we need more of the attitude that motivated the World War II generation to support their country by buying war bonds, collecting scrap, or planting victory gardens. Do we still have that in us or are we sitting around helplessly waiting to be saved?
Funny how everyone is out driving around again since gas is finally under $4.00/gal......yet we are actually paying about $1.00/gal than we were last year. Amusing how they can BS us, huh?
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Even with new technology, nuclear is too dangerous
In an Aug. 25 letter [“Technology for next generation of nuclear reactors ready to go”], the writer extolled the virtues of Integral Fast Reactors (IFRs). Though the writer correctly notes that such reactors would not require waste burial in Yucca Mountain, he fails to consider the other dangers associated with them. Firstly, such reactors are cooled by liquid sodium, an extremely reactive material that can absorb water vapor from the air and ignite explosively. Secondly, accidents at IFRs can result in the release of large quantities of radioactive material. Thirdly, the projected 200-year lifetimes for IFRs mean that the design and materials of construction would have to be such that there would be no failures for hundreds of years. In the recorded history of the world, man has never built a machine that lasted that long. Why are we so arrogant as to believe we can do that now? Finally, the radioactive fuel and reactive liquid sodium coolant would make such reactors ready targets for terrorist attacks. The solution to our energy needs is to use solar radiation to electrolyze water to hydrogen and oxygen which, in turn, can be used to produce electricity or used in fuel cells to power automobiles; wind power and tidal movement to also produce electricity; and the use of solar collectors and readily available catalysts to power the conversion of atmospheric carbon dioxide to methanol, a fuel that can be easily transported and readily used to power cars, trucks and railroads with no greenhouse repercussionss. Nuclear energy is simply too dangerous to use. HAROLD I. ZELIGER West Charlton
There have been nuclear reactors in our naval ships for many years without incident proving that if the reactors are built properly there are no problems with them. The problems start when it goes our to a low bidder and he starts to lose money and starts cutting corners to lower his expenses that the problems occur. According to the latest information the eco crowd doesn't want wind turbines because they kill the bats and birds. The eco crowd also doesn't want any wires run thru forests and other sensitive areas so we have no way to get the electricity to where we need it so it looks like wind power is out.
I don't think wind power is out as long as leaders strive to educate the public. The killing of bats and migratory birds was a concern of mine. I'm not a tree hugger but I love the land, and growing up in the country I have a healthy love and respect for wildlife of all kinds. During the research phase of enacting our wind law I discovered that the average kill rate of birds is approx 4 per year by a wind turbine. I probably hit that many with my car in a year. Is this ok? Senseless death of any creature is unacceptable but I don't think windpower is senseless and is well worth the mortality rate. In the earlier days of constructing large wind farms the number of birds killed was much larger. The experts were able to mitagate the problem by locating the farms outside the migratory path of birds.
PS Mr. Zeliger is apparently a rocket scientist......really
The original plan was to build the wind turbine farm out in an area where there were very few people like the desert area where there was plenty of wind available then transport the electricity to areas where it is needed. That would require transmission line to be run thru many areas where there are trees. Wind is not the best form of energy generation as it is not as efficient as many other types of energy production. We need all types of energy production and wind will have it's place in the scope of things in order to be free of the dependence of foreign oil.
Just remember, even the Netherlands (home of the "original" Rotterdam) gave up on windpower centuries ago. Believe it or not, gasoline was once an "alternative energy source," since it wasn't used back when wind or waterpower was.
I wholeheartedly agree with both of you, especially Shadow's comment about the need for all types of energy production and wind will find its place in the scope of things...or maybe it won't.
That's right, Rene, it's called the free market, what our economy is built on. We don't need the government telling us what we need to spend on and we sure don't need them taking the money out of our pocket to spend it on things that we would decide that we don't want to spend it on.
Gas prices not falling as fast as oil's drop Oil prices have fallen more than 26 percent from their July 11 record high of $147.27 a barrel, and all evidence points to further declines...
By Kevin G. Hall
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Oil prices have fallen more than 26 percent from their July 11 record high of $147.27 a barrel, and all evidence points to further declines.
The price Americans pay at the gas pump has fallen a more modest 12 percent at Thursday's national average of $3.67 a gallon. That's led some consumers to wonder if they're being gouged.
In the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett area, the average price Thursday for regular was $3.865, compared with $2.845 a year ago.
Here are some reasons why the price of gasoline, while dropping, isn't moving in lock-step with falling oil prices.
A. "Because they didn't go up high enough in the first place," explains Phil Flynn, an expert in oil contracts for Alaron Trading in Chicago. "The truth of the matter is when crude oil went up to $147 a barrel, the refiners weren't able to pass on the entire cost of crude at the pump."
In mid-March, oil prices were just under $100 a barrel and gas was an average $3.27 a gallon. When oil hit $147, it was a 47 percent jump. Gas prices peaked 84 cents higher, a rise of about 25 percent.
Q. In other words, refiners weren't able to pass along all their rising costs to consumers and now they're trying to take profits on the downside?
A. That seems to be the case. The soaring oil prices clearly were not responding to simple supply and demand. Prices shot up in part because of factors like a weakening dollar, inflation and fears of a U.S. financial meltdown.
Investing in oil contracts became a safety hedge, kind of like investing in gold on fears the dollar would weaken further. (Gold prices, too, have since dived.)
Even as evidence mounted that demand for oil and gasoline was falling, oil prices moved up despite the contrary demand signals.
Q. So gas prices should have been higher than the record $4.11 a gallon nationwide average on July 17?
A. "Had the cost of gasoline kept up with the cost of crude ... gasoline prices at the peak should have been 20 percent to 25 percent higher," said Flynn, adding that refiners had to eat a lot of the rising costs and "are trying to make back some of the money as prices go back down."
Q. That's the view of an oil trader. Who else shares it?
A. The AAA Motor Club believes gasoline prices did not match the run-up price and thus won't likely parallel the drop in oil prices.
"We're in general agreement. Definitely when oil got to $147 a barrel back in July, that cost was not fully passed along to the consumer because, as many Americans know, we were making fewer visits to the gasoline station for most of this spring and summer," said Geoff Sundstrom, a national spokesman for AAA. "And so to a certain degree the profit margins at your local gasoline station were slim to none. ... I don't think it has anything to do with manipulation."
Q. What's going to happen to gasoline prices going forward?
A. On just supply-demand variables, everything points to further drops.
Thursday's gasoline inventory report from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) showed that last week's gasoline supply fell by 1 million barrels, not the 1.8 million expected.
That pushed prices for next-month oil delivery down to $107.92 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Americans are simply driving less and switching to more fuel-efficient vehicles. Gasoline consumption fell 1.6 percent over the peak summer season in July and August, the EIA said, and that's the first time that's happened in 16 years.
And a weakening global economy means even less demand for oil and gasoline.
"We believe that as long as the oil price stays near current levels ... the nationwide average price would hit $3.50 a gallon sometime this month," said Sundstrom.
"We're talking about an additional decline of 15 cents to 17 cents per gallon."
If oil prices fall below $100 a barrel after the hurricane season — predicted by some analysts — Americans could be looking at $3 a gallon gasoline later this year.
A lot of factors would have to come together, however. And the oil export cartel OPEC meets Wednesday, with some members like Iran vowing to slash production to prevent prices from falling under $100 a barrel.
How can gas pump prices go higher while crude oil drops for a 5th day
By LINDA LEATHERDALE, TORONTO SUN
This not what a prime minister heading into an election would wish for.
Today, motorists will be seeing red as they watch pump prices jump even though world crude futures fell to their lowest levels in five months.
For five days, oil prices have been on a retreat, yesterday falling another $1.46 to $107.89 US a barrel for light, sweet crude for October delivery. That's a long way from its record high of $147.27 US on July 11, when motorists were going broke paying almost $1.40 a litre.
But, despite the crude freefall, for the second day in a row pump prices in the GTA are heading higher after falling 3.8 cents earlier in the week -- with self-serve, regular climbing another 0.4 cents a litre to $126.7. Prices are also heading higher in Ottawa and Montreal, but in Calgary -- where industry apologists try to hoodwink us into believing what we pay today has nothing to do with a contract price in October -- the price will remain at $1.259 a litre.
"It is linking two events that should not be linked," explained Calgary energy industry consultant Michael Ervin, who warned motorists expecting a sudden drop in pump prices will be sadly mistaken.
Let's get real. This is an industry that once warned us for every $10 hike in the price crude we'd be paying 10 cents more at the pump. And explain how it's legal for pump prices to jump almost 10 cents purely on speculation that Hurricane Gustav would wreak the same havoc as Hurricane Katrina.
"Linda, we need action on this latest rip-off," urged angry Sun reader Ben De Castro. "Let us organize a one-week boycott of Petro-Canada, (our homegrown oil giant) who is in collusion with the foreign oil companies. It will send the PM and the Tories and the Liberals a clear message that we will not take further hosing at the pumps."
De Castro also wants taxpayers to stand up and say no to politicians buying our votes with a gusher in tax revenue from this energy crisis.
It's not just a greedy oil cartel driving voters mad. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, expected to call an election any moment, is also facing the wrath of a stock market meltdown, a bleeding job market with the latest unemployment report to be released today -- plus a recrunch of GDP numbers, which shows Canada's economy actually shrank during the first half of this year.
A full-blown recession, by the way, is two consecutive quarters or six months of negative growth. Yikes.
So it's no wonder that Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, who wants us to bleed even more with a new carbon tax, is rehearsing his new attack slogan, "Tory times are tough times."
Most analysts believe today's jobless numbers won't be as bad, after Canada lost 55,000 jobs in July. "The July number was horrid and it would be surprising to see something so negative for August," said Carolyn Kawan, senior economist with Merrill Lynch Canada. "But I would not be surpised by another decline."
Meanwhile, the bloodletting on Bay Street continued yesterday, with the all-important S&P/TSX losing another 323.58 points to 12,813.13 -- its first close below 13,000 since just before Easter.
That's a massive 957-point or 7% plunge this week. The TSX is now down 15% from its recent high in mid-June.
New York markets also fell yesterday as disappointing retail data and more bad economic news fuelled fears the markets would not rally in the second half of the year.
"We're seeing nothing but sellers," said one Wall Street trader in New York City. "In a bear market, you sort of really don't need an excuse to sell."
Oil brokers sex scandal may affect drilling debate By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer Thu Sep 11, 6:51 AM ET
A scandal involving sex, drugs and — uh, offshore oil drilling. It's a strange mix, and it couldn't have come at a worse time for those in Congress pressing to expand oil and gas development off America's beaches while trying to stave off an election-year rush by Democrats to impose new taxes and royalties on the oil industry.
An Interior Department investigation describing a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" by workers at the agency that issues offshore drilling leases and collects royalties hit lawmakers Wednesday just as they prepared for votes next week on expanding offshore drilling.
"On the eve of Congress starting this big debate you've got a horror story of mismanagement and misconduct in programs that are going to be a key part of the discussion," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in an interview, adding that it can't help but influence the debate.
The two-year, $5.3 million investigation by Interior's inspector general found workers at the Minerals Management Service's royalty collection office in Denver partying, having sex, using drugs and accepting gifts and ski trips and golf outings from energy company representatives with whom they did government business.
The investigations exposed "a culture of ethical failure" and an agency rife with conflicts of interest, Inspector General Earl E. Devaney said.
Between 2002 and 2006, 19 oil marketers — nearly a third of the Denver office staff — received gifts and gratuities from oil and gas companies, including Chevron Corp., Shell, Hess Corp. and Denver-based Gary-Williams Energy Corp., the investigators found.
"Employees frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and natural gas company representatives" who referred to some of the government workers as the "MMS Chicks."
The director of the royalty program had a consulting job on the side for a company that paid him $30,000 for marketing its services to various oil and gas companies, the report said.
MMS Director Randall Luthi said in an interview the agency was taking the report "extremely seriously" and would weigh taking appropriate action in coming months.
But the impact in Congress, where lawmakers are debating an expansion of the offshore oil and gas leasing program by allowing drilling in areas long off limits, was immediate.
"This is why we must not allow Big Oil's agenda to be jammed through Congress," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who strongly opposes any expansion of offshore drilling, especially closer to Florida. He said the report "shows the oil industry holds shocking sway over the administration and even key federal employees."
"This IG report has it all — sex, drugs and the Bush administration officials once again in cahoots with Big Oil," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., whose Joint Economic Committee released a report last year claiming the Minerals Management Service has failed to collect millions of dollars in oil royalties.
Republicans and Democrats promised further scrutiny of the Interior Department agency which last year handled $4.3 billion in royalty-in-kind payments from energy companies drilling on federal lands. Under the program oil companies give the government oil in lieu of cash and the MMS office in turn sells the oil on the open market.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said the IG report "raises very serious questions" about the royalty collection process, something especially troublesome "given the potential for expanded domestic drilling." He said some basic reforms in the royalty-in-kind program should be included in drilling legislation.
Wyden said the program should be suspended to "clean house" at the federal agency and "bring back the process of rigorous audits and accountability."
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, planned a hearing on the investigation next week. Two of the committee's key Republicans — Reps. Tom Davis of Virginia and Darrell Issa of California — criticized Waxman for not pursuing an investigation into the royalty program earlier.
But Republicans rejected suggestions that the scandal makes the need for more offshore oil and gas any less urgent.
House Democrats on Wednesday offered a broader drilling proposal than they had floated previously. It would lift all moratoria on drilling 100 miles from shore and allow energy development beyond 50 miles from the coast if a state agrees. Waters closer than 50 miles would continue to be protected.
The drilling measure is part of a broader energy package that also would roll back tax breaks for the largest oil companies and require them to pay additional royalties, with the money to be used to spur renewable energy programs and conservation.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., called it "a strong bill that will increase responsible drilling and invest in renewable energy" and said those criticizing it would "rather have a political issue."
But House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, accused the Democrats of "trying to pull a hoax on the American people." He said the plan would result "in little or no new American energy production" because states would share no royalties and have little financial incentives to allow drilling.
The Senate, meanwhile, is expected next week to take up several drilling proposals, including one that would open waters off the Atlantic from Virginia to Georgia and the eastern Gulf off Florida to drilling but keep the bans in place elsewhere. That plan also would allow for a 50-mile coastal buffer.
___
Associated Press writer Dina Cappiello contributed to this report.
Logged
