Take the time to read the new Energy bill and the mandates for 35 MPG trucks. Also take the time to read about emissions mandates.

For Ford, GM and Chrysler to keep their fleet MPG numbers up and fleet pollution standards in line with our Government (appeasing the Sierra Club and the like) they have no choice other than to go Diesel. Diesels have a lower carbon emission footprint than gasoline models and in a couple years, the Feds will be regulating auto carbon footprints.

I suspect the Automobile markets will be much different in 5-7 years with a mix of hybrids, Diesels, E-85, electric and fuel cell vehicles. All driven by the Green movement and the prohibition on any new oil drilling or refineries in the US.

Hopefully we will be able to buy heavier trucks but I suspect if you buy a heavier truck for non-commercial, you will be heavily taxed or have to prove your need or both.

Enjoy the toys whilst you still can fellas... Hillary and Company is coming and it ain't going to be pretty...

I have a friend (2006.5 6 speed)that has switched his gearing to 342's because it is strictly milage , nothing smaller in a truck and gets about 24 -27 depending on how he drives it . the most he hauls is 5000 lbs and does it with ease . I am getting the half ton and the wife will be getting a diesel car when she can .

Enjoy the toys whilst you still can fellas... Hillary and Company is coming and it ain't going to be pretty...


Here is a thought....... DON'T VOTE FOR HER. She will be limited in what she can do if she is not voted for.

Oh my gawd...it feels like the 1970's are bearing down on us again....minus the dico music....I hope! :)

woohoo 35mpg get to save to $$$ at the pump.......





oo wait a minute it that will be thwarted my the 5-6$ gallon fuel cost:mad:

Enjoy the toys whilst you still can fellas... Hillary and Company is coming and it ain't going to be pretty



Not a Hillary fan at all, but I do not think it will matter who is in office. Bush is the one that just set the new standards at 35mpg. It has to happen. No matter what anyone says oil is finite and will!!! run out someday. I will enjoy my toys, but still will not complain about 35 mpg. I know I already think about fuel cost now with the price having doubled in the past 4 years. No one can say that is does not effect them. I know someone that works for General Petroleum and he says fleet managers are looking for 1/10th mpg savings at this point.

Wow, isn't it great how congress can pass a bill for 35mph and it will just happen because they say so!

The United States has the best congress money can buy.

it's not for 35mpg trucks, but an overall fleet average of 35mpg or face fines. needless to say I'm for it, this should spur alternative energy camps as well(read bio-diesel) development and more less money at the pumps for ys.

I for one will have a very tough time buying another diesel. Not that I don't want to but it's rediclulous to pay $5+K for the engine and sometimes trans to get slightly better mileage, and pay $0.65 to $0.75 per gallon more. I think diesel will get left for ethanol.

The automakers say YOU are going to pay between $ 10K - $ 15K MORE for the mandated 35 MPG vehicles in 2012 so....

Makes the $ 5-7K premium for the Duramax seem small

once again the 35mpg fleet average doesn't have to happen until 2020. Now I believe there are 'steps' in between so it doesn't all have to be done at once.

I'm not a tree hugger, but I'd rather keep the money out of the oil producers which happen to be south america(Chavez and Co) and the middle east. Both of those areas aren't very friendly to us other than our dollars being spent.

Also it can mean other fuel sources such as bio fuels which can be made in america completely and from companies other than oil companies(exxon) that are gouging us making record profits. More competition almost always(not always but almost) means better pricing for the consumer.

There is plenty of oil we will not run out. Same thing as the global warming sham.

There is plenty of oil we will not run out. Same thing as the global warming sham.

You're basing this off of... what, exactly?

You're basing this off of... what, exactly?

There are some scientists who believe that oil is constantly being produced by the Earth.

i hate to tell yall but even if you get 35 mpg in a new vehicle you will have to pay for it when you buy the unit. just remember shit rolls down hill and the customer is on the bottom. YOU WILL BE PAYING FOR IT. EITHER VEHICLE PRICE OR FUEL.

I think the 35 MPG mandate will push the auto makers to look more toward more proven avenues of fuel economy such as DIESEL. There is no reason why we have to pay the premium for a diesel engine. Mercedes charges about $1000 more for their diesel in the E320 and can't get them to the dealership fast enough. VW doesn't charge an arm and a leg for their diesels either. GM doesn't care if they sell anything, as long as the average fleet MPG is over 35 when 2020 comes, so they can price it anyway they want.
If they were serious about selling this new Duramax, GM would price it the same as the 6.2 MAX gasser and be done with it. Instead they are going to stick it to us.
Skidont, I was wondering what the MPG would be for a 342 gear set. Thanks for the info.
Sorry about the rant.

You're basing this off of... what, exactly?
what makes you think oil will run out smart ass. have you measured how much the earth has left, I dont think so. the sky is falling the sky is falling

I for one will have a very tough time buying another diesel. Not that I don't want to but it's rediclulous to pay $5+K for the engine and sometimes trans to get slightly better mileage, and pay $0.65 to $0.75 per gallon more. I think diesel will get left for ethanol.

:( Sorry but I disagree. Even marginally better fuel mileage is worth it not to mention the fact that the resale value of a diesel is FAR better than any gas. Have you tried to buy a used Jetta TDI lately? :eek:

get off this global warming crap,us your brains,we are here on this planet for .1% of its life and we caused the planet to warm up?,lets just get rid of the politations,,they work for us

The new MPG ratings and $$ increases will only affect those who buy a new vehicle, I figure a crate 8.1 costs a whole lot less than a new truck... I still have my 82 C10 so the 02 has another good 20 years left

it's not for 35mpg trucks, but an overall fleet average of 35mpg or face fines. needless to say I'm for it, this should spur alternative energy camps as well(read bio-diesel) development and more less money at the pumps for ys.

Yep so all GM has to do is start offering a bunch of POS really efficant cars on top of what they make now and they don't have to change a thing.

I for one will have a very tough time buying another diesel. Not that I don't want to but it's rediclulous to pay $5+K for the engine and sometimes trans to get slightly better mileage, and pay $0.65 to $0.75 per gallon more. I think diesel will get left for ethanol.


Bio fuels don't work they cost to much energy for the amount of energy they give off, and have you looked at the price of corn lately?

We need to tell the leaf licker to got to hell and start drilling for oil here.

it's not for 35mpg trucks, but an overall fleet average of 35mpg or face fines. needless to say I'm for it, this should spur alternative energy camps as well(read bio-diesel) development and more less money at the pumps for ys.


Are you nutts. You want the gov. to control more of our lives. You should vote for Billary! Or how about we let the market dictate what the majorty wants. You must want a socialist country.

Are you nutts. You want the gov. to control more of our lives. You should vote for Billary! Or how about we let the market dictate what the majorty wants. You must want a socialist country.

I don't think I'm nuts, and no I don't want the government running my life anymore then they already are, but the gas pumps is not going to dictate that. I'm all for more trees and less development(I'm a hunter) though. I'd much rather pay a US farmer 3.00 for his corn diesel than hugo chavez 3.00 for his dino diesel. I'd much rather drive an electric car powered from coal generated electricity made here in the US than oil burned from middle east oil.

I'd much rather have a full size truck that get's me 25mpg on average than 15 mpg. If I have to stay at 300hp/520tq so be it, guess what that's still a lot of towing power vs what we had 15 years ago.

in 2002 my 03 listed for 42,000ish.

in 2007 my truck would cost close to 48,000

in 2020 my truck will be 60,000 the way it's going, it's a little thing called inflation and a vehicle to cost 15,000 more in 12 years is pretty much on par with recent history.

Last february I was paying 2.40 a gallon, this february I'll probably be paying 3.40 a gallon still. If in 2020 gas is 6.00 it's a pretty average boost to me.

These enviromental nuts are ridiculous, they are also wanting to mandate mpg for hev y trucks. Wall the various appications variables(trailer pulling etc etc etc) how can they do that.

I I'd much rather pay a US farmer 3.00 for his corn diesel than hugo chavez 3.00 for his dino diesel.

Thats not the point corn is a major food source I would rather have food then fuel. Farmer plan more corn because they're making more $$$ of it, so the price of all crops will then go up. Beef will also go up because of feed prices. So you will be paying the farmer $4 for his Bio since it is less efficient then crude and who knows how much more for food.

Thats not the point corn is a major food source I would rather have food then fuel. Farmer plan more corn because they're making more $$$ of it, so the price of all crops will then go up. Beef will also go up because of feed prices. So you will be paying the farmer $4 for his Bio since it is less efficient then crude and who knows how much more for food.

well than make it soy diesel, there's a whole lot of options. No matter what anyone of us do, prices are going to go up, fuel usage is going up even if engines become more effecient because there's just more people driving. No matter what goes on, I'm driving me diesel and staying with my no emission controls crap LB7

Thats not the point corn is a major food source I would rather have food then fuel. Farmer plan more corn because they're making more $$$ of it, so the price of all crops will then go up. Beef will also go up because of feed prices. So you will be paying the farmer $4 for his Bio since it is less efficient then crude and who knows how much more for food.


Dino fuel can only be made from dino juice. Bio fuel can be made from corn, beans, sugar cane, potatoes, grass, etc.............

You choose.

It s time for separation of Big Business and State, Our elected officials are for sale. time to start voting for the little guy.

Dino fuel can only be made from dino juice. Bio fuel can be made from corn, beans, sugar cane, potatoes, grass, etc.............

You choose.


Bio fuel any day.

We Live on this planet, Take Care of It. If we all took care of our plane
t the way a lot of us take care of our trucks we wouldn't have this problem. We need to stop our need on oil (over seas even more). Develop and use a Cleaner, renewable clean(cleaner) fuel/energy for our Cars, Trucks & toys. Vehicles need to become more efficient ( so we burn less fuel). But most of all we need to STOP BURNING COAL.( well the way we are now) If all Developed did this we can make a difference for future generations. Regardless of the cost

Anyway i could rant for pages on this so ill stop now.

i hope you like riding your horse

Dino fuel can only be made from dino juice. Bio fuel can be made from corn, beans, sugar cane, potatoes, grass, etc.............

You choose.

Again a good bit of that is food and it still cost more energy to produce then is does with crude. Also last I checked it don't work to well in the cold, but with global warming that shouldn't matter to long I guess.

i hope you like riding your horse

Nope they produce CO2 and methane too. Need to start cutting down trees for fire wood since coal is so bad. Oh wait thats bad too guess civilization is coming to a end....

I could barf over listening to environmentolist groups push their crap about polution and global warming. The same stupid polititions that are trying to get us to use less oil are also the ones that make diesel engine manufacturers make their engines recycle some of the exhuast to make it cleaner therfore making the engine run hotter wearing out faster. Now they say put a stupid dpf in the tailpipe so that it can get clogged every 500 miles and then lets inject inburned fuel into it to burn out the soot. This creates potential for explosions, fires, and other natual disasters and produces more heat than ever shooting their global warming battle in the head. They also cliam pollution is killing us all. The truth is green plants are currently absorbing more toxins out of the atmosphere than we can even dream of putting into it. The only places where this is not happening is in big cities where they have gone and uprooted all the trees and have no vegetation to do its job. They claim suv driving Americans are making the planet too hot and we are going to have the polar ice caps and glaciers melted off by 2012. That is impossible because even in the rocky mountians people ski year round and in the summer they wear bathing suits because it gets so warm but there is so muck snow that there is stsome left when next winter rolls around. What they are talking about is about 3k mi. farther away from the equator. Have any of you seen the news coverage of the shipload of environmentalists that were headed to the south pole to study the effects of global warming there? Their ship was sunk by an iceberg. The sun is losing hundreds of thousands of tons of mass every day making it smaller and smaller every day therfore it also gets cooler and cooler every day. The truth is we will have another ice age before we are in danger of a global meltdown. I could go on and on and on and on and on but I dont have time.

I could barf over listening to environmentolist groups push their crap about polution and global warming. The same stupid polititions that are trying to get us to use less oil are also the ones that make diesel engine manufacturers make their engines recycle some of the exhuast to make it cleaner therfore making the engine run hotter wearing out faster. Now they say put a stupid dpf in the tailpipe so that it can get clogged every 500 miles and then lets inject inburned fuel into it to burn out the soot. This creates potential for explosions, fires, and other natual disasters and produces more heat than ever shooting their global warming battle in the head. They also cliam pollution is killing us all. The truth is green plants are currently absorbing more toxins out of the atmosphere than we can even dream of putting into it. The only places where this is not happening is in big cities where they have gone and uprooted all the trees and have no vegetation to do its job. They claim suv driving Americans are making the planet too hot and we are going to have the polar ice caps and glaciers melted off by 2012. That is impossible because even in the rocky mountians people ski year round and in the summer they wear bathing suits because it gets so warm but there is so muck snow that there is stsome left when next winter rolls around. What they are talking about is about 3k mi. farther away from the equator. Have any of you seen the news coverage of the shipload of environmentalists that were headed to the south pole to study the effects of global warming there? Their ship was sunk by an iceberg. The sun is losing hundreds of thousands of tons of mass every day making it smaller and smaller every day therfore it also gets cooler and cooler every day. The truth is we will have another ice age before we are in danger of a global meltdown. I could go on and on and on and on and on but I dont have time.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read in my entire life, and before you go spouting how I'm some liberal freak, I still haven't been convinced that global warming is real. But engines running hotter has nothing to do with global warming. It's the by products that come out of the tailpipe that is what they're saying is the cause; CO2 eating away at the atmosphere. And yeah you've got a point about the dpf being a potential source of explosions, but don't you think that's the type of thing that, as time goes on, they'll perfect more and more? As far as the whole "sun losing mass" argument, the percentage of the sun that's gets burnt off is so unbelievably insignificant that that entire point should basically be stricken from thought.

And your sig is exactly what's wrong with Americans - we listen to only the party that we like to hear, and ignore the opposition entirely, when in fact the truth is nine times out of ten right in the middle.

it's not for 35mpg trucks, but an overall fleet average of 35mpg or face fines. needless to say I'm for it, this should spur alternative energy camps as well(read bio-diesel) development and more less money at the pumps for ys.

Spurring alt fuels is not such a great thing. There is a fixed number of acres we can farm. Re-slicing that pie to allocate more acres for ethanol and bio diesel plant feed drives the prices of of other ag commodities up by shrinking their supply. Just look at what ethanol has done to the price of corn, and look at what has happened to the price of poultry. The real anwer lies with in renewable energy, like hydrogen fuel cells. I would much rather see a diesel hybrid than read about more acres going to bio fuel production. Farm land is for our stomachs, not our gas tanks. Pretty soon we won't be able to afford to drive, or eat.

there was more co2 100 + years ago as this now ,get your heads out of your butts,THIS IS ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY AND POWER,THESE DEM/LIBS CAN GET OUT OF YOUR POCKETS!!!!!!!!

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read in my entire life, and before you go spouting how I'm some liberal freak, I still haven't been convinced that global warming is real. But engines running hotter has nothing to do with global warming. It's the by products that come out of the tailpipe that is what they're saying is the cause; CO2 eating away at the atmosphere. And yeah you've got a point about the dpf being a potential source of explosions, but don't you think that's the type of thing that, as time goes on, they'll perfect more and more? As far as the whole "sun losing mass" argument, the percentage of the sun that's gets burnt off is so unbelievably insignificant that that entire point should basically be stricken from thought.

And your sig is exactly what's wrong with Americans - we listen to only the party that we like to hear, and ignore the opposition entirely, when in fact the truth is nine times out of ten right in the middle.
I dont care what party they are from but when polititions start lying and trying to scare people into supporting them with large scale scams like this I get really upset. They are trying to say trout are going extinct because mountian streams have warmed up less tha .5 F. degrees average temperature. Listen to what they say and go research it youself instead of just swallowing everything they feed you if you agree with it or not. In the 70's we were heading into a huge ice age, now we are headed for a global meltdown, in ten years we will be back on the ice age scam. This isnt the first time they have tried thi stupidity and it wont be the last unless some one sues the livin day lights out of them for misleading the public. The line about C02 eating out the atmosphere is also invalid because vegatation will remove those and othe toxins from the atmosphere faster than we could ever put them back into it.

Just remember, the largest advancements in biodiesel is from ALGAE( NOT CORN or SOYBEANS) So the agrument that our farm lands should be used for food not fuel is already outdated. They have made great strides in taking Algae from industrial Scrubbers and turning into BIO fuels. It cost nothing to produce (sunlight) and very little to process into fuel.


Not taking any sides just trying to help;)

Biofuels has gotten a bad rap lately mainly due to CORN for ETHANOL. Which has caused large price increases in food. Not to mention the claim of increase Nitrogen in the farm runoff that ends up in the ocean.

But really We are talking about diesels which is BIODIESEL made from SOYBEANS..typically. As it stands you get MORE not LESS energy out of Soy Biodiesel. Unlike Corn for ethanol which is either negative or barely postive net energy.

As was stated Algae is the future but Soy can be the start. Corn for Ethanol is just a gov't handout but still if that leads to non food sources for ethanol such as switchgrass well I am all for it.

We have to start somewhere and biofuels is a great start...there will be problems..but as oil rises in prices the market will come up with better ways once more money is put in.
Govt help in this area is critical to encourage investment.

The DOD is behind(being the largest single user of diesel) some of the funding for research in Algae biodiesel...still too expensive to produce.. but extremely promising since it can use sewer water for growth and very little area.

So biofuels is a BIG PART of the solution but who knows where the studies in Algae will take us.

That was my point I was trying to make. The Bio's are from soy and corn now, however , previous poster made arguments inferring that the future Bio's would be from the farm, which is not the case.

it's always hard,arguing about future technologies that still do not fully exist.

Alternative fuel technology has increased dramatically in the last ten years. By 2020 we may be using direct hydrogen injection as an add-on horsepower mod to our Dmax engines. If we can figure out how to produce hydrogen gas from water efficiently we will have an abundant fuel source. As we know, regardless of which political party is in the white house or has the congressional majority, dino fuel prices at the pump will continue to escalate for both gas and diesel. I am looking forward to the new diesels that will be available in several model cars in 2009. As others have stated, the "scare" tactics on global warming without scientific evidence just divides sides based on emotion.
The best info in this thread regarded the 342 ring and pinion mileage increase. Please include additional information regarding fuel economy before and after the ring/pinion change.
If someone wants to drive their Hybrid Prius, Camry, Lexus let them. I will stick to my diesel. Rumor has it that there will be diesel hybrids in the near future. If they get 70-90mpg as rumored several of the "environmentalists" will be in line to purchase one.
The government should not be dictating fuel mileage. Supply and demand of diesel cars and trucks (GO Duramax) have driven other manufacturers to bring diesels into their line as well.
Hopefully GM is investigating a multi-speed rearend for the HD in addition to adding gears to the Alli tranny. With current technology, having a 6 speed tranny and 3 speed rear end could give an 18 speed combination. A manual overide (not just tow/haul), but similar to a "TripTronic" transmission on the VW diesels would be prudent for towing.
The market (supply and demand) will drive these changes and others as additional competition is introduced, fuel prices, and alternative fuel vehicles drive them. The next ten years will indeed be interesting.

Spurring alt fuels is not such a great thing. There is a fixed number of acres we can farm. Re-slicing that pie to allocate more acres for ethanol and bio diesel plant feed drives the prices of of other ag commodities up by shrinking their supply. Just look at what ethanol has done to the price of corn, and look at what has happened to the price of poultry. The real anwer lies with in renewable energy, like hydrogen fuel cells. I would much rather see a diesel hybrid than read about more acres going to bio fuel production. Farm land is for our stomachs, not our gas tanks. Pretty soon we won't be able to afford to drive, or eat.

There is a lot of arable land that COULD be farmed (like between the lanes of a divided highway for one). In North America, we waste a lot of land. Our area (which used to be mostly agriculture, now is sprouting McMansions, while the 20 year old better built homes go empty waiting to be sold). These places always go where cleared farmland was. So do new roads if possible, because it means prep will be easier. Maryland, in particular, wastes an incredible amount of land mandating huge runoff drain areas for all parking lots and developments, to hold water draining off after heavy rains. Maryland spends a lot of money and land dealing with water and air pollution, while our neighbors (particularily PA and WV) continue to dump into rivers and waterways going into to the Chesapeake.

Anyhow, I agree there has to be a balance between food and fuel production, but biodiesel and ethanol infrastructure has to be developed, because these are the the only two fuels that don't require massive changes in engine design, etc.. We waste a lot of money on far out concepts like fuel cells which still I haven't yet figured out as to WHY. Right now, they use far more energy than they produce (usually natural gas or some other fossil fuel source).

If WVO is a great concept that could supplement even 10% of the diesel needs, let's develop it. Waste petroleum oils, vegetable oils, food waste, in general, has fuel capabilities.

Personally, our family farm, is about 55% farmed. 30% timber and the rest either shale ridge or ponds/marsh/pasture. As normal East Coast farmers, outlay for land improvement has to be less than profit from it. As it stands now, we don't produce enough winter wheat/corn/soybeans to merit converting the remaining shale areas into productive farmland. (Most of the shale was excavated 50 years ago).

Just remember, the largest advancements in biodiesel is from ALGAE( NOT CORN or SOYBEANS) So the agrument that our farm lands should be used for food not fuel is already outdated. They have made great strides in taking Algae from industrial Scrubbers and turning into BIO fuels. It cost nothing to produce (sunlight) and very little to process into fuel.


Not taking any sides just trying to help;)

I for got about algae and haven't heard much about it. I wonder what the cons would be for mass production of it, but if it don't work in the cold like other bio fuels....

earlier studies showed that it had an even lower gelling point than d2. However, it was in a lab, not a field study.

About the only thing missing in this sad thread is the Deliverence dualing banjos playing in the background. Yuck!

I didn't understand the deliverance reference at first. After reading your previous posts in the TENT and CAMPING section I can only come to one conclusion "Someone had a bad camping experience":D It's o.k , take a deep breathe and say "I do have purdy mouth"

i'd like to find out more about changing gears to improve fuel milage

Actually most of the farmers around where I live including several members of my family are very excited about biodiesel and the possible extra income that may come from being able to sell surplus crops to biodiesel plants. We actually have a small plant being built near where I live. Most people don't realize that even though milk and produce prices have gone up in the last couple of years medium to small farmers have tried to keep their businesses going with little to no increase in revenue while prices for everything else such as fuel to livestock feed has gone up. The only farmers that have control of the price of their goods are the huge farms that don't have to group together with others in a cooperative where someone else tells them what they will be paid. Sorry for the long rant, I just get fired up when I read or hear about how farmers need to keep the price for their goods cheap while everything else gets more expensive and then wonder why small farms are disappearing and we have to import everything from
3rd world countries.

Even if we change our fuel source, which I am still not convinced needs to be done, what about the other 99% of the developing world? Are they going to start purchasing $30,000-40,000 dollar automobiles? I don't think so, they will continue to use oil.

China and the rest of the developing nations are just starting to drive. In the next 10 years the US will not be the main contributor to the so called "green house" gases. Why is our government trying to force us to use a second rate product? Why handicap ourselves that way. Besides even if we change passenger car fuel technology what about all the industry and military applications? Are we going to have tanks and jets that are powered by batteries? That doesn't seem feasible.

Its all about the money, or oil I should say. All the "peak" theorist who say we are running out of oil have caused this. Its just like the global warming nut cases. We have more oil reserves now then we ever have. They find new oil every day, in places that couldn't possibly have had dinosaurs. Oil is not created by the decay of animal and plant matter from millions of years ago. Same as global warming, just get a figure head, tell people through many different media sources and everyone will believe it. "Dino" was just a name given by the original scientist over 100yrs ago when the original, and wrong, conclusion that oil was created by dinosaurs. Everyone just believes it like it is a "proven theory." How many things that where believed 100yrs ago have been found now to be incorrect? The only reason it sticks is because we have had it pounded in our heads for generations. If it were not for the internet global warming would be a "non disputed fact" and no one would question its validity.

Everyone has just become complacent, no longer thinking for themselves. Just do as your told is that standard.

These are just my beliefs or thoughts. Take them as you like. I of course could be totally wrong and if given information to that proof I will gladly change my tune. Just like the debate of lib/dem, I am entitled to that.

""They find new oil every day, in places that couldn't possibly have had dinosaurs. Oil is not created by the decay of animal and plant matter from millions of years ago. Same as global warming, just get a figure head, tell people through many different media sources and everyone will believe it. "Dino" was just a name given by the original scientist over 100yrs ago when the original, and wrong, conclusion that oil was created by dinosaurs. Everyone just believes it like it is a "proven theory.""


umm... wow dude. next time you think you might have a thought, just take a break.

I for one will have a very tough time buying another diesel. Not that I don't want to but it's rediclulous to pay $5+K for the engine and sometimes trans to get slightly better mileage, and pay $0.65 to $0.75 per gallon more. I think diesel will get left for ethanol.
I totally agree, it ain't worth it any more, plus the new diesel fuel sux and gives you less power and mileage.

Even if we change our fuel source, which I am still not convinced needs to be done, what about the other 99% of the developing world? Are they going to start purchasing $30,000-40,000 dollar automobiles? I don't think so, they will continue to use oil.

China and the rest of the developing nations are just starting to drive. In the next 10 years the US will not be the main contributor to the so called "green house" gases. Why is our government trying to force us to use a second rate product? Why handicap ourselves that way. Besides even if we change passenger car fuel technology what about all the industry and military applications? Are we going to have tanks and jets that are powered by batteries? That doesn't seem feasible.

Its all about the money, or oil I should say. All the "peak" theorist who say we are running out of oil have caused this. Its just like the global warming nut cases. We have more oil reserves now then we ever have. They find new oil every day, in places that couldn't possibly have had dinosaurs. Oil is not created by the decay of animal and plant matter from millions of years ago. Same as global warming, just get a figure head, tell people through many different media sources and everyone will believe it. "Dino" was just a name given by the original scientist over 100yrs ago when the original, and wrong, conclusion that oil was created by dinosaurs. Everyone just believes it like it is a "proven theory." How many things that where believed 100yrs ago have been found now to be incorrect? The only reason it sticks is because we have had it pounded in our heads for generations. If it were not for the internet global warming would be a "non disputed fact" and no one would question its validity.

Everyone has just become complacent, no longer thinking for themselves. Just do as your told is that standard.

These are just my beliefs or thoughts. Take them as you like. I of course could be totally wrong and if given information to that proof I will gladly change my tune. Just like the debate of lib/dem, I am entitled to that.
Okay, well since you seem to be the scientist, where exactly does oil come from?

Almost all of this stuff started (higher oil prices, limited supply and accelerated overseas industrialization) when we felt sorry for all the world's impovrished people and sent them to Harvard, Yale and M.I.T. on our dime. You could see it comming in the 50's when I was in school. More people from 3rd world countries than you'd imagine. Guess we taught them well and we are about to reap what we sowed.

Okay, well since you seem to be the scientist, where exactly does oil come from?

If he knew I'm sure he would of told us, but he is right. We don't fully understand where all oil comes from.

Well haven't heard diesel price predictions for this summer 2008 but did hear one for gas and it was $3.50. If diesel follows then we could be looking at $100 fill up on 25 gallons.

If he knew I'm sure he would of told us, but he is right. We don't fully understand where all oil comes from.
I can agree with the fact that we don't completely know, but for him to flat-out say that it doesn't come from there is downright ridiculous.

I have a friend (2006.5 6 speed)that has switched his gearing to 342's because it is strictly milage , nothing smaller in a truck and gets about 24 -27 depending on how he drives it ..

Interesting...I would have to bet that he has a 2WD. Nice if so and one can actually do that...would like to do same on mine but kinda hard to do that with a 4WD.

I'm not a tree hugger, but I'd rather keep the money out of the oil producers which happen to be south america(Chavez and Co) and the middle east. Both of those areas aren't very friendly to us other than our dollars being spent.

It may come as a surprise, but Canada is your largest and number 1 supplier of oil. In fact the Great Athabasca tar sands in North East Alberta hold the Earths 2nd largest proven reserves. That my friends, is No Bull$hit.

Same thing as the global warming sham.

Oh we are for sure warming up...no doubt about it...BUT my only question is why..?? The self styled enviro Guru's like David Susuki and Al Gore would have you believe that it simply is increasing CO2 that is doing it. In opther words completely OUR FAULT. Again I say bull$hit to that. We all should take a good look up at that golden orb that crosses the sky every day and think about that...just a little bit..? And, think as well how there got to be oil and natural gas north of the Artic Circle in the first place..???

Like Hallo..???

...in the end..

I'd much rather have a full size truck that get's me 25mpg on average than 15 mpg. If I have to stay at 300hp/520tq so be it, guess what that's still a lot of towing power vs what we had 15 years ago.

I am with you on this for sure Victory. Hopefulluy it will work and work well without the issues many had with the LB7s and LLY's. And if it can get 30+..I'd be tickled...!!

BTW: Diesel in Calgary is now at $1.03 per Litre - our dollar is at pretty much par - there are 3.78 litres in a gallon.


35 mpg...Well that works for me.

Cheers,

stk

Does anyone here know how much diesel fuel it takes to produce 1 gallon of biofuel from corn or soybeans? This stupid biofuel stuff is doing nothing but shooting ourselves in the foot.

Well haven't heard diesel price predictions for this summer 2008 but did hear one for gas and it was $3.50. If diesel follows then we could be looking at $100 fill up on 25 gallons.


I don't know where you live, but I'm up in Wisconsin and I filled up yesterday for 3.52/Gallon...

Here's the scoop on why oil isn't a fossil fuel:

"In "Black Gold Stranglehold," Jerome Corsi and Craig Smith expose the fraudulent science that has made America so vulnerable: the belief that oil is a fossil fuel and that it is a finite resource. This book reveals the conclusions reached by Dr. Thomas Gold, a professor at Cornell University, in his seminal book "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels" (Copernicus Books, 1998) and accepted by many in the scientific community that oil is not a product of fossils and prehistoric forests but rather the bio-product of a continuing biochemical reaction below the earth's surface that is brought to attainable depths by the centrifugal forces of the earth's rotation."

I remember reading that California oil field operators were discovering that some nearly depleted fields were found to be "refilling" they had no idea where the oil was coming from. You can get Dr. Corrsi's book at www.wdn.com (http://www.wdn.com).

Shell oil is now looking at biodiesel from green algae produced in sea water. It produces larger yield without environmental depletion.

There are clouds of aromatic hydrocarbons in interstellar space, that never saw a dinosaur. They are produced by chemical reactions of star evolution.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate most of the things it does, but we let them get away with it.

Even if we change our fuel source, which I am still not convinced needs to be done, what about the other 99% of the developing world? Are they going to start purchasing $30,000-40,000 dollar automobiles? I don't think so, they will continue to use oil.

China and the rest of the developing nations are just starting to drive. In the next 10 years the US will not be the main contributor

Currently, North America is the largest oil consumer - most of this being from the U.S. As such, if the North American countries were to reduce consumption through exploring new technology that is less harmful for the environment, this would be the greatest global impact. This technology would then be available for the developing countries when they start to increase their consumption. Consider also that if the U.S. was to come up with the technology, it then could market this technology to other nations.

Furthermore, it is not only the U.S. that is working on this technology. Other nations are also trying to develop cleaner technologies - and are imposing restrictions on vehicle emissions as well.

The argument that developing nations won't pay the high prices for cleaner technologies is a valid one - but consider this: If the research is done now, and the technologies are developed - the price of the technology comes down with time and research. For example: how much did a computer cost 15 years ago vs today?

Here's the scoop on why oil isn't a fossil fuel:
"In "Black Gold Stranglehold," Jerome Corsi and Craig Smith expose the fraudulent science that has made America so vulnerable: the belief that oil is a fossil fuel and that it is a finite resource...
The sources you quoted have been debunked, and whether anyone wants to believe it or not, they are practically fraudulent.
Here's some basic info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

While it is true that some fields have, in effect, refilled slightly under gravity pressure, there are other reasons why that happens. To understand why, need to understand that many oil deposits are held in relatively porous rock, much like a sponge. Modern extraction techniques use water under pressure, steam or other gases to help force stranded oil out of all the nooks and crannies in porous rock.

Eugene Island 330 is the poster child for abiotic oil proponents, but there's a problem they don't bother to mention: soon after the decline reversed itself, it reversed again back to the downside.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Island

All over the world, there have NEVER been any commercially significant quantities of crude produced attributed to abiotic sources.

The other factor is, that rig utilization is currently at an all-time worldwide high. Deepwater rigs are in particularly short supply. Meanwhile, average production per rig is declining. So what you have is more & more rigs running flat out yet producing less oil per rig.

Not scraping the bottom of the barrel yet, but heading that way.

By the way, the global production rate of conventional liquid crude in July 2006 has thus far not been exceeded since then (as of early Dec. 2007).

If it was some giant conspiracy, the oil companies certainly would not increase their production costs by deploying more rigs than they had to.

All that aside, crude oil prices are overbought short-term, and due for a pullback, especially given that prices generally weaken this time of year. It wouldn't surprise me to see WTI drop back into the $80s before beginning the next leg up.

Currently, North America is the largest oil consumer - most of this being from the U.S.
The U.S. is the world's largest oil consumer, importing about 70% of total petroleum consumption (crude & refined products), a lot of which, but not most, does come from Canada & Mexico.

U.S. Total Petroleum Imports
(Top 15 Countries, Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country ____ Oct. 2007
CANADA _______ 2,411
MEXICO _______ 1,417
SAUDI ARABIA __ 1,400
VENEZUELA ____ 1,388
NIGERIA _______ 1,241
ALGERIA ________ 410
IRAQ ___________ 490
ANGOLA _________ 342
RUSSIA _________ 452
VIRGIN ISLANDS __ 357
ECUADOR ________ 230
UNITED KINGDOM _ 287
NORWAY _________ 110
BRAZIL __________ 197
NETHERLANDS ____ 175

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

The sources you quoted have been debunked, and whether anyone wants to believe it or not, they are practically fraudulent.
Here's some basic info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

While it is true that some fields have, in effect, refilled slightly under gravity pressure, there are other reasons why that happens. To understand why, need to understand that many oil deposits are held in relatively porous rock, much like a sponge. Modern extraction techniques use water under pressure, steam or other gases to help force stranded oil out of all the nooks and crannies in porous rock.

Eugene Island 330 is the poster child for abiotic oil proponents, but there's a problem they don't bother to mention: soon after the decline reversed itself, it reversed again back to the downside.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Island

All over the world, there have NEVER been any commercially significant quantities of crude produced attributed to abiotic sources.

The other factor is, that rig utilization is currently at an all-time worldwide high. Deepwater rigs are in particularly short supply. Meanwhile, average production per rig is declining. So what you have is more & more rigs running flat out yet producing less oil per rig.

Not scraping the bottom of the barrel yet, but heading that way.

By the way, the global production rate of conventional liquid crude in July 2006 has thus far not been exceeded since then (as of early Dec. 2007).

If it was some giant conspiracy, the oil companies certainly would not increase their production costs by deploying more rigs than they had to.

All that aside, crude oil prices are overbought short-term, and due for a pullback, especially given that prices generally weaken this time of year. It wouldn't surprise me to see WTI drop back into the $80s before beginning the next leg up.

Um, I really don't have a horse in this race, but using Wiki to debunk something is kind of a stretch isn't it?

Also, the real answer to a good part of our energy/environmental problems is Westinghouse's AP 1000 modular nuclear power plant as well as designs from GE and others. They are on the shelf and ready to be built. Start talking about solutions that will have an impact in the short term so that we can chase some of these future technologies and still have a functioning economy.

Um, I really don't have a horse in this race, but using Wiki to debunk something is kind of a stretch isn't it?
(Sigh)
http://www.energybulletin.net/2423.html
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/97015/eugene.htm

Also, the real answer to a good part of our energy/environmental problems is Westinghouse's AP 1000 modular nuclear power plant as well as designs from GE and others. They are on the shelf and ready to be built. Start talking about solutions that will have an impact in the short term so that we can chase some of these future technologies and still have a functioning economy.
Yeah, Gen IIIs take about four years start to finish, maybe less - anywhere but here. The US has actually have paid the Chinese to build nuke plants, since that at least takes some of the pressure off global fuel supplies. Team Kennedy - including Mr. Enviro himself, Bobby jr. - wouldn't allow windmills to be built off the Mass. coast, out of sight from shore. Seems it might ruin their view while sailing. Over $50 million spent so far by both sides fighting that battle with not a kilowatt-hour to show for it.

They seem to think if we all just switch to CFLs, everything will be all better then. If people start freezing one winter due to a fuel or power outage, the (surviving) natives are gonna come out with pitchforks in hand.

They seem to think if we all just switch to CFLs, everything will be all better then. If people start freezing one winter due to a fuel or power outage, the (surviving) natives are gonna come out with pitchforks in hand.
Then again that would just be everything coming full circle.

dammet just start drilling in alaska and build 10-15 new refinerys ,this is a national problem ,just tell these dem/lib's to stick it were the sun don't shine,if we don't do something soon we'll be paying $5 per gal,these politations work for us ,so start calling them and telling them to get to work,,

it's not for 35mpg trucks, but an overall fleet average of 35mpg or face fines. needless to say I'm for it, this should spur alternative energy camps as well(read bio-diesel) development and more less money at the pumps for ys.

I'm new to the site but I would like to say I agree wholeheartedly. Think of how many small cars and light trucks the auto companies sell for every 2500-3500 class truck they sell. The same thing came up on another forum that said the Corvette would have to go away. It isn't going away GM doesn't sell enough Corvettes to skew the average MPG on their fleet. People are still going to need trucks that can do the man job of hauling 30K+ so they may have to make them more efficient but they can't give up the power.

Not to mention the Z06 gets 30 mpg even with 505hp. It anything, it might signal the end of V8 Impalas and the Vortec Max 1500 pickups. I'll take my 20 mpg Duramax over either of those dinosaurs.

I'm amazed that nobody has even touched on the virtually untapped resource of oil shale. Now please correct me if I'm a babbling a$$hole but couldn't the US get a whole $hitload of oil if we started mining and processing oil shale? Somebody i know showed me an oil distribution map and the US had like, 2% of the worlds oil supply, and Saudi Arabia had about 30%. Then he showed me an oil shale distribution map and the us had something like 52% of the entire world's oil shale. The entire industry of extracting and processing oil shale processes something like 1-2% of the United States current oil Shale deposit. Now some important people in some lab did some important calculations and figured that if the United States took all the money it used to buy foreign oil and put it into the extraction and processing of oil shale we would would have surplus oil each year that we could sell to other countries and start getting our national debt paid off.

As for the biofuels, 1 gallon of biodiesel provides about 86% of the power of 1 gallon of regular diesel. In the October 2007 issue of National Geographic magazine there was an article that talked about the inefficiency of biofuels that the US produces. The national average for gasoline was about $3.03. The cost for a gallon of etanol was $2.62. However, the average a person would pay for the energy output of the ethanol they put in their cars to equal the output of their gasoline, the cost would be $3.71. The gas prices have to get a little higher if their going to make me use pure corn ethanol. But, we should look to Brazil because they use Cane ethanol which produces more power and less emissions than corn ethanol.

And biodiesel produces less emissions than either corn or cane ethanol. Basically, biodiesel is a much better choice than ethanol period. Corn or Cane

As far as I know, there has not been an effective and cost efficient way to extract oil from the shale. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

All I know is that they mine the rock out of the soil, they burn it and that burns away the rock which the crude drips out of.

I'm amazed that nobody has even touched on the virtually untapped resource of oil shale. Now please correct me if I'm a babbling a$$hole but couldn't the US get a whole $hitload of oil if we started mining and processing oil shale?
Yes. But not enough oil, fast enough.

That's one reason that the world will for all practical purposes never run out of oil, but at the same time, just a slight shortfall in the production rate compared to demand will cause a drastic increase in price.

The problem is a shortage due to steadily increasing consumption rate in the face of increasing difficulties at increasing the global production rate.

None of these processes (oil shale or tar sands) make it easy to ramp up the production rate to anything like what you get from free-flowing liquid oil.

The experience in the Alberta tar sands, where they've made more progress in large-scale unconventional production than anywhere else in the world, continues to show the difficulties of ramping up the production rate to the same extent possible from a similar-sized conventional field. The progress they have made comes at the cost of a fairly significant environmental impact, something that probably wouldn't be tolerated in the U.S.

Most of the world's major conventional oilfields were increasingly exploited (by injecting water, steam or other gases to force the oil out of porous rock at a faster rate) over the last decade to increase their production rate. In many cases, this comes at the expense of total production.

The case of Mexico's Cantarell is a good example. They built the world's largest nitrogen production plant just for the purpose of gas injection, to increase the production rate. It worked, boosting output for several years, which in the short term helped the bottom line. But now Cantarell's production is collapsing at an even faster rate. Pemex is scrambling to make up the difference. Short term gain, long term pain.

This is happening against a backdrop of rising global demand, despite much higher prices, due to the emergent economies of China & India

As far as bringing alternatives online to help mitigate all this, yes they can be done. But at best, and each has significant drawbacks (which is why they weren't ever adopted in the first place) and at best, they all take time. More likely, one politically influential group or another objects to, and will interfere with, the adoption of each alternative.

Is the answer to drill ANWR? Yes. But the Bobby Kennedy crowd says, "Oh no, it will take 10 years before we see the first drop." Only because they keep throwing up roadblocks, otherwise, it would not take half that long. Besides, if it will take 10 years, then we should have started 10 years ago. Who has been preventing it for the last 10 years? So what we get instead of "Yes" is, "No."

Interminable delays like this eventually caused certain people in authority to realize that they had to start looking for a more expedient way to gain access to a largely untapped store of conventional crude. Over half a trillion dollars later, the result is, lower production than before. So far, we again get, "No."

Is the answer shale oil?? Yes. But what we get is "No."

Tar sands? Yes. Nuclear power? Yes. Windmills? Yes (BTW, Bobby Kennedy's group spent nearly $30Mil stopping those from going up in their favorite sailing area). Solar? Yes.

Conservation? Yes (but too many of those who actually want "None of the above" wildly exaggerate how much can realistically be conserved. They usually live in mild, low humidity climates, where little energy is needed for climate control. Hint: California. Example: those who think compact fluorescent lamps amount to more than a drop in the swimming pool).

We need ALL of the above. But what we most often actually get is, NONE of the above. Somebody always objects to it.

What we're just starting to see now is the results of some very bad policy decisions made over the last 15-20 years, which continue even now.

I'm waiting for the presidential candidate who says, the answer is, "All of the above. Those who object will just have to get over it."

Yes. But not enough oil, fast enough.

That's one reason that the world will for all practical purposes never run out of oil, but at the same time, just a slight shortfall in the production rate compared to demand will cause a drastic increase in price.

The problem is a shortage due to steadily increasing consumption rate in the face of increasing difficulties at increasing the global production rate.

None of these processes (oil shale or tar sands) make it easy to ramp up the production rate to anything like what you get from free-flowing liquid oil.

The experience in the Alberta tar sands, where they've made more progress in large-scale unconventional production than anywhere else in the world, continues to show the difficulties of ramping up the production rate to the same extent possible from a similar-sized conventional field. The progress they have made comes at the cost of a fairly significant environmental impact, something that probably wouldn't be tolerated in the U.S.

Most of the world's major conventional oilfields were increasingly exploited (by injecting water, steam or other gases to force the oil out of porous rock at a faster rate) over the last decade to increase their production rate. In many cases, this comes at the expense of total production.

The case of Mexico's Cantarell is a good example. They built the world's largest nitrogen production plant just for the purpose of gas injection, to increase the production rate. It worked, boosting output for several years, which in the short term helped the bottom line. But now Cantarell's production is collapsing at an even faster rate. Pemex is scrambling to make up the difference. Short term gain, long term pain.

This is happening against a backdrop of rising global demand, despite much higher prices, due to the emergent economies of China & India

As far as bringing alternatives online to help mitigate all this, yes they can be done. But at best, and each has significant drawbacks (which is why they weren't ever adopted in the first place) and at best, they all take time. More likely, one politically influential group or another objects to, and will interfere with, the adoption of each alternative.

Is the answer to drill ANWR? Yes. But the Bobby Kennedy crowd says, "Oh no, it will take 10 years before we see the first drop." Only because they keep throwing up roadblocks, otherwise, it would not take half that long. Besides, if it will take 10 years, then we should have started 10 years ago. Who has been preventing it for the last 10 years? So what we get instead of "Yes" is, "No."

Interminable delays like this eventually caused certain people in authority to realize that they had to start looking for a more expedient way to gain access to a largely untapped store of conventional crude. Over half a trillion dollars later, the result is, lower production than before. So far, we again get, "No."

Is the answer shale oil?? Yes. But what we get is "No."

Tar sands? Yes. Nuclear power? Yes. Windmills? Yes (BTW, Bobby Kennedy's group spent nearly $30Mil stopping those from going up in their favorite sailing area). Solar? Yes.

Conservation? Yes (but too many of those who actually want "None of the above" wildly exaggerate how much can realistically be conserved. They usually live in mild, low humidity climates, where little energy is needed for climate control. Hint: California. Example: those who think compact fluorescent lamps amount to more than a drop in the swimming pool).

We need ALL of the above. But what we most often actually get is, NONE of the above. Somebody always objects to it.

What we're just starting to see now is the results of some very bad policy decisions made over the last 15-20 years, which continue even now.

I'm waiting for the presidential candidate who says, the answer is, "All of the above. Those who object will just have to get over it."

:agreed: The solution is indeed to utilize as many different technologies as possible - both to attain more oil, as well as to reduce our dependancy on the oil.

The only reasons that the Alberta tarsand environmental impacts seem to be tolerated is the $100 / bbl price of oil combined with the remote northern location where there are few people living, and VERY little appeal to the tourist type crowd. I am unfamiliar with the locations of the oil shale in the US, but as the US doesn't seem to have as much un-inhabited space as we do here - I'm thinking that it would be much harder for the environmental impacts to be "stomached" there...

Here in the U.S. (apparently even including remote parts of Alaska), it doesn't seem to matter if many people live there, only if any people or animals MIGHT SOMEDAY PASS THROUGH THERE, especially if they happen to be a member of Booby Kennedy's "No more energy anywhere by any means" club.

Probably the only reason you Albertans were able to develop the tar sands is Booby K. was probably busy at the time fighting off the windmills in their summer sailing area off the Mass. coast.

wasen't that teddy, bobby died in 1967

wasen't that teddy, bobby died in 1967

It's actually Bobby Jr. they're talking about.

dammet just start drilling in alaska and build 10-15 new refinerys ,this is a national problem ,just tell these dem/lib's to stick it were the sun don't shine,if we don't do something soon we'll be paying $5 per gal,these politations work for us ,so start calling them and telling them to get to work,,

Let's not kid ourselves. The oil companies are corporations, driven by profit. They will run the pump prices as high as they can as long as we keep buying it (and I've got no choice, I'm sure you don't either). We could build 15 refineries tomorrow but the GLOBAL oil companies will sell it on the GLOBAL market and we would still have $3.50 diesel fuel - and much higher to come as you stated above.

I work in the auto industry and can tell you it's a shame that off-the-shelf technology has been stalled simply because there's more profit in the existing stuff. My 20-year-old diesel pickup and 2 Escort diesels meet the 2015 (and beyond) cafe requirements by a mile (OK so they're a little dirty but nothing a nice check to the environmental PACs won't fix:D).

Politicians working for us? I wish they did but I suspect I have the same bosses they do...

The solution is indeed to utilize as many different technologies as possible - both to attain more oil, as well as to reduce our dependency on the oil.
Our spending priorities have to change in order to even think about doing anything like that oft-mentioned energy "Apollo program" much less be able to keep paying social security benefits. This charts puts it in perspective: http://scienceblogs.com/corpuscallosum/2007/11/true_cost_of_alternative_energ.php

Our spending priorities have to change in order to even think about doing anything like that oft-mentioned energy "Apollo program" much less be able to keep paying social security benefits. This charts puts it in perspective: http://scienceblogs.com/corpuscallosum/2007/11/true_cost_of_alternative_energ.php

Good point ...

Well what we need (I can't believe I'm actually saying this) is either for the government to go in and slap the hands of the oil companies, or for the oil industry to go socialist (as if!) and have a government-controlled oil industry and have some by-law stating if they need to raise oil prices to cover operating costs they have to prove it to a jury of ordinary citizens. (my far-out "impossible" idea.)

Does anyone know the difference between profit and profit margin? The actual profit margin to the oil companies is rather low as compared to other industries while the profit $$ are higher.
Now, this high profit $ goes back to the shareholders, you, me and most of the investment companies out there, close to 90% of US citizens have stock of one form or another, most may not know it. Public school retirement accounts, public worker ret accounts, private company ret accounts, even your own 401k may have a tie into the oil companies

For those who want to tax the "windfall profits" consider this.... who actually pays the tax, the customers, that's who

Global warming is a religion... it has a Prophet, commandments, tithing and redemption.. it's also the bastion of communists and socialists. Think when global warming reared it's ugly head, after the fall of the Soviet Bloc

Does anyone know the difference between profit and profit margin?
The short version is:
Profit margin is the profit relative to sales or revenues, and is expressed as a percentage.

Profit (or loss) is the difference between the sales or revenues and the cost of the goods or services used to generate those sales or revenues, typically expressed in the same unit in which the sales are made (e.g.: dollars).

Oil companies have had a large increase in profits as petroleum prices have gone up, but as is typical of large-scale producers of bulk commodity items, their profit margins are still relatively modest compared to margins in many other industries.

As far as taxing "windfall profits," it didn't work when the Carter administration tried it, and is even less likely to work today, because all major US commercial oil companies have more international operations (i.e.: "multi-national") now. Being "multi-national" makes it easier to book profits in the lowest tax jurisdiction available. Since the U.S. has the second highest (or maybe the highest) corporate tax rates in the world, it's easy to see where even higher taxes would cause those profits to go.

Last time I checked, the refiners had the highest margins of any segment of US commercial petroleum industry. The retailers typically are at or near the bottom of the profit margin scale.

Nationalized oil companies (e.g.: Saudi Aramco, PetroBraz) produce most of the world's crude oil. This is why US commercial oil companies currently have relatively little control over the supply of crude, and thus, the price. In light of this, it's easy to understand why there have over the years been many private & government-sponsored covert efforts to 'influence' or overthrow leaders of governments in countries like Iran (1953) or Venezuela (2002) intended to prevent the nationalization of their oil industries.

Let's not kid ourselves. The oil companies are corporations, driven by profit. They will run the pump prices as high as they can as long as we keep buying it (and I've got no choice, I'm sure you don't either). We could build 15 refineries tomorrow but the GLOBAL oil companies will sell it on the GLOBAL market and we would still have $3.50 diesel fuel - and much higher to come as you stated above.



Very true, all compaines are driven by profit, that is why they are in business,+

False...Oil companies do not set the price of Crude oil....That is done by speculators on the commidities market, base on what OPEC does with production, stability in the middle east, and the lack of refining capacity in the USA...And the ever increasing global demand. China's demand it up over 20% in less than 10 year...

They only wish they could build a new refinery...31 one years now since a new refinery was built in the USA, but 3 have burned to the ground in that time, and two others permanatly shut....while our demand goes up. EPA refuses to let the oil compaines rebuild the refineries.

Well what we need (I can't believe I'm actually saying this) is either for the government to go in and slap the hands of the oil companies, or for the oil industry to go socialist (as if!) and have a government-controlled oil industry and have some by-law stating if they need to raise oil prices to cover operating costs they have to prove it to a jury of ordinary citizens. (my far-out "impossible" idea.)

That has to be the worst Idea I have seen yet. Everything they govenment has taken over to run or regulate has gone to Crap...FAA, CAble companies and so on....

First the govenment wants the status quo with Big oil. Big oil has between a 9 and 10% profit margine. Rather small as far as manufacturing and production industies go. Sure they have huge profits becuase they sell huge amounts.

But the US govenment rents the ocean floor to the drilling compaines at a huge amount of money. ( govenment making money on land they would never use). The govenment Taxes the oil rig. Then the government taxes the pipe line to bring the crude ashore. Then they tax refinery, then they tax the distributor, then they tax the service station and then they add 60 cents a gallon tax to the pump. The use govenment realizes 2 to 3 dollars in tax for every dollar big oil sees in profit:eek::mad:. Why would the govenment want to change that???????????

Also you must remember any tax the government puts on a company, is passed on in terms of cost to the consumer.....

Does anyone know the difference between profit and profit margin? The actual profit margin to the oil companies is rather low as compared to other industries while the profit $$ are higher.


Spot on. The profit is higher, becuase the sell more, even though the margine in lower than other industries.

Why has it gone up so much in recient years? China's demand for oil has gone up over 20%, world demand has also gone up, the USA demand has gone up...So amount sold has gone up over 30% world wide...so profit is up.

Add on the speculators driving the cost of crude way up.

Well what we need (I can't believe I'm actually saying this) is either for the government to go in and slap the hands of the oil companies, or for the oil industry to go socialist (as if!) and have a government-controlled oil industry and have some by-law stating if they need to raise oil prices to cover operating costs they have to prove it to a jury of ordinary citizens. (my far-out "impossible" idea.)

Wow Dreamer...Dream on.
Who is going to go find, lease, drill, research, refine, transport and market your fuel for you and then discount it??? The Govt huh?
God knows the post office sure does alot better job than UPS!!!
and Im sure USOil will be great too:D
Good luck with that!!!:D

X2 Right now the govt wants to raise the gas tax $0.40 to fix roads and such isn't that why I spent $510 to register my truck last year in CA??? We would to paying $8/gal. if we had USOil.

Well all, they are starting to make "synthetic fuels" now. You can make Diesel and Jet fuel out of coal and natural gas. We have a few refineries being built in the U.S. to make synthetic fuels. But the biggest buyer of these new fuels will be the Military. And the cost will be more than current prices. It does'nt matter who comes up with a better fuel, the gov. will tax the $h!t out of it and the manufacturers are going to sell it for as much as the market will stand.

everything sold in our country is sold for as much as the market can stand

i just think it is sad that by dec of this year i will be able to go to walmart or some place like that and fill my VO tank up for less then what it will cost to fill my diesel tank

Let's not kid ourselves. The oil companies are corporations, driven by profit. They will run the pump prices as high as they can as long as we keep buying it (and I've got no choice, I'm sure you don't either).

My casual observation is that the local distributors are far more guilty than the oil companies of price gouging and collusion. We get a report on the TV that the oil futures have raised the price of oil XX per barrel. By the next morning, prices at the pump are up. If one place goes up, then the surrounding area prices go up to the exact same dollar amount. Seems that each station would usually have their own distributor and that their prices wouldn't be the same. Stations owned by the same distributor but 2 miles apart often have different prices here. I'm fortunate that one of the name places I buy fuel at is a bit on the lazy side, and usually doesn't catch on to the price increase until a midday or the next day. Of course, the flip side is that they sometimes are slow to drop their prices, and their open hours vary depending on whether they want to be there or not. Nothing like a place that is open from 8 to 8 being closed at 5:30 pm, 7 pm, etc.. You call them on it, and they say, well, sorry. (as you think to yourself, I went out of my way to patronize you and all you can say is "sorry"?

I personally think that they need to legally go after the stations and distributors, fine a few of them VERY HEAVILY and knock their supports out.

ya i don't see how they can charge a different price for fuel they already have in the tanks if there hasn't been a fuel delivery to that station. I have seen one station changes it prices 4 times before they filled their tanks again

are there any products which are not priced as high as the market will allow?

to bad the engineers have made engine clean and get uo too 35-45 mpg to have the feds stop production

to bad the engineers have made engine clean and get uo too 35-45 mpg to have the feds stop production

Too bad I see this improper use of the word 'to' over and over again. It happens way too much.

Sorry... off-topic. Maybe I took this too far.

are there any products which are not priced as high as the market will allow?

I think the key word is "allow". If you're shopping for funeral arrangements at need, then you're most likely going to pay whatever is asked. If you're shopping for a car, furniture, food, clothes - then one makes the conscious decision to either accept the price, negotiate the price, or walk away (whatever is appropriate).

We accept the fuel prices. We may complain, we may cuss, we may do whatever, but the little light on the gauge says "fill me". Where I live, we have a decent number of fuel stations, but we tend to run about 10-15 cents higher than 10 miles down the road. So those of us who pass the "cheaper" fuel going to and from work just fill up there. Everyone knows that they have cheaper fuel, but it does nothing to change our price structure. I don't accept the higher prices near to me, and neither do thousands of others daily, but it doesn't change the market locally, because not everyone stops using local stations.

Truth is, that my home area has a lot of demand, but nowhere near what I passing. If supply and demand are indeed factors, then it would stand to reason that stations in more congested areas should have HIGHER prices. But what we have locally, is one - two distributors feeding a lot of different stations and "brands".

Enjoy the toys whilst you still can fellas... Hillary and Company is coming and it ain't going to be pretty



Not a Hillary fan at all, but I do not think it will matter who is in office. Bush is the one that just set the new standards at 35mpg. It has to happen. No matter what anyone says oil is finite and will!!! run out someday. I will enjoy my toys, but still will not complain about 35 mpg. I know I already think about fuel cost now with the price having doubled in the past 4 years. No one can say that is does not effect them. I know someone that works for General Petroleum and he says fleet managers are looking for 1/10th mpg savings at this point.


Toast to Biodiesel:D

What is the point of using less fuel if they just double or triple the cost of what you use?

Here's the thing about this that slays me...
All the "THEY" are screwing us stuff. As though oil companies are conspiring to artificially hike the cost of their product. As though there is not competition for your fuel business. As though it grows on trees. as though the world oil market is not in turmOIL.
As though they havent spent trillions of dollars in capital finding, buying the rights to, drilling, transporting, refining and retailing fuel.
As though they should be doing all this for a price you suggest you like.
Freakin hysterical.
:D

well i think the new half ton diesels would not have that much problem making 35mpg's if it wernt for all this other legislation to choke them down with all this emmisions crap on them. the new powerstroke is having a though time to get the same mileage as the gasser just because of the new emmisions. don't get me wrong i think it is a good thing that we are trying to clean up the air but is it really helping when it makes the vehicles get half the mileage? i thought we were trying to reduce our oil consumption not increse it.

OMG I cant believe I just read 11 pages of this stuff!

Nuke the Moon, thats what I say.

But really .. something has to be said for all of this new technology. Take a 105 hp 3.9L Cummins built in the 80's and swap it into a half ton pickup. 3.10 or 3.54 gears w/ .7 overdrive can get you 30+ mpg. A 94-98 12 valve cummins in a std cab 2wd 2500 pickup can get you 25+ mpg. What are the new emissions trucks making for mileage? I bet it wont be as high (with a few exceptions).

Burn more fuel to reduce emissions .. what a great idea.

Another thought .. Has anyone here been to Europe lately? I was in Germany last year and around half of all cars are diesel powered. They get better mileage and because diesel fuel demand is higher their fuel is cheaper.(not per gallon compared to the US mind you, but they make more diesel so you dont have the $.50 difference compared to gasoline) I think the US needs to reduce government support for ethanol and increase support for diesel. 20% biodiesel blend get you the power gains from bio without the mileage loss.

What power gains does Bio have since it has less BTU's?:confuzeld

this country has gone to SH*T!!!

send me back to the western days where whisky, cattle and open land was plentiful!!!!

no but really what in gods name is happening. it used to be so simple. we are our worst enemies if anyone catchs my drift.

[quote=kbailey;2351170]
Another thought .. Has anyone here been to Europe lately? I was in Germany last year and around half of all cars are diesel powered. They get better mileage and because diesel fuel demand is higher their fuel is cheaper.(not per gallon compared to the US mind you, but they make more diesel so you dont have the $.50 difference compared to gasoline) quote]

Not quite. Diesel is taxed significantly less than gasoline in Germany. (I used to live there, and still have some family there.) Germans also pay for brake horsepower, the more power you have, the more you pay. To produce more diesel, you have to produce less something else from a barrel of oil. I will tell you though, that the diesel fuel quality is superior to the US and the diesel fuel doesn't foam (it acts more like #1 diesel).

What power gains does Bio have since it has less BTU's?:confuzeld

Biodiesel is fairly close in BTU to diesel, maybe one would lose a mpg on it. Power would be slightly down, but not by much. Compare that to ethanol, which is about 62% of gasoline in BTU. But ethanol can be easily produced to a higher octane, which could produce incredible power, if engines are set to use it efficiently.

I still think biodiesel is far closer to the real world of where we need to go than ethanol is.

Just remember, the largest advancements in biodiesel is from ALGAE( NOT CORN or SOYBEANS) So the agrument that our farm lands should be used for food not fuel is already outdated. They have made great strides in taking Algae from industrial Scrubbers and turning into BIO fuels. It cost nothing to produce (sunlight) and very little to process into fuel.


Not taking any sides just trying to help;)

In fact, a study done at the university of new hampshire indicates that we could produce enough biodiesel from algae to completely eliminate fossil fuel in this country by converting a fraction of the wasteland in the mohave desert. Another study done did cost analysis, indicating that biodesel could be produced using the UNH model at a cost of $2.00 per gallon, including a profit (even after paying debt load).

Of course I have no way to determine how much of those studies is hogwash, so I am going to:

* run over a bambi a week and squish it's guts for oil
* drive as fast as I can
* eat McD's on the fly and toss the garbage out the truck window
* put in a coal/wood furnace
* drink alcohol instead of burning it
* smoke cigarettes
* eat bacon
* burn a bunch of fossil fuel
* die with a smile on my face knowing I got mine

Yeah, don't know why the enviro-wackos have any credibility. After the MTBE fiasco all supporting politicians and enviro-wackos should be banned from public policy. Clean the air at the expense of cancer water. Another "chicken-little" policy with no scientific study or support.

Oh, and don't think diesels are the immune... CARB just came back last month saying all of So. CA's air problems are due to diesels (trains, ships, semi-trucks, etc). I can only imagine it will be wholesale slaughter on diesels in the next year. Enviro-wacko target of the year.... :(

Environmentalism has become a religion or more like a cult and too many people are drinking the coolaid. Dont get me wrong, I believe in being responsible but lets not go overboard. There is so much propaganda being disseminated on this subject and its is often so thinly veiled. I had a college professor tell us that if the polar ice caps melted due to global warming, sea levels would rise by 75 feet, covering all coastal cities. Later during the same class he said that 20% of the ice caps have melted since the 1970s. Now correct me if Im wrong but isnt 20% of 75 feet about 15 feet, enough water to eliminate every beach on the planet and cover much of many costal cities. Strangely this hasnt happened. Researches is Norway found that a single moose produced as much methane gas in a year as an 8000 mile car trip. That about one third the way around the earth at the equator. Mt St Helens spewed more pollution into the atmosphere when it erupted than mankind has in his entire exitence. To think that man can destroy an ecosystem the size of this planet by causing global warming is the height of either arrogance or stupidity. Be reposibel but put down the coolaid people.

i hope the seas raise up 15',just so the east coast polititions learn to swim

Bio fuel any day.


You would rather have fuel than food...Hmmmm.


Did you ever think that oil doesnt come from dead dino's??? :o:

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read in my entire life, and before you go spouting how I'm some liberal freak, I still haven't been convinced that global warming is real. But engines running hotter has nothing to do with global warming. It's the by products that come out of the tailpipe that is what they're saying is the cause; CO2 eating away at the atmosphere. And yeah you've got a point about the dpf being a potential source of explosions, but don't you think that's the type of thing that, as time goes on, they'll perfect more and more? As far as the whole "sun losing mass" argument, the percentage of the sun that's gets burnt off is so unbelievably insignificant that that entire point should basically be stricken from thought.

And your sig is exactly what's wrong with Americans - we listen to only the party that we like to hear, and ignore the opposition entirely, when in fact the truth is nine times out of ten right in the middle.


Volcano's produce billions of ton of CO2 a year, much more than we could ever think about producing. Maybe we should shut them down too:D

and even though the sun is losing mass, it is getting hotter. It will eventually expand and fully engulf earth's orbit, frying us away.

Volcano's produce billions of ton of CO2 a year, much more than we could ever think about producing. Maybe we should shut them down too:D
True, but we still do contribute, and there's no reason at all to not try and cut down when we can.

and even though the sun is losing mass, it is getting hotter. It will eventually expand and fully engulf earth's orbit, frying us away.
By the time that happens, we'll probably have mastered intergalactic space travel, so no worries there.

i hope the seas raise up 15',just so the east coast polititions learn to swim
We'll become the first generations of merpeople, excellent.

True, but we still do contribute, and there's no reason at all to not try and cut down when we can.


By the time that happens, we'll probably have mastered intergalactic space travel, so no worries there.


I think that we will have destroyed ourselves long before that happens.