Many of you may not remember January 1, 1975. On that date, the national 55 MPH speed limit law came into being. The theory was that it would save fuel and lives. It lasted for several years finally being replaced with speed limits closer to the 75 max we see on many freeways.

I'm all for reducing fuel consumption, but it sure took a long time to get anywhere.

This article, from Autoblog states that the truckers want a national average of 65 for everyone.

Quote »The trucking industry spend $113 billion on diesel fuel last year, and the way prices are going up, the industry will shell out $135 billion this year. To help restrain that kind of runaway profit-loss, the American Trucking Associations has released a list of ideas on how the federal government can lower fuel prices.

In addition to asking the government to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, open up currently prohibited areas for drilling, and fund the EPA's SmartWay program, the ATA wants two intriguing things: speed limiters set at 68 mph on all new trucks, and a national speed limit of 65 mph.[/quote]http://www.autoblog.com/2008/0...t-for/

Is this a good idea?

Not even.

What we DO need is this:

Consistent and uniform vehicle inspections on a state-by-state basis.

Penalties for ill-maintained and non-roadworthy vehicles.

Consistent and uniform laws on accidents and insurance requirements for all states.

A crackdown on retreads and tire maintenance for over-the-road trucks.

A consistent highway law for "slower traffic keep right", INCLUDING multi-axle trucks.

There's absolutely NO reason why an alert and competent driver of a new M45 with properly-inflated, sticky summer tires in ideal conditions in minimal traffic should be bound to an absurdly-slow and unreasonable speed limit.

Speed doesn't kill - Speed DIFFERENTIALS do.

Speed limits don't save lives. Safer cars and driver education DO.

Based on the current pollution problems with big trucks (lack of requirements), I would say 65mph would be worse for the enviroment and would suck up more gas?

The only time I see truckers doing <65 is going uphill or when overly loaded based on the condition of the truck

I wouldn't object to a 65MPH national speed limit if it did reduce the amount of oil imported. However, they industry would play with the supply so as to keep the demand high. We'd still come out on the bottom. I'd rather see the government nationalize the oil industry and use the profits to reduce my taxes.

What profit? The oil industry already makes less true profit per revenue dollar than the S&P500. Supply and demand sets the cost we have to pay and it's only going to get worse since we are running at 100% refinement of the oil we get without hope of getting new refineries online (nor the last one that blew up repaired).

If the Gov't could bring up charges against the oil companies they would in a heartbeat. All you hear is rhetoric to piss off the public instead. It's not because Bush is covering for them it's because there is no proof whatsoever that they have illegal practices and are intentionally inflating the price of oil.

consumeraffairs wrote:ExxonMobil's earnings announcement that profits rose 75 percent from last year followed a BP announcement of $6.5 billion in profits, up 34 percent and ConocoPhillips reporting its income grew to $3.8 billion, up 89 percent.

Okay, that one is 2 1/2 years old. Let's fast forward to 2007/2008

SFGate wrote:Soaring oil prices lifted Chevron Corp.'s annual profit to $18.7 billion in 2007, the fourth consecutive year that the San Ramon company made record amounts of money.

Other companies have made even more. Exxon Mobil, the country's largest oil company, reported on Friday that its 2007 profit hit $40.6 billion, a 3 percent increase from 2006, while sales passed $404 billion. No American business has ever scored a higher profit.

guardian.co.uk wrote:Shell was today accused of making "obscene" profits at a time when pensioners, motorists and industry are struggling with higher energy prices when it unveiled annual earnings of $27.6bn (£13.9bn).

The oil major has made British corporate history with the record figures, which are equivalent to more than £1.5m an hour and come at the end of a three month period when crude prices have averaged over $90 a barrel.

Center for American Progress wrote:High gas prices may have cinched American consumers’ wallets in 2007, but they loaded the coffers of the big five oil companies: BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell. ExxonMobil, after record high profits in 2005 and 2006, smashed the record for highest profits ever made by a public U.S. company—previously held by Exxon—by posting a net profit of $40.6 billion in 2007.

Assuming "profits" means what I think it means, they are making more money than ever before.

Something the Libbies will NEVER comprehend: You CAN'T artificially manipulate a capitalist economy in pursuit of a specific outcome, no matter how hard you try.

Better to ask the trucking companies why their technology remains damn near IDENTICAL to the "Smokey and the Bandit" days.

Keep in mind those trucks last forever, so getting them out of circulation is going to be damn near impossible... they count their miles in the millions, not the thousands.

How about some aero enhancements, biodiesel upgrades, low-rolling resistance tires?

rn79870 wrote:Assuming "profits" means what I think it means, they are making more money than ever before.

Are you assuming they are not selling more product?

BTW, here is a USA Today article going over oil profits:http://www.usatoday.com/money/...x.htm

BioDiesel is bad for the economy, so that would be a "no"

audtatious wrote:
Are you assuming they are not selling more product?

BTW, here is a USA Today article going over oil profits:http://www.usatoday.com/money/...x.htm

Sales = 404 Billion. Profit = 40.6 Billion.

A 10 (roughly) percent profit has nothing to do with how much oil they sell. That's after all costs, etc are deducted, including depreciation etc.

audtatious wrote:BioDiesel is bad for the economy, so that would be a "no"

Not ethanol, Homey.

Recycled veggie oil.

So? 10% profit for doing nothing illegal means we need the Gov't who can't manage dinner plans to step in to "fix" the problem? How about allowing more supply by tapping our own resources?

AZhitman wrote:
Not ethanol, Homey.

Recycled veggie oil.

That will only do so much (or so little).

audtatious wrote:So? 10% profit for doing nothing illegal means we need the Gov't who can't manage dinner plans to step in to "fix" the problem? How about allowing more supply by tapping our own resources?

Are you referring to the strategic oil reserves here, or expanding oil production/search in America?

Oil production here, more refineries, coal shale, Anwar, offshore, etc.

Absolutely. And whatever oil was on government land should not be "leased" but sold on a barrel by barrel basis by the government. I'd be far more agreeable with $110/barrel oil if I was helping to pay down the national debt.

Right now, the only way to bring down the cost of a barrel of oil is to increase the amount pumped via OPEC and others. Higher supply = overall lower cost per barrel. Their 10% profit (.10 per dollar) you list is not much more than the .09 I stated earlier. As far as what we could do internally, per the Gov of Colorado it would cost appx $48-ish/bl to convert shale which is quite a bit better than what we are paying now. Of course, some groups keep things tied up in court to stop it.

rn79870 wrote:
Sales = 404 Billion. Profit = 40.6 Billion.

A 10 (roughly) percent profit has nothing to do with how much oil they sell. That's after all costs, etc are deducted, including depreciation etc.

10% is 10% is 10%. If you think that's bad, then I guess my 17% return in stock for the past year should be investigated as well. Profit per barrel is down to like $6 or something like that from a previous $30. I mean if you're selling more and you can make 10%, the more you sell the more you make, yes? I don't get what the big deal is over 10%. As a business, you better be making about 10% or else they'd be better off putting that money elsewhere.

That's profit, as in after all expenses. Paper losses, obscene bonuses, etc. That's 10 percent, or $40,600,000,000.00 dollars. A year. That's just Exxon Mobil. Add Shell, Standard, Etc. Etc. and the dollar amount soars.

Record oil prices and record oil company profits. Somehow, it seems geometric related to me.

In order to maintain profits, they have to raise prices with the rising costs of the oil. Also, demand for oil is up so there's more product out there than before. Put the two together, you should see record profits in the raw, nominal numbers. Prices and the quantity demanded weren't the same as they were 50 years ago. If someone could find data on percentages of oil profits over the years, that would be nice. Also, when demand goes up with a given supply, so do prices. I mean given the same costs to produce a 10% return on sales, if they sold $500 billion worth of product, they would have pulled in $50 billion which would be another record profit year.

Using rough estimates of 200 million barrels a day consumed multiplied by the average price of a barrel in 2007, that's $468.66 billion worth of stuff they bought in 07. In the past 6 months, the price of gas nationwide has gone up ~17% while a barrel of oil has increased ~30% over the same period. That cuts into their profits as oil companies are probably reluctant to change the price too much as it would anger consumers more so.

smockers83 wrote:That cuts into their profits as oil companies are probably reluctant to change the price too much as it would anger consumers more so.

Which is pretty much my point concerning Oil companies manipulating prices. They are not when only making 10% as compared to other top companies and S&P500 making more. The constant "OMG, the evil Oil companies are increasing the price we pay for gas so they can make tons of money and nobody does anything because they are all Bush/Cheneys buddies" is tiresome because it's not the total truth. The Gov't has investigated and investigated and investigated and there are no illegal practices going on nor is there any price gouging on their part.

This is bound to really kick into high gear in the somewhat-near future when the population requires more gas than the refineries can make. It will look like the 1970's all over again. Who will be to blame? The public will blame the oil companies because that is who they have been trained to blame. The fact will instead be the groups who keep blocking us from building up our own infrastructure to supply our own.

Yes, I will blame them. Why they didn't use part of the 40 billion in profit for building a new refinery so they can meet the anticipated demand. Every time they shut one of those down for "maintenance" the price of gas goes up a few cents.

If you and I see that there will be a problem, why does the oil industry not see it, or perhaps, why don't they care. If there is a shortage it means a greater profit for them in the long run.

As soon as FCVs become available, there may well be one in my garage.

Because every time they apply to build one it gets tied up in court?

rn79870 wrote:Many of you may not remember January 1, 1975. On that date, the national 55 MPH speed limit law came into being. The theory was that it would save fuel and lives. It lasted for several years finally being replaced with speed limits closer to the 75 max we see on many freeways.

wouldnt make a difference on the east coast, so i cant say i give a ****

new hampshire just activated a 70 mph speed limit, its the first one over 65 out of i dunno how many states east of the mississippi

when i went to school in ND id routinely see limits at 80mph

i honestly think the limits are pretty good for the roads currently

plus in NY its not like itll make a difference, people drive at least 80 here whether its 55 or 65, sometimes i forget that 55mph roads arent 65 as i cruise along at 82-83, moving with traffic mind you

rn79870 wrote:Yes, I will blame them. Why they didn't use part of the 40 billion in profit for building a new refinery so they can meet the anticipated demand. Every time they shut one of those down for "maintenance" the price of gas goes up a few cents.

If you and I see that there will be a problem, why does the oil industry not see it, or perhaps, why don't they care. If there is a shortage it means a greater profit for them in the long run.

As soon as FCVs become available, there may well be one in my garage.

You need to get past the idea that they're screwing us. According to your profile you're in sales. So I don't get why this is so foreign to you...you have to know something about business and supply/demand, right? Lets put it this way. Lets say Target has to pull a bunch of their trucking fleet off the roads to do some sort of required maintenance. Target doesn't want to do that as products don't make it to market, which equals less sales, less revenue, less profit. But if they don't do the maintenance, the trucks wouldn't work as efficiently and lets say for all intensive purposes they would blow up--that would cause a much bigger economic impact on Target and the consumer as we have lost trucks which take a lot more time to replace than performing maintenance, therefore more expensive to both. Now, lets shift to a refinery. Oil company has to shut down part of a refinery to do annual maintenance. They don't want to as products don't make it to market, which equals less sales, less revenue, less profit. But if they don't do the maintenance, something could go wrong, like it blowing up--that would cause a much bigger economic impact on the oil company and the consumer. When you're buying $460+ billion worth of product, I would hope to God you are making billions of dollars. If you aren't, you're just in the wrong business--if they made $400 million on $400 billion in sales and that made you happy, that's only a 0.1% return. I don't know one person who would want to be in that business. Part of those billions goes into R&D for that Mobil1 you're buying, for better technology to extract oil from current fields, for maintenance costs, ships, or a completely different source of energy. No oil refineries because the longer we wait, the more costly its getting for numerous reasons.

How do you blame oil companies for allowing their profit margin on a barrel of oil slip from $30 to $6 in one year? Seriously. If that wasn't the case, we would easily be at $4/gallon as a national average right now. I would say gas prices are expressing sticky prices right now as oil companies don't adjust prices so not to anger the consumer. It could be a lot worse if the companies really really wanted their way.

nismofly wrote:new hampshire just activated a 70 mph speed limit, its the first one over 65 out of i dunno how many states east of the mississippi

Michigan has had a 70 MPH speed limit since 1996. I also counted 14 states east of the Mississippi, NH not being one of them. You guys are behind the times my friend.

Target is not a good example. Corn IS a good example. Look where the price of corn has gone now that it is used both as a food source and e85.

I sure don't see anyone finger-pointing at the farmers for controlling a commodity

Quote »You need to get past the idea that they're screwing us. According to your profile you're in sales. So I don't get why this is so foreign to you...you have to know something about business and supply/demand, right? [/quote]Smocky, just explain why there is a direct correlation between rising prices and rising profits. They have the ability to manipulate supply and demand, and they do it to their advantage. Case in point. In the summer, (the peak demand time for fuel) they shut down a refinery for maintenance. Maintenance that could well be performed in off peak times. Instead, they reap greater profits because the supply and demand factor raises the prices. They sell less and make more.

True, they have no control over what the Opeckers do with supply and demand, but, on a national level, they do manipulate supply and demand to screw us. Why not build another refinery with the 40 billion profit, oh wait, that would skew the supply and demand thing in our favor. Don't look for new refineries.

smockers83 wrote:Michigan has had a 70 MPH speed limit since 1996. I also counted 14 states east of the Mississippi, NH not being one of them. You guys are behind the times my friend.

yeah i guess that was a little broad

but anyway, a 65 speed limit really isnt behind the times here, because in a lot of areas it really is as fast as you can go...theres highways around NYC that havent been changed in layout since the 30s, only repaved a bunch of times (actually not even that much), so between road conditions and the design of the road itself its pretty crazy

when i was in north dakota the speed limit was always 75 or 80 outside cities regardless of road because there were stretches of straight line 15 miles long

i could probably count on one hand the number of roads in the state of new york that i actually think need higher than 65 speed limit

rn79870 wrote:True, they have no control over what the Opeckers do with supply and demand, but, on a national level, they do manipulate supply and demand to screw us. Why not build another refinery with the 40 billion profit, oh wait, that would skew the supply and demand thing in our favor. Don't look for new refineries.

There is one being built in AZ from what I can tell. Others have tried and failed getting EPA, zoning and local/county/state permission in the past. Nobody here is saying we should not build more refineries, exactly the opposite.

Some articles I have seen state legal issues some state that oil companies ARE manipulating the market, some state both are the reason for not pressing for refineries to be built. If either side is indeed blocking, then they are both in the wrong and it needs to be resolved.

chron.com wrote:(9/05) Yesterday, as part of a daylong seminar on the energy industry for reporters at the Chronicle's offices, Exxon Mobil Vice President Kenneth Cohen offered some insights on why the company doesn't build more new refineries in the U.S. Basically, Cohen said, building even a small refinery would require an investment of $2 billion to $3 billion.

Exxon predicts U.S. oil demand may begin to fall by 2030, which means the company faces a limited window for return.

Cohen noted that Exxon does have ventures underway to build refineries in Asia. "We're going where the demand is," he said.

22 years must not be enough to recover $2 to $3 billion when you're only making $40+ billion a year in profit. We're only talking about one oil company, and I don't doubt that they would have some sort of a joint venture if they did build.

tompaine.com wrote:And here’s what President George W. Bush said, in a speech on April 25 2006: “There has not been a new refinery built in America in 30 years.”

Again on May 16, Bush said: “There has not been a single new refinery built in America since 1976.”

But if that’s so, how do we explain the facility shutdowns that have characterized the industry? After all, there were 325 oil refineries in the U.S. in 1981, but only 149 remain today. Cato.org.

Even in view of that, oil production has risen by 20% as the existing refineries have increased production.

Basically, my point is that they, the oil companies, are allowing a condition to exist where the slightest event, (hurricanes, fires, etc.) or scheduled events (maintenance) reduce the supply. When that happens, they profit by increasing the price of fuel, blaming it on supply and demand.

Of course, the problem we see today are caused more by a falling dollar and the opeckers playing with the supply. But, the oil companies have and will screw us too. 40 billion dollars is a lot of profit for one company for 1 year, when that company is reaping tax and other government benefits.