In case you haven't noticed, gasoline prices are dropping dramatically.
The California State Automobile Association reports the average price for a gallon of unleaded gasoline in California is now $3.85. That's 10 cents less than a week ago and 76 cents less than a month ago.
In the East Bay, the average price is also $3.85 a gallon. That's nine cents less than a week ago and 77 cents less than a month ago.
CSAA officials are predicting prices will continue to drop the remainder of the year.
“Lower crude oil prices, the seasonal switch from summer to winter blend, and reduced demand have added to the recent downward pressure on retail gasoline prices,” says AAA Northern California spokesperson Cynthia Harris. “With continued signs of global economic weakness and a somewhat stronger U.S. dollar, crude oil prices have continued to move lower.”
Some of the lowest prices in the East Bay on gasbuddy.com are in Livermore, where at least five stations are selling gas for $3.59 a gallon. Livermore is also home to one of the more expensive stations in the region. The Chevron at East Vineyard and Isabel Avenue has a listed price of $4.25 a gallon.
Have you noticed the drop in prices? Has it helped with your monthly expenses? Let us know in the comments section.
I am not angry at all, in fact if anything I feel sorry for David who thinks that profit is more important than the environment or the well being of the masses. David Yes I think that is oil was a non-profit we would not only have oil but it would half the price. Lucky for us most non-profit workers take a lower salary to do something they feel is worthwhile.
Majority of posters: "Oil companies are gouging us" Me: "Oil companies profit margins range from <1% to about 10%" Majority of posters: "But...you're white [not entirely true]...and skinny...and...and...sick!" "You should look at total profits, and not profit margin" Me: Actually it's the profit margin that matters, the absolute profit amount is just a result of scale. Majority of posters: "Move to Alabama, you...you...math person"
companies. The show was shown on CNBC but you can find it on line.
May I also suggest the show Frontline did called "The Warning" this is a VERY good look at how the economic mess really got started and as Frontline is hardly partisan right I think we can agree they are credible. Spoiler alert both partys failed us bigtime.
http://tinyurl.com/22npth4 As a youth flying fighters for the Marine Corps, I encountered a UFO over Southern Japan. The craft measured 3,000-feet in diameter. The experience lead me to eventually question everything being taught to us in college physics class. What powers these crafts? The answer to that question unlocks stories of suppressed science known as Zero Point Energy. Until we are able to awaken ourselves to this fundamental social reality of a society split by scientific dogmas, we will not be able to progress away from fossil fuel. There are many over-unity (produces more energy than it takes to run) suppressed energy systems that we should be looking at. Liberate this planet by liberating your mind to look at what's already out there. http://tinyurl.com/87n23fx
By selling oil at half the price, your non-profit oil company would quickly dominate the market. As for the environment, oil is far more "environmentally" friendly that solar, wind, or hydro. As long as we're not bothering to develop next generation nuke plants (thorium, pebble bed) and ceding that to China, we might as well use the next-cleanest fuel--oil and nat gas.
What they claim in profits and what they reinvest into inventory they watch very closely for PR reasons . Some call it the "control of oil theory." An appropriate slogan should be "Chevron screwed up, consumers pay up." Environmentally we're also very screwed in large part because of the massive PR campaign by Big Oil to convince the public that they had global warming under control. Trust Big Oil on Global Warming.
If the price of widgets go up for Wal-Mart, they don't raise prices to protect their 3.5% profits? When milk goes up, Safeway doesn't hike the price? What planet are you from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption The largest solar plant generates 300 megawatts and covers 1300 hectares. Therefore, if we could duplicate that (think of all the copper, aluminum, and silicon we'd have to "environmentally" mine), we would also cover 115.3 million hectares with solar panels, or 445,045 sq miles. That's only roughly 3 times the size of California. Oh, and then there's the batteries to store the energy at night. That's quite a bit of lithium, nickel, lead etc needed. Or... We can stick a straw in the ground and slurp up some oil. There are oil rigs literally in schools' backyards in LA. Solar is not an "environmentally" friendly solution. As for hydroelectric, well, Californians are blowing up dams. As for wind, well, it's even worse.
So the "widget" at WalMart is not an ongoing expense? Maybe that "widget" is food. Craig, your waistline would say otherwise. Food is always a recurring expense and as fuel proves increase so do food prices, and prices on just about all other goods and services as well.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[16] Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[17][18] Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[19] Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[20] David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[21] Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[22] William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[23] William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[24] William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[25]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[27] Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[28][29] Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[30] Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[31][32] Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[33] Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[34][35][36] Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[37] Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[38] Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[39] Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[40] * Hat tip Wikipedia
The crew members of the B-52 all reported seeing the same thing on their debriefing. Their aircraft all received radar returns. They flew over the top of the disk and reported seeing what appeared to be an 18-story tall observation deck with "beings" visible inside. Those crew members all reported their findings and were sworn to secrecy. I did not report our encounter and was never ordered to not discuss it. Those B-52 crew members still living are now slowly coming forward especially as they see that continuance of silence only continues to perpetuate the powers that be in a hydrocarbon based primary energy economy while Zero Point Energy devices along with a teaching and understanding of the sub-quantum Zero Point Energy physics are ruthlessly suppressed. End Part 1 of 2
End Part 2 of 2
Why do you believe the grant-seeking "scientists" (with no way to run a reasonable test of their hypotheses) now?
I'll grant you that if your only model is centralized power generation, then oil & nukes fit that bill. Of course that model looks best when you ignore externalities, like pollution. For oil it helps if you deny global warming & nukes have never been able to pencil out, that's why we subsidize them with things like the Price-Anderson Act. It may not be in Big Oil's best interests, but going forward we need to evaluate all energy sources for their true life cycle costs. Don't get me wrong, oil is incredibly valuable stuff. If we play our cards right it will have an important place in our economy for generations to come.
The question is not whether or not climate change is occuring at a faster than "normal" rate. The real question is HOW MUCH human activity is accelerating it and what humans as a global community should be doing to minimize the damage.