Carol Tharp wrote on September 15, 2008 03:27 PM: What should the price of gas be at 95.00,90.00, 85.00, 80.00 and etc. Please send this information to me. Thank you, Ms. Tharp

George wrote on November 01, 2007 07:18 PM: Ever think the constantly shrinking dollar might have something to do with it. Want a real shock - buy a cup of tea in London. Maybe the gas pump prices will be a little bit easier to understand after that. Will it continue? Why not, with more foreclosures and the Fed continuing to lower interest rates while prices of goods go up.

sad wrote on November 01, 2007 06:27 PM: GREED &^%$#@!)(*&^ers this is what it is. This is a massive class action lawsuit i can see. 2006 oil $62 barrel, gallon of gas $3.00 $33 more at $95.00 barrel gallon of gas at $2.74 and the oil companies still made $9.000.000.000 billion. Yep and they said that we are supply and demand and still no gas stations out of gas here.

You it's not only the President IT IS CONGRESS and The HOUSE and they all have stock in oil reaping millions, this is why you hear nothing from the hill. One for me go 456k yourself voters we are number 1 and live like number 1 and your still hard at work you puks. This from all elected leaders

d wrote on November 01, 2007 06:05 PM: Thank You Walter, hit it right on the head

I guess they don't teach much in school these days.

douglas wrote on November 01, 2007 05:46 PM: other than the "progressive" agenda to intentionally restrict u.s. petroleum reserves, crude oil auctions are only affected by worldwide demand.

those nations which want that crude oil more, pay more. mostly since china and now india are enjoying their industrial revolutions. add the emancipated eastern block countries which are aggressively trying to catch up to western europe after decades under their communist dictatorships. net result is that as long as the "progressives" are further restricting u.s. exploration, harvesting, and refining, u.s. [and those foreign oil companies retailing within the u.s.], those oil companies have to get in line to buy more at auction than ever before. no magic here, with more bidders, the higher the final price.

add to that is a restrictive international supply. opec rightly controls production among its members to maintain some price support. other producers, opec and not, may have political issues with production [viz. nigeria with continuing insurgency/terrorism/tribal warfare]. then we have the venezuelan president who seems to be using his citgo service stations' cash flow to buy russian nuclear submarines.

unless the u.s. as a whole, uses less crude oil and its products, we will have to outbid *all* other countries. and since we are sending massive cash to "underdeveloped" countries as china and india for their low dollar manufactured goods, they will outbid us using our money.

kinda like getting bit by your own dog.

the only politics in this situation are the "progressives" who are condemning the u.s. consumers to in effect, buy more crude oil on that auction market.

jj wrote on November 01, 2007 05:07 PM: when bush was elected? oil was $26 a barrel.

douglas wrote on November 01, 2007 03:58 PM: without the present administration and the skill and efficiency of u.s. oil companies, gasoline at the pump prices would be mebbe double. at least as high as those in europe.

despite the "progressive" agenda to reduce exploration, harvesting, and refining of the oil reserves within the u.s., oil companies here obviously are doing a far superior job at keeping down gas prices to the consumer. without question, supply and cost to the u.s. consumer would be even less were the "progressive" agenda ignored preventing u.s. exploration.

further, were the the most efficient, economical method of electricity generation, nuclear, enhanced, far less natural gas and diesel oil fuels would be necessary for those electric utilities' plants. and of course, were the u.s. to burn more coal for power generation, our need to outbid others in the world crude auctions would be less.

the present administration has been able to deter the captain nemo kennedy "solution". over the years, captain nemo has proposed both a 50 cent and one dollar tax surcharge on gas "to discourage use". no doubt that tax surcharge would be sent to some black hole, fact finding, blue ribbon commission [read, evaporate].

for our rising gasoline prices we must thank hapless harry reid. no one else has more directly forced up petroleum and electricity costs than hapless harry.

say what wrote on November 01, 2007 12:00 PM: remember a couple months ago when the pump price was over $3.00 a gallon and at $80.00 a barrel's it's almost $100. but the pump price is below $3.00...what's wrong with this picture..there#$#@ us again.and nobody cares."the oil companies are scratching their heads"?????

Kevin wrote on November 01, 2007 10:37 AM: Gee, the RJ missed this article in USA Today.
"...The three states with the highest foreclosure rates during the third quarter were Nevada, California and Florida, RealtyTrac said.

Nevada reported one foreclosure filing for every 61 households, with 16,817 filings on 12,982 properties.

That marked a 22.8% increase in filings from the previous quarter and a tripling from the year-ago quarter."

oldlawdawg wrote on November 01, 2007 09:58 AM: Lets hope the Fed is paying attention and taking notes because it just "got took." Institutional investors bullied the Fed into cutting two key lending rates only to then stick it to the market with even more insecurity driven by concerns over not just the credit markets they were demanding the Fed shore up with rate cuts, but over run-away oil prices for which annalysts can no longer see any supporting rationale -- prices clearly driven by the need of those same institutional investors to make windfall oil profits standard fare by assuring that consumers get used to $3+ per gallon at the pump come hell or high water. That the Fed did not see this comming was truly spectacular as the greed is so naked as to be just downright unseemly. Our economy is rapidly becoming one in which there are only institutional investors and consumers,with consumers being anyone not an institutional investor,and the Fed is actually assuring that scenario by dancing to whatever tune is played on Wall Street as long as it sounds even faintly like Main Street. The Fed now takes the word of the institutional investors literally as to what is both desired and needed by consumers,thus making sure consumers are completely closed out in the struggle for at some meaningful economic clout in the marketplace. Not only has the stability supposedly sought through rate cuts been completely undermined,but consumers are now certain to get raped on Winter fuel costs as any and all potential curbs to never-ending price spirals have completely evaporated or just plain "caved in," while the institutional debt-mongers cheer because the Fed's rate cuts assure consumer credit will remain available to support yet another round of "holiday spending." All practical concerns must subordinate to the absolute needs of our debt-driven economy.

Read All Comments