Forum Thread
(Cossayuna Lake Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
83,630 messages
Updated 5/22/2024 10:56:34 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Cossayuna Lake Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
Cossayuna Lake Photo Gallery





    
Name:   old blue chair - Email Member
Subject:   Gas off the water
Date:   6/30/2008 8:48:51 AM

I went by Nail's this morning his gas jumped to $4.16 - has it went up off the lake everywhere else or is this his contribution to the 4th



Name:   Lakeman - Email Member
Subject:   Gas off the water
Date:   6/30/2008 9:15:43 AM

A friend of mine that's in the gas business said Friday there was a $.13 jump in the price of gas. He said it was the largest single increase in his 40yrs. of being in the business.



Name:   Feb - Email Member
Subject:   Gas off the water
Date:   6/30/2008 12:49:51 PM

I think I can believe it.

The reality of oil prices and resulting gas prices are going to seem insigificant until we see the increase in food prices that will hurt the entire world.

Farmers and transporters just can not eat the increase in fuel prices.

Wait until this Winter when the Northern States start seeing the increase in fuel oil and other heating expenses.

The big hurt is going to be upon retired folks with a fixed income since inflation is going to eat up any cost of living adjustments.


The US is possibly suffering the least of all the pain.

I only hope I am wrong on this one.



Name:   momo - Email Member
Subject:   Gas off the water
Date:   6/30/2008 1:00:01 PM

Gas in Central yesterday was 3.86 and this morning in Montgomery it was up to 3.89. NOWHERE near 4.16. Must be his contribution to the 4th!



Name:   Samdog - Email Member
Subject:   Gas off the water
Date:   6/30/2008 2:20:56 PM

In Montgomery Atlanta Hwy Wal-Mart area it is $3.82 today



Name:   old blue chair - Email Member
Subject:   Gas off the water
Date:   6/30/2008 2:44:55 PM

I guess Nail's gas is that much better than everyone elses.



Name:   Lucy 1 - Email Member
Subject:   Gas off the water
Date:   6/30/2008 3:02:52 PM

Check out Newt Gingrich's take on the oil mess.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY

URL: Newt on Oil

Name:   8hcap - Email Member
Subject:   Gas off the water
Date:   6/30/2008 3:52:11 PM

Feb, what is your candidate going to do about this situation? Raise taxes so we have even less to buy our gas with???

8



Name:   Barneget - Email Member
Subject:   Gas off the water
Date:   6/30/2008 5:22:31 PM

Let's see, Nail has 1 store, Murphy oil operates nearly 3000 (many alongside Wal-Mart stores). Nail probably doen't own a refinery, Murphy does. Nail probably spends his money locally, Murphy in East Texas. Mapco, with 350 stores (2 in Auburn) and a refinery retails their fuel for less than it can be bought wholesale. Let's look at Circle K, and the 5600 stores, with multiple refineries. They are owned by a Belgian outfit. I struggle visualizing them spending their profits in the area. But you may be right, Nail could just be getting ready to stick it to us for the 4th.
Let Freedom Ring !!!!



Name:   Feb - Email Member
Subject:   Gas off the water
Date:   6/30/2008 5:47:43 PM

Hi 8, You raise a most interesting question. None of them will give us an answer or even a clue to the answer.

I am with you and think this is a valid concern for our economy.

I will give some additional thought while I read your considered and normaly most valued opinion.

My gut feel which is more emotional than with logical economic rational is to get out of Iraq. and pay off our National Deficit to increase the value of the American Dollar.






Name:   Feb - Email Member
Subject:   Gas off the water
Date:   6/30/2008 5:47:44 PM

Hi 8, You raise a most interesting question. None of them will give us an answer or even a clue to the answer.

I am with you and think this is a valid concern for our economy.

I will give some additional thought while I read your considered and normaly most valued opinion.

My gut feel which is more emotional than with logical economic rational is to get out of Iraq. and pay off our National Deficit to increase the value of the American Dollar.






Name:   Feb - Email Member
Subject:   Gas off the water
Date:   6/30/2008 5:52:30 PM

Sorry for the early click. Our reacent National theme seems to be to take care of others who are not even tax payers with the money of our on National tax payers while borrowing from other non tax paying nationsl

Hard to make since of, but what do I know?



Name:   Maverick - Email Member
Subject:   Humm - Feb
Date:   6/30/2008 6:07:11 PM

You have admitted over the course of several days to several things:

- You have a"Quick click" and

- Your "dip stick is a little short"

And then the other day you said I was "not like a nerd", you must be living in serenity now as you appear to be coming clean and letting the truth be known. LOL

WELCOME TO YOU AND YOUR LOVELY BRIDE TO FULLTIME LIVING ON YOUR PEACE OF HEAVEN ON EARTH - LAKE MARTIN , as I know the 2 1/2+ years to build the house, etc was a trying time for all, but most likely very much worth it in the end. Now all you have to do is buy a boat so your can truly enjoy the lake (except 4th of July weekend, stay home)





Name:   8hcap - Email Member
Subject:   Gas off the water
Date:   6/30/2008 6:37:53 PM

Feb, I wish we had never invaded Iraq, but now that we have we just cannot pull out, particularly when the tide seems to be turning. In fact, we better be ready for more action when the Israeli's attack Iran after the first Tuesday in Nov., but before Jan. 20, 2009.

I have been in business for a long time (39 years) and this is the scariest economic environment I have ever seen. For the life of me, I cannot understand the Dem mantra that drilling here and now will not give immediate relief. Ok I agree, but what about 2, or 5 or 10 years from now? Do they really want us to sit here another 26 years without doing anything? The only results I can see from these tactics combined with the tax increase policy is to meet our enemy's goal which is to defeat us from within.

Thank goodness I am only a couple of years away from retiring (which I have had to prepare for myself - no pensions here) on Lake Martin, unless we go into a total meltdown like 1929, then it won't matter.

Sorry for the doom and gloom but please vote for McCain if you want a liberal in the White House and Obama if you want an extreme leftist/globalist.

8





Name:   JustAGuy - Email Member
Subject:   Gas off the water
Date:   6/30/2008 7:02:16 PM

I don'thave a problem with drilling off-shore or in Alaska ..... but before we do that I would like an answer to one of the questions the Dems are throwing out alot these days .... evidently the oil companies already have tons of leases that they are not drilling .... why do they need additional oil leases if they aren't already using the ones they have? Anybody know the answer? Thanks



Name:   Swimmer27 - Email Member
Subject:   Gas off the water
Date:   6/30/2008 8:43:11 PM

Yes. The answer is just because they have a lease, that doesn't mean ther ie oil there. ANWR and the coasts, not to mention shale oil from the Rockies are PROVEN reserves. There is no time or money wasted on 'dry holes'. Production can begin in months, not years.

Anyone who is against drilling because of environmental concerns show me one place on Earth that has been damaged due to 'oil spills' in the past 30 years. The Middle East is covered in wells with drilling going on continuosly. Any major problems there? And who has more restrictions and safety rules and regs than the good ole USA? NOBODY. The worst disaster in recent history was due to a drunk captain running his ship aground, yet there are super tankers all over the globe.

For 30+ years we have been hearing the same things from our 'political leaders'. How we must become energy independent. We must develop alternative fuels. Yada Yada! Today I read about two companies who want to proceed with solar power technology but are facing two years of government red tape. Gimme a break.

This country put a man on the moon in less than 9 years after the decision was made to do so. I will never beleive that there is not a better way to power our automobiles than fossill fuels. And even if there isn't already, that there couldn't be in a VERY FEW YEARS.



Name:   solvacc - Email Member
Subject:   Exxon Valdez
Date:   7/1/2008 12:11:24 AM

That's why folks are hesitant. Same with Nuclear Power.

URL: Valdez Spill

Name:   solvacc - Email Member
Subject:   Too clarify...
Date:   7/1/2008 12:32:01 AM

I'm just saying that some consequences of oil exploration and power generation are still fresh in peoples minds. We are all willing to pay higher energy and fuel costs if it means a healthier environment. The question is, how much?

The U.S. pays about half of what some European countries pay although, the economy seems to suggest its still too much.





URL: Worldwide Gas Prices

Name:   MartiniMan - Email Member
Subject:   Too clarify...
Date:   7/1/2008 8:41:41 AM

World-wide gas prices are higher than the U.S. for one reason, taxes. Europe taxes like mad fools which is why their economy always lags behind ours (exception being Ireland which has gotten the message). It seems to me that the political tipping point for gas prices is $4 per gallon. Suddenly a large majority of Americans favor drilling in the continental shelf (50 or so miles ofshore). Less so in ANWR mostly because people still don't understand it is a God-foresaken place that no one visits and we would only occupy a tiny percentage of it for exploration.

Having worked in the oil industry early in my career (in exploration as a geophycisist), I can tell you absolutely that when politicians talk about the undrilled lease acres they are talking absolute nonsense. Here is how it works. Oil company pays the government to explore land (the lease), they go out and spend millions of dollars doing seismic exploration to see if there are any prospects to drill, those that look promising get drilled, those that don't are abandoned (the price of doing business in the oil industry).

Also, the talk about we can't drill our way out of this mess, it will take 10 years to get the oil, etc. is also silly when you consider the alternative. How long will it take to bring uncertain alternative energy to the table? Nobody even knows whether something will work, let alone when. How long do the working poor and people on fixed income, small businesses, etc, have to pay these high prices before we do something. All we get is politicians beholden to special interest environmental groups saying no, no, no to more exploration and production from one side of their mouths while complaining about high prices and our dependence on foreign oil out of the other side. This is a CLASSIC example of what Ronald Reagan believed, government isn't the solution to our problems, government is the problem.



Name:   Laker - Email Member
Subject:   Too clarify...
Date:   7/1/2008 9:58:04 AM

Amen Martini - I used to audit offshore rigs in Mobile Bay for the State and also some conventional wells in Washington County (and also coal bed methane in Jeff. and Tusc. counties). Actual drilling sites have absolutely nothing to do with accidents like the Valdez. The worst part of the process is the ugly equipment...but the native wildlike in ANWAR could care less!!!



Name:   8hcap - Email Member
Subject:   Exxon Valdez
Date:   7/1/2008 10:46:42 AM

What does this have to do with nuclear power? I suppose you will refer to Chernobyl, which was run by a socialist government that saw fit not to build a containment facility. Three Mile Island made good press, but what damage was really caused? France gets most of its power from nuclear, that one fact should cause the left to go gaga over nuclear.

I am proud my message generated the studied resposes it did. Now i am waiting for the same type responses in rebuttal.

8



Name:   Swimmer27 - Email Member
Subject:   Exxon Valdez
Date:   7/1/2008 10:54:38 AM

More people have been killed riding in Ted Kennedy's car than have been killed, or even injured, by nuclear power in this country. And the post above proves my point about oil ruining the environment. A DRUNK captain ran his ship aground, so therefore oil makes a mess, so therefor we can't drill for any more of it. Makes perfect sense to me. If anything Three Mile Island proved nuclear can be safe. The smae concerns were voiced over the Alaskan pipeline, the poor Caribou would go extinct. There are more Caribou now than ever, and they love the pipline. They hover around it becasue it is a source of heat for them.



Name:   old blue chair - Email Member
Subject:   Exxon Valdez
Date:   7/1/2008 11:14:40 AM

leave it to one drunk to screw it up for the rest of us. he should do what the rest of us have done, marry someone to drive his drunk butt around..........lol



Name:   Swimmer27 - Email Member
Subject:   Too clarify...
Date:   7/1/2008 11:54:59 AM

Well said Martini. The problem is not the oil companies, it is the politicians. I have had lip service for 30 years. I am tired of lip service and am looking for public service. I am tired of the US constantly being compared to Europe. If you think Europe is better, pack up and move to Europe. Quit telling me that I need to be more like them. They all want to be like us. Poor in America is better than middle class in Europe.

Maybe Iran will do us a favor and choose D.C. as the target city to take out instead of NYC, because they are certainly planning to take out at least one American city. But they wouldn't do that. They have too many allies in D.C.



Name:   Feb - Email Member
Subject:   Yeah, A Boat Would Be Nice
Date:   7/1/2008 8:47:08 PM

I was hoping you would give me your old one after you bought a new one.

Remember, you are discussing things with a very new house poor neighbor. LOL

If the house in Virginia sells, I will come by and pick you up in my new boat.



Name:   solvacc - Email Member
Subject:   Nuclear Power
Date:   7/2/2008 5:52:09 PM

The whole of my comments were directed at the hesitation that many Americans feel about energy issues. Nuclear power has often been championed by many, and is part of the reason the EU can so easily support the Kyoto Protocol (Global Warming). Since we have limited Nuclear Power in this country, we get our energy from petroleum (natural gas) and coal energy generation, which makes signing the Kyoto Protocol more difficult for us.

Many of the same arguments for/against drilling mimic the arguments for/against Nuclear Power. In other words, it is easier to be against drilling if your economy (micro & macro) is not largely based on an oil infrastructure.

I think most of the US population understands that we could drill for oil tomorrow, and that it could have an immediate impact. The problem, is that some Americans feel that we should address this oil-based infrastructure problem now by using high gas prices as an scare-tactic, even if it hurts the economy. Other Americans feel that we should drill NOW, to give immediate relief, even if in the future, the consequences are much worse. I think the answer will lie somewhere in-between. Again, the question, is how much should we address today vs. tomorrow? Unfortunately, the politicians are the ones answering.



Name:   solvacc - Email Member
Subject:   Too clarify...Doh! That's 'To"
Date:   7/2/2008 5:57:52 PM

MartiniMan, you're right. It's unfortunate that an important issue like this has become political fodder. Hopefully, they'll all come to their senses and start LISTENING to the "experts" who know what they are talking about.



Name:   jalcz - Email Member
Subject:   Nuclear Power
Date:   7/2/2008 6:24:50 PM

>>>I think most of the US population understands that we could drill for oil tomorrow, and that it could have an immediate impact.<<<

"most of the US population" must not include the Energy Information Administration. They say "The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."

URL: official government stats

Name:   solvacc - Email Member
Subject:   Nuclear Power
Date:   7/2/2008 8:32:14 PM

I stand corrected. Though to be fair, their study assumes they wouldn't even begin production until 2017 and estimate a 13 year turn around, hence 2030. Even if it began today, that would mean 2021. Ouch!







Quick Links
Cossayuna Lake News
Cossayuna Lake Photos
Cossayuna Lake Videos




About Us
Contact Us
Site Map
Search Site
Advertise With Us
   
Cossayuna.LakesOnline.com
THE COSSAYUNA LAKE WEBSITE

Copyright 2024, Lakes Online
Privacy    |    Legal