Hi Gang:

Do you think we would be paying $5.00 a gallon for gas if we had not gone into Iraq???

Your opinions...

hippolips

Pre-invasion, Iraqi oil production was 2.6 million barrels a day. At February this year it had reached 2.4 million barrels a day.[Source: The Times] The USA consumes 19.6 million barrels a day.Does 0.2 million barrels a day, the difference between pre-invasion and now, make any difference to the USA ?If it doesn't,and it's hard to see how it can, then why is your gas price per gallon not at 2003 pre-invasion level ?

It's a matter for you whether spending all the money that the USA has spent on Iraq and the war has been a good investment.If she comes out of it all with a friendly Iraqi government and some, or total, control of Iraq's enormous oil reserves, then it may be.

While there is no denying that at times events in Iraq have affected the oil market, I don't think the U.S. invading Iraq, in & of itself, is the cause for the price increases in crude oil.

The economic developments of China & India, the fact they are using more oil would have come to the attention of the market. Price being based on supply and demand.

I can remember a time we had a big oil glut. More oil on the market than was being used. Now excess oil supplies are very thin. The market reflects that.

Are we saying, then, that it is the recent rapid industrial development of China & India, amongst other countries, and their need for energy, which is causing a shortage of oil? Enough to be creating a genuine scarcity, and thus pushing the price to levels hitherto unimaginable?

Incidentally, 'Lips, the price per gallon here is nearer $10 per litre. I think I will take the ferry to the US and fill up there each week...I sure I would be 'quids in', as they say...

quote:

Originally posted by Ritzmar:

Incidentally, 'Lips, the price per gallon here is nearer $10 per litre. I think I will take the ferry to the US and fill up there each week...I sure I would be 'quids in', as they say...

We buy fuel by the litre. Its average price in Britain is equal to about $2-40 a litre for regular and $2-60 a litre for diesel. There are 3.78 litres to a US gallon.So the price per US gallon is $9-08 for gasoline and $9-83 for diesel.

As Ritz indicates, we can't think what Americans are complaining about. Aren't Americans earning the same as us ? If so, what are you spending your money on, with the claimed result that you can't afford to buy gasoline?

Silly me, Fred! I meant to put, 'The price per gallon is nearer $10'...I must get a new trypewriter, as Professor Stanley Unwin would have said...

A real gallon is 4.546 litres, not the feeble American size

Here the price of a gallon of 'regular' would be the equivalent of $10-90 and that of diesel $11-20. The difference between the two gallons is sometimes forgotten when we make comparisons. One day we'll stop giving petrol consumption in miles per gallon, but that may not be before we stop using miles as the unit of distance on our roads.

Canadians use kilometres for road distances( I think). How do they give fuel consumption figures?

It's odd that we use metres on the signs on footpaths and in directions to attractions and facilities like the beach or public lavatories.Some of these signs may be technically illegal if they are on a public road.

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
A real gallon is 4.546 litres, not the feeble American size Some of these signs may be technically illegal if they are on a public road.

Yes, I had temporarily forgotten the puny American galloln Fred, and was thinking roughly 4½ litres to a gallon. Maybe technically illegal??? I do not pay professional legal advisors for "maybees"

quote:

Originally posted by Ritzmar:
Maybe[/b] technically illegal??? I do not pay professional legal advisors for "maybees"

No,but you pay them for spotting potential problems which the layman doesn't see. If the client thinks it a problem of relevance to them,not one they can ignore, then the lawyer does the research to find definitive 'chapter and verse', in this case starting in Wilkinson's 'Road Traffic' and Stone's 'Justices' Manual', and if the statute and regulations are not there, and there's no clue which regulations to look for, then to the law library for a search (and charges the client for the time; the client won't appreciate being charged for researching something which isn't important to them in their particular case).Even if, on the facts, a particular sign is illegal it may not matter because nobody in their right mind is ever going to question that and/or won't have the legal standing to pursue a complaint, or it may be a de minimis case.

The anti-metric protestors are fond of claiming that signs on clifftops reading e.g "Beach: 200 metres" are illegal.That's not so. The law requires road signs to be in miles and yards.At that the protestors will say that such a sign on the pavement of a road, pointing across countryside, is 'a road sign' Or they'll say that signs in the high street or market place, intended for tourists on foot, saying e.g 'Cathedral 200 metres' are against the law. The clients may need to defend themselves against such nonsense, in which case a lawyer's opinion without the regulation, proved by an HMSO copy, will not suffice .

Back on topic: The good news is that,'in real terms' (adjusted for inflation),the price of fuel in Britain was only 10% higher in March 2008 (when it was 103.9 pence a litre) than it was twenty- five years ago in March 1983.[source:speedlimit.org] 2008 is only the fifth year that the inflation-adjusted price has been higher than in 1983. "Real" fuel prices fell between 1983 and 1992, but then rose sharply because of the 'fuel duty escalator', resulting in fuel price protests in 2000.

And the cost of motoring in Britain has gone down over the past twenty years. Cars are relatively cheaper and cheaper to run; they require less servicing, require fewer repairs, are more efficient, have better tyres etc,last longer; than in 1988. The cost is 18% less than in 1988.[Source: an analyst on the BBC]

quote:

Cars are relatively cheaper and cheaper to run; they require less servicing, require fewer repairs, are more efficient, have better tyres etc,last longer; than in 1988. The cost is 18% less than in 1988.[Source: an analyst on the BBC]

Funny, my car is costing me far more to run than it did in 1988...perhaps it is getting time for me to change my car...?...

Yes, Ritz. What is it? A de Dion Bouton? Stanley steamer? Darracq?

Well,there does come a time when any vehicle needs more attention, more often, and more expensively.It's the odd things that suddenly pack up after years and years that provide the biggest shock

There has been a very big improvement in cars since 1988.What happened to cars which had only a 6,000 mile/ 1 year warranty? They all had it. Rolls Royce had it, indeed. Nowadays people expect to get as much as 60 thousand miles over three years from the maker.

In the 80s the big earner for dealers was in the after- sales maintenance and the warranty work.The engineering was such that new cars still had to be run-in. Now we sell a new car and hardly expect to see it again When we do, it's only for inexpensive work, mostly a computer check and minor adjustments.In the old days there was hours of chargeable labour involved in routine maintenance. The days when every car we saw got new spark plugs, whether needed or not ( ) once or twice a year are gone.So have new tyre and battery sales. They were the most profitable items a dealer sold.Now the tyres last what seems forever, the batteries are much better and anyone needing them goes to a Kwik-Fit or similar outlet.And in those 'old' days you'd never see a car that had 100,000 miles on it. Now you'd expect a car to cover that without any major problem.

I changed my car two years ago from a 2.2 litre Vauxhall to a 1.6 litre Peugeot. My insurance went down to £200 fully comp with named drivers and the tax went down to £120.00. I was quids in. Today I went and filled up my company vehicle with diesel. £63.00 !!! ( £1.29 a litre) This is getting ridiculous. Time to get a bike I think!

Yes Ritz, you do need to change your car, if only to get rid of that very appropriate number plate.

quote:

Aren't Americans earning the same as us ?

Hard to say. The question really should be how do taxes affect disposable income in the US and GB?

Very appropriate Number Plate? What do you mean?? Why is ' N771 OBB very appropriate? I do not think of myself as a toff... if that is what you mean, Jenny... I am sure that you cannot possibly mean anything else...

...and, JR, is Bill Gates not American? I think he earns more than Switzerland...

quote:

I think he earns more than Switzerland...

Or at least Rwanda.

quote:

Originally posted by juanruiz: Or at least Rwanda.

How true...

quote:

Originally posted by Ritzmar:
Why is ' N771 OBB very appropriate? I do not think of myself as a toff... if that is what you mean, Jenny... I am sure that you cannot possibly mean anything else...

That's your licence plate, Ritz? That's funny.

quote:

Originally posted by dg:

quote:

Originally posted by Ritzmar:
Why is ' N771 OBB very appropriate? I do not think of myself as a toff... if that is what you mean, Jenny... I am sure that you cannot possibly mean anything else...

That's your licence plate, Ritz? That's funny.

Nob? Heavens, dg, what would you make of NUT 1 and 1 NUT both of which are close to here? Me, I don't get the "joke" ( the family said PUL 1 wasn't available )

I'm just very happy that I have a car that gets 35 mpg (1992 Toyota Corolla that is very WELL taken care of)

And I know that I will be rethinking any long trips, darn it