Got alabama to #1 in nation first time ever, elite 8 loss to uconn the year they were unbeatable and beat everyone by 40, ast coach on 95 ucla title team, AP coach of year, SECOND coach of year, 5 straight tournies at bama.

29-4 one year at murray statr when they were the most well known midmajor

I'm pumped if its really gottfried

4/5/2011 3:04:52 PM

Quote :

"Got alabama to #1 in nation first time ever, elite 8 loss to uconn the year they were unbeatable and beat everyone by 40, ast coach on 95 ucla title team, AP coach of year, SECOND coach of year, 5 straight tournies at bama. 29-4 one year at murray statr when they were the most well known midmajor I'm pumped if its really gottfried"

in before he realizes that he posted in the wrong thread

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 3:09 PM. Reason : .]

4/5/2011 3:09:04 PM

It’s not easy to pin down the reasons that oil prices fluctuate. Is it speculation by traders based on the turmoil going on in oil producing nations? Is it the massive money creation being done by central banks around the world, i.e. competitive devaluation? Is it genuine supply issues? All of these things, I’m sure, have a hand in the price jump.

There’s every reason to believe that commodities will continue to go up in price. There’s more demand for natural resources, especially oil, from recently developed nations, and the dollar and euro have been weakening for some time.

4/5/2011 3:09:13 PM

Quote :

"It’s not easy to pin down the reasons that oil prices fluctuate. Is it speculation by traders based on the turmoil going on in oil producing nations?"

Speculation can only actually continue to a finite extent dictated by petroleum and gasoline storage capacity.

If there is no physical basis for a price increase, that means that production will ramp up. Both production and consumption follow the price - not each other. As production ramps up, if the predicted event that would restrict price does not occur, then there will be no way to take the excess. Since production is only variable to a limited extent and since we have storage globally on the order of about a month (only week-level fluctuations are possible since it can never be fully full or empty), then bubbles can persist on the order of a number of months, if it's based on speculation alone. Longer term price movements have to be reflecting fundamental changes in consumption or production.

So my overly-detailed answer is "yes and no, ask a better question".

Quote :

"Is it the massive money creation being done by central banks around the world, i.e. competitive devaluation? Is it genuine supply issues? All of these things, I’m sure, have a hand in the price jump."

Yeah

Quote :

"There’s every reason to believe that commodities will continue to go up in price. There’s more demand for natural resources, especially oil, from recently developed nations, and the dollar and euro have been weakening for some time."

Economists are notorious for believing in efficiency increases in the economy as a matter-of-fact. Anyway, the counter argument is that we can and will replace the use of resources with human ingenuity and creativity to solve problems.

Technically, by the way, cities are (vastly) more efficient in terms of resource use to support a population. Apparently all the vendors in NYC did not get the memo last time I traveled there.

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 3:27 PM. Reason : ]

4/5/2011 3:26:40 PM

Quote :

"Regardless of your particular beliefs in the availability of supply of oil, there are above and below ground concerns that should at a minimum require us to hedge potential disaster by 1) strongly encouraging the diversification of our transportation fuel source and 2) doing everything in our power to add supply to the market to give us more time for the transition. If you don't do both 1 and 2 at the same time, then the potential for disaster increases greatly."

Agreed 100%

4/6/2011 8:25:02 AM

Quote :

"LOL. This guy is a fucking riot."

4/7/2011 7:53:19 AM

This is a nightmare. $113 almost.

4.5pct this week alone. Get it obama!

4/8/2011 4:34:34 PM

Quote :

"An Oil Market Of Our Very Own Energy Policy: Gasoline prices are punitively high, and many blame the administration. But prices could be lower and approval ratings higher if the president got behind an important pipeline project. The Keystone XL pipeline, proposed six years ago, is a 36-inch feed linking Alberta's oil sands fields to the refineries of Texas' Gulf Coast. It would carry not only Canadian crude, also but oil from the energy-rich U.S. states. If allowed to proceed, it would eventually transport more than a million barrels of crude each day — more, according to Heritage Foundation analyst David Kreutzer, than we now import from either Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, our two largest suppliers after Canada and Mexico. "Along with the pipeline and petroleum," says Kreutzer, "would come increased energy security and a boost to the U.S. economy." Given the benefits, who could oppose such a project? Washington Democrats. They reflexively oppose any proposal that increases energy availability. The green energy solutions they promote aren't designed to expand energy; they are meant to restrain capitalism."

What you waiting for Obama? Full article available at the below link.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/568232/201104051839/An-Oil-Market-Of-Our-Very-Own.aspx

4/14/2011 9:10:06 AM

interesting that the Heritage foundation chose to leave out all of the eminent domain issues with this project in their "analysis." Aren't they considered libertarian leaning?

4/14/2011 9:28:56 AM

Yeah I bet it's impossible to find a route from Canada to TX that doesn't fuck up a lot of people's property

[Edited on April 14, 2011 at 10:26 AM. Reason : n]

4/14/2011 10:26:44 AM

^^ I seriously doubt any eminent domain would be required for this pipeline. I hope they aren't given any seizure rights. However, I guarantee a whole range of permits and permissions are required, I hope this is why the bill in Congress is necessary.

4/14/2011 11:14:22 AM

if the story i heard on npr was correct, they already had deals pending for the property easements they would need to purchase

4/14/2011 11:42:07 AM

Quote :

"Given the benefits, who could oppose such a project? Washington Democrats. They reflexively oppose any proposal that increases energy availability. The green energy solutions they promote aren't designed to expand energy; they are meant to restrain capitalism"

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence

4/14/2011 12:02:57 PM

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/04/14/general-ne-keystone-pipeline_8408255.html

Quote :

"A Canadian company that wants to build an oil pipeline to the Gulf of Mexico is again threatening landowners with court action if they don't sell TransCanada the rights it needs to build the Keystone XL pipeline. "

The state department is awaiting a proper environmental assessment of the project before going forward. The problem here is Transcanada are threatening to take people to court before the project is even approved, thats borderline intimidation. The worst part is they know they will get what they want.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/oklahoma-landowners-challenge-transcanadas-keystone-pipeline/article1872884/

Quote :

"Oklahoma resident Sue Kelso and her siblings have filed a motion in district court to block TransCanada’s plan to exercise eminent domain in order to build across their property. Ms. Kelso, 69, lives on a farm where she grew up near the Texas border in southern Oklahoma. “My objection is that a foreign company has no right to condemn our property, come in and take what they want, where it does not benefit us or our neighbours,” Ms. Kelso said in an interview Monday. “It only benefits them and their investors. It is for their gain – it is not helping me at all.” "

http://energypipelinenews.blogspot.com/2010/08/montana-psc-grants-keystone-xl.html

Quote :

"HELENA, Mont. - State regulators have granted condemnation powers to the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline across eastern Montana, but not until its developer agreed Montana has power to regulate local oil producers' access to the line. "

http://tarsandspipelines.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/eminent-domain-issues-in-south-dakota/

Quote :

"The antipathy has been especially fierce in Nebraska, where the line would cross the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region and the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides irrigation and drinking water to eight states. Nebraskans have protested outside the statehouse, its congressional leaders have petitioned the U.S. State Department on the matter and a state legislator has introduced a bill that would require oil companies to go through a lengthy application process before they could build pipelines in the state. "

and so on.

4/14/2011 12:53:45 PM

Quote :

"^^ I seriously doubt any eminent domain would be required for this pipeline."

NIMBYism makes eminent domain a necessity nowadays to build 8 miles of pipeline, let alone 8 state/territories worth of pipeline. Most property owners are dumb enough to think the deep pockets of utilities will translate into higher payouts in court, when the opposite is often the case.

4/14/2011 1:00:09 PM

^^ The best part is the horrible Kelo V. New London decision has already set the precedent at the supreme court level for the government to take private property from one private entity and give it to another. Good luck to the folks fighting for their property, but I fear they'll lose in the end.

^ Everyone has a price. Using the courts and the government to badger someone into giving up their property because you don't want to meet their price is tantamount to theft.

[Edited on April 14, 2011 at 1:02 PM. Reason : sadf]

4/14/2011 1:01:27 PM

^^ Then no pipeline is built. I have no problem with that.

Quote :

"The problem here is Transcanada are threatening to take people to court before the project is even approved, thats borderline intimidation. The worst part is they know they will get what they want."

Freedom of speech. Threatening to take someone to court is not extortion. The problem occurs when there is even the slightest chance of the winning in court. That is the crime.

The nice thing about pipelines is you can bury them. As such, minus some construction time, most people should not care.

[Edited on April 14, 2011 at 1:24 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/14/2011 1:23:12 PM

^^^^You can't build anything without someone protesting, BFD.

4/14/2011 1:29:38 PM

I actually understand eminent domain to a degree. Things like sidewalks, and maybe even road expansion, and possibly sewer lines, while not ideal it has a purpose but should always be used as a very last resort. I guess I'm sorta a case by case type person on eminent domain use.

The thing about this particular instance is that it is being used so that a private company can profit. That's what irks me the most about eminent domain use on this project.


The other problem I have (which is totally unrelated) is the Heritage Foundation's position. From the quote and from some quick googling it seems as though their position of one of support. It's obvious to me that they are more than willing to throw individual liberties under the bus if one of the groups that bankrolls them stands to profit. I know I shouldn't be suprised nor are they the only "think tank" (on either side) to do this. but, whatever, take it for what its worth.

4/14/2011 1:31:54 PM

There are several reasons for high gas prices..

1) supply and demand....increase demand in China, India
2) weak dollar
3) oil speculation
4) mid east turmoil
5) BO not allowing new permits in gulf


You cant pinpoint one. Its like the housing crisis, you cant just blame Clinton, banks, CDS, risky lending standards, etc. It was a combination of things and there is plenty of blame to go around. Biggest point here is that it looks like BO is going to do nothing about it...

4/14/2011 1:33:13 PM

Quote :

"Everyone has a price. Using the courts and the government to badger someone into giving up their property because you don't want to meet their price is tantamount to theft. "

no one "gives up" their property in an eminent domain settlement. The courts are used to determine fair market value for the land and prevent property owners from trying to charge exorbitant values for their property.. There are way too many people that think owning a little dumpy piece of land that's not suitable for construction of anything else should be high-dollar property because utilities have deep pockets.

Quote :

"^^ Then no pipeline is built. I have no problem with that. "

you'd rather stonewall the energy security of this country because one person is opposed to the route?

4/14/2011 2:04:01 PM

Quote :

"You cant pinpoint one. Its like the housing crisis, you cant just blame Clinton, banks, CDS, risky lending standards, etc. It was a combination of things and there is plenty of blame to go around. Biggest point here is that it looks like BO is going to do nothing about it..."

Aside from the last item, there's nothing for him to do about it. Look, as many points as it would score to pin all this on Obama, ultimately the president (and for that matter congress) isn't supposed to have the power to influence this crap. And the less that the government tries to stick its nose in, the better we all are in the long run, even if we have to suffer in the short term.

Quote :

"no one "gives up" their property in an eminent domain settlement. The courts are used to determine fair market value for the land and prevent property owners from trying to charge exorbitant values for their property.. There are way too many people that think owning a little dumpy piece of land that's not suitable for construction of anything else should be high-dollar property because utilities have deep pockets."

And the problem is what? So the utility company doesn't pay, chooses a different route and the owner of the dumpy piece of land is stuck with a dumpy piece of land and no buyer. Problem solved.

Quote :

"you'd rather stonewall the energy security of this country because one person is opposed to the route?"

Somehow I doubt one person's couple acres of land would stop a multi-billion dollar company from putting up the infrastructure they need or want. I would love to see the evidence that there is no possible way to build this pipe without going through this one person's land.

I'm sure you're next response is something like "It's not just one person, it's everyone trying to hold out for more money" to which I answer now you suddenly have competition. Even if everyone in a city or town suddenly holds out for more money, they aren't all going to have the same price, and once someone's price it met, everyone else loses.

[Edited on April 14, 2011 at 2:14 PM. Reason : sdfg]

4/14/2011 2:12:17 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure you're next response is something like "It's not just one person, it's everyone trying to hold out for more money" to which I answer now you suddenly have competition. Even if everyone in a city or town suddenly holds out for more money, they aren't all going to have the same price, and once someone's price it met, everyone else loses. "

why should the utility spend millions of extra dollars to reroute a pipeline because of one dick property owner with a property that's only worth a few thousand dollars? The utility has already determined the routing with the least environmental impact and societal impact (avoiding schools, churches, parks, etc). Why should they deviate from the route they've already shown to be ideal for the general population to accomodate the unrealistic demands of an individual?

[Edited on April 14, 2011 at 2:29 PM. Reason : it's never everyone. Lots of property owners are more than happy to take money for a pipeline]

4/14/2011 2:28:53 PM

Quote :

"you'd rather stonewall the energy security of this country because one person is opposed to the route?"

Private companies have been building pipelines, private toll roads, canals, and laying rail without eminent domain for centuries. It takes work, but it basically works down to threatening everyone along the route that you will happily route around them unless they accept your offering price.

However, thanks to the current regulatory state, this is now impossible. A change in the route now requires approval from so many regulatory agencies as to pretty much require an act of Congress. As such, any landowner along the route knows this and can hold out for whatever the cost is for yet another act of Congress.

Sure, we can fix the problems caused by too much government by imposing even more government, which will then cause problems requiring a fix. Or, we can restore the previous order and accept someone will someday build a pipeline somewhere the existing regulations might have prevented.

^ It is not inconceivable for someone to have a good reason why they don't want a pipeline on their property.

[Edited on April 14, 2011 at 2:37 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/14/2011 2:36:26 PM

Quote :

"Private companies have been building pipelines, private toll roads, canals, and laying rail without eminent domain for centuries. It takes work, but it basically works down to threatening everyone along the route that you will happily route around them unless they accept your offering price."

Railroads offered to either take your land or kill you and take your land. Canals were done pretty much the same way. I'd rather take my chances with the way things are done now; we have a good system that is leaps and bounds beyond the lawlessness that used to exist in this country.

The problem is not too much government; the problem is people demonize eminent domain as some evil plot to steal a person's land without paying for it, yet they always leave out the part about fair compensation in news articles about the subject.

If you have good reason to not want a pipeline across your property, the judge will listen to your argument and has the ability to rule in your favor. That's not the case with quick take, but that's another subject altogether.

4/14/2011 4:03:40 PM

Damn it. Here you are again, proclaiming facts that you most definitely should know to be untrue. I guess you are yet again telling lies because you think the truth is too complex for the rest of us.

I have been on both sides of eminent domain here in North Carolina. I have had property seized, and I have sat on the jury of someone else that had their property seized. You have no right to present why you don't want your property taken. The only lawsuit you can bring is insufficient compensation for just the property taken, everything else be damned. You can try to get the jury to overvalue the property taken in recognition of some other harm, but such maneuvers are not legal within the letter of the law and if the state appeals it will be overturned.

And please, I overlooked the exceptions to US and British murder statutes for railroad and canal builders. Yet another lie of yours, this time based, I guess, on something you saw in a movie? I'm sure someone somewhere has been murdered for attempting to prevent an eminent domain seizure. Does not mean we should set policy based upon it.

[Edited on April 14, 2011 at 4:45 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/14/2011 4:40:14 PM

I don't know much about eminent domain, but going by just basic knowledge of market, I don't believe that government would ever even stand a chance of getting this right.

For one, there is an economic penalty to moving, anything. There is a cost associated with moving what ever operations or whatever home or buildings you had, not that many of them can be moved in any meaningful sense anyway. So would they pay sufficient for that? If they did, I don't see how anyone could believe that government would do it faithfully and correctly.

And real estate is a fairly illiquid asset. Market prices are only so useful, and many things sit on the market for inordinate amounts of time, like years. In fact, I grew up next to some neighbors who pretty much had their property listed the entire time I was growing up, and still do. How are you going to manage that transaction when you exercise eminent domain over that property.

4/14/2011 6:17:31 PM

Quote :

"I have been on both sides of eminent domain here in North Carolina. I have had property seized, and I have sat on the jury of someone else that had their property seized. You have no right to present why you don't want your property taken. The only lawsuit you can bring is insufficient compensation for just the property taken, everything else be damned."

You haven't been on both sides of eminent domain if you've never had to get land for a utility. The utility sends written notice that they are about to file a quick take, and that is when you have to respond if you want to shut it down. If you wait until after the utility has filed the initial proceedings and had the judge grant the order to quick take the property, then you waited too long and the only thing you can argue at that point is compensation. The judge does have the ability to dismiss an eminent domain lawsuit, but he can't do it after he grants the order to take the property.

4/14/2011 6:33:07 PM

Quote :

"I grew up next to some neighbors who pretty much had their property listed the entire time I was growing up, and still do. How are you going to manage that transaction when you exercise eminent domain over that property. "

with an appraisal.

4/14/2011 6:34:26 PM

Quote :

"why should the utility spend millions of extra dollars to reroute a pipeline because of one dick property owner with a property that's only worth a few thousand dollars?"

Why shouldn't they? Why should anyone have to give up their home or land just because it's going to cost a company more money to do things differently? Why does it matter whether the property is worth a few thousand, or a few million? If someone doesn't want to sell, why should any private company have the right to take that land by force for private use? For that matter, if it's going to cost X millions more to chose a different route, then the property is clearly worth more than a few thousand dollars, it's worth X million - $1. Then of course, there's the question of why they started building before they had all the land secured. If they had bought up their path before hand, they wouldn't have to reroute anything. As you said "it's never everyone. Lots of property owners are more than happy to take money for a pipeline"; so let them buy land from those owners.

Quote :

"Railroads offered to either take your land or kill you and take your land. Canals were done pretty much the same way. I'd rather take my chances with the way things are done now; we have a good system that is leaps and bounds beyond the lawlessness that used to exist in this country."

I would rather things be improved from they way they are now. We are not limited to having our land taken at private gun point or having our land taken at government gun point. We could acknowledge that people have a right to property they own and no one has a right to force them to sell that property if they don't want to, especially to a private company for private use.

Quote :

"the problem is people demonize eminent domain as some evil plot to steal a person's land without paying for it, yet they always leave out the part about fair compensation in news articles about the subject."

How is it fair compensation if I don't want to sell in the first place?

4/14/2011 8:38:04 PM

Do landowners get jipped because property values fall when the project is announced - in anticipation for the project?

4/14/2011 9:33:12 PM

they do the appraisal based on the value of the land for the best practical use of the property. If you owned 1,000 acres of land next to Disneyland, then your land would be valued as if it was prime property for an amusement park or hotels/restaurants. The appraisal is done off fair market value without considering the utility to be built. If, however, your property already has a utility corridor such as a big transmission line, railroad, or oil pipeline right beside it, then that will be taken into consideration when determining property value.

Property values are down right now because of the recession, and this is really pissing people off going through quick take proceedings. The offers they were given at the beginning of the projects were a lot better than what they ended up getting in court.

Quote :

"As you said "it's never everyone. Lots of property owners are more than happy to take money for a pipeline"; so let them buy land from those owners. "

What do you do when one property owner owns enormous expanses of land that could prevent you from passing from point to point, like a railroad company? You can't reroute around a railroad that runs east-west when you need to go north-south.

Quote :

"if it's going to cost X millions more to chose a different route, then the property is clearly worth more than a few thousand dollars, it's worth X million - $1."

It's because of greedy assholes thinking just this that eminent domain exists to protect the welfare of this country. A smart person will approach an eminent domain proceeding by contacting the utility, determining what the appraised value of the property is, and reminding the utility that they are legally responsible for all courthouse and attorney fees which typically run $15-25,000 per case. After this, they ask the utility for the appraised value plus an estimated $20,000 in legal fees saved and you'll sign over the easement / property immediately. Most utilities will go for this because it saves them the hassle of digging up all of their documentation of route studies and due diligence with contacting property owners in addition to the eliminated legal fees.

4/14/2011 11:16:40 PM

Quote :

"What do you do when one property owner owns enormous expanses of land that could prevent you from passing from point to point, like a railroad company? You can't reroute around a railroad that runs east-west when you need to go north-south. "

Everyone has a price, and the best part about dealing with massive companies like a rail road company is that their price is tied directly to the bottom line and carries no emotional attachments, unlike taking someone's family farm.

Quote :

"It's because of greedy assholes thinking just this that eminent domain exists to protect the welfare of this country."

I'm sorry. What part of the welfare of this country is being protected by taking private land by force to give to a foreign company? What part of the welfare of this country did New London protect when they took all those homes and gave it to a developer who didn't actually buid, and so the property now sits unused and worth less than when it was homes (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/28/ED1D1ARCP5.DTL)? What part of this country's welfare is being protected by the National Park Service as they take land for a memorial (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_624148.html)?

And just out of curiosity, the constitution requires that the land be taken for public use, what part of a private oil pipeline is public use?

Eminent domain has its uses. Taking land from one private entity to give to another is not one of them.

Quote :

"A smart person will approach an eminent domain proceeding by contacting the utility, determining what the appraised value of the property is, and reminding the utility that they are legally responsible for all courthouse and attorney fees which typically run $15-25,000 per case. After this, they ask the utility for the appraised value plus an estimated $20,000 in legal fees saved and you'll sign over the easement / property immediately."

And if someone decides they don't want to sell? They should have their land forcibly taken from them?


[Edited on April 15, 2011 at 12:30 AM. Reason : sdaf]

4/15/2011 12:28:32 AM

Quote :

"the best part about dealing with massive companies like a rail road company is that their price is tied directly to the bottom line and carries no emotional attachments, unlike taking someone's family farm"

So why are the railroads always the greediest and most difficult to deal with in real world situations? Why have I historically had to pay $25-35k dollars to cross a 66' railroad easement when I was able to get a mile of easement leading up to the railroad for that same cost? Based on your logic, I should be able to get the easement for free since it involves no emotional attachment and does not impact railroad operations.

Quote :

"And just out of curiosity, the constitution requires that the land be taken for public use, what part of a private oil pipeline is public use? "

You don't see energy security as a public concern? Do you not have electricity or a car? How are you even on the internet?

4/15/2011 1:51:23 PM

conquering parts of the middle east to secure energy is in our best interests so why not do that too? also drilling in the gulf coast, so lets relax restrictions and give them more subsidies. after all its in our collective interests.

[Edited on April 15, 2011 at 2:04 PM. Reason : a]

4/15/2011 2:03:49 PM

Quote :

"Why have I historically had to pay $25-35k dollars to cross a 66' railroad easement when I was able to get a mile of easement leading up to the railroad for that same cost? Based on your logic, I should be able to get the easement for free since it involves no emotional attachment and does not impact railroad operations."

Because the railroad knows they have you by the balls? No emotional attachment doesn't mean no price. If that's your definition of logic, it's no wonder you can't comprehend a world where people aren't forced to sell their property simply because its cheaper and more convenient for a private company than meeting their price. Also I'd sure like to see how you figure it has no impact on their operations. Can you really run a utility across a rail road without needing to at least temporarily stop or slow the rail traffic for safety reasons? I suppose it's possible, but then again, AT&T can't even upgrade their own lines without blowing out service to an entire office park.

Quote :

"You don't see energy security as a public concern? Do you not have electricity or a car? How are you even on the internet?"

I don't see how a foreign owned pipeline secures our energy. Further, even if it were a public concern, to me a larger public concern is this idea that private companies should be able to use the government to take people's properties simply because it's most convenient and cheapest. Why do you think its unreasonable to ask private companies to pay more money, but you don't think it's unreasonable to tell someone they need to give up their family home? The greater good is served when we are all treated equally under the law. Not when one person's property is available for forceful taking simply because another has more money and finds it convenient

4/15/2011 3:01:24 PM

Quote :

"Also I'd sure like to see how you figure it has no impact on their operations. Can you really run a utility across a rail road without needing to at least temporarily stop or slow the rail traffic for safety reasons? I suppose it's possible, but then again, AT&T can't even upgrade their own lines without blowing out service to an entire office park. "

I've seen up to 60" casings directionally bored underneath active railroad tracks, and I've seen tons of transmission lines built in across active tracks by only using support buckets / poles on either side to keep stringing operations off the track. Part of the easement language is that you will in no way impede their operation.

4/15/2011 4:33:33 PM

Quote :

"Part of the easement language is that you will in no way impede their operation."

And part of that 25-35k is insurance against you breaking that contract, whether intentionally or not. Everyone wins.

4/15/2011 4:48:47 PM

nope. that is handled separately on the contractor/utility's end.

4/15/2011 4:57:32 PM

I don't mean to imply that there isn't some assurance / insurance built into the agreement that will be paid in the event of a disruption. I mean that some of that cost is an upfront payment, a deposit of sorts. If the utility fucks up and shuts down the track for a day, even if they pay out for damages later (a week? more if they want to fight it in court?) the rail road is still out the money now.

4/15/2011 5:41:14 PM

Quote :

"I will state that I do not see $5 gas this summer unless something happens to Saudi Arabia. "

Quote :

"Gas prices hover one tenth of a cent under five dollars per gallon at a gas station in Washington on April 19, 2011. Unrest in the Middle East and price speculation have steadily led to higher oil prices and consequently higher gas prices throughout the year so far. UPI/Roger L. Wollenberg "

http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/view/f772b5b1f31e2af83d29d52d228dd553/Gas-prices-continue-to-rise-in-Washington/


I mean I guess its not technically summer yet...so there's that.

4/20/2011 8:42:21 AM

And the national average is still more than a dollar below that, so what's your point? There are random gas stations all over the place that overcharge. When I was in NJ 2 weeks ago in my old home town the "expensive" Exxon station was charing $4.45 for regular. Meanwhile, literally 1/4 mile down the road it was $3.60 at the Shell station (River Road in Chatham, NJ).

4/20/2011 9:16:08 AM

I will provide you with gas for $20 a gallon. I mean, just think about the records you would be setting.

4/20/2011 9:17:48 AM

^^^ let me guess, is the station near the airport?

4/20/2011 9:26:08 AM

4/20/2011 9:56:15 AM

ThePeter, you're a moron. As someone else stated, there are plenty of places in the U.S. with very high local taxes. I was speaking to the local market. get a fucking clue you moron.

So far my prediction is spot on.

[Edited on April 20, 2011 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2011 3:37:45 PM

It's not even summer yet. Gas is up about 30 cents on the month; about 80 cents in the last 90 days. We're on pace to hit 5.00 within 4 months, but who knows how the much price will actually end up fluctuating.

4/20/2011 4:53:09 PM

thank you Gaddhafi, for doing your part to stabilize the oil market.

4/20/2011 9:32:52 PM

Whoa whoa whoa, you mad? All I did was take a quote out of context and pair it with a pic out of context. You new to politics or something?

4/21/2011 7:06:40 AM

Whether or not we drill in the Gulf or anywhere in the US has, at best, an infinitesimal effect on prices, please stop pretending it does. It makes no difference whatsoever because our oil supply is not nationalized and so international corporations soak it up and sell it back to us at market prices.

4/21/2011 12:13:17 PM