Gasoline prices here in NJ are up to $2.75 Gallon .... what was the highest we got under W??

[defendandprotect]

[Blue_In_AK]

1. Gasoline is $3.34 in Anchorage.

It got up to $4.44 a couple of years ago.

[wysingm]

9. Northern California Gas Price

Here in Berkeley, CA I spent $3.19 a gal. a couple days ago. Under Bush it got as high as $4.25 a gal.

[gateley]

2. Here in WA (Seattle area) they're right below or right above $3/gal. I lived in

NC when the prices were rising under W, and I think I was paying over $4?

[defendandprotect]

10. Any idea why the increases ... ??? Loss of BP oil ... ????

[gateley]

11. No - I never understand why/how the prices go up or down. I hear the explanations

but never really "get it". It's still not a rise like when W was at the helm. He was so clueless, I remember a reporter asking "what do you think about the talk of $5 a gallon oil?" He said "you mean $4 a gallon" -- They said no, they've been talking about maybe even $5 a gallon -- he wasn't even aware of it!

[the redcoat]

12. There is no "real" explanation

It's manufactured scarcity.

As in...companies pretend there's barely any left but people still demand it, so they pretend to justify raising and lowering prices.

It's what happened back in '04/'05, the prices went up 50 cents in 2 days in my town. It is my opinion that this was done to manipulate people into supporting war in Iraq by thinking "We NEED to be in Iraq for the oil or else our infrastructure will crumble."

Clearly corporate costs did not justify the price hikes because they had record profits during those hikes.

While I'm 100% for renewable energy, we're nowhere near running out of oil. Corporations are just trying to stock up as much money as they can so that when we finally eliminate our dependence on oil, they have the capital to buy the solar and wind industries.

[defendandprotect]

13. Agree with you completely ....

except that I do think that peak oil will bring increased prices because it will

cost them more to extract it --

HOWEVER, this is all an excuse -- MIC uses 80% of the oil which makes it a "national

security" issue further complicating everything -- like BP "spill." And puts government

and Obama once more on the wrong side of the issue.

Obviously, we could have had renewable, alternative energy 50X over and again since we

came to understand Global Warming 60 years ago!

Alternatives have purposefully been held back at great harm to the nation and citizens.

And we've been given war and "enemies" as a distraction from that reality!!

We need to nationalize the oil industry --


:)

[taterguy]

19. What's the source for 'MIC uses 80% of the oil'?

Not being snarky, I'd like to know.

[defendandprotect]

20. Don't recall ... likely something like Thom Hartmann ...

Business uses 80% of our water -- don't recall where that info came from either.

Corporate-press gets 80% of campaign finance money for political ads -- ditto!


However, unless the military does actually create airplanes that fly on solar energy ...

it is obvious that without oil in the future, it will be difficult to mount wars.

Don't know how many nuclear warships we have?

See: Three Days of the Condor with Robert Redford

which makes rather clear how long this desire to gain control over the oil producing

nations has been rolling around in the minds of TPB.

[taterguy]

24. US military consumes 363,00 barrels per day, total consumption is 19 million BPD

Obviously the US military consumes vasts amounts of fuel but it's nowhere near 80%.

If you have a source that says otherwise I'd love to see it.

Sorry, it just annoys me when people go around spouting 'facts' that are just things they vaguely remember hearing about somewhere.

US Military consumption:

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tech-transport/planet-biggest-gas-guzzler.html

Total US consumption:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2

[defendandprotect]

26. As I said, I don't recall the source ... but it is something that I've heard or read

recently -- and as I said, probably Thom Hartmann --

And you're suggesting that what you think you know is reliable?

How much OIL did Blackwater use? How about the CIA?

Rather, I find it humorous that people will believe what a LINK tells them as

a source, but not generally known "facts" -- nor info related by a DU'er.

Meanwhile, what you're saying doesn't change the basic assumption ... i.e.,

OIL is now a "national security" issue ... and we can see that from Obama's

overly solicitous behavior re BP in regard to its pollution of the GULF and

the harm it has done to animal-life and citizens!




.

[defendandprotect]

28. The U.S. military is the world's largest single consumer of oil.

■ A full energy-use profile would allow the U.S. military to know how it uses its fuels, which would allow for a truly comprehensive energy policy.

Obviously, the military itself doesn't "know" --

■It's efforts to fund renewable energy projects are haphazard and do little to address its dependence on oil for vehicles.

Actually, the military has shown interest in solar airplanes --

The air force, the U.S. military's leading consumer of oil PDF, is spearheading the evaluation, support, and testing of synthetic fuels and engine technologies. It has good reason, the rate that fighters, bombers, and other vehicles consume oil is so high it is often given in gallons per mile or gallons per hour or minute instead of miles per gallon. For example, the B1-B Lancer, a bomber, burns about 59 gallons per minute; the B-52 Stratofortress burns about 54 gallons per minute; the KC-135 (an aerial refuelling tanker, known as a flying gas station) burns on average 35 gallons per minute; and the F-16 Falcon fighter burns about 13 gallons per minute.

And -- here's more info on why your estimates of military use of oil are likely flawed ....

Part of creating such a profile would involve data collection reform that has skewed the military's picture of its own fuel consumption. Official oil consumption figures from the U.S. military are underreported, due to accounting flaws: Certain vehicles rented or leased are not included in fuel consumption statistics; fuel consumption by private contractors, which has grown more and more important to the U.S. war effort, is not included; and fuel costs accrued by private transportation companies that ferry U.S. military personnel are also absent. A bigger issue is that in the two Gulf Wars, fuel was obtained at no cost and was not included in Pentagon statistics. During the First Gulf War, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates supplied 1.5 billion gallons of fuel for no charge, and in 2003 Kuwait supplied U.S. military forces with free fuel as well. None of this was included in the Pentagon's fuel consumption statistics.


http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/can-the-us-military-move-to-renewable-fuels


AND this analysis ....


DoD Energy Dependencies

In addition to the direct consumption of petroleum to power combat systems, there are four under-recognized DoD petroleum dependencies: 1) military industrial supply, 2) contractor support, 3) commercial logistics, and 4) installation requirements.

While most policy makers and analysts will focus on the 1.5 percent of national petroleum consumption directly used by the DoD when studying DoD petroleum dependency (94 percent of which is for mobility/transportation),47 this approach ignores the indirect dependencies of a highly intertwined military/industrial complex necessary for modern high-technology warfare.

While it may be virtually impossible to quantify and categorize the amount of petroleum specifically required to create/support every activity or procured end item within DoD, the fact that DoD relies upon an industrial base for medical syringes, M-16s, and C-17 parts serves to illustrate that the DoD is just as reliant upon petroleum-fueled civilian and governmental institutions as the rest of American society.

Recognizing the fact that fueling national defense goes beyond just the direct use of petroleum by armed forces and into a much deeper supply chain dependency is fundamental to understanding the vulnerability of America’s security to strategic petroleum supply disruptions or declines. This military/industrial dependency necessarily links civilian and military future energy solutions.

The second under-recognized DoD petroleum dependency exists in the realm of increasingly ubiquitous contractor support. DoD relies upon service contractors to fulfill a broad spectrum of requirements ranging from base maintenance to military interrogations. With the exception of DoD-provided combat zone fuel, the vast majority of DoD service
47 Lovins, Winning the Oil Endgame, 36. -

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat56.pdf

From bottom of page 15 --

[taterguy]

33. DOD uses 1.5 % of the oil consumed in the US

That's from your link not mine, if you had bothered to read it.

Facts matter, but that's just my opinion.

I guess we could quibble about whether or not 1.5% is equal to 80%

:toast:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat56.pdf

[defendandprotect]

34. The U.S. military is the world's largest single consumer of oil . . .

"at 1.5% of the oil consumed in US" ---

:rofl:


ONLY if you ignore all the information to the contrary given before and after that

statement!

I'm not quibbling -- I'll stick with Thom Hartmann --


:toast:



Just in case you want to review it --

■ A full energy-use profile would allow the U.S. military to know how it uses its fuels, which would allow for a truly comprehensive energy policy.

Obviously, the military itself doesn't "know" --

■It's efforts to fund renewable energy projects are haphazard and do little to address its dependence on oil for vehicles.

Actually, the military has shown interest in solar airplanes --

The air force, the U.S. military's leading consumer of oil PDF, is spearheading the evaluation, support, and testing of synthetic fuels and engine technologies. It has good reason, the rate that fighters, bombers, and other vehicles consume oil is so high it is often given in gallons per mile or gallons per hour or minute instead of miles per gallon. For example, the B1-B Lancer, a bomber, burns about 59 gallons per minute; the B-52 Stratofortress burns about 54 gallons per minute; the KC-135 (an aerial refuelling tanker, known as a flying gas station) burns on average 35 gallons per minute; and the F-16 Falcon fighter burns about 13 gallons per minute.

And -- here's more info on why your estimates of military use of oil are likely flawed ....

Part of creating such a profile would involve data collection reform that has skewed the military's picture of its own fuel consumption. Official oil consumption figures from the U.S. military are underreported, due to accounting flaws: Certain vehicles rented or leased are not included in fuel consumption statistics; fuel consumption by private contractors, which has grown more and more important to the U.S. war effort, is not included; and fuel costs accrued by private transportation companies that ferry U.S. military personnel are also absent. A bigger issue is that in the two Gulf Wars, fuel was obtained at no cost and was not included in Pentagon statistics. During the First Gulf War, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates supplied 1.5 billion gallons of fuel for no charge, and in 2003 Kuwait supplied U.S. military forces with free fuel as well. None of this was included in the Pentagon's fuel consumption statistics.


http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/can-the...


AND this analysis ....


DoD Energy Dependencies

In addition to the direct consumption of petroleum to power combat systems, there are four under-recognized DoD petroleum dependencies: 1) military industrial supply, 2) contractor support, 3) commercial logistics, and 4) installation requirements.

While most policy makers and analysts will focus on the 1.5 percent of national petroleum consumption directly used by the DoD when studying DoD petroleum dependency (94 percent of which is for mobility/transportation),47 this approach ignores the indirect dependencies of a highly intertwined military/industrial complex necessary for modern high-technology warfare.

While it may be virtually impossible to quantify and categorize the amount of petroleum specifically required to create/support every activity or procured end item within DoD, the fact that DoD relies upon an industrial base for medical syringes, M-16s, and C-17 parts serves to illustrate that the DoD is just as reliant upon petroleum-fueled civilian and governmental institutions as the rest of American society.

Recognizing the fact that fueling national defense goes beyond just the direct use of petroleum by armed forces and into a much deeper supply chain dependency is fundamental to understanding the vulnerability of America’s security to strategic petroleum supply disruptions or declines. This military/industrial dependency necessarily links civilian and military future energy solutions.

The second under-recognized DoD petroleum dependency exists in the realm of increasingly ubiquitous contractor support. DoD relies upon service contractors to fulfill a broad spectrum of requirements ranging from base maintenance to military interrogations. With the exception of DoD-provided combat zone fuel, the vast majority of DoD service
47 Lovins, Winning the Oil Endgame, 36. -

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat56.pdf

From bottom of page 15 --

[taterguy]

36. What information in that report boosts the percentage of consumption from 1.5 to 80?

Get back to me when you can find the Thom Hartmann source.

Unless of course it doesn't exist.

[defendandprotect]

37. MIC's picture of its own fuel consumption is "skewed" and "underereported" ....

As we see from our general budget -- especially when Social Security is NOT included

to deceptively balance the MIC budget -- what we taxpayers basically and primarily support

in every way is the Military Industrial Complex --

and OIL is a matter of "national security." That's why we are in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And, certainly, it isn't to supply the "1.5%" of US oil used by DOD!


:rofl:







Part of creating such a profile would involve data collection reform that has skewed the military's picture of its own fuel consumption. Official oil consumption figures from the U.S. military are underreported, due to accounting flaws:

and a long list of NOT MIC included users ...and FREE oil during Gulf Wars and Kuwait --

Certain vehicles rented or leased are not included in fuel consumption statistics; fuel consumption by private contractors, which has grown more and more important to the U.S. war effort, is not included; and fuel costs accrued by private transportation companies that ferry U.S. military personnel are also absent. A bigger issue is that in the two Gulf Wars, fuel was obtained at no cost and was not included in Pentagon statistics. During the First Gulf War, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates supplied 1.5 billion gallons of fuel for no charge, and in 2003 Kuwait supplied U.S. military forces with free fuel as well. None of this was included in the Pentagon's fuel consumption statistics.


http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/can-the ...



AND this analysis ....


DoD Energy Dependencies

In addition to the direct consumption of petroleum to power combat systems, there are four under-recognized DoD petroleum dependencies: 1) military industrial supply, 2) contractor support, 3) commercial logistics, and 4) installation requirements.

While most policy makers and analysts will focus on the 1.5 percent of national petroleum consumption directly used by the DoD when studying DoD petroleum dependency (94 percent of which is for mobility/transportation),47 this approach ignores the indirect dependencies of a highly intertwined military/industrial complex necessary for modern high-technology warfare.

While it may be virtually impossible to quantify and categorize the amount of petroleum specifically required to create/support every activity or procured end item within DoD, the fact that DoD relies upon an industrial base for medical syringes, M-16s, and C-17 parts serves to illustrate that the DoD is just as reliant upon petroleum-fueled civilian and governmental institutions as the rest of American society.

Recognizing the fact that fueling national defense goes beyond just the direct use of petroleum by armed forces and into a much deeper supply chain dependency is fundamental to understanding the vulnerability of America’s security to strategic petroleum supply disruptions or declines. This military/industrial dependency necessarily links civilian and military future energy solutions.

The second under-recognized DoD petroleum dependency exists in the realm of increasingly ubiquitous contractor support. DoD relies upon service contractors to fulfill a broad spectrum of requirements ranging from base maintenance to military interrogations. With the exception of DoD-provided combat zone fuel, the vast majority of DoD service
47 Lovins, Winning the Oil Endgame, 36. -

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat56.pdf

From bottom of page 15 --

[taterguy]

38. So it's more than 1.5%, how does it get all the way to 80%?

Say the military uses 10 times more fuel than that 1.5% figure:

It still would only use 15% of US consumption.

[defendandprotect]

39. Try reading the links ...

remember how interested you were in LINKS?

Two Gulf Wars -- and Afghanistan --

Drug War --

What is left out of the reports is the majority of the usage!


If you want to continue playing this game -- you're now playing it on your own!


Bye --

[taterguy]

43. Giving up because you can't back up your assertion?

Damn, I was just starting to have fun.

Just for the hell of it, I asked what would happen if the 1.5 figure was just a tenth of what the military uses.

It still ends up at 15 percent. Where does the other 65% come from that would add up to your claim of 80%?

[snooper2]

45. Truthy To POWER!

you go D&P!!!!!

[gateley]

21. Wow - I never thought about the jump back then as a justification for Iraq - that

makes a lot of sense! Those guys will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. :grr:

[countrydad58]

27. My Guess

Political manipulation by Big Oil & wall St. to raise prices during this election to help the pukes! The opposite happened when Bush was in power. Prices soared,but came down right after Labor Day to election day,then increased again. Same thing happened during 2000 election Gas was around .99 a Gal & skyrocketed to $1.50 or more a Gallon during Election time ,hurting Gore & helping Bush! Gas here in upstate NY. is $3.02 Gal. & rising! Wheres this no inflation? No cola increases?

[defendandprotect]

54. Think you're correct .... here's new figure on 3rd Q profits for Exxon Mobil on "rising prices" -- !

Rising oil prices filled the coffers of US energy giant ExxonMobil in the third quarter, the company said Thursday.

Earnings rose 55 per cent over the year-earlier period to 7.4 billion dollars.

Revenue rose 16 per cent to 95.3 billion dollars.

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/newswire/2010/10/28/oil...


Barrel of oil $82 versus $70 a year earlier !!

We need to NATIONALIZE the oil industry -- and take back control over natural resources from

private interests.

[jp11]

3. I remember 3 something I thought parts of the country saw 4 something.

http://zfacts.com/p/35.html

[doc03]

4. I think it went slightly over $4.00 here in Ohio. n/t

[Roselma]

5. It was at $4.01/gallon here in 2008. Here's a

website/tool that can give you current and historic prices based upon your location:

http://gasbuddy.com/

Here's the nationwide average chart:

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=3

[krispos42]

6. It touched $3.99 in the northern Twin Cities suburbs, I remember n/t

[Journeyman]

7. Over $4 in South California under George W . . .

it's over $3 now . . .

[Trajan]

8. We saw around $4 per gallon during Bush's heinous reign ...

It seems gas prices stabilized, once the GOP was booted out ...

Today in Portland OR, I paid $2.87 for regular unleaded. It's been trending upward ...

[defendandprotect]

14. Do remember that the oil industry profits were obscene... Exxon $36 billion...!!!

Obama and Congress have to get after this .....

if there's anything left of them after Election day!!

Ugh!

[bighart]

25. Did a bit of checking on oil company profits from gasoline.

"margins have consistently fallen between $0.55 and $0.85 per gallon over the past ten years"
http://formation.wallst.com/articles/2008/what_real_profit_margin_gallon_gas

The mean state gasoline tax is 27.2 cents per US gallon, plus 18.4 cents per US gallon federal tax making the total 45.6 cents per US gallon, so the government makes a good chunk from gasoline sales as well.

[defendandprotect]

32. Are you saying Exxon didn't make $36 Billion in one year?

:rofl:

[bighart]

44. No what I am saying is that $36 billion was in large part due to

volume. It is not that the profit margins on gas are outrageously high, it is that they sell a hell of a lot of it. They also sell more products than just gasoline and some of the profits are from that business as well.
My question to you is what is a "fair" profit margin for a company to make? Is it 5% net, maybe 8%, 10%? What do you consider a fair profit?

[defendandprotect]

53. Whatever ExxonMobil makes is due to theft and destruction .....

And what are their new 3rd Q profits?

Rising oil prices filled the coffers of US energy giant ExxonMobil in the third quarter, the company said Thursday.

Earnings rose 55 per cent over the year-earlier period to 7.4 billion dollars. Revenue rose 16 per cent to 95.3 billion dollars.

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/newswire/2010/10/28/oil_prices_push_up_exxonmobil_earnings.htm


Barrel of oil $82 versus $70 a year earlier !!

We need to NATIONALIZE the oil industry -- and take back control over natural resources from

private interests.

[bighart]

55. Seems it not just crude prices that contributed to the 3rd qtr profit.

"Crude prices jumped 11.7 percent year-over-year to an average of 76.24 dollars per barrel. Increased production of natural gas also seems to have helped boost the company's third-quarter profit.

Exxon Mobil said its oil and gas production rose 20 percent from the year-ago period to 4.45 million barrels of oil equivalent per day."

Note the 20% rise in production. For the record the profit margin of $7.5b on $95b in revenue is 7.7%. Not that terrific from my view.
I think throwing numbers around without looking at what they mean is disingenuous.

Now if you want to discuss nationalizing energy companies in the national interest I am open to that idea, but be prepared for prices to rise
drastically as a result.

[defendandprotect]

56. We need to bring back anit-monopoly laws and "Windfall Profits" tax on oil industry ....!!!

Earnings rose 55 per cent over the year-earlier period to 7.4 billion dollars.

[bighart]

59. 7.7% is not "windfall profits".

[defendandprotect]

60. "Earnings rose 55 per cent over the year-earlier period to 7.4 billion dollars" ---

Oil industry has had "windfall" profits in last decade and we're late getting to

it --

PLUS in recent years -- and here's another 55% increase!

Meanwhile .... looks like you're now our official Oil industry lobbyist here?

[bighart]

62. Looking at the percent of increase by itself is completely meaningless.

Profit numbers are only valid when looked at in the proper context and percent of increase numbers without a basis mean nothing. Profit increased by 55%, so what. Last year third qtr profit for Exxon looks like it was under 4 percent this year it's just under 8%. Last years profit margin for the 3rd qtr was pretty low, hard to stay in business and keep investing in future growth with that kind of profit as a matter of fact.

If my business lost half a million in a given qtr last year and showed a profit of one hundred grand in the same qtr this year that would be a huge percent of increase but it still may not be enough to keep the business solvent. Should I be hit with "windfall profit" taxes because I show an increase of 85% in that qtr? What kind of sense does that make?

[bighart]

63. I am no fan of the oil industry.

I am also no fan of people that make statements that mean very little without the proper context.
A big reason the oil company profits are so large in dollars is they have HUGE dollar volumes in revenue.
The real argument in my mind is should these companies not be allowed to become so large in the first place.
The total profit dollars would likely not change much but would be spread out of more companies that are smaller in size.

[KharmaTrain]

15. The Dirty Secret Of This Recession

It began when the price of oil spiked in '07 upwards of 4 dollars a gallon. In less than a year the price doubled and it was the catalyst of slowing the economy down. This was like a tax on everyone...paying more for gas and heat...money that went to buying consumer goods or paying down debt. This was yet another pillage of the middle class in the boooosh years as the price run-up was based purely on speculation with a government in total conplicity. The prices still remain high and few alternatives are out there...as long as we're addicted to oil the big corporates will dominate.

[countrydad58]

29. You have nailled it!

My opinion this was one of the big factors for the economic collapse! If the prices go higher again what if any recovery is DOA!

[defendandprotect]

57. Also greatly enriched monopoly OIL industry -- a corrupt and criminal industry ....

ExxonMobil is easily compared to Mafia --

We need to nationalize oil -- take it back from private interests --

NATIONALIZING OIL was part of the Democratic Platform which JFK ran on in 1960!

We should also dust off our anti-trust/monopoly laws -- and also begin to

assess "Windfall" profits taxes on oil industry!

Not only have we permitted these companies to monopolize again in reuniting the

7 sisters -- but the obscene profits now are truly a threat to democracy and our

government!

[njlib]

16. I paid $2.69 on Monday

but that's up here in Sussex County. If I would've gone to a station on Route 23, I could've gotten it cheaper, but didn't feel like driving 20 minutes out of my way.

[TorchTheWitch]

17. that's it?

Up to $3 at most places here in PA.

The highest under Bush was probably right after Katrina when the serious gouging was going on... like $5 and $6. That was nuts.

[no_hypocrisy]

18. I remember $4.59-$5.01 in 2008.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. 5000 US dead, 100,000+ Iraqi dead

Pretty expensive.

[madinmaryland]

30. But the Mission was Accomplished.

:mad:

Whatever the fucking mission was.

[Canuckistanian]

23. You're lucky - gas in Canada is around $4/Gal

That's $1 per litre. And our dollars are worth the same now.

[countrydad58]

31. Yes.

But you have real Health Care,& a better social net!

[Canuckistanian]

40. Yeah.

It's a more than a fair trade-off. Nobody's complaining.

[HuckleB]

35. Inflation adjusted Gasoline Prices

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/Gasoline_Inflation.asp

Berry Interesting.

[supernova]

41. ~ $3.60 something in NC

IIRC.

[CRK7376]

50. Where in NC?

My little corner of NC gas at the local Hess is going for $2.79 the last time I filled up., Sam's Club and Costco are usually about 7-8cents cheaper but both are out of the way for me so I don't get there as often...

[supernova]

51. Highest under W* in Durham/Chapel Hill

It was about $3.60+ before 2009. Durham&Chapel Hill have always had some of the highest priced gas this side of CA, higher than Raleigh. I think the price point assumption has always been all the tenured nerds at UNC and Duke with 100K+ salaries. :P :=)

Presently it's about $2.74 here.

[July]

42. Over $4.00

I've lived in NJ for over 11 years. $2.75 looks good compared to the bad ol' days of GWB.

[snooper2]

46. I filled up yesterday $2.53

nt

[treestar]

47. It got up to $4

or nearly almost.

Prices also went down before elections! Notice that now, they go UP before elections!

[ScreamingMeemie]

48. 2.47 here, this morning.

They were almost 4 dollars when I lived in MI during the height of Bushteria.

[Skidmore]

49. I filled up at $2.86/gallon here in Iowa yesterday.

[sofa king]

52. The high was $4.08 on 7/7/2008

The date and the price are important. As soon as it became evident that the Republicans were in trouble in 2008, gasoline prices dropped like a rock to around $2.00 per gallon on or about Election Day, 2008. Look at the graph on the link I offer below, and you can easily see what looks like deliberate price manipulation (downward) to support the Republicans that year.

http://zfacts.com/p/35.html

Funny how the impending departure of a Texas oilman as President led directly to a 50+% drop in gasoline prices. The past eighteen months saw a climb back to the $2.50-$3.00 range, but prices have remained far more stable since then than at any time during the Bush presidency.

Also absent are the double Labor Day and Memorial Day rip-off spikes that can be seen on that graph from roughly 2003-2008.

[defendandprotect]

58. And Canada is supplying a good part of US oil, as I recall .....

You are doing off-shore drilling, I think?

And your oil industry is private -- ?

I think it's criminal that we here in America continue to make the giant and corrupt

oil industry even more powerful -- wealthier -- giving them further wealth to buy and

challenge our government and elected officials!

[LynneSin]

61. Wow, usually NJ gas prices are guarenteed to be 20 cents cheaper than here in Delaware

and in Delaware it's $2.74