Shell reports record profits

[micropolitan guy]

Hopefully this isn't a DB. Other oilk companies will chime in shortly with the same news, I'm sure, and the industry apologists will follow shorty after that.

http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/finance/2008/04/29/Earns.Netherlands.Shell/

 

[BTExpress]

Nothing to apologize for. Easy to explain.

Record demand = record profits.

BTW, you do realize that the companies we call "Big Oil" have only a 3 percent stake in the global petroleum market, don't you?

Just in case anyone thought that they were the ones pulling the levers with regard to prices.

 

[trifectarich]

OK, so how do we return to sanity? Descend on Wall Street and string up all the speculators?

 

[Fudgie the Whale]

OK, so how do we return to sanity? Descend on Wall Street and string up all the speculators?

http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bikemonth/

May is National Bike Month
The League of American Bicyclists is promoting Bike-to-Work Week from May 12-16 and Bike-to-Work Day on Friday, May 16. Need some ideas? Here are 50 ways (large PDF) to celebrate Bike Month. Help us Count Cyclists In this May, and every month!

This is the official site for National Bike Month. Check the events section often to see what bike month and bike to work week events are going on in your community. If you would like to submit your event information to be posted on this site, email it to [email protected]. Please make sure you write, "Bike Month Event" in the subject line of the email.

 

[bigpern23]

Nothing to apologize for. Easy to explain.

Record demand = record profits.

BTW, you do realize that the companies we call "Big Oil" have only a 3 percent stake in the global petroleum market, don't you?

Just in case anyone thought that they were the ones pulling the levers with regard to prices.

Is there really a record demand? Has the use of automobiles really gone up so drastically in the last year?

I imagine demand is about the same and supply is more limited. That, however, shouldn't reflect in record profits. Record grosses, sure, but if oil companies kept their margins the same, they wouldn't be fattening up at record rates like they are.

They know that consumers are aware of the oil crunch. They know that while oil is going up at a rate of $XX per barrel, they can raise their prices $XX+3 or whatever and people will chalk it up to "increased demand." They also know that people have to buy it, no matter how much they charge.

 

[CollegeJournalist]

What kind of profits are the bottled water companies turning?

 

[GB-Hack]

Nothing to apologize for. Easy to explain.

Record demand = record profits.

BTW, you do realize that the companies we call "Big Oil" have only a 3 percent stake in the global petroleum market, don't you?

Just in case anyone thought that they were the ones pulling the levers with regard to prices.

Is there really a record demand? Has the use of automobiles really gone up so drastically in the last year?

I imagine demand is about the same and supply is more limited. That, however, shouldn't reflect in record profits. Record grosses, sure, but if oil companies kept their margins the same, they wouldn't be fattening up at record rates like they are.

They know that consumers are aware of the oil crunch. They know that while oil is going up at a rate of $XX per barrel, they can raise their prices $XX+3 or whatever and people will chalk it up to "increased demand." They also know that people have to buy it, no matter how much they charge.

I think for the record demand you need to look overseas to the emerging countries of China and India, where first-time car ownership is booming. As a result, the demand for petroleum in those countries is through the roof, affecting world demand overall.

 

[Grimace]

Sorry, but I don't see the point in blaming the oil companies. Why wouldn't they charge as much as they could?

Why should they have to be nice and give us a break? We don't ask the same of any other companies.

Everybody knew this day was coming. We've been warned about it for 20-30 years. So what did we do? Buy houses 45 minutes from work. Buy 20 MPG SUVs and trucks.

The time of reckoning is here. Reap what ye shall sow.

 

[bigpern23]

Nothing to apologize for. Easy to explain.

Record demand = record profits.

BTW, you do realize that the companies we call "Big Oil" have only a 3 percent stake in the global petroleum market, don't you?

Just in case anyone thought that they were the ones pulling the levers with regard to prices.

Is there really a record demand? Has the use of automobiles really gone up so drastically in the last year?

I imagine demand is about the same and supply is more limited. That, however, shouldn't reflect in record profits. Record grosses, sure, but if oil companies kept their margins the same, they wouldn't be fattening up at record rates like they are.

They know that consumers are aware of the oil crunch. They know that while oil is going up at a rate of $XX per barrel, they can raise their prices $XX+3 or whatever and people will chalk it up to "increased demand." They also know that people have to buy it, no matter how much they charge.

I think for the record demand you need to look overseas to the emerging countries of China and India, where first-time car ownership is booming. As a result, the demand for petroleum in those countries is through the roof, affecting world demand overall.

I understand there's more demand in those places, but enough to raise prices $1.50 in the last year?. $0.40 in the last two weeks (I understand that's partly to do with the changing season)? Maybe, but it seems to have gotten out of control to me.

Sorry, but I don't see the point in blaming the oil companies. Why wouldn't they charge as much as they could?

Why should they have to be nice and give us a break? We don't ask the same of any other companies.

You're right. They should just start charging $100/gallon because **** it, why be nice?

The reason that oil companies should be held to a different standard is that they provide a necessity.

Riding a bike or the bus are good ideas (I ride my bike to work when I can), but they aren't always feasible. People need to use their cars and that give the oil companies an unfair advantage when it comes to pricing.

A baseball team, for instance, can only charge as much as people are willing to pay. PSL's are a complete sham, but some people will for them, others won't. There's a threshold there where the market dictates how much they can charge. People don't reasonably have the option of not using gas or oil to drive their cars or heat their homes.

 

[PeteyPirate]

Nothing to apologize for. Easy to explain.

Record demand = record profits.

BTW, you do realize that the companies we call "Big Oil" have only a 3 percent stake in the global petroleum market, don't you?

Just in case anyone thought that they were the ones pulling the levers with regard to prices.

Is there really a record demand? Has the use of automobiles really gone up so drastically in the last year?

I imagine demand is about the same and supply is more limited. That, however, shouldn't reflect in record profits. Record grosses, sure, but if oil companies kept their margins the same, they wouldn't be fattening up at record rates like they are.

They know that consumers are aware of the oil crunch. They know that while oil is going up at a rate of $XX per barrel, they can raise their prices $XX+3 or whatever and people will chalk it up to "increased demand." They also know that people have to buy it, no matter how much they charge.

I think for the record demand you need to look overseas to the emerging countries of China and India, where first-time car ownership is booming. As a result, the demand for petroleum in those countries is through the roof, affecting world demand overall.

I understand there's more demand in those places, but enough to raise prices $1.50 in the last year?. $0.40 in the last two weeks (I understand that's partly to do with the changing season)? Maybe, but it seems to have gotten out of control to me.

Sorry, but I don't see the point in blaming the oil companies. Why wouldn't they charge as much as they could?

Why should they have to be nice and give us a break? We don't ask the same of any other companies.

You're right. They should just start charging $100/gallon because **** it, why be nice?

The reason that oil companies should be held to a different standard is that they provide a necessity.

Riding a bike or the bus are good ideas (I ride my bike to work when I can), but they aren't always feasible. People need to use their cars and that give the oil companies an unfair advantage when it comes to pricing.

A baseball team, for instance, can only charge as much as people are willing to pay. PSL's are a complete sham, but some people will for them, others won't. There's a threshold there where the market dictates how much they can charge. People don't reasonably have the option of not using gas or oil to drive their cars or heat their homes.

It's only a necessity because of poor planning. It's not like food.

 

[bigpern23]

Nothing to apologize for. Easy to explain.

Record demand = record profits.

BTW, you do realize that the companies we call "Big Oil" have only a 3 percent stake in the global petroleum market, don't you?

Just in case anyone thought that they were the ones pulling the levers with regard to prices.

Is there really a record demand? Has the use of automobiles really gone up so drastically in the last year?

I imagine demand is about the same and supply is more limited. That, however, shouldn't reflect in record profits. Record grosses, sure, but if oil companies kept their margins the same, they wouldn't be fattening up at record rates like they are.

They know that consumers are aware of the oil crunch. They know that while oil is going up at a rate of $XX per barrel, they can raise their prices $XX+3 or whatever and people will chalk it up to "increased demand." They also know that people have to buy it, no matter how much they charge.

I think for the record demand you need to look overseas to the emerging countries of China and India, where first-time car ownership is booming. As a result, the demand for petroleum in those countries is through the roof, affecting world demand overall.

I understand there's more demand in those places, but enough to raise prices $1.50 in the last year?. $0.40 in the last two weeks (I understand that's partly to do with the changing season)? Maybe, but it seems to have gotten out of control to me.

Sorry, but I don't see the point in blaming the oil companies. Why wouldn't they charge as much as they could?

Why should they have to be nice and give us a break? We don't ask the same of any other companies.

You're right. They should just start charging $100/gallon because **** it, why be nice?

The reason that oil companies should be held to a different standard is that they provide a necessity.

Riding a bike or the bus are good ideas (I ride my bike to work when I can), but they aren't always feasible. People need to use their cars and that give the oil companies an unfair advantage when it comes to pricing.

A baseball team, for instance, can only charge as much as people are willing to pay. PSL's are a complete sham, but some people will for them, others won't. There's a threshold there where the market dictates how much they can charge. People don't reasonably have the option of not using gas or oil to drive their cars or heat their homes.

It's only a necessity because of poor planning. It's not like food.

Umm, really?

 

[Grimace]

OK, so how do we return to sanity? Descend on Wall Street and string up all the speculators?

http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bikemonth/

May is National Bike Month
The League of American Bicyclists is promoting Bike-to-Work Week from May 12-16 and Bike-to-Work Day on Friday, May 16. Need some ideas? Here are 50 ways (large PDF) to celebrate Bike Month. Help us Count Cyclists In this May, and every month!

This is the official site for National Bike Month. Check the events section often to see what bike month and bike to work week events are going on in your community. If you would like to submit your event information to be posted on this site, email it to [email protected]. Please make sure you write, "Bike Month Event" in the subject line of the email.

This is drop in the ocean, but it's a start:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/27bikes.html?em&ex=1209614400&en=87b58a129cae0f64&ei=5087%0A


WASHINGTON — Starting next month, people here will be able to rent a bicycle day and night with the swipe of a membership card.

A new public-private venture called SmartBike DC will make 120 bicycles available at 10 spots in central locations in the city. The automated program, which district officials say is the first of its kind in the nation, will operate in a similar fashion to car-sharing programs like Zipcar.

The district has teamed up with an advertiser, Clear Channel Outdoor, to put the bikes on the streets.

 

[PeteyPirate]

Nothing to apologize for. Easy to explain.

Record demand = record profits.

BTW, you do realize that the companies we call "Big Oil" have only a 3 percent stake in the global petroleum market, don't you?

Just in case anyone thought that they were the ones pulling the levers with regard to prices.

Is there really a record demand? Has the use of automobiles really gone up so drastically in the last year?

I imagine demand is about the same and supply is more limited. That, however, shouldn't reflect in record profits. Record grosses, sure, but if oil companies kept their margins the same, they wouldn't be fattening up at record rates like they are.

They know that consumers are aware of the oil crunch. They know that while oil is going up at a rate of $XX per barrel, they can raise their prices $XX+3 or whatever and people will chalk it up to "increased demand." They also know that people have to buy it, no matter how much they charge.

I think for the record demand you need to look overseas to the emerging countries of China and India, where first-time car ownership is booming. As a result, the demand for petroleum in those countries is through the roof, affecting world demand overall.

I understand there's more demand in those places, but enough to raise prices $1.50 in the last year?. $0.40 in the last two weeks (I understand that's partly to do with the changing season)? Maybe, but it seems to have gotten out of control to me.

Sorry, but I don't see the point in blaming the oil companies. Why wouldn't they charge as much as they could?

Why should they have to be nice and give us a break? We don't ask the same of any other companies.

You're right. They should just start charging $100/gallon because **** it, why be nice?

The reason that oil companies should be held to a different standard is that they provide a necessity.

Riding a bike or the bus are good ideas (I ride my bike to work when I can), but they aren't always feasible. People need to use their cars and that give the oil companies an unfair advantage when it comes to pricing.

A baseball team, for instance, can only charge as much as people are willing to pay. PSL's are a complete sham, but some people will for them, others won't. There's a threshold there where the market dictates how much they can charge. People don't reasonably have the option of not using gas or oil to drive their cars or heat their homes.

It's only a necessity because of poor planning. It's not like food.

Umm, really?

Food is a necessity because we need it to survive, and there aren't any alternatives.

Gas is not a necessity because it's not the only alternative. It just happens to be the cheapest alternative, and the other alternatives aren't close enough to compete.

 

[Mystery_Meat]

True story: I don't know how to ride a bike.

And three years ago (post-Katrina) and two years ago, everyone was convinced we were heading to $5 gas immediately and we'd never see cheap gas again. Both years saw sub-$2/gal (at least here) by the end of the year before going back up. Last year we didn't get that drop. But I'm not quite on the ZOMG PEAK OIL THE PLANET IS DOOOOOMED!!!!!1 trolley just yet.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Nothing to apologize for. Easy to explain.

Record demand = record profits.

BTW, you do realize that the companies we call "Big Oil" have only a 3 percent stake in the global petroleum market, don't you?

Just in case anyone thought that they were the ones pulling the levers with regard to prices.

Is there really a record demand? Has the use of automobiles really gone up so drastically in the last year?

I imagine demand is about the same and supply is more limited. That, however, shouldn't reflect in record profits. Record grosses, sure, but if oil companies kept their margins the same, they wouldn't be fattening up at record rates like they are.

They know that consumers are aware of the oil crunch. They know that while oil is going up at a rate of $XX per barrel, they can raise their prices $XX+3 or whatever and people will chalk it up to "increased demand." They also know that people have to buy it, no matter how much they charge.

I think for the record demand you need to look overseas to the emerging countries of China and India, where first-time car ownership is booming. As a result, the demand for petroleum in those countries is through the roof, affecting world demand overall.

I understand there's more demand in those places, but enough to raise prices $1.50 in the last year?. $0.40 in the last two weeks (I understand that's partly to do with the changing season)? Maybe, but it seems to have gotten out of control to me.

Sorry, but I don't see the point in blaming the oil companies. Why wouldn't they charge as much as they could?

Why should they have to be nice and give us a break? We don't ask the same of any other companies.

You're right. They should just start charging $100/gallon because **** it, why be nice?

The reason that oil companies should be held to a different standard is that they provide a necessity.

Riding a bike or the bus are good ideas (I ride my bike to work when I can), but they aren't always feasible. People need to use their cars and that give the oil companies an unfair advantage when it comes to pricing.

A baseball team, for instance, can only charge as much as people are willing to pay. PSL's are a complete sham, but some people will for them, others won't. There's a threshold there where the market dictates how much they can charge. People don't reasonably have the option of not using gas or oil to drive their cars or heat their homes.

It's only a necessity because of poor planning. It's not like food.

Umm, really?

Uh, yes.

I'd like to start gutting oil execs like fish as much as the next guy but the fact is, unless we're going to nationalize all the oil companies, they can pretty much charge whatever they want.

If we want to change the demand then it's up to us to change our habits. And that's not going to happen in any measurable way anytime soon.

 

[bigpern23]

Nothing to apologize for. Easy to explain.

Record demand = record profits.

BTW, you do realize that the companies we call "Big Oil" have only a 3 percent stake in the global petroleum market, don't you?

Just in case anyone thought that they were the ones pulling the levers with regard to prices.

Is there really a record demand? Has the use of automobiles really gone up so drastically in the last year?

I imagine demand is about the same and supply is more limited. That, however, shouldn't reflect in record profits. Record grosses, sure, but if oil companies kept their margins the same, they wouldn't be fattening up at record rates like they are.

They know that consumers are aware of the oil crunch. They know that while oil is going up at a rate of $XX per barrel, they can raise their prices $XX+3 or whatever and people will chalk it up to "increased demand." They also know that people have to buy it, no matter how much they charge.

I think for the record demand you need to look overseas to the emerging countries of China and India, where first-time car ownership is booming. As a result, the demand for petroleum in those countries is through the roof, affecting world demand overall.

I understand there's more demand in those places, but enough to raise prices $1.50 in the last year?. $0.40 in the last two weeks (I understand that's partly to do with the changing season)? Maybe, but it seems to have gotten out of control to me.

Sorry, but I don't see the point in blaming the oil companies. Why wouldn't they charge as much as they could?

Why should they have to be nice and give us a break? We don't ask the same of any other companies.

You're right. They should just start charging $100/gallon because **** it, why be nice?

The reason that oil companies should be held to a different standard is that they provide a necessity.

Riding a bike or the bus are good ideas (I ride my bike to work when I can), but they aren't always feasible. People need to use their cars and that give the oil companies an unfair advantage when it comes to pricing.

A baseball team, for instance, can only charge as much as people are willing to pay. PSL's are a complete sham, but some people will for them, others won't. There's a threshold there where the market dictates how much they can charge. People don't reasonably have the option of not using gas or oil to drive their cars or heat their homes.

It's only a necessity because of poor planning. It's not like food.

Umm, really?

Food is a necessity because we need it to survive, and there aren't any alternatives.

Gas is not a necessity because it's not the only alternative. It just happens to be the cheapest alternative, and the other alternatives aren't close enough to compete.

What do you view as the alternatives to oil/gas use for the average person?

In the home, you can certainly go with with a wood stove (my parents heat their house exclusively with one), electric heat or natural gas. You could even go solar (I did a story a few years ago about a coach who's house is "off the grid."). So there are plenty of options there.

Travel: Get a bike -- a great idea (and one more people should take advantage of), but not great if one has to travel far, has to bring more than a backpack worth of stuff with them, or if the weather is foul. A good alternative at times, but not by any means one that can offset one's use of gasoline to acceptable levels.

Get a horse -- not sure how expensive they are to feed, care for, etc., but again, only viable in certain areas (Pennsylvania?) and for all I know, they might cost as much as a year's worth of gas.

Get a hybrid -- Helps out, but one still has to buy gas.

Go with biodiesel -- I actually know someone who uses biodiesel in his old Mercedes. The amount of time he spends finding restaurants to give him canola oil and then collecting and filtering it probably offsets most of the savings he gets. It's worth it to him because he cares about the environment, but for the average person, this is not a viable option.

So where is gas not a necessity, outside of adopting an Amish lifestyle and never traveling outside the borders of your town?

 

[bigpern23]

It's only a necessity because of poor planning. It's not like food.

Umm, really?

Uh, yes.

I'd like to start gutting oil execs like fish as much as the next guy but the fact is, unless we're going to nationalize all the oil companies, they can pretty much charge whatever they want.

If we want to change the demand then it's up to us to change our habits. And that's not going to happen in any measurable way anytime soon.
[/quote]

But no matter how much we change our habits, as of right now, we still need oil/gas.

And, yes, oil companies can charge what they want which is why they're taking advantage and running up record profits. My point is that, since it's a necessity, they shouldn't be gouging the consumers the way they are.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Nothing to apologize for. Easy to explain.

Record demand = record profits.

BTW, you do realize that the companies we call "Big Oil" have only a 3 percent stake in the global petroleum market, don't you?

Just in case anyone thought that they were the ones pulling the levers with regard to prices.

Is there really a record demand? Has the use of automobiles really gone up so drastically in the last year?

I imagine demand is about the same and supply is more limited. That, however, shouldn't reflect in record profits. Record grosses, sure, but if oil companies kept their margins the same, they wouldn't be fattening up at record rates like they are.

They know that consumers are aware of the oil crunch. They know that while oil is going up at a rate of $XX per barrel, they can raise their prices $XX+3 or whatever and people will chalk it up to "increased demand." They also know that people have to buy it, no matter how much they charge.

I think for the record demand you need to look overseas to the emerging countries of China and India, where first-time car ownership is booming. As a result, the demand for petroleum in those countries is through the roof, affecting world demand overall.

I understand there's more demand in those places, but enough to raise prices $1.50 in the last year?. $0.40 in the last two weeks (I understand that's partly to do with the changing season)? Maybe, but it seems to have gotten out of control to me.

Sorry, but I don't see the point in blaming the oil companies. Why wouldn't they charge as much as they could?

Why should they have to be nice and give us a break? We don't ask the same of any other companies.

You're right. They should just start charging $100/gallon because **** it, why be nice?

The reason that oil companies should be held to a different standard is that they provide a necessity.

Riding a bike or the bus are good ideas (I ride my bike to work when I can), but they aren't always feasible. People need to use their cars and that give the oil companies an unfair advantage when it comes to pricing.

A baseball team, for instance, can only charge as much as people are willing to pay. PSL's are a complete sham, but some people will for them, others won't. There's a threshold there where the market dictates how much they can charge. People don't reasonably have the option of not using gas or oil to drive their cars or heat their homes.

It's only a necessity because of poor planning. It's not like food.

Umm, really?

Food is a necessity because we need it to survive, and there aren't any alternatives.

Gas is not a necessity because it's not the only alternative. It just happens to be the cheapest alternative, and the other alternatives aren't close enough to compete.

What do you view as the alternatives to oil/gas use for the average person?

In the home, you can certainly go with with a wood stove (my parents heat their house exclusively with one), electric heat or natural gas. You could even go solar (I did a story a few years ago about a coach who's house is "off the grid."). So there are plenty of options there.

Travel: Get a bike -- a great idea (and one more people should take advantage of), but not great if one has to travel far, has to bring more than a backpack worth of stuff with them, or if the weather is foul. A good alternative at times, but not by any means one that can offset one's use of gasoline to acceptable levels.

Get a horse -- not sure how expensive they are to feed, care for, etc., but again, only viable in certain areas (Pennsylvania?) and for all I know, they might cost as much as a year's worth of gas.

Get a hybrid -- Helps out, but one still has to buy gas.

Go with biodiesel -- I actually know someone who uses biodiesel in his old Mercedes. The amount of time he spends finding restaurants to give him canola oil and then collecting and filtering it probably offsets most of the savings he gets. It's worth it to him because he cares about the environment, but for the average person, this is not a viable option.

So where is gas not a necessity, outside of adopting an Amish lifestyle and never traveling outside the borders of your town?

The wealthy can afford the price abuse.

The remainder of the economic scale isn't so fortunate.

Isn't that too bad.

(tossing cake out of the window . . . )

 

[Armchair_QB]

Until somebody can prove they're gouging, they aren't. It'd be nice if Congress would look into that.

It'd also be nice if we had a few more refineries to process the oil we do have and get more gas into circulation.

 

[PeteyPirate]

Nothing to apologize for. Easy to explain.

Record demand = record profits.

BTW, you do realize that the companies we call "Big Oil" have only a 3 percent stake in the global petroleum market, don't you?

Just in case anyone thought that they were the ones pulling the levers with regard to prices.

Is there really a record demand? Has the use of automobiles really gone up so drastically in the last year?

I imagine demand is about the same and supply is more limited. That, however, shouldn't reflect in record profits. Record grosses, sure, but if oil companies kept their margins the same, they wouldn't be fattening up at record rates like they are.

They know that consumers are aware of the oil crunch. They know that while oil is going up at a rate of $XX per barrel, they can raise their prices $XX+3 or whatever and people will chalk it up to "increased demand." They also know that people have to buy it, no matter how much they charge.

I think for the record demand you need to look overseas to the emerging countries of China and India, where first-time car ownership is booming. As a result, the demand for petroleum in those countries is through the roof, affecting world demand overall.

I understand there's more demand in those places, but enough to raise prices $1.50 in the last year?. $0.40 in the last two weeks (I understand that's partly to do with the changing season)? Maybe, but it seems to have gotten out of control to me.

Sorry, but I don't see the point in blaming the oil companies. Why wouldn't they charge as much as they could?

Why should they have to be nice and give us a break? We don't ask the same of any other companies.

You're right. They should just start charging $100/gallon because **** it, why be nice?

The reason that oil companies should be held to a different standard is that they provide a necessity.

Riding a bike or the bus are good ideas (I ride my bike to work when I can), but they aren't always feasible. People need to use their cars and that give the oil companies an unfair advantage when it comes to pricing.

A baseball team, for instance, can only charge as much as people are willing to pay. PSL's are a complete sham, but some people will for them, others won't. There's a threshold there where the market dictates how much they can charge. People don't reasonably have the option of not using gas or oil to drive their cars or heat their homes.

It's only a necessity because of poor planning. It's not like food.

Umm, really?

Food is a necessity because we need it to survive, and there aren't any alternatives.

Gas is not a necessity because it's not the only alternative. It just happens to be the cheapest alternative, and the other alternatives aren't close enough to compete.

What do you view as the alternatives to oil/gas use for the average person?

In the home, you can certainly go with with a wood stove (my parents heat their house exclusively with one), electric heat or natural gas. You could even go solar (I did a story a few years ago about a coach who's house is "off the grid."). So there are plenty of options there.

Travel: Get a bike -- a great idea (and one more people should take advantage of), but not great if one has to travel far, has to bring more than a backpack worth of stuff with them, or if the weather is foul. A good alternative at times, but not by any means one that can offset one's use of gasoline to acceptable levels.

Get a horse -- not sure how expensive they are to feed, care for, etc., but again, only viable in certain areas (Pennsylvania?) and for all I know, they might cost as much as a year's worth of gas.

Get a hybrid -- Helps out, but one still has to buy gas.

Go with biodiesel -- I actually know someone who uses biodiesel in his old Mercedes. The amount of time he spends finding restaurants to give him canola oil and then collecting and filtering it probably offsets most of the savings he gets. It's worth it to him because he cares about the environment, but for the average person, this is not a viable option.

So where is gas not a necessity, outside of adopting an Amish lifestyle and never traveling outside the borders of your town?

There is no viable alternative, which is exactly what I said. That's why the oil companies can charge so much and we keep paying it. They sell gas, that's their business. It's up to someone else to come up with a better alternative.

I think we're talking semantics here. You can survive without gas. You can't survive without food. That's what I mean by necessity.