AAA: Average price of gasoline falls in Oklahoma

By: From Wire Reports
By: From Wire Reports

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - AAA Oklahoma says the average price of a gallon of gas has fallen 8 cents in the state during the past week.

AAA said Tuesday that the statewide average for a gallon of self-serve regular is $3.59 - down from $3.67 a week ago. The average is 9.5 cents lower than a month ago and is down 11 cents per gallon from a year ago.

The average price in Tulsa is just below $3.47 per gallon while drivers in Oklahoma City are paying an average of $3.55.

The average in selected cities in the state ranges from $3.43 per gallon in Bartlesville to $3.77 in Guymon.

AAA said Oklahoma's average price is second-lowest in the nation behind Missouri's average of $3.58 per gallon. The national average is $3.85 per gallon.

(Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)


You must be logged in to post comments.

Username:
Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by David Location: Durant on May 9, 2012 at 07:30 AM
    A decrease in gas prices is always welcome, but I am concerned with the proposed changes in ethanol percentages too. Obama wanting to go from 10 to 15% ethanol is ridiculous and expensive. Many producers are already going away from pure gas to ethanol. Ethanol is the worst thing for lawn mowers, motorcycles and older vehicles. I have to travel an extra 20 miles for ethanol free gas for my mowers and motorcycle. I have yet to see how ethanol can benefit if the consumer has to pay for any benefits ethanol might have by having to repair/replace engines on equipment or in vehicles.
  • by Logic on May 6, 2012 at 09:58 AM
    @ Anonymous My potted plant analogy was, if it wasn't obvious, facetious in intent. Sorry you didn't catch that. Nope. Nature.Com and NCCOS and NOAH are still telling me that phytoplankton numbers, outside of the stagnate dead zones where some blooms are occurring, is still in global decline. Tell you what...just tell me a website to check out will you? Don't try to explain anything here without some reference because I'm just not finding anything telling me the ocean is healthy and mankind has had no effect whatsoever...sorry. ExxonMobil.com I bet has some VERY informative information on the benefits of carbon emissions on plant life huh?
    • reply
      by I'm an expert on it all on May 7, 2012 at 03:03 PM in reply to Logic
      Wow Logic, can't believe you would call somebody out for flappin' their gums without proof. Pot, meet kettle.
  • by Anonymous on May 5, 2012 at 07:49 AM
    More Global Warming is a scam news! Recent paper published in Science Magazine reveals that the Greenland glacier slide, one of the main claims of coming disaster and rising sea levels, has not increased as the climate models predicted. In fact, many have slowed instead of rapidly accelerated. This on the heels of another study showing that Himalayan glacier melt has not only NOT accelerated, many of them have added ice for the first time in human observation. Getting harder and harder to maintain the faith for the GW flock.
    • reply
      by Joey on May 10, 2012 at 01:52 PM in reply to
      Come on Anonymomo. Man up. What percentage of your income is derived from the oil and gas industry? Oh, and before you come back with something really, really stupid, I am successfully self employed, I've never been on welfare, I'm kind to children and small animals, I'm not gay, and meat is a regular part of my diet.
  • by Anonymous on Apr 30, 2012 at 07:28 PM
    Logic, tried to lay out the facts, but I guess it's too long to get by the KXII moderator. But the study you are using is outdated and shown to be in error due to comparisons of unlike samples. Using very limited physical sampling prior to satellites and comparing that to new satellite data gave very skewed results that have no basis in reality. (they won't release the method and math that led to the result, either--it's one of those studies they hide from review outside of certain research centers because the say the data would be 'misrepresented' by deniers--that should tell you something) It still gets quoted all the time by the GW crowd, but it's null and void as a valid fact. The one who wrote that study came out with another in 2003 saying that global phytoplankton numbers were rising rapidly since '98. NASA sat pics show the numbers continue to rise as the bands of growth expand outward from shorelines. It was found that phytoplankton along the Antarctic shelf and those huge icebergs result in sharply reduced CO2 for miles around their perimeter and in their wakes. Studies also show that all plant growth has increased 18 percent over the last 30 years. Again, not enough room allowed to debate the subject, but you need to acquaint yourself with the growing evidence that GW is a quickly dieing religion. When the head guru says he now realizes he was an out of control alarmist in light of what he now knows, or what he now knows he doesn't know, it's time to pack it in. And your analogy of a car in an inclosed garage with a potted plant to the global climate system is embarrassingly revealing of a lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of the issue. I assume you are the potted plant in the scenario?
    • reply
      by Joey on Apr 30, 2012 at 09:29 PM in reply to
      Ah yes, studies, studies, studies. One must take them all with a grain of salt. I read one that concluded global warming was impossible because for it to exist there would have to be a globe, and there is no globe. The author contended that NASA faked the photos of Earth that were supposedly taken from outer space. He went on to say that even if the photos weren't faked, they depict an earth that is shaped more like a pancake than an orange. I believe this study makes it safe to assume that global warming is nothing more than a fantasy.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on May 1, 2012 at 07:12 AM in reply to Joey
        And Joey must be the potting soil in the scenario?
        • reply
          by Joey on May 2, 2012 at 08:19 PM in reply to
          Very profound, Anonymomo. Very profound. Global Warming, Global Cooling, Global Overnight Express. Whatever. Anyone who thinks mankind is not steadily making this planet a cesspool needs to have their head examined. And everytime someone points out a specific problem, like lead contamination, or problems related to asbestos, certain insecticides etc, there is a handfull of those insisting they must be crackpots. And generally, those doing the insisting are those who have a financial stake in maintaining the status quo. Mmmmmm, just like you.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on May 10, 2012 at 03:40 PM in reply to
          And in this scenario, Joey, you must be the turd in the cesspool?
    • reply
      by texan on May 1, 2012 at 07:18 AM in reply to
      The phytoplankton is increasing because of increase temperature. Just like texoma and all across central plains and US. It is amazing that you can't make that connection. For those who aren't at least considering that climate change/global warming is blind to the world around them. The charts clearly show the increase temp. globally and locally (U.S.). A winter almost void of frost. Birds hardly even migrated and the hottest driest summer ever! Let alone world wide record highs being broken at amazing amounts (for 364 months straight). And 90 and 100 in march and april in texas. OPEN YOUR EYES!
      • reply
        by Anonymous on May 1, 2012 at 09:32 AM in reply to texan
        Your info is wrong across the board and you can challenge yourself to discover the facts if you want, or you can remain afraid of looming disaster based on hysteria. Even if man made GW exists, and there is no real evidence to suggest that it does, what makes you think higher temps and CO2 are a bad thing? Temps have been higher and CO2 concentrations much greater at times when life flourished on Earth. If Lovelock and Hoffmeister now realize how silly and wrong their alarmist hysteria was, maybe you can reexamine some of your assumptions as well. Global temps are down--stable if you twist the numbers really hard, but no one can credibly say they continue to rise for over a decade. Our mild winter meant a harsh winter in Canada, Alaska, Russia, Europe, etc. Jet stream anomalies the culprit. Local variations in weather are not global climate, there just local variations in weather that have always happened and always will.
      • reply
        by Roy D Mercer on May 1, 2012 at 01:22 PM in reply to texan
        Those dad gum phytoplankton! They are eating up my giant squarsh!
        • reply
          by texan on May 2, 2012 at 12:18 PM in reply to Roy D Mercer
          Temp are down anynonmous. Your clueless!!! Jan now through April is the warmest ever in that span on average. That for US and texas. Its recorded charts not fiction. The weather channel heck look at kten issues now are reproting the same thing clearly. I can tell your one of those that just won't get it.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on May 2, 2012 at 03:39 PM in reply to Roy D Mercer
          You need to read up there, Roy! Global temps are down for the last decade. Even the biggest GW believer says they have 'paused'. We are talking about GLOBAL Warming, not Texoma Warming. Yes, the US was exceptionally warm this winter and spring, but Europe, Asia, and Canada/Alaska were exceptionally cold, so the AVERAGE global temp, Roy, is down for over a decade. Local weather is NOT climate! So go away and quit ruinin' my life! Read 'Don't Sell Your Coat', get the facts and decide for yourself. You been had.
    • reply
      by Logic on May 6, 2012 at 09:29 AM in reply to
      @ Anonymous Wow! Entire paragraphs of nothing! Plants remove carbon from the atmosphere yes? Plants reach saturation levels yes? Oceans remove carbon from atmosphere yes? Oceans reach saturation levels yes? Filters have capacities. You have to clean the air filter in your car right? I ask you to present evidence that our worlds current filtration system perfectly fine.Explain where carbon goes once it is absorbed into the environment? Also, explain to me how it is impossible for mankind to effect his environment? And, finally, what is the size of the "garage" you would need, and how many plants, trees, and ocean plankton would you require, to maintain an equilibrium between 6 billion people and 500 million combustion engines before the filter gets full? Its BOOMTIME for plants you are correct! We are providing them with ample atmospheric conditions...or ARE we? Either we have NO effect on our environment and plants are not booming...or we DO have an effect on our environment and they are...pick one. Still haven't heard anything from you that refutes what we are seeing and experiencing the past 30 years...keep trying.
    • reply
      by Mike H. on May 6, 2012 at 09:43 AM in reply to
      This man points to algae blooms in a warming dead ocean as "proof" that the world is just fine?! He points to the fact that we once had whales that would have had these blooms cleared out in a week and now are vanished as "proof" that everything is perfectly balanced and in harmony! Crawl back up in the air conditioning and listen to Rush Limbaugh some more coward!
      • reply
        by Anonymous on May 7, 2012 at 09:23 AM in reply to Mike H.
        I didn't say it was fine, I said it had not become the catastrophe GW theory predicted and is, in fact, going in the opposite direction. A coward accepts the pop science without question. Ignores the most accurate long term climate models that include cycles in axis tilt, apogee and perigee of orbits, solar cycles, etc. which clearly correlate to historical and paleontological data or a constantly warming and cooling global climate. The most accessible source to refute the GW claims, besides the growing number of GW alarmists recanting, is 'Don't Sell Your Coat'. Get it from the library or buy a copy and get some facts and rational reasoning.
        • reply
          by Logic on May 7, 2012 at 09:52 AM in reply to
          No you are correct. We are no all dead yet. But going in opposite direction? Hardly. Yes we are going to still get winter. Hell Mars has winter! That is what happens in each of Earths hemisphere as it tilts away from the sun during our rotation around the sun. The mean temperature of Earth, and more markedly the oceans, IS increasing. You can't even argue that. But please don't point to some distant winter in Russia and tell me we are not experiencing extreme warmer conditions. Nationwide. And now Russia will be experiencing their extended Summer as well...meanwhile record highs in Sydney for their winter.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on May 7, 2012 at 10:50 AM in reply to
          Yes, I can argue that the air and sea temps are not warming, because they have not gone up for the last decade globally, but are headed down! Man, you think because you know what causes seasons and how summer is winter in the S Hemisphere means you know something? Did you know that the degree of axis tilt is constantly changing in a regular cycle and that that the orbital distance of Earth and Sun also varies in cycles? That solar storms occur in cycles? That internal magma 'storms' occur in cycles apparently in concert with the other cycles as well as lunar? That volcanic activity occurs in cycles? They all interact at times and in ways beyond comprehension. All of those things have far more to do with global climate that man made CO2 which is a tiny contributor to a minor factor, greenhouse gases and how the system deals with that is a complete mystery as events show us daily. And I left out cosmic rays which occur at wildly different rates. The fact is it is way beyond human ability to predict or understand why forests once grew where mile thick ice now exists or when it may happen again or why. We're just here for the ride and those that seek to take control over my life because they think they are omnipotent grates on me.
        • reply
          by Logic on May 8, 2012 at 08:00 AM in reply to
          @ Anonymous Still nothing but your comments contradicting all known observational and recorded data going back 50 years. Please. Just provide a single SOURCE so we can all verify your astounding good news that the Earth's Recovery is underway! Explain the conditions that have reversed? How has the planets resources increased, and the natural habitat healed, with 6 billion people and counting? Did you just fall off the Turnip truck? I believe if I said we have more cars on the road now than we did 40 years ago you would contradict that too in the sake of the oil interests you clearly have. Only someone with that kind of vested interest can tell me carbon emissions are good for the planet!
      • reply
        by Anonymous on May 7, 2012 at 08:17 PM in reply to Mike H.
        I offered it as proof that predictions of a steady decline in phytoplankton because of GW is false, that's all. That the system has feedback loops that maintain some level of equilibrium preventing the runaway scenarios of the the GW alarmists, as two of the biggest alarmists admitted just last week. Sort of like how it was recently discovered that the breaking ice shelf results in drastic reductions in CO2 around and in their wake. I guess you don't know that in fact whales feed on zooplankton, not phytoplankton? Zooplankton graze on the phytoplankton, so your explanation of the loss of whales (whose numbers have risen greatly in the last century) makes no sense at all. How is it cowardly to challenge with fact the pop cult beliefs of GW?
  • by Anonymous on Apr 29, 2012 at 06:15 PM
    OOPS! Turns out the only absolute proof of energy sources warming the planet are these gigantic windmills....I'm not going to post the source of that undeniable fact unless someone calls BS again (Logic, which apparently means incapable of looking anything up that contradicts his own BS). It's really hilarious to watch the GW cultists squirm, especially when they claim superiority over religious people who accept their beliefs on faith, all the while doing the same when it comes to their own GW dogma.
  • by Joey Location: Denison on Apr 27, 2012 at 10:32 AM
    When reading posts from "Anonymous", you must keep in mind that he is playing both sides of this issue. He regularly posts remarks about the suffering oil companies. While he doesn't come right out and admit it, he profits from high oil and gas prices, and loves it when prices increase. Yet at the same time he uses these stories so he can put on some less than forthright political tirade to gin up opposition to Obama. Hey, he knows on which side his bread is buttered, and he'll play you like a fiddle if he thinks it could make him another dime. Right now he sees Romney et al as his best chance to increase his personal wealth at your expense.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Apr 27, 2012 at 03:20 PM in reply to Joey
      Obama has become the historic figure he feels himself to be, but this time it isn't because of his background, it's because he has presided over a government whose current indebtedness exceeds the entire gross domestic product with no end in sight! WOO HOO! And the debt increase as a percentage increased faster than the GDP! WOO HOO again! Sorry Joey, you can wildly characterize and speculate on the messenger all you want, but the facts are gonna be the facts whether you like them or not. Paranoid much? Now, let me outa your head. There isn't enough room in there for your own mile wide and inch deep thoughts, don't try to squeeze some actual facts in there. You might hurt yourself.
      • reply
        by Joey on Apr 27, 2012 at 09:02 PM in reply to
        Hey, facts are facts, and I don't see you denying the fact that you have a vested interst in higher prices for gas and oil. Every word you spew on this subject reeks of it. Actually, you are really quite amazing. You and your ilk are making more money that ever in the oil and gas market, and the gap between the wealthy and the poor as well as between the wealthy and the middle class is (to steal your terminology), a mile wide and getting wider all the time. And to think this is all happening under an anti-oil black muslim foreign born commie President. Oh, and btw, the stuff you're shoveling is most definitely more than an inch deep. In fact, I'd say that if your eyes aren't brown, your nose certainly is.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Apr 30, 2012 at 07:11 PM in reply to Joey
          Because denying it would be almost as idiotic as accusing someone of any personal fact with absolutely no evidence. And then assign some other assumed personal beliefs on someone who clearly understands the facts and issue and can argue it more effectively just to make you posts even more idiotic? You are just boring and not worth the effort.
  • by Anonymous on Apr 27, 2012 at 06:09 AM
    GDP 2.2%! WOO HOO! That should keep those gasoline prices near record highs instead of setting more new highs! Way to go O! And he only had to spend 7 plus TRILLION above receipts to make it happen! This Man has fulfilled all his promises----well, I'm not sure about lowering the sea levels thing, but that's why he needs four more years to fly around in 'His' shiny plane blowing smoke up our collective backsides.
  • by Anonymous on Apr 25, 2012 at 04:11 PM
    Down 3 percent in a year! WOO HOO! Up roughly 100 percent since Obama took office! WOO HOO again! Mostly the slight decrease is from lower anticipated demand as the weakening jobs market and recession in Europe is taking hold. So Obama may be due some credit. You can't point to a single thing the O administration has done to increase US production. His effects won't be felt for another couple of years as the fact of federal leases dropping 50 percent from 4 years ago is felt. And even then, that won't be all that apparently significant as private and state leases are way up. Supplies won't go down, but they won't go up at nearly the rate that they might have with a more encouraging government in place. I suppose we should celebrate O. His handling of the economy has prevented even greater pressures on demand and has reversed illegal immigration. Four more years and we may not have a receptacle to urinate in, but we'll have fewer illegals and less need for gasoline. WOO HOO again!
    • reply
      by Joe on Apr 25, 2012 at 05:34 PM in reply to
      Boy, they saw you coming a mile away. What other wacko BS did they scare you into believing? Got any news on that birth certificate conspiracy? By the way. When your masters at Cluster Fox News tell you "We report, You decide", it's the same as Ripley saying "Believe it or not". LOL at the nut-job wackos!
      • reply
        by Logic on Apr 26, 2012 at 10:42 AM in reply to Joe
        LOL!! Hillarious!!! I never made that Ripley's connection until just now! "We report, You decide" is EXACTLY the same as saying "Believe it or not!"...
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Apr 26, 2012 at 11:06 AM in reply to Logic
          Only you, Logic, could find the Logic in such a non sequitur.
        • reply
          by high horse on Apr 26, 2012 at 06:23 PM in reply to Logic
          Ripley's Believe it or not, a regular published feature that provided readers with facts contrary to their beliefs, providing them with odd facts that challenged the limits of their accepted reality. Fox=Ripley's. Did you really mean to say that or are you just that ignorant of what Ripley's was and is? Or is that also just a lie of FOX NEWS! Self assured ignorance is just pathetic.
        • reply
          by Logic on Apr 27, 2012 at 12:47 PM in reply to Logic
          Stop High Horse please. I know who the hell Ripley is. I adored Jack Palance hosting the show in the 80's and it remains one of my most beloved shows ever. But Ripley was also like Barnum. A lot of show and heresay. While he did present weird, credible facts and even provided photographic evidence, he mixed in with this a lot of smoke and mirrors...a lot of tales brought down from old European folklore..and never scientifically substantiated OR the phenomenon can explain rationally using todays methods. Now THAT is EXACTLY like FOX News! You will get some truth. The plane DID crash and there WERE no survivors. True. They just add the "...because of Obama!"
        • reply
          by high horse on Apr 27, 2012 at 03:34 PM in reply to Logic
          Oh, you saw the TV show derived from the original published series. Of course, you got your knowledge from prime time network television. Explains a lot. Do you have an original thought or facts to back up ANYTHING you ever say with such conviction?
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Apr 26, 2012 at 10:50 AM in reply to Joe
        Joe, is demand for oil down as is reflected in the price on speculative markets? Well, yes it is, slightly. Is the prospective job market down from expectations a month ago? Well, yes it is. Has the flow of illegal immigration reversed according to ICE this week and do they list a difficult job market as the cause? Well, yes it is. So what is your problem exactly? FOX NEWS! The retort of the confused and ignorant. People bringing up facts and arguments counter to your own bias? FOX NEWS!
        • reply
          by Logic on Apr 26, 2012 at 11:56 AM in reply to
          What I think we're trying to say is you guys seem to point to someone else when the sun shines, and point to Obama when it rains. And these conditions change almost monthly. What if the job market takes a swing upward next month and the illegals begin comming back? That gonna be Obama to blame also? Of course not! It was because of some Bush policy he signed 7 years ago finally working its wonders! But...should the job market outlook drop again...well there is Obama's policies once more! It's like listening to a Christian explain to me the wonders of God, describing rainbows, puppies and little babies...completely overlooking earthquakes, cancer, famine. No. All THOSE horrible things only come from Satan! Do you guys even realize how ridiculous you sound doing this? But FOX News is a bias news organization dedicated to anti-democratic propaganda 24/7. Having said that, you people sure put a lot of faith in them to provide you with truth...knowing they have an agenda...I wouldn't if I were you, if only to escape the totalitarian qualities you seem to claim the democrats exhibit! Old Murdoch just admitted to the hacking scandal. FOX News has all the investigative integrity of your typical gossip tabloid...funny since that are the roots of Rup[ert Murdoch. He got started publishing the British version of the National Enquirer...all loose gossip based on heresay. You have to be aware of all this right?
        • reply
          by high horse on Apr 26, 2012 at 12:22 PM in reply to
          What you're saying is that you make wild charges with no substantive content to back it up. The economy stinks, the government is hopelessly broken, the outlook is bleak with no credible plan to address the largest and unavoidable issues of coming debt obligations except those put forward to be met with demonization and FOX NEWS!, hand in hand with Christianity, are the reasons. It's pitiful.
        • reply
          by what I think I'm trying to say... on Apr 26, 2012 at 12:29 PM in reply to
          Even you can't figure out what the heck you're trying to say? Your point appears to be you have no point except Obama bears no responsibility because of Fox news and Christians who you find inferior and contemptible. OK, we got that, must you repeat it endlessly?
        • reply
          by Logic on Apr 26, 2012 at 01:26 PM in reply to
          Nope. Read my post again. Never used FOX News as an excuse for anything. But it would take a moron to not see their agenda! As brainwashed as you all think the liberals are, can you ever remember seeing an entire news organization as bias as FOX? Who is the resident liberal at FOX to present an alternate viewpoint? Poor Colmes? He left long ago. I don't watch FOX so they may have a token liberal now, not sure. These are NOT wild charges. The substance to back it up is the absence of alternate veiwpoints on the network. Even MSNBC, with Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz, give conservatives their own shows! But you mistake my confirmation of Joe's opinion of FOX with an automatice defense of Obama. Don't. I'm not tied to any politician like that sorry...My contempt for Christianity is that they play the victim. Always a war against Christmas...or their freedom of religion. Yet you can't drive a mile in Sherman/Denison without passing a Church! I see no oppression taking place sorry.
    • reply
      by Logic on Apr 26, 2012 at 08:29 AM in reply to
      So basically, if Rmoney is elected, we can expect greater fuel demand (even HIGHER gas prices!) and the return of illegals? It seems to me that you are pointing at the tide and blaming a wave! And if we have enough gas available to export it, then opening Yosemite to drilling is NOT an option. No need at this time to gut the national parks just so Exxon can make even MORE profits!
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Apr 26, 2012 at 11:03 AM in reply to Logic
        Get off the drilling in Yosemite. Are you afraid to face facts so you resort to the ridiculous to avoid the reality? WE can't be energy independent without drilling in Yosemite and the National Mall! That's just stupid and childish. You can do better than that, surely. But even if it were true in your alternate universe, if we can drill in residential neighborhoods without major ill effects, we could drill anywhere else if that's what it takes to secure the nation. I have no idea what Romney will do. I don't think Romney knows what Romney will do. I do know what Obama will do, and it's not working and there is no possible way it will ever work. My hope is that Romney will adopt something along the lines of John Hofmeister's plan. It's common sense and backed up by realistic interpretation and application of data. It has to work to some degree, even if not to the degree he concludes. If he's correct, it, along with some other sacrifices, may very well be the only way out of the incredible mountain of debt we find ourselves in. We don't have the luxury of engaging in the idiocy of the Enviroweenies that tie the hands of the nation's potential anymore. That's for the pseudo prosperity of the past. It didn't exist then and it certainly doesn't exist now.
        • reply
          by Logic on Apr 26, 2012 at 12:42 PM in reply to
          Like I said, when no more gasoline is exported, you can talk about energy independence. As of today, one more tanker left the gulf filled with gasoline headed to asian markets...if we got enough gas to be doing this, then we do not need to drill Yosemite...the new private leases are doing just fine and providing Exxon with ample profits and enough gasoline to sell abroad...don't see a desperate situation here requiring the exploitation of the last remaining natural refuges in our country. Do you have NO respect for the legacy of Republican President Teddy Roosevelt? Have you ever seen before and after pictures of the Tar Sands? Maybe you should. I have heard you guys claim that carbon emmissions are good for plants! Thats great...for a plant! Sorry if I can't believe your opinion on enviornmental matters...
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Apr 26, 2012 at 05:38 PM in reply to
          Your lack or knowledge on the location and amount of reserves is still remarkable, not to mention your lack of knowledge of federal holdings. Last of our natural refuges? It's never been higher and grows annually! Having excess gasoline means nothing because there is no excess globally. That determines price. We still import almost half or our crude. It's the biggest negative line item on the trade balance sheet. With ample reserves and NG alternatives along with a lack of jobs, there is no excuse not to utilize our resources. There are hundreds of years worth of oil and gas, and practically unlimited sources of methane that flex fuel vehicles could be burning today. John Hofmeister has a plan that is well thought out and documented to make us energy independent in a decade while creating millions of jobs in the process. It doesn't include algae. Guess what, carbon dioxide is good for plants! If it's good for plants it's good for everyone. Plant growth goes up with the presence of higher CO2 and has increased around 18 percent over the last 3 decades. And phytoplankton are exploding in the oceans because of higher CO2, increasing oxygen levels and resources at the bottom of the food chain. And guess what masses of phytoplankton become when they die? Methane and NG! Amazing how the Earth handles it's own stuff. I guess you missed the announcement of the GW apocalypse guru James Lovelock saying that he no longer has any idea if CO2 has anything significant to do with the climate and it appears it may be beneficial as much or more as it is harmful? It just isn't working out the way they expected no matter how they manipulate the facts.
        • reply
          by Logic on Apr 27, 2012 at 01:09 PM in reply to
          @ Anonymous I'm gonna cut to the chase on this one and just call bulls*^t here. I know KXII won't allow me to post a link, so all I can say is I am going to believe the Discovery Channel on this one claiming that we have had a 40% reduction in phytoplankton since 1950. You may site some local or regional blooms possible, but oceanwide phytoplankton is down almost half what it was in 1950. Search Discovery.Com for phytoplankton. The Australian Reef is bleaching. Plants are growing in the arctic circle that wouldn't have survived just 40 years ago. You are CORRECT..its boomtime for plants...in the places they grow we haven't turned into a WalMart yet. Hey..I know. Park your car in the garage, shut the door and leave the engine running...just you and a petunia in a pot sitting there, maybe listening to Rush on AM...you and the engine feeding the plant...the plant feeding you...lets bet who turns blue before the other one!
  • by Logic on Apr 25, 2012 at 02:00 PM
    Yep...I blame Obama! Oh wait...BUSH policies are making gas prices come down...Obama's just make them go up, is that the way it works? Thanks Mike H for setting the tone for this thread!
    • reply
      by Mike H. on Apr 25, 2012 at 04:36 PM in reply to Logic
      But by the same token, it is NOT Obama's fault that they are going down either! I think we all need to be clear on that as well. If we have ANY shred of free-market economics left, and a company is profiting under it as much as oil companies are right now, then even IF Obama just simply despised oil companies, he certainly is not effecting their bottom line! Gas prices will remain consistently high throughout the summmer, possibly spiking upward again...so its just silly to sit here and complain about the sometimes on/sometimes off effects of ANY President who truly has little to no effect on the price of gas...or a pound of hamburger...or the cost of a new car. I just don't see Obama hurting oil companies at all!
  • by Just Sayin Location: texas on Apr 25, 2012 at 12:21 PM
    I hope obama quits pushing for higher fuel standards, hybrids, and electrics. That will eventually reduce demand (drop prices). Just being sarcastic.
  • Page:
Sherman 4201 Texoma Pkwy (903) 892 -8123 Ardmore 2624 S. Commerce (580) 223-0946
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 148869345 - kxii.com/a?a=148869345
Gray Television, Inc.