Pegasus Has Fallen...again..

[LTS TRN 2]

Somewhere a highly paid department of PR and damage control experts is being briefed and deployed by the the corporate lords of Exxon for the purpose of reassuring the American public that the rupture of the Pegasus pipeline (the largest pipeline of Canadian heavy crude in the U.S.) as it wound through Arkansas this Friday is no big deal--and in fact let's not even really cover it in the news (we'll take care of that). The first blurb of reassurance comes to us straight from the oil giant's brochure on the counter of its massive headquarters..

The Pegasus pipeline was refurbished with "leak -proof technology" in 2009 when it was expanded to specifically transport Canadian oil sands bitumen from the U.S midwest to the Gulf Coast refining hub.



Well, that certainly reassures us all quite a bit...but ..there's a slow black river of bubblin' crude crawling through the quaint lil' town of Mayflower right now--and it isn't an April Fool's joke.

[Smackie Chan]

do you think this rises to an OMFG level alert

Of course it does! It's clear evidence of the vile Zio-Nazi fake apartheid state. Or what?

WW

[Jay in Phoenix]

You guys laugh all you want. LTS knows the truth is "out there".



*Fraternal'*Alien*Government*Guided*Illuminati*Elitists.

[atomicdad]

Hasn't been a good couple of days for Arkansas. I'll leave to you guys to look up what happened at ANO yesterday morning.

[Bucmonkey]

I don't live there so who gives a fuck...jobs baby!

[War Wagon]

do you think this rises to an OMFG level alert

Of course it does! It's clear evidence of the vile Zio-Nazi fake apartheid state. Or what?

WW

nice synopsis, but you forgot to add "seething imperialistic corporate welfare vultures" and an oblique reference to the Koch bros.

[LTS TRN 2]

No, actually it's not a synopsis--or even an acknowledgement--of what occurred. Of course it's not an area of AIPAC's vile concern, nor do the apartheid policies of the fake state (which are much worse than those of the earlier equally fake and illegal South African Republic) enter into the situation. But, you can bet all your Skoal money on the fact that the Koch brothers are all over this spill in terms of their vast and sophisticated denialist echo chamber concerning climate Change and the perils of a fossil fuel model for our energy needs. They're paying much more attention than you.

At issue is the obvious inability of the rapacious oil companies to responsibly process the foul oil shale on behalf of the Canadian companies. And after all, this isn't American oil we're talking about at all. The vast mountain of foul shale is strictly a Canadian resource which will not help our energy needs or reduce our gasoline prices. It's strictly a deal between the American oil companies--making big profits by processing the foul shale.

As far as the total INSIDE JOB that was 9/11, well, you're deep in denial and unable to face even the most basic contradictions in the official story, and you are reduced to playground catcalls like little kids. Hmmm...

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I am MEGA.

:twisted:

[War Wagon]

At issue is the obvious inability of the rapacious oil companies to responsibly process the foul oil shale on behalf of the Canadian companies.

That pipeline has been transporting oil for 60 years without much problem until now. I'd say that's a pretty impressive record, especially when you consider what it would have taken to transport the same amount by other means.

And make no mistake, it would've been moved by other means (tanker trains and/or trucks) had the pipeline not existed. Where there is a demand, there will always be a supply.

You'd be better off ranting against demand rather than supply.

[LTS TRN 2]

You're partly right, wags, but you're missing the point on the Pegasus pipe. At stark issue is the fact of Exxon's boasts of having recently upgraded and improved the safety of the pipeline--and just how fatuous this claim has proven. As far as challenging the demand of fossil fuels, well this is exactly what is necessary--and which is precisely avoided by the oil and coal and gas companies by way of their deep pockets and relentless lobbying. In fact their amoral method is to stall the discussion itself, let alone the remedies. The idea of Climate Change denialism is utterly putrid and depraved, whether based on soft-brained religion or heartless profiteering. And it is Exxon which is manipulating the response to the environmental crises ensuing from a fossil fuel paradigm as much as it manipulates the price at the pump. And of course it's making record profits. Now slap yourself--a vigorous stroke--and start waking up!


Why I intelet call myself Amelican?..I'm...not a wagon...at all...

[Rooster]

"Foul shale"? Can somebody translate that for me? My wild eyed and frothy mouthed lib decoder is broken.

[smackaholic]

It is the shale found the other side of the line from fair shale.

[Left Seater]

"Foul shale"? Can somebody translate that for me? My wild eyed and frothy mouthed lib decoder is broken.

Foul shale = a fuel source.

[smackaholic]

"Foul shale"? Can somebody translate that for me? My wild eyed and frothy mouthed lib decoder is broken.

Foul shale = a fuel source.

You mean there is stuff we can dig up outta the ground and burn as an energy source? That is so 19th century. Windmills, PV cells and unicorn farts, that's all we need. And don't worry about it not being affordable. The rich can pay for it. Well, the rich and the counterfeit operation that Bernanke is running, can afford it.

[LTS TRN 2]

"Foul shale" in this context refers to the type which requires far more processing and cleansing than normal to make it viable. And this extra process is counter productive in terms of cost. That is, just as it takes 15 lbs of fish (as food) to produce one pound of farmed salmon--and it tastes like crap (and produces a tremendous amount of toxic runoff), so too does the amount of energy necessary to process the tar sands exceed the energy derived from them. It's an utterly ghastly proposition which is not only economically backwards, but environmentally insane. But...these Koch brother puppets, as well as the loon Christers, are not disposed to sanity on any level. Have you ever actually listened to Sen Jim Inhofe as he denies Climate Change? Seriously?

As for the Pegasus pipeline, Exon today admitted the leak is "substantially worse" than initially claimed. (Gee!)

An ExxonMobil pipeline that ruptured last month and spilled thousands of barrels of oil in central Arkansas has a gash in it that is 22 feet long and 2 inches wide, state Attorney General Dustin McDaniel said Wednesday.

"The pipeline rupture is substantially larger than many of us initially thought," McDaniel told reporters Wednesday evening.

McDaniel's update on the March 29 oil spill in Mayflower, about 25 miles northwest of Little Rock, comes as lawyers and investigators review more than 12,500 pages of documents his office received from ExxonMobil. McDaniel sent a subpoena to ExxonMobil, seeking inspection records, investigative documents and maintenance records related to its Pegasus pipeline that ruptured in Mayflower.

I'm sure Exxon will be forthcoming with all of this highly damaging information.

[smackaholic]

So, it takes 2 gallons of clean oil to make 1 gallon of dirty oil?

Wouldn't it just make more sense to sell the two gallons?

You are making even less sense than usual. I didn't think that was possible.

[Left Seater]

"Foul shale" in this context refers to the type which requires far more processing and cleansing than normal to make it viable. And this extra process is counter productive in terms of cost. That is,...the amount of energy necessary to process the tar sands exceed the energy derived from them. It's an utterly ghastly proposition which is not only economically backwards...

Please link us up to some stats that can back up your outright lie. Show us exactly how many BTUs it takes to make one BTU from the tar sands.

Problem is you can't cause your just hoping no one will catch your lie. No one is burning two BTUs of coal, natural gas, E85 etc to make one BTU from the tar sands.

Granted, the return on tar sands isn't as high as natural gas or sweet crude, but it is still 7:1. Plus, tar sands are economically viable today without governments propping them up.

[LTS TRN 2]

Hey, I agree. It's an absurdly inefficient model based on greed and utter stupidity--always a dangerous combination. But, remember, Exxon is only piping the foul shale. Their business is just to process it. They don't care how much it costs because they are going to pass on all of that cost to the American consumers. Pretty sleazy, eh?

[LTS TRN 2]

"Foul shale" in this context refers to the type which requires far more processing and cleansing than normal to make it viable. And this extra process is counter productive in terms of cost. That is,...the amount of energy necessary to process the tar sands exceed the energy derived from them. It's an utterly ghastly proposition which is not only economically backwards...

Please link us up to some stats that can back up your outright lie. Show us exactly how many BTUs it takes to make one BTU from the tar sands.

Problem is you can't cause your just hoping no one will catch your lie. No one is burning two BTUs of coal, natural gas, E85 etc to make one BTU from the tar sands.

Granted, the return on tar sands isn't as high as natural gas or sweet crude, but it is still 7:1. Plus, tar sands are economically viable today without governments propping them up.

Here, L-seater (you total fraud), get a bit of insight into this dreadful rape of the planet.

http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org ... basics.php

[mvscal]

"Foul shale" in this context refers to the type which requires far more processing and cleansing than normal to make it viable. And this extra process is counter productive in terms of cost. ...the amount of energy necessary to process the tar sands exceed the energy derived from them.

A blatant lie.

It's very heavy and very sour and does require specialized refining techniques but, for the most part, it is an export product seldom used in the states.

Obviously it is economically viable because it is being produced on an economically relevant scale unlike say...green energy scams which are not economically viable no matter how much you subsidize their worthless product.

[Left Seater]

the amount of energy necessary to process the tar sands exceed the energy derived from them.

Please link us up to some stats that can back up your outright lie. Show us exactly how many BTUs it takes to make one BTU from the tar sands.

Here, L-seater (you total fraud), get a bit of insight into this dreadful rape of the planet.

http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org ... basics.php

Did you even look at the link you just threw up there? First, they can't even proof read.

Both methods are far more energy and water intensive and expensive than traditional drilling methods for crude oil and thus does compete economically with crude oil.

Let's assume they meant to say thus do not compete economically with crude oil. Still nothing in there proves your point.

But later on the same page there is this gem that proves you to be the liar you are.

Tar sands deposits in Alberta Canada...industry has figured out the technological solutions to make the industry profitable --when crude oil prices are high enough.

Please, keep posting these sites that kick your own ass. We all enjoy laughing at you.

Meanwhile, here is real info on tar sands.

Sourcing more oil from Canada achieves the politically desirable goal of making the U.S. less dependent on OPEC...And although it is net-positive— providing between 7 and 10 Btu (British thermal units) of energy for every 1 Btu put into the tar sands—it is less so than conventional petroleum.

Alberta Tar Sands provide between a 7:1 and a 10:1 return for each BTU expended.

the amount of energy necessary to process the tar sands exceed the energy derived from them.

Best case is you are just a completely ignorant, gullible, buffoon who can't understand facts and willing drinks the grape Kool-aide. Or more likely worst case you completely ignore facts and have no problem lying to attempt to make your point.

Pretty sad really.

[LTS TRN 2]

Don't worry, no one's suggesting that Exxon isn't making lots of dough on the foul shale. The fact of their passing on the extra costs of processing to the public at the pump is what should concern you in the strict economic sense. But...you wind-up Hannity types seem in staunch and snarling denial as to the disastrous costs of plowing ahead with this utterly disgusting energy source. You stubbornly deny that environmental deterioration causes immediate negative economic effect. Your default (cowering) position is exactly that of every GOP lunatic senator--that if we don't process the foul shale, China will! And even though China is apparently slated to buy the shit anyway, our giant oil corporation should at least be able to dip its giant beak and do the job in Houston, regardless of the very real risks of piping the tar all the way down there. You seem to be okay with the catastrophic air conditions of China's large cities...and you've just surrendered? Your attacks on Green Energy and all of its astonishing burgeoning developments is shameful and callow--as usual.

[Left Seater]

You were the one who stated that the tar sands take more energy to produce than they return.

If you are ready to admit you lied about that, then and only then can we move on to the environmental aspect of tar sands.

That or produce something that backs up your "claim."

[mvscal]

The fact of their passing on the extra costs of processing to the public at the pump is what should concern you in the strict economic sense.

I thought you libtards wanted us to pay more at the pump? Anyway, manufacturing costs are built into the retail price of every product on planet earth. Is there any particular reason why gasoline should be any different? Besides, which part of tar sands gasoline and diesel is an export product are you struggling to comprehend?

Don't like oil, coal or natural gas? Fine. Come up with an equivalent product which works as a suitable replacement and fuck off until you do.

[LTS TRN 2]

You were the one who stated that the tar sands take more energy to produce than they return.

If you are ready to admit you lied about that, then and only then can we move on to the environmental aspect of tar sands.

That or produce something that backs up your "claim."

A simple misstatement--but based on the real fact of the foul shale being far more costly to process. The fact of this whole Keystone project being a deal between Canada and Exxon--and having nothing to do with American gasoline or fuel prices--is what's at issue. That and what is obviously an inability on the part of Exxon to safely transfer the foul shale. And this central issue is brought forth in light of Exxon's recent proud insistence on having improved and guaranteed the safety of the Pegasus pipe. Not only has it ruptured just after being refurbished, but the spill is a lot worse than reported. Exxon can't be trusted.

As far as the subject of Green technology, start with the concerted campaign over the past few decades on the part of Big Oil to undermine and hinder a transfer away from gasoline and fossil fuels. A simple recent example is the artificially high price of diesel fuel. Why? Because of the development of the green diesel (40 and 45 respectively). If the price was at its traditionally lower price there would be a stampede of buyers for the several models now featuring the green diesel. And not only does it get better mileage than a hybrid, but it actually puts out less emissions (and lasts ten times as long). Imagine millions of the clean diesels in the next few years--not decades. But no, the price of diesel fuel has been jacked up--with the most pathetic reasons offered--and Exxon is fine with you getting 25 mpg on the freeway.

[Left Seater]

See that wasn't so hard to admit you were wrong now was it?


Of course Oil companies are going to do their best to keep selling as much oil and gas as possible. The problem is you and I are demanding it as well. As shareholders of Big Oil and as consumers of gas that complain anytime the price rises. Oh, and we want all of that to happen without importing from OPEC.

But let's go back to the 70s. The Democrat farmer from Georgia had the opportunity to move the US to a natural gas and diesel based economy. He didn't, preferring to stay the course on oil. Natural gas is the cleanest burning of all and we have huge reserves of it here in the US. That decision still has impacts today.

You do also understand that our refining capabilities are not unlimited. In the winter more people want heating oil for their homes. As such more is refined. When that happens something else has to decline. In many cases it is diesel. Same when the prices at the pump rise. More gas is refined and as such there is less diesel refined.

As soon as we can get the EPA to agree to cutting down more trees for increased farming or for water tanks for algae production then we can start to discuss more green diesel. Then we have to get the EPA to agree to allow refineries to be built near these growing areas. That or figure out how to get the food stuffs to our current refining locations.

Further, if there were more money to be made doing this today, Big Oil would be all over it. But without something like cap and trade the numbers just aren't there. Are you willing to see fuel prices at $15 per gallon for a decade while the transition happens?

[War Wagon]

The fact of this whole Keystone project being a deal between Canada and Exxon--and having nothing to do with American gasoline or fuel prices--is what's at issue. That and what is obviously an inability on the part of Exxon to safely transfer the foul shale. And this central issue is brought forth in light of Exxon's recent proud insistence on having improved and guaranteed the safety of the Pegasus pipe. Not only has it ruptured just after being refurbished, but the spill is a lot worse than reported. Exxon can't be trusted.

Nice talking points... for the Daily Kos, which is no doubt where you gleaned them from.

And I won't comment on Exxon's supposed improvement of the Pegasus pipeline. I don't know how you "improve" a 60 year old pipeline. Maybe they should retire it and build a new one right next to the old one.

It would seem self-evident that pipeline technology has somewhat if not greatly improved in the past 60 years. Thus, comparing the proposed Keystone project with Pegasus is disingenuous. And regardless of where the finished product (refined petroleum) is eventually sold and used, the construction of a pipeline creates jobs and value for Americans that would otherwise not be created.

I suspect you're tilting at windmills yet again.

[smackaholic]

A simple misstatement

bullfukkingshit. you made a deliberate lie and got called on it.

As far as the subject of Green technology, start with the concerted campaign over the past few decades on the part of Big Oil to undermine and hinder a transfer away from gasoline and fossil fuels. A simple recent example is the artificially high price of diesel fuel. Why? Because of the development of the green diesel (40 and 45 respectively). If the price was at its traditionally lower price there would be a stampede of buyers for the several models now featuring the green diesel. And not only does it get better mileage than a hybrid, but it actually puts out less emissions (and lasts ten times as long). Imagine millions of the clean diesels in the next few years--not decades. But no, the price of diesel fuel has been jacked up--with the most pathetic reasons offered--and Exxon is fine with you getting 25 mpg on the freeway.

I am a big fan of green diesel as well and believe it will be a feasible part of our economy before long. Makes more sense to me than ethanol from corn, although ethanol from sugar cane may be better which is prolly why the brazilians are going that route. As for why it is expensive, it is simply that we, primarily the euros, are using a lot more and we tax the beezeejus out of it.

[mvscal]

A simple recent example is the artificially high price of diesel fuel. Why? Because of the development of the green diesel (40 and 45 respectively). If the price was at its traditionally lower price there would be a stampede of buyers for the several models now featuring the green diesel. And not only does it get better mileage than a hybrid, but it actually puts out less emissions (and lasts ten times as long).

The simple fact is that there are very few production model diesels which meet emission standards in places like California. It doesn't matter that the diesel engines are more efficient and thus, overall, more environmentally sound. The emissions they do produce are worse than gasoline engines.

You asked for these laws, dipshit. Now shut the fuck up and take a nice, long suck on them.

[Van]

Fortunately, clean diesels are becoming more plentiful.

[LTS TRN 2]

A simple recent example is the artificially high price of diesel fuel. Why? Because of the development of the green diesel (40 and 45 respectively). If the price was at its traditionally lower price there would be a stampede of buyers for the several models now featuring the green diesel. And not only does it get better mileage than a hybrid, but it actually puts out less emissions (and lasts ten times as long).

The simple fact is that there are very few production model diesels which meet emission standards in places like California. It doesn't matter that the diesel engines are more efficient and thus, overall, more environmentally sound. The emissions they do produce are worse than gasoline engines.

You asked for these laws, dipshit. Now shut the fuck up and take a nice, long suck on them.

No, all of the green diesel models (and that's VW Golf, Jetta, Beetle, Passat and Toureg, and Audi A3) easily comply with the emissions standards of anywhere on the planet. Perhaps you should investigate the amazing innovations on the diesel engine (and never has a legacy been so reversed as that of Rudolph Diesel) I'm not sure on the patent issues involved--and how the Germans are keeping control of the motor's use--but the key factor of the artificially raised diesel fuel prices (raised just as the models were introduced) and the ludicrous excuses offered by the oil companies is exactly what we're speaking of when addressing the amoral profiteering of Exxon.

[Van]

The VW group isn't keeping control of the motor's use, at least not in the strictest sense. A number of other companies including Mazda are already using clean diesel motors in other markets and are slated to bring them to the U.S. before the year is out. BMW has offered clean diesels on these shores for a decent while now.

Bottom line, it won't be long before we see clean diesel technology becoming fairly widespread here.

The best thing about those motors may not even be their increased fuel efficiency. No, it's their prodigious torque. Far fewer stops at the pump while also adding nearly twice the grunt, and no old-style-diesel smoke or ratty noises?

Not a bad deal.

[Van]

Diesels no longer necessarily mean reduced acceleration. In the case of the new Mazda 6, for example, the combination of basically equal hp and twice the torque means that the Skyactiv-D version will flat-out stomp the gasoline-powered Skyactiv-G version.

Okay, in terms of your article there...

Even though they are more efficient, there are eight historical problems that have held diesel engines back:

1. Diesel engines, because they have much higher compression ratios (20:1 for a typical diesel vs. 8:1 for a typical gasoline engine), tend to be heavier than an equivalent gasoline engine.

Historically, yes. These days? Not so much. Compression ratios for diesels have fallen to near-gasoline-powered engine levels.

2. Diesel engines also tend to be more expensive.

True. They're typically a couple-few thousand dollars more.

3. Diesel engines, because of the weight and compression ratio, tend to have lower maximum RPM ranges than gasoline engines (see Question 381 for details). This makes diesel engines high torque rather than high horsepower, and that tends to make diesel cars slow in terms of acceleration.

That's true for top-speed accelation but in the real world most situations involving off-the-line or basic passing-power acceleration are far more a function of torque than of outright horsepower. When the diesel is making twice as much torque compared to its gasoline counterpart, you can be sure that it will pull one helluva lot harder everywhere but at the very top end.

When was the last time you topped out your family vehicle?

4. Diesel engines must be fuel injected, and in the past fuel injection was expensive and less reliable.

No longer an issue, obviously. All new cars sold in the U.S. are fuel-injected.

5. Diesel engines tend to produce more smoke and "smell funny."

No longer an issue. There is no discernible scent and zero smoke. Even in terms of the sound you can barely tell you're in a diesel when sitting in an idling clean diesel vehicle.

6. Diesel engines are harder to start in cold weather, and if they contain glow plugs, diesel engines can require you to wait before starting the engine so the glow plugs can heat up.

No longer an issue.

7.Diesel engines are much noisier and tend to vibrate.

Not any more.

8. Diesel fuel is less readily available than gasoline.

True, but not to the extent that it's the least bit difficult to find. It isn't. All the major retailers offer it. The point they should have made is that while once upon a time diesel fuel was cheaper than gasoline, that's no longer the case. Diesel is usually more expensive now than Premium-grade gasoline.

One or two of these disadvantages would be OK, but a group of disadvantages this large is a big deterrent for lots of people.

The deterrent for most people these days (besides the relative lack of availability of clean diesel vehicles) is the same deterrent that keeps far too many people from leasing rather than purchasing: sheer ignorance. Most people simply don't know very much about any of this shit. Because their neighbor's old Ram diesel truck makes a ton of racket and sucks out loud, they think that's the case with all diesels.

The two things working in favor of diesel engines are better fuel economy and longer engine life.

And the aforementioned monster torque, which is what 99% of today's drivers rely on every time they press the throttle.

Both of these advantages mean that, over the life of the engine, you will tend to save money with a diesel. However, you also have to take the initial high cost of the engine into account. You have to own and operate a diesel engine for a fairly long time before the fuel economy overcomes the increased purchase price of the engine. The equation works great in a big diesel tractor-trailer rig that is running 400 miles every day, but it is not nearly so beneficial in a passenger car.

This is true. Purely on a cost basis, it will take a decent while to recoup in gas savings the extra cash you paid for the diesel vehicle. That's why I always point to the increased fun factor as much as the fuel savings when talking about the advantages of these modern diesels.

As mentioned, the list above contains historical disadvantages for diesel engines. Many of the new diesel engine designs using advanced computer control are eliminating many of these disadvantages -- smoke, noise, vibration and cost are all declining. In the future, we are likely to see many more diesel engines on the road.

Without a doubt. According to the latest industry studies, 70% of new cars sold in Europe are diesels. (That may only refer to VWs, however, which is the #1 brand in Europe. I don't recall whether that statistic applied to all makes.) We may not reach that level in the U.S., but we're about to see a huge increase in their numbers here.

[LTS TRN 2]

Exactly, Van, and now consider just what fatuous excuses the oil companies have offered to maintain the suddenly higher price for diesel fuel. It's the most mealy mess of mottled machinations since "Gut"Govan tried to play "Hendrix."

Seriously, we're fucked if these Inhofe freaks persist.

[LTS TRN 2]

Well, shnick, whatever you're pretending to be, if you look on a map you'll notice that Arkansas is connected to several other states--which are connected to others, and eventually yours. What's your point? Oh, you're trying to make a joke. Except you forgot the actual comic material. Right...

[smackaholic]

I do have one concern with "clean diesel". It gets clean using some fancy shmancy processes that 88 or mikey could prolly explain better than I. And this along with the ridiculous diesel light truck HP wars have brought us such gems as the post 7.3 powerstrokes. The 7.3 was an awesome motor. The 6.0 and 6.4 (I think) have been disasters on a 80s GM 350 diesel scale. They have allegedly worked out these bugs with the new 6.7, but, time will tell.

As for the noise, real men, the type with testicles (and prolly a few bulldykes) thing an old school diesel truck sound is music, particularly the cummins. It's fukking badass, especially when that big turbo gets spooled up. Of course I have never owned one of those beasts and perhaps the novelty would wear off after a few hundred thousand miles, but, that is what good stereo systems are for.

I did own an old 300SD that I drove to about 350K before it rotted out from under me. What an awesome rig. Too bad MB build quality has gone to shit since then.

[Van]

I did own an old 300SD that I drove to about 350K before it rotted out from under me.

Yeah, I had fun with that one.

[smackaholic]

I did own an old 300SD that I drove to about 350K before it rotted out from under me.

Yeah, I had fun with that one.

that was long before smackaholic's yard became smackaholic's yard. actually, it was a combination of pretty severe skin cancer and my moving to TN. I ended giving it to my mechanic. It had various other issues that come with being a 15 year old car with a third of a million miles on the clock, but that damn I5 turbodiesel would run forever.

[LTS TRN 2]

The old Mercedes turbo diesels aren't even in the conversation. In fact the old diesels were the worst invention ever. And make no mistake, I'm not suggesting that the new clean diesel is some sort of magic fix, but rather just a practical direction for the immediate future. As to why Big Oil artificially jacked the price of diesel fuel--and maintains this with the mealy excuses provided by SS, consider that if everyone--or most drivers--are suddenly getting 40 and 45 mpg, well that's damn near twice the regular mileage--and thus half the normal profits for the rapacious and amoral planet-killing corporate whores. Look, ALL they want is for you to , A) believe the derisive and dismissive smears against Green Energy offered by paid hacks like Hannity and so forth (and yes, corporate fuckstains like the Koch brothers are paying him--as well as financing the entire fake "Tea Party" bullshit): and, B) just keep on driving along getting twenty-three mpg. That's as far as their business plan goes, nothing more.

[LTS TRN 2]

Get it together, SS, you're stuck in suggesting that the new clean ("green") diesel is comparable to the old version. The new one is not smelly, slow, or somehow less sexy. On the contrary, they issue LESS emissions than even a hybrid, as well as better mileage than a hybrid. The performance is also dramatically improved in terms of acceleration, etc. And the models with the green diesel are not more expensive. Keeping up? Okay, now with this accurate picture in mind, consider the the demand for these vehicles if the price of diesel weer kept at its traditional cheaper cost than gasoline. And why was it always cheaper? Because processing diesel fuel is much easier and cheaper--regardless of the official lies pumped out by the oil companies. They know that a stampede would ensue straight towards every VW dealer in the country if diesel fuel was , oh..forty or fifty cents cheaper. So, perhaps they don't want to help out VW (and Audi with its one model). But the reasons offered for the artificial price jacking are bullshit. Just like Exxon's promises on pipeline safety.