Gasoline keeps going up and up and up

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

The latest excuse for price hikes (at least in Canada) is a shortfall in supply due to a lack of refining capability. Seems that this excuse has been around for years. My questuion is: why the heck don't they FIX the problem and BUILD more refineries? Do you get the feeling that you're being sold a bill of goods? Why are we allowing ourselves to be held hostage to petroleum? Also, it seems that ethanol isn't the magic world saving fuel afterall....maybe we're neing sold another bill of goods on this one as well....(hint it's good for the farmers who grow corn but not so good for the environment).

[Northwind]

Dude/dudette

two words


"PEAK OIL"

include the quotation marks and google it!!

but be warned, the truth will hurt :evil:

[NEOWatcher]

...My questuion is: why the heck don't they FIX the problem and BUILD more refineries?
Put yourself in the oil industries shoes (Hypothetically):
Do I spend millions of dollars and EPA involvement so I can sell 5% more gas for more profit? Or do I do nothing and get 10% more profit on the gas I can produce?
It's going to take government to do it, and they are going to need a darn good reason that's good for the country. In the meantime, with supplies and foreign policies the way it is, it is more important to make the move off of oil. Making oil and gas expensive makes it easier to make the switch.
Unfortunately, this thinking does fill the pockets of big oil (or at least the CEO's and shareholders). It is (or at least seems) unfair, but what is the solution?

[Ronald Brak]

If oil prices rise then people will cut back on the amount of gasoline they use and any increased refineing capacity will go to waste, so it is a big risk for companies to add to capacity. But if one company increases capacity and prices drop, then the company that increased capacity can make big money. If no one is adding capacity then it suggests that the companies don't think oil prices are going to come down.

I will also mention that the reported reason for price increases may or may not be related to reality.

There are many factors affecting oil prices, but a biggie is there is that the earth is running out of easily extractable sweet crude. Small, sweet oil refineries have been shut down while capacity at large refineries has been expanded with capital expensive equipment required to refine icky cruddy oil.

[NEOWatcher]

I will also mention that the reported reason for price increases may or may not be related to reality.
And that is why everyone is complaining. It just fluctuates for no "real" reason.
There are many factors affecting oil prices, but a biggie is there is that the earth is running out of easily extractable sweet crude.
In a way you are right, but at this point, it is easy to extract it and readily so. Although I am in no way advocating we do this. Shortages are mainly political, and prices fluctuate due to forecast panic.

[Musashi]

My questuion is: why the heck don't they FIX the problem and BUILD more refineries?


NIMBY

Dude/dudette

two words


"PEAK OIL"

include the quotation marks and google it!!

but be warned, the truth will hurt :evil:

:doh:

[Ronald Brak]

NIMBY

Lack of cheap oilby. They have shutdown the local refinery here and mothballed it. If you truely lack refining capacity please make a deal to use ours. The local government here will love you.

[Jerry]

The last time I looked inside the earth, there was a finite supply of oil, and it is requiring more and more calories per barrel to get it to the surface.

Oil prices are manipulated by speculators in a greedy marketplace, but the underlying issue is raw Keysian supply-and-demand. Whether or not we are at the real peak level of production is secondary to the fact that we are close to it; and speculators know demand will eventually outstrip the supply...likely now, at the start of the US and European vacation season.

Don't expect large drops in oil prices - you can scream all you want about manipulation - the fact is the price is driven by supply, demand, greed, and speculation. If speculators think the supply is running short, and cannot keep up with demand, the price will continue to rise until they think otherwise.

[Pinemarten]

This is a synopsis of an article explaining the price of gas:

-the main cause is limited refining in North America.
-hardly any new refining for car/tuck fuel has been added in 20 years or so
-political pressure is choking new investment, no tax benefits etc.
-increased consumption by China and India, has shrunk the "flow" of refined gasoline from abroad
-the high cost benefits almost everyone except us:
-limited supply increases profit margins for oil companies
-higher cost increases government revenue without raising taxes
- 'green' groups don't want more industry (refineries) and want us to use less fuel
-if the price goes down people use more, and the reserves get depleted
-were stuck with high prices and there is nothing we can do about it

[Moose]

Actually, I saw a leaked report about five years ago (which got no press play whatsoever) that showed refinery margins (for a certain very-large well-known oil company) had approximately doubled from two years prior, and the price of gas went up in a proportion twice that of oil prices.

Coincidentally, this covered the same time gas prices first spiked.

If Big Oil is running wildly record profits (which they are), you have your answer why gas prices are so high.

[Pinemarten]

I think it mostly due to storage capacity. If the price goes down the reserves of refined gas go down. Does anyone have a link to how much gas we have on hand in North America? Is there a daily/weekly report somewhere?

[Pinemarten]

Found one:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/wpsr.html

Edit:
Added this link from the US government that explains gas pricing:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/eia1_2005primerM.html

[Gillianren]

Our gas prices have gone up about 30 cents in the last month or so.

[mr obvious]

[ joke ] I heard that some prankster was running around putting Gas-X tablets in the tanks, thereby relieving the cars of gas and thereby causing a shortage [ /joke ]

I wonder whether the run up in prices is what caused Chavez to take control of the refineries.

[Selenite]

I bought a hybrid last year. It's not a perfect solution to be sure but it's helping me keep my sanity when I drive by the local gas stations.

[Gillianren]

When I can afford a car, a hybrid is the current plan. As it is, I take the bus a lot, which is cheaper but less convenient. I missed a bus by five minutes this evening and had to wait nearly an hour for the next one--which was the last one; it left the mall at 9:58.

[davidlpf]

The latest excuse for price hikes (at least in Canada) is a shortfall in supply due to a lack of refining capability. Seems that this excuse has been around for years. My questuion is: why the heck don't they FIX the problem and BUILD more refineries? Do you get the feeling that you're being sold a bill of goods? Why are we allowing ourselves to be held hostage to petroleum? Also, it seems that ethanol isn't the magic world saving fuel afterall....maybe we're neing sold another bill of goods on this one as well....(hint it's good for the farmers who grow corn but not so good for the environment).
There are plans to expand a certain refinery in a certain southern New Brunswick city, but will not help much globally, it will just help a certain family get richer.

[Mister Earl]

Wonder why they couldn't make a portable quantum nucleonic reactor to run electric cars. The mechanism is absurdly simple, and a small enough unit should be able to require minimal shielding and provide adequate power (speculation on my part of course).

[crosscountry]

I paid the equalivalent of $6.63 per gallon today.

[cbacba]

Put yourself in the oil industries shoes (Hypothetically):
Do I spend millions of dollars and EPA involvement so I can sell 5% more gas for more profit? Or do I do nothing and get 10% more profit on the gas I can produce?
It's going to take government to do it, and they are going to need a darn good reason that's good for the country. In the meantime, with supplies and foreign policies the way it is, it is more important to make the move off of oil. Making oil and gas expensive makes it easier to make the switch.
Unfortunately, this thinking does fill the pockets of big oil (or at least the CEO's and shareholders). It is (or at least seems) unfair, but what is the solution?

The government did it.

Bans on drilling, impossible requirements on new refineries not required of old ones.

When oil and gas become expensive, other alternatives will start to predominate. When oil and gas prices are artificially driven high by non market forces, means that nothing gets done because the risk that it will be undone is so high that it's a virtual guaranteed loss - like investing in mining on the moon back in the 1920s. If nothing else, high taxes could create quite a black market of untaxed gas.

To the extent that oil is a commodity, it's as cheap as possible. To the extent it becomes differentiated by brand (or special formulations unique to one producer) or that it becomes a government protected monopoly, that's where prices really start to soar.

Just remember, that last gallon of gasoline you put in your tank brought the various levels of government something between 40 and 50 cents of direct taxes. It might have brought the gas station/convenience store 5 to 12 cents of profit and it probably brought the oil company 10 to 12 cents of profit. That's because there are independent gas stations, there are independent refineries, etc. etc. etc. and while each portion of the stream from exploration to production, refining, distribution and retail sales might or might not have been independently owned by the oil company whom you thought you bought the gasoline from. For instance the gasoline could have come from another company's refinery, via another company's pipeline, from another company's ship, from yet another company's oil field. Each facet has it's own costs and must generate its own profit as that facet may not be a part of the oil company's own stream, just like a gas station may be a franchise rather than an oil company's own property - hence it would be a serious problem - were the oil company to give away gas at their own convenience stores selling it at the same price it goes to some mom and pop store/station - that's congressional hearing, prosecution by the government sort of stuff there.

Oil trading is done for supply, demand and transportation cost reasons - not for obfuscation purposes. Trading oil can cut down on transportation for instance. If you think the supply demand stuff with the oil industry is confusing or bad, just look at the electric utility industry. There you're dealing with microseconds for trading and exchanges with the possibility of death and destruction occurring as consequences of failing to do so successfully.

[NEOWatcher]

If you think the supply demand stuff with the oil industry is confusing or bad, just look at the electric utility industry. There you're dealing with microseconds for trading and exchanges with the possibility of death and destruction occurring as consequences of failing to do so successfully.
For the most part, I do agree with you. But, we do have a difference in the oil industry. Oil is almost purely market driven. Any price fluctuations anywhere on the chain, causes a quick chain reaction. The example you give of the electric industry is a good comparison, but there are differences that kind of soften the issues.

One is that the suppliers usually/alot/some have fixed price contracts with the distributer. And although the supply and demand issues are immediate, the passing of costs is not as quick.

You also have a situation where one power source spikes in cost, the cheaper alternatives are geared up. With oil, that's all you got.

My biggest beef with the issues we are having is alternate infrastructure. Yes, the price is going to spark some new development, but if we hit the point of gas shortages, then my only alternatives are human transportation.

There's not a heck of a lot of alternative fuel cars. There are no electric fueling stations, there are no hydrogen outlets, and I'm sure if I put my mind to it, there's more. Sure these issues can be considered market driven, but they can also be eased or kick-started with some kinds of government regulations or assistance.

[Moose]

Just remember, that last gallon of gasoline you put in your tank brought the various levels of government something between 40 and 50 cents of direct taxes. It might have brought the gas station/convenience store 5 to 12 cents of profit and it probably brought the oil company 10 to 12 cents of profit.

The leaked report I've seen suggested the oil company's margin is a considerably higher proportion of the total price than that. Much higher than the (US) taxes even, and with the doubling of their margin, higher than OPEC's take.

It's days like this I regret not having grabbed a copy while I was reading it.

[Ronald Brak]

There's not a heck of a lot of alternative fuel cars. There are no electric fueling stations, there are no hydrogen outlets, and I'm sure if I put my mind to it, there's more. Sure these issues can be considered market driven, but they can also be eased or kick-started with some kinds of government regulations or assistance.

A standard electrical socket can charge an electric car or plug in hybrid overnight. Of course fast charge equipment at service stations would be convenient. Electric and plug in hybrids cars are currently rare and not everyones cup of tea at the moment, but they will be much improved and cheaper in a few years. They might be the only sort of car the average Indian or Chinese middle class family cold afford to run if oil continues to increase in price.

[NEOWatcher]

The leaked report I've seen suggested the oil company's margin is a considerably higher proportion of the total price than that. Much higher than the (US) taxes even, and with the doubling of their margin, higher than OPEC's take.
But; with the complexity of the distribution chain, I think the only way to see the overall oil profit is by looking at the company's net profit.

I followed pinemartin's link...
Added this link from the US government that explains gas pricing:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/eia1_2005primerM.html

And still had a hard time with the determination. They have a comparison between the 2004 and 2005 costs, but I have some issues with that.

They show it by percentages: Ok, but when you have a combination of relatively fixed costs, and wildly fluctuating costs, it's hard to compare apples and oranges.

They show the average yearly costs: With the fluctuations in prices, the effects of the peaks tend to get hidden.

The catagories used include profit:
- Distribution & Marketing (includes supplier profit)
- Refining costs & profit (Yep)
- Federal & State taxes (ok, not profit)
- Crude oil (a portion of which is US supplies with US profits)

So; where do you draw the line at gouging? I certainly don't have an answer, but that doesn't mean I'm not frustrated.

[Ronald Brak]

The leaked report I've seen suggested the oil company's margin is a considerably higher proportion of the total price than that. Much higher than the (US) taxes even, and with the doubling of their margin, higher than OPEC's take.

It's days like this I regret not having grabbed a copy while I was reading it.

Oil companies can make huge profits from a supply sqeeze without actually doing anything dubious. Any oil company that owns an oil producing field (or simply has long term contracts) will make large profits when there is an oil supply squeeze. Because there isn't enough oil to go around the people bid the price up. The people who bought the oil field when it was cheap make huge profits. Even if the oil companies were non profit charities, without rationing, the oil would still cost almost the same. Of course more profits would then be spent on charity rather than sports cars and high class entertainment than currently.

[Moose]

But; with the complexity of the distribution chain, I think the only way to see the overall oil profit is by looking at the company's net profit.

Exxon has been reporting consecutive record profits for a while now.

[NEOWatcher]

Exxon has been reporting consecutive record profits for a while now.
Which brings us to the next point.
Is record profits considered gouging, or is it considered getting what they finally expect. Do we gauge it on percentages of sales? of cost? of GDP? of total dollars? To be realistic, there has to be some line that can be drawn to say profits are reasonable.
Right now the emotions are running that line toward the gouging end (me too, but I'm trying to look at it logically).
My only thought on this is that maybe we should compare the profits with formulas used in regulated industries.

[SeanF]

Yes, the price is going to spark some new development, but if we hit the point of gas shortages, then my only alternatives are human transportation.
True, but keep in mind that artificial price suppression is more likely to cause shortages than prevent them.

Exxon has been reporting consecutive record profits for a while now.
Record profits <> record profit margins. Exxon's market is expanding (China, etc.), so they're selling more oil. That doesn't necessarily mean they're making more profit per unit - although it does pretty much mean they should be. :)

[Moose]

I didn't say record profit margins, Sean. I said "roughly doubled" their profit margins, and that their margin was a very large component of the "pump price", much larger than cbacba was suggesting, again according to the leaked report I saw.

[NEOWatcher]

True, but keep in mind that artificial price suppression is more likely to cause shortages than prevent them.
Exactly the reason we need alternatives instead of just "doing" something about oil.

[Moose]

Is record profits considered gouging, or is it considered getting what they finally expect.

It depends on whether or not you drive your own car during your morning commute.

[Gillianren]

I just can't fathom the demand for gas rose enough here in the month of April to increase the price thirty cents a gallon.

[NEOWatcher]

I just can't fathom the demand for gas rose enough here in the month of April to increase the price thirty cents a gallon.
It's hard for me to explain, but the same situation occurs with computers. You never want your computer to continually run above a certain percentage of your capacity, because even though statistically you are running with idle processor, a peak in demand will make everything grind to a halt.

Or think of a very large pie with 100 slices for instance.
Whether 95 people want it, or 98 people want it, it's not going to make much difference. Get to 99 or 100, and somebody is going to offer more to make sure they have a slice in case somebody walks through the door. Get to 101, and people are going to start a bidding war so they don't miss out on the pie.

[Pinemarten]

I just can't fathom the demand for gas rose enough here in the month of April to increase the price thirty cents a gallon.

I have never taken an economics course, but from what I gather they have to keep increasing the price until the supply is maintained. A higher price lowers consumption.
I have seen price reductions brought in to lower storage levels when they start to peak. These may only last a day or so, but enough people 'tank up' during that time to bring the levels to normal.

[cbacba]

The leaked report I've seen suggested the oil company's margin is a considerably higher proportion of the total price than that. Much higher than the (US) taxes even, and with the doubling of their margin, higher than OPEC's take.

It's days like this I regret not having grabbed a copy while I was reading it.

You can figure it out yourself if you desire to search the web. The only way you can say an oil company makes more than 10 or 12 cents a gal. is if you include profits from different parts of the oil stream which they may or may not own and which may or may not have transpired in that life history of the last gallon of gas in your tank I mentioned. It's easiest to see during the latter part of the stream. Lets say that the oil company can only make so much money on a gallon - which it does by say the refinery stage. Now, if the oil company has it's own distributor, shipping and/or retailer - then they would be given unfair competitive advantage over the non oil company owned companies involved in distribution, shipping and retailing. Of course, the oil company would have trouble as soon as it buys gasoline from another refinery as it would be giving it away at cost to the downstream companies.

The same thing goes for the upstream factors. THese are different operating entities, some are owned by oil companies some are owned by other oil companies and some are owned by other companies involved in the oil industry. If an oil company buys a refinery, that's a new business and if it doesn't make a profit, then it's a wasted investment. If they just give their product to the downstream, then no other refinery could compete with them for business with that oil company - probably bringing in some sort giant investigation.

If you start with oil prices per barrel - bear in mind that is 42 gal/bbl figure in a good 40 -50 cents/gal for typical us/local taxes and the final price of the gas at the pumps and then go put in costs/charges for the various aspects involved in this and you'll find out there's not that much left for profit and expenses. Note that you have to allocate profits at each level of the stream because there are companies involved other than just oil companies and an oil company may be selling you gasoline that isn't coming from some part of their stream but rather bought it from some other company or hired some other company to do the job.

[mugaliens]

I just can't fathom the demand for gas rose enough here in the month of April to increase the price thirty cents a gallon.

The demand remains fairly constant. What most influences the price of gas is supply, which is artificially controlled by everone in the pipeline from OPEC to Exxon.

And the likes of CNN are to blame, too. Believe it or not, without news coverage that inflames everyone's fears of a Mideast meltdown, you'd be paying 90 cents at the pumps, because the people in the pipeline wouldn't be able to get away with jacking the prices so high.

The sooner we're able to move to an alternative, like whisker capacitance recharged by nuclear-produced electricity, the sooner we can say, "What? You want to sell us oil? That's a good one, really! Sorry, though, don't need any today. Might need a can or two in a year when it's time to regrease the door hinges in my house..."

[Gillianren]

And the likes of CNN are to blame, too. Believe it or not, without news coverage that inflames everyone's fears of a Mideast meltdown, you'd be paying 90 cents at the pumps, because the people in the pipeline wouldn't be able to get away with jacking the prices so high.

Sorry, I don't believe it. For one, our gas tax in Washington is high enough so that I doubt it's possible. For another, during a relatively stable time in the Middle East (there is no stable time there and pretty much never has been) when I was first learning to drive, before the gas taxes were passed, gas was $1.30 a gallon in Gig Harbor, Washington.

[mugaliens]

Sorry, I don't believe it. For one, our gas tax in Washington is high enough so that I doubt it's possible. For another, during a relatively stable time in the Middle East (there is no stable time there and pretty much never has been) when I was first learning to drive, before the gas taxes were passed, gas was $1.30 a gallon in Gig Harbor, Washington.

Reality does not require your belief in order for it to exist, Gillianren, and the comments you make above have nothing to do with the very well-known (among business circles) economics of supply and demand, nor with the political ramifications as they exist in our world today.

[mr obvious]

Take a look at:
http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm

It shows the history of gas prices, adjusted for inflation. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the website but do not have any reason to doubt it either. If it's accurate, then you'll see that gas prices have remained roughly level, with a slight trend to decreasing, even accounting for the recent rise, which is quite sharp.

Thus, in actuality we've been underpaying for gasoline for the last two decades and are only now going back to the historical price. I wonder why the prices of a loaf of bread or gallon of milk, excluding nice sales, aren't getting the same complaints.

While I agree that having a nice alternative for power (such as nuclear) might be useful, it's another matter entirely to simply relegate oil to lubrication. Pretty much all plastics are made from oil. If I recall correctly, a large amount of petroleum and petroleum products are used for fertilization. So it's not just power generation we'd need alternatives for.

[crosscountry]

Mr. Obvious, plants make oil too. there are things we can do with agriculture that we are currently not doing that would offset some of our dependence on oil.

[mr obvious]

I would love to hear more, crosscountry, about the oil from plants that we might use for multiple purposes. In the US the hot-topic is all about ethanol from corn, and already studies have been suggesting that it's not the panacea it is being touted as.

So, if there were a way to get a viable substitute via, say corn oil, that didn't end up costing more in terms of crude petroleum, I'm interested. The technique can't simply shift the crude use somewhere else, though, which is sometimes the deal-breaker.

[crosscountry]

I have read that hemp (and I realize the larger discussion involved) actually produces more oil than corn, is just as renewable and also serves many other purposes.

Where as it takes 2 gallons of deisel to make 1 gallon of Ethanol, it might also with hemp, but they we'd also have fabric, paper, and much more. Plus think about this: help is renewable every year. Trees take 20 or more to become worthy of harvesting. So we'd have maybe 10x the paper and could let our forests be used for other things.

not to mention the economical impact of a whole new crop.



I don't even like talking about hemp. People think you're into drugs or some crazy hippie. I just wanted to discuss the potential gains.

[Maksutov]

A standard electrical socket can charge an electric car or plug in hybrid overnight. Of course fast charge equipment at service stations would be convenient. Electric and plug in hybrids cars are currently rare and not everyones cup of tea at the moment, but they will be much improved and cheaper in a few years. They might be the only sort of car the average Indian or Chinese middle class family cold afford to run if oil continues to increase in price.But, how is the electricity generated?

:think:

[Maksutov]

I love the gasoline free market, where every station in town has the same prices.

[JohnD]

Above the quoted price was $6.63/gallon.
You poor, poor babies.

In the UK we pay £1 a LITRE, and even while the dollar has sunk to the lowest exchange for ?50 years against the pound sterling, that's still $10 a gallon. Hasn't changed in the last year or so, so I'm not convinced about some of the above arguments, though our price is buffered by a very high component of tax on fuel.

John

[Ronald Brak]

But, how is the electricity generated?

Depends on where you live. Generally it's not from oil. The point I was making was that as long as you have an extension cord it's not too difficult to recharge an electric car or plug in hybrid in most areas.

[Maksutov]

The latest excuse for price hikes (at least in Canada) is a shortfall in supply due to a lack of refining capability. Seems that this excuse has been around for years. My questuion is: why the heck don't they FIX the problem and BUILD more refineries? Do you get the feeling that you're being sold a bill of goods? Why are we allowing ourselves to be held hostage to petroleum? Also, it seems that ethanol isn't the magic world saving fuel afterall....maybe we're neing sold another bill of goods on this one as well....(hint it's good for the farmers who grow corn but not so good for the environment).Banquo, the solution is simple. Just harness all those bumble puppies and they will get you where you want to go.

[Maksutov]

Depends on where you live. Generally it's not from oil. The point I was making was that as long as you have an extension cord it's not too difficult to recharge an electric car or plug in hybrid in most areas.But almost everywhere the extension cord extends to fossil fuels. And a lot of them are burning oil, coal, and gas. All you have here is a redistribution of power generated by fossil fuels.

Power transmission involves losses.

So where's the gain?

[crosscountry]

Above the quoted price was $6.63/gallon.
You poor, poor babies.

In the UK we pay £1 a LITRE, and even while the dollar has sunk to the lowest exchange for ?50 years against the pound sterling, that's still $10 a gallon. Hasn't changed in the last year or so, so I'm not convinced about some of the above arguments, though our price is buffered by a very high component of tax on fuel.

John


um, I think you guys use larger gallons. And that price is quoted at 1.32 Euro per liter - or about 1Pound per liter.









someone please tell me why this is wrong

alternative fuel (http://s70.photobucket.com/albums/i105/jamekwilson/VIDEO/?action=view&current=WaterFuel1.flv)

[Ronald Brak]

But almost everywhere the extension cord extends to fossil fuels. And a lot of them are burning oil, coal, and gas. All you have here is a redistribution of power generated by fossil fuels.

Power transmission involves losses.

So where's the gain?

The gain is, electricity to drive an electric car about as far as a gallon of gasoline costs about 75 cents. Thus they can cut your fuel bills by maybe three quaters in the United States and by much more in most countries. In addition electric motors require less maintenance so that's also another area when many can be saved.

[Maksutov]

The gain is, electricity to drive an electric car about as far as a gallon of gasoline costs about 75 cents. Thus they can cut your fuel bills by maybe three quaters in the United States and by much more in most countries. In addition electric motors require less maintenance so that's also another area when many can be saved.Supporting evidence, please?

[Ronald Brak]

Supporting evidence, please?

Um, the gas station on the corner charges about $1.04 U.S. for a liter of gasoline and according to my electricity bill I pay nearly 13 cents U.S. for a kilowatt-hour of electicity. Do the math.

[crosscountry]

no need


electric companies are designed with maximum efficiency. cars get somewhere in the teens for percent efficiency. if we plugged in cars instead of buring gas we'd automatically increase efficiency.

[Ronald Brak]

Um, the gas station on the corner charges about $1.04 U.S. for a liter of gasoline and according to my electricity bill I pay nearly 13 cents U.S. for a kilowatt-hour of electicity. Do the math.

Just in case you don't have the figures on hand I've made this list to help you:

A liter of gasoline has about 34.6 megajoules.
A kilowatt-hour is 3.6 megajoules.
Inverting AC to DC can cause a 7% loss or less depending on the inverter.
Charge/discharge efficiency can be over 99% for lithium-ion batteries and around 75%-85% for lead-acid batteries.
An electric car can be 90% efficient while gasoline powered cars are about 20% efficient at converting energy into work.

[Maksutov]

Just in case you don't have the figures on hand I've made this list to help you:

A liter of gasoline has about 34.6 megajoules.
A kilowatt-hour is 3.6 megajoules.
Inverting AC to DC can cause a 7% loss or less depending on the inverter.
Charge/discharge efficiency can be over 99% for lithium-ion batteries and around 75%-85% for lead-acid batteries.
An electric car can be 90% efficient while gasoline powered cars are about 20% efficient at converting energy into work.Fine.

But where's the electricity coming from for certain amphibians?

Not from Avogadro's frog legs, I hope.

Although the effect is similar.

[mugaliens]

Take a look at:
http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm

It shows the history of gas prices, adjusted for inflation. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the website but do not have any reason to doubt it either.

It matches what I've seen elsewhere.

Thus, in actuality we've been underpaying for gasoline for the last two decades and are only now going back to the historical price.

Why shouldn't constant-dollar costs drop as automation improves and shipping designs get bigger (economies of scale) and more efficient (super-computer-designed hulls and propulsion systems)?

I wonder why the prices of a loaf of bread or gallon of milk, excluding nice sales, aren't getting the same complaints.

Most of which show constant-dollar decreases...

While I agree that having a nice alternative for power (such as nuclear) might be useful, it's another matter entirely to simply relegate oil to lubrication. Pretty much all plastics are made from oil. If I recall correctly, a large amount of petroleum and petroleum products are used for fertilization. So it's not just power generation we'd need alternatives for.

Then it's past the time where we need to switch to nuclear, because at current and projected consumption rates we're out of oil by 2045 (natural gas before that), which means most plastics will disappear off the market, and our food production will dwindle.

[mugaliens]

Mr. Obvious, plants make oil too. there are things we can do with agriculture that we are currently not doing that would offset some of our dependence on oil.

Yes, and it took hundreds of millions of years for those plants, worldwide, to make the oil we've consumed in the last 100 years at a rate approximately 5 Million times faster than it was formed. Those who think we can make up the difference with biofuels are sadly mistaken.

[mugaliens]

Um, the gas station on the corner charges about $1.04 U.S. for a liter of gasoline and according to my electricity bill I pay nearly 13 cents U.S. for a kilowatt-hour of electicity. Do the math.

No need, Cross Country? Evidently there is!

1 Gal Gasoline = 125,000 Btu = 36.6 kilowatt hour

However, the ICE is about 35% efficient (I'm guessing, here), while electric motors, the grid, etc., are about 80% efficient (from the burning of the fuel to the HP on the wheels).

So, $4 of gas yields an electrical equivalent of about 16 kw-hrs, which costs around $1.60

Yeah - I'm all for plugging in, reducing demand, and lowering the price of oil!

The problem is, we've not yet implemented an efficient way to do so. However, the promise of this technology (http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology/disruptors_eestor.biz2/index.htm)just might do the trick!

EEStor's device is not technically a battery because no chemicals are involved. In fact, it contains no hazardous materials whatsoever. Yet it acts like a battery in that it stores electricity. If it works as it's supposed to, it will charge up in five minutes and provide enough energy to drive 500 miles on about $9 worth of electricity. At today's gas prices, covering that distance can cost $60 or more; the EEStor device would power a car for the equivalent of about 45 cents a gallon.

[Moose]

The problem is, we've not yet implemented an efficient way to do so. However, the promise of this technology (http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology/disruptors_eestor.biz2/index.htm)just might do the trick!

Sounds good. (Too good, really. Sounds like a very slight step back from perpetual motion, the free-energy process, and/or cold fusion.) Hopefully it's not a venture captial scam like nearly all other "technologies" of this type have turned out to be.

[dhd40]

I´ve looked through this thread very quickly, so I may have overlooked some arguments, maybe, this one: If you were the CEO of an oil company, being forced to present record profit margins (total margins, not per-gallon-margins!), day-to-day, how would you react if gas consumption went down, day-to-day? Pinemarten said: A higher price lowers consumption. I would say: A lower consumption increases the price. Therefore, I recommend to buy electric and plug in hybrids cars. And I would like to see some really unbiased studies comparing the environmental impact of these as compared to BAT conventional cars.

[mr obvious]

It matches what I've seen elsewhere.



Why shouldn't constant-dollar costs drop as automation improves and shipping designs get bigger (economies of scale) and more efficient (super-computer-designed hulls and propulsion systems)?

Because there's only a limited amount of oil available. I'm not advocating peak oil per se, but to assume that we can simply continue to increase efficiency indefinitely and keep obtaining more oil as time goes on is far too optimistic. I think most automation improvements now are in terms of making less pollution and/or taking up less space, not in terms of being able to process more oil. Sure, there are increases in efficiency to be gained, but those technologies have already existed, and do not represent a new way of processing or drilling for oil.


Most of which show constant-dollar decreases...


Perhaps those two items specifically (I haven't checked) but the concept of CPI is that inflation is tied to basic commodities, which bread and milk are part of. Thus, the average of all commodities is exactly inflation (as measured by the CPI), which increases, not decreases with time, recently. However, the process of making these products, if they are improved in efficiency as you suggest, should result in effective price decreases. Why not?

Okay, I've took a peek at some statistics. From here:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

The price of unleaded gasoline per gallon in 1980 is $1.131 (Jan figures). It dipped down and stayed kind of low but in Jan 2007 reached 2.274. In March it reached 2.592, which is 2.3 times the 1980 figure.

The price of white bread, per pound, in 1980 was $ 0.501 (Jan figures). It rose steadily and in Jan 2007 reached $ 1.153. In March it reached 1.161, which is 2.3 times the 1980 figure.

I chose the 1980 figure because that was as far back as I could go for bread.

I can't do milk because for some reason the figures only go to 1997. So, my tentative conclusion is that gas was underpriced for the past decade and is now only reaching it's historical price. It doesn't appear that bread is cheaper in terms of inflation. So again, why isn't anyone complaining about the prices for the other commodities? They aren't cheaper, adjusted for inflation, compared to oil.

NB - there are some exceptions. Eggs appear to be under 2 times the 1980 figure. On the other hand navel oranges are almost 3 times the 1980 figure. So I admit freely that I lucked out choosing bread, which matches gas. However, I'd say that as a general trend, it's not accurate to say fuel went up more than other commodities, if you look at a span longer than a decade.


Then it's past the time where we need to switch to nuclear, because at current and projected consumption rates we're out of oil by 2045 (natural gas before that), which means most plastics will disappear off the market, and our food production will dwindle.

I don't know when we'll run out of oil to within a year, but I agree with finding alternatives, whatever they may be.

[mugaliens]

Because there's only a limited amount of oil available. I'm not advocating peak oil per se, but to assume that we can simply continue to increase efficiency indefinitely and keep obtaining more oil as time goes on is far too optimistic.

Then, perhaps, it's past time that the world at large began working in earnest towards an alternative?

Hmm?

Thus, the average of all commodities is exactly inflation (as measured by the CPI)...

The CPI is an estimate, nothing more. The smart shopper watches which items increase the most, and eliminates those from his/her shopping list, unless absolutely necessary to the existence of life.

[Pinemarten]

someone please tell me why this is wrong

alternative fuel (http://s70.photobucket.com/albums/i105/jamekwilson/VIDEO/?action=view&current=WaterFuel1.flv)

He is using electricity to crack water and yield a hydrogen based gas. If the cost of the electricity is factored in, it costs more to run his car on water than gasoline.

[Pinemarten]

I have read that hemp (and I realize the larger discussion involved) actually produces more oil than corn, is just as renewable and also serves many other purposes.

Where as it takes 2 gallons of deisel to make 1 gallon of Ethanol, it might also with hemp, but they we'd also have fabric, paper, and much more. Plus think about this: help is renewable every year. Trees take 20 or more to become worthy of harvesting. So we'd have maybe 10x the paper and could let our forests be used for other things.

not to mention the economical impact of a whole new crop.



I don't even like talking about hemp. People think you're into drugs or some crazy hippie. I just wanted to discuss the potential gains.

In British Columbia they have trees and legal hemp farms. The mayor of Grand Forks owns one. The most viable use of hemp is to replace existing clothing materials, it is cheaper than oil/chemical-based polyester/nylons, and lasts longer than cotton etc.

The timber harvest in BC is only about 1% of the total; annually. There is more growing back each year than is cut down. Replanting has been going on since the 1950s.

[Pinemarten]

Depends on where you live. Generally it's not from oil. The point I was making was that as long as you have an extension cord it's not too difficult to recharge an electric car or plug in hybrid in most areas.

Anyone know the volts and amp/hours on electric/hybrid car batteries?
The math for cost of charger and charging can be done from there.

[Pinemarten]

I´ve looked through this thread very quickly, so I may have overlooked some arguments, maybe, this one: If you were the CEO of an oil company, being forced to present record profit margins (total margins, not per-gallon-margins!), day-to-day, how would you react if gas consumption went down, day-to-day? Pinemarten said: A higher price lowers consumption. I would say: A lower consumption increases the price. Therefore, I recommend to buy electric and plug in hybrids cars. And I would like to see some really unbiased studies comparing the environmental impact of these as compared to BAT conventional cars.

If we all stopped driving fossil fuelled cars this would be true.
Oil refining capacity barely keeps up with consumption.

You may have missed this post that explains it:
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=979960&postcount=9

[Parrothead]

The price dropped about 5 cents/litre towards the end of last week, back to $1.02/litre. I'll be awaiting the excuse for the 10 cent/litre increase, that is surely to come, ahead of the "May 2-4" weekend. ;) We could always drown our sorrows with the Bob and Doug MacKenzie Reunion Show. Coo-roo-coo-coo-coo-coo-coo-coo. Coo-roo-coo-coo-coo-coo-coo-coo. Good grief, the "International Hoser Day Parade" happened 25 years ago!? Take-off, eh. With gas prices as they are, I may end up frying more back bacon in the trunk of the car, as filling the car with gas will be too costly! ;) LOL!

[Pinemarten]

That is what they hope you do. Gas up before or after the long weekend, to keep the reserves more manageable during the long weekend. All the US markets will be closed for 3 days, it will be interesting to see the price of crude before and after. If it does a big drop right after, you can expect pump prices to go down for a day or two.

[davidm]

Dude/dudette

two words


"PEAK OIL"

include the quotation marks and google it!!

but be warned, the truth will hurt :evil:

Correct. I started a thread on this last year and received a good deal of abuse, much of it clearly in violation of the rules here. None of it was moderated. More, I received an incredible number of silly and uninformed comments. I was amazed at how gullible a board of skeptics turned out to be.

Peak oil is real. There are strong indications that we may have already passed the global peak of oil production.

Some grim facts:

The U.S. Lower 48 Peak Oil Discovery took place in the 1930s.

The U.S. Lower 48 Peak Oil Production took place in 1971. Today, we produce less than half the oil that we did then; not because, as some seem to think, that Big Oil lacks "incentive" to drill. Rather, we are producing flat out all that we can, and the oil just is not there.

Global Peak Discovery took place in 1964. That is, in 1964, more oil was discovered worldwide than any year before or since.

Replacements for fossil fuels are pipe dreams. Nothing, in the context of modern civilization, from solar to nuclear to hydrogen to what have you, even remotely scales to meet what oil and other fossil fuels give us. Those who think otherwise are ignoring the crucial facts of Energy Returned Over Energy Invested (EROEI).

Natural gas and coal have their own peak production inevitability, given that like oil they are finite. The American coal industry estimates that we have 250 years'
worth of domestic coal supply at current use rates. Ramp up the use rates to replace oil after oil goes into terminal global decline, and it can be shown that the economically recoverable coal dwindles to less than a human lifetime.

The bottom line is that we have good, admittedly defeasible warrant to expect industrial/technological civilization to end in this century, probably before 2050.

Recall also that oil is implicated in virtually everthing that we we do; without plentiful and cheap oil and natural gas, say goodbye to fertilizers and pesticides, and with it the Green Revolution that has spurred a population increase so greath that humans are probably now overshooting their solar carrying capacity by about five billion people. Also, if industrial agriculture is forced to end because of an oil/natural gas shortage, we will not be able to return to pre-industrial agricultrue, because we (meaning we in the U.S.) have destroyed the topsoil.

We have good (again admittedly defeasible) warrant to suppose that five billion people, perhaps more, will depart the scene in this century, in a standard biological die-off that is quite common among other speices. Those who overlook this tend to forget that humans are animals, like any other.

[mugaliens]

Ok, I'm off into the trees, personal habitat in hand, including shelter, means for renewing my food source...

And Zero draw on the grid.

[Ronald Brak]

We have good (again admittedly defeasible) warrant to suppose that five billion people, perhaps more, will depart the scene in this century, in a standard biological die-off that is quite common among other speices. Those who overlook this tend to forget that humans are animals, like any other.

Well, let's think about this. The most important fertilizer is nitrogen. Farming uses a lot of nitrogen compounds. The Haber process which fixes nitrogen from the air currently uses fossil fuels, either natural gas or coal (but not oil), as a source of hydrogen. However, hydrogen can be generated from other sources such as splitting water. This suggests that no one need starve to death. The power to generate hydrogen can come from renewable sources. Such as wind solar and geothermal. Currently wind is competive in price with nuclear power and if it comes down in price it may be competitive with fossil fuels. Solar is on the verge of being competitive in certain very sunny areas and will certainly come down in price in the future. Geothermal power could also supply a great deal of power. So it seems likely that in the future energy can be acquired for little extra cost than it is now, and possibly cheaper than now.

I've heard some people say that we won't be able to make these changes because we will need oil to make these changes, but this isn't likely to be a problem because oil isn't going to suddenly disappear, it will just become very, very expensive. Also, almost no electricity is currently generated from oil, it is mostly used for transportation. Electricity is generated from natural gas, but most comes from other sources. A lack of oil won't hurt electrical generation which can provide power for the industrial capacity required to electrify transportation and exploit renewable power sources to provide power for it. There are quite a few electric cars and plug in hybrids coming onto the market. And sure it would really suck if you tried to drive a current electric car from Now York to Los Angelous as you would always be stopping to recharge your batteries, but a sucky road trip isn't as bad as five billion people dying.

[Maksutov]

Going back to the first post-WWII gasoline shortage, 1973-1974, I've always found it kind of peculiar how these "shortages" and subsequent price hikes have almost always been accompanied by stories about refinery fires, etc.

:think:

[farmerjumperdon]

Paid $3.09 per US gallon this past weekend, highest price I've ever paid.

I mostly agree with the post about it getting incrementally more expensive until there is incentive to develop alternatives on a scale that satisfies our needs. Sure, those alternatives have no chance of succeeding on that kind of scale yet; and why should they? Oil is still way too cheap. Humans have proven they need far more pain than this to overcome their resistance to change.

$3 ain't nothing. Wait until $5, and then $10. My bet is we will see a price that will drive large scale significant behavioral change well ahead of the wells running dry. Market forces work quite well with commodities like oil. Maybe it will take $20 per gallon, but we will see a price that makes people do more than whine; and then we will see truly significant resources poured into development of alternatives.

[Moose]

The people who are in a position to offer alternatives aren't the same people getting bled to (financial) death over transportation costs. They are, however, the same people in best position to profit most from high transportation costs.

Expect much (much) higher gas prices for the forseeable future.

[SeanF]

I love the gasoline free market, where every station in town has the same prices.
Just like every supermarket in town charges the same price for a gallon of milk?

Those cow farmers are gouging, I tell you!

[crosscountry]

Just like every supermarket in town charges the same price for a gallon of milk?

Those cow farmers are gouging, I tell you!


actually I think Milk prices are regulated by the government and some by dairy farmers. plus the subsidies.


I think without government intereference it would be much higher (the price of milk)

[Doodler]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/07/news/economy/gas_prices/index.htm?cnn=yes

$4 a gallon isn't out of the question.

[SeanF]

actually I think Milk prices are regulated by the government and some by dairy farmers. plus the subsidies.

I think without government intereference it would be much higher (the price of milk)
Milk probably wasn't my best choice for an example, then, was it? :shhh:

But, comparison shopping is pretty common. It just seems to me that "every [provider] in town [having] the same prices" just doesn't happen all that often on any product.

[NEOWatcher]

But, comparison shopping is pretty common. It just seems to me that "every [provider] in town [having] the same prices" just doesn't happen all that often on any product.
And people gripe when prices do differ. Locally, we had a major grocery chain pull out, and now people are griping that the same chain has different prices at different location.
So, this story (http://www.newsnet5.com/money/13266087/detail.html) does seem like a good example of prices differing for the same product for the same chain.

[farmerjumperdon]

The people who are in a position to offer alternatives aren't the same people getting bled to (financial) death over transportation costs. They are, however, the same people in best position to profit most from high transportation costs.

Expect much (much) higher gas prices for the forseeable future.

I don't think I'm following you. Are you saying the people in the best position to offer alternatives are also those in the besosition to profit from high transportation costs?

I'm thinking that when transportation costs that rely on fossil fuels get to some future price, then the alternative fuels industry will finally become economically rewarding enough to pursue on a large scale.

Are you saying they are one and the same?

[EricM407]

Okay, I've took a peek at some statistics. From here:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

The price of unleaded gasoline per gallon in 1980 is $1.131 (Jan figures). It dipped down and stayed kind of low but in Jan 2007 reached 2.274. In March it reached 2.592, which is 2.3 times the 1980 figure.

The price of white bread, per pound, in 1980 was $ 0.501 (Jan figures). It rose steadily and in Jan 2007 reached $ 1.153. In March it reached 1.161, which is 2.3 times the 1980 figure.

I chose the 1980 figure because that was as far back as I could go for bread.

I can't do milk because for some reason the figures only go to 1997. So, my tentative conclusion is that gas was underpriced for the past decade and is now only reaching it's historical price.

An alternate conclusion you might want to consider is that the price of gas was near a historical peak in 1980, and was closer to its historical price over the next two decades.

1980 is really an odd year to arbitrarily pick, unless you're trying to get the highest possible number to start your history, which skews the entire meaning of historical price. Why not just go back ten or twenty years? Or if you really want to know why people might be upset, which has more to do with perception of recent history, go back no more than five years.

It doesn't appear that bread is cheaper in terms of inflation. So again, why isn't anyone complaining about the prices for the other commodities?

Maybe because bread didn't double in price over the last four years. Or because "average price" for bread (there's cheap stuff and expensive stuff on the same shelf) has less meaning than "average price" for gallon of gasoline (prices vary by maybe a nickel at stations all over town). Or maybe just because we don't consume that many dollars worth of bread a month - not a big part of the budget, not a big priority when it comes to complaining. Plus, you can always bake your own if you get angry at the evil bread cartel.

[Ronald Brak]

The people who are in a position to offer alternatives aren't the same people getting bled to (financial) death over transportation costs. They are, however, the same people in best position to profit most from high transportation costs.

Expect much (much) higher gas prices for the forseeable future.


So bicycle manufacturers will work to increase the price of oil? The cunning dastards!

[Gillianren]

I don't even like talking about hemp. People think you're into drugs or some crazy hippie. I just wanted to discuss the potential gains.

Those people who go on about legalizing "hemp" but clearly mean "a certain hemp derivative" are doing the cause more harm than good, certainly. It doesn't help to talk about how useful a plant it is (and it is) if you're stoned all the time!

And Mugaliens, I know that my belief doesn't make it true. I would, however, like some supporting evidence of your statement that it's CNN's fault.

[HenrikOlsen]

I have read that hemp (and I realize the larger discussion involved) actually produces more oil than corn, is just as renewable and also serves many other purposes.

Where as it takes 2 gallons of deisel to make 1 gallon of Ethanol, it might also with hemp, but they we'd also have fabric, paper, and much more. Plus think about this: help is renewable every year. Trees take 20 or more to become worthy of harvesting. So we'd have maybe 10x the paper and could let our forests be used for other things.
Actually, studies in Denmark on which crops to use to give maximum energy per acre per year suggests that, at least for our climate, willow, harvested every 4-5 years, gives the best yield.

Once the tree has reached a size where it's no longer competing with its neighbors for height, it stops growing so fast, so the energy yield per years drops.

Note that this is energy when burned directly, which is feasible in Denmark as we already have the infrastructure for that type of fuel.

[mr obvious]

An alternate conclusion you might want to consider is that the price of gas was near a historical peak in 1980, and was closer to its historical price over the next two decades.

1980 is really an odd year to arbitrarily pick, unless you're trying to get the highest possible number to start your history, which skews the entire meaning of historical price. Why not just go back ten or twenty years? Or if you really want to know why people might be upset, which has more to do with perception of recent history, go back no more than five years.


I knew that was going to be an issue, but then no matter what year I start with, one could make the same argument. The reason I actually picked 1980 was because when I went to the CPI website, I looked at bread, and it went as far back as 1980. So I used that, to get the largest range. If they had going back to 1960, I'd have used that. Plus, since my claim is that gas is cheaper than history in the past decade, adjusted for inflation, it is non-informative to go back less than 10 years.

Additionally, if you go back further to the first link I posted, you'll see that fuel costs were still roughly $3/gal adjusted for inflation way before 1980 as well. Yes, it goes up and down, but complaining when it only goes above but not when it goes below is as random as complaining that you're currently getting more heads than tails in a random coin toss, because historically you've gotten more tails than heads. If the coin is fair you'd expect both.


Maybe because bread didn't double in price over the last four years. Or because "average price" for bread (there's cheap stuff and expensive stuff on the same shelf) has less meaning than "average price" for gallon of gasoline (prices vary by maybe a nickel at stations all over town). Or maybe just because we don't consume that many dollars worth of bread a month - not a big part of the budget, not a big priority when it comes to complaining. Plus, you can always bake your own if you get angry at the evil bread cartel.

Yes, but bread is keeping pace with inflation, just as gas is. Tell me something, would you prefer to underpay for something, only to have to experience a sharp increase at some point, or a slow, steady increase, if over time, the averages were the same? Shouldn't be any difference, should there? Note I'm not guaranteeing that the averages will be the same - but up to now, gas has been cheaper, on average, unless you've just starting driving within the past few years.

The average price for bread, if you read the link, is for white bread, per pound. So it has a specific meaning and is not an average of randomly sized loaves. I'd guess that there's more variance across the country in gas prices than bread prices, per unit as I've described, especially as a function of time. So if you accept gas statistics, protesting against bread statistics will make me go 'Dough!'

Yes, you can make your own bread (of course, you need to pay for flour, etc., which all have [likely] been inflating - I doubt the bread makers are increasing their profits by much more than inflation over time). Yes, paying $50 to fill a tank hurts a lot more than a $2.5 loaf of bread once a week - but that isn't an excuse to single out gas, when gas is only increasing in price the same as everything else. Why, from first principles, would you expect that the price for things you pay more for would increase slower than the rest?

[Moose]

So bicycle manufacturers will work to increase the price of oil? The cunning dastards!

Real alternatives. I have a 20km daily commute to work, one-way. (The nearest mass-transits are 22km and 25km. There are no busses not marked "School" within 2.5 hours from here.)

My commute is relatively short.

Besides, you have to oil the bike chain now and again.

[Gillianren]

Our prices are now (at the cheapest gas station in town) $3.33. The station across the street is ten cents higher.

[SockMonkey]

The "Peak Oil" site spooked me a bit I must say.
Granted I know to keep a healthy level of skepticism untill the sources can be verified but still... :think:

[Ronald Brak]

Real alternatives. I have a 20km daily commute to work, one-way. (The nearest mass-transits are 22km and 25km. There are no busses not marked "School" within 2.5 hours from here.)

My commute is relatively short.

Besides, you have to oil the bike chain now and again.

Yeah, but a bicycle is a real alternative for me, which means more oil for you.

[Maksutov]

It should be interesting to see the next report on oil company profits.

If the price is in fact only reflecting inflationary adjustments as well as increased costs for the materials and processing, there should be almost no change.

[mr obvious]

It should be interesting to see the next report on oil company profits.

If the price is in fact only reflecting inflationary adjustments as well as increased costs for the materials and processing, there should be almost no change.

Not quite. They can have record high profits without doing anything. Say the profits are 10% of the gross and the gross is $100. Their profits are $10. Because of inflation, the gross 10 years later is $150. Their profits are now $15, but they didn't lift a finger. Same thing with movie box office numbers, stock market prices, etc. If those don't keep breaking records, even intermittently, then that means they are actually losing to inflation. But yes, if the profits are much higher than inflation, they won't be able to hide behind the inflation reason for long.

[mike alexander]

Also remember that inflationary adjustments have to be made to income to estimate real affordability. I ran a few numbers thrugh the spreadsheet and find that the inflation-adjusted price for gas has increased about 2.6 times since 1973, but upper-middle class income, likewise adjusted, has gone up about 1.8 times. Higher income brackets went up more, lower went up less.

The price of gasoline cannot be looked by itself, but should be related to the ability of consumers to buy it.

[EricM407]

Additionally, if you go back further to the first link I posted, you'll see that fuel costs were still roughly $3/gal adjusted for inflation way before 1980 as well.

If by "way before 1980" you mean back in the early 1920s, okay. I'm not sure that's relevant at all to anything happening today though.

I see two fairly brief eras since WWII when gasoline was over $2:50 a gallon. Now, and the spike 27 years ago people like to choose to make the "it's just inflation" argument. I think most reasonable people would consider neither of those temporary deviations to be representative of the historical average price of gasoline.

Yes, it goes up and down, but complaining when it only goes above but not when it goes below is as random as complaining that you're currently getting more heads than tails in a random coin toss,

I don't claim to be an expert on human behavior, but I suspect people are more likely to complain about things that effect them negatively. Maybe you perceive everything in life as totally random and thus not worth complaining about, but that's a little more philosophical than I want to get in this discussion.

Yes, but bread is keeping pace with inflation, just as gas is.

No, gas looks like it's doing quite a bit more than that to me. At least, that's what I conclude when I look at your inflation adjusted price chart and see a huge spike. It should be pretty much flat, shouldn't it?

me something, would you prefer to underpay for something, only to have to experience a sharp increase at some point, or a slow, steady increase, if over time, the averages were the same? Shouldn't be any difference, should there? Note I'm not guaranteeing that the averages will be the same - but up to now, gas has been cheaper, on average, unless you've just starting driving within the past few years.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up averages, since you really haven't established what average means. I can agree that up to now gas has been cheaper than it is now, and yes, I really did prefer it that way. If I was underpaying... well, I can't say I feel guilty about it.

The average price for bread, if you read the link, is for white bread, per pound. So it has a specific meaning and is not an average of randomly sized loaves. I'd guess that there's more variance across the country in gas prices than bread prices,

I don't drive across the country when looking to fill my tank. I can only shop in my local area, and usually within a relatively small time frame, and I see little variation in price. And your observation on bread strikes me as being unique to your area, because I can buy really, really cheap bread or more costly bread at any grocery store around here. I'm talking white bread, same size loaves, of course.

Yes, paying $50 to fill a tank hurts a lot more than a $2.5 loaf of bread once a week - but that isn't an excuse to single out gas, when gas is only increasing in price the same as everything else.

I believe that last bit there is what I'm disputing.

[Gillianren]

I really doubt that the generosity of the oil companies would allow us to underpay for gas for long. Is that just me?

[dhd40]

Our prices are now (at the cheapest gas station in town) $3.33. The station across the street is ten cents higher.

I caught you red-handed :whistle: ! Grammar is as difficult as the metric system: $3.33/Mg (Mg=Megagallon) is extremely cheap. :)

[mr obvious]

If by "way before 1980" you mean back in the early 1920s, okay. I'm not sure that's relevant at all to anything happening today though.

I see two fairly brief eras since WWII when gasoline was over $2:50 a gallon. Now, and the spike 27 years ago people like to choose to make the "it's just inflation" argument. I think most reasonable people would consider neither of those temporary deviations to be representative of the historical average price of gasoline.

I don't claim to be an expert on human behavior, but I suspect people are more likely to complain about things that effect them negatively. Maybe you perceive everything in life as totally random and thus not worth complaining about, but that's a little more philosophical than I want to get in this discussion.

No, gas looks like it's doing quite a bit more than that to me. At least, that's what I conclude when I look at your inflation adjusted price chart and see a huge spike. It should be pretty much flat, shouldn't it?

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up averages, since you really haven't established what average means. I can agree that up to now gas has been cheaper than it is now, and yes, I really did prefer it that way. If I was underpaying... well, I can't say I feel guilty about it.


If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you are complaining about gas prices because you like paying less for it. I don't believe you and I have any argument there. Nor am I asking people not to complain.

My point is that objectively, though, we ought to see things from a broader perspective. Just like seeing someone win the lottery might make you feel that the chances of winning are great, one must step back and consider things carefully before drawing the conclusion that lotteries are a net benefit.

Thus, back to the topic, why single out gas? The cost for everything has gone up. Unless you have a nice stable mortgage, your rent probably went up too, and that probably costs you more per day than gas [guessing here, since I don't know your habits]. So why aren't people demanding the innovation of cheap housing and alternative living places? My guess is that gas is expensive enough to make people pay attention, and unlike rent, it's more of a continuous burden rather than an intermittent one. Thus, the root cause of dissatisfaction may be predominantly psychological. Doesn't make the dissatisfaction less valid.


I don't drive across the country when looking to fill my tank. I can only shop in my local area, and usually within a relatively small time frame, and I see little variation in price. And your observation on bread strikes me as being unique to your area, because I can buy really, really cheap bread or more costly bread at any grocery store around here. I'm talking white bread, same size loaves, of course.

I believe that last bit there is what I'm disputing.

I don't want to get into an argument regarding the CPI indexing methods. I do not know nearly enough about them.

The last bit which you are disputing is where I say "gas is only increasing in price the same as everything else." Do you have evidence that gas is not increasing in price like everything else? It's not fair for you to select a specific short time frame and say, during that time frame, it was worse/rose more, any more than it's fair for me to say that a fair coin flip is biased heads, and only count strings of heads while ignoring strings of tails. That's why i took the largest range I could, but the data only go to 1980 on that CPI site.

I have looked at the CPI and matched it, as best as I could and it appears that gas has appreciated about the same as everything else [and had underappreciated for a good stretch]. If the CPI had data going back to 1950s or whatever you might consider a good starting point (more than a decade!) I'd be happy to look again.

I hasten to add that I'm not saying this analysis I made is proof of anything - it's entirely possible that gas is appreciating more than most other commodities, and even worse, may stay that way. But so far, all I've heard is people [on many boards] simply pointing out current gas prices, and complaining that 5 years ago it was much cheaper. Well, it was, but why would you expect it to stay that cheap? College tuition, books, cup of coffee, meals in a restaurant, clothes [except Walmart, probably], and basic groceries have all gone up, some more than others. Is gas an anomaly? [NB -I'd say that electronics, like LCD TVs and computers, are the anomaly, in getting faster and better for the same or reduced price. But I won't mention the PS3 if you don't.]

This goes back to the first point you started out with, where you say I can't claim 1980 as a starting point [or at least, suggest that it's odd that I select 1980]. Then you say I can't claim the 1920s as a starting point [e.g., it's not relevant]. Obviously, if you keep saying I can't claim any starting point that supports my view, then I won't be able to support my view :P [the 1930s are out too, I guess]. How about this, are you saying that gas prices are statistically significantly out of range for what one would expect from inflation, taking all other expenses into account? Are you additionally saying this is expected to be a sustained increase rather than a spike? If so, why?

[Northwind]

Re: Gasoline keeps going up and up and up

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Brak
A standard electrical socket can charge an electric car or plug in hybrid overnight. Of course fast charge equipment at service stations would be convenient. Electric and plug in hybrids cars are currently rare and not everyones cup of tea at the moment, but they will be much improved and cheaper in a few years. They might be the only sort of car the average Indian or Chinese middle class family cold afford to run if oil continues to increase in price.

But, how is the electricity generated?


Mmmm.....thought electricity was a dirty word here? Does seem we are surounded by the stuff though, we just havn't worked out how to harrness it.

But since gravity is the most widely known energy source (just think BH,Sn's and so on) maybe the scientist's should be working on useing gravity to power our cars!

And unless we do come up with something else (my moneys on tapping into what is just above our heads) we are collectivly up the creek.

The people that live in sububia are not going to enjoy the decent down the other side of Hubberts peak.

And we will not do anything about it till it's far far too late!!! :evil:

[NEOWatcher]

I don't want to get into an argument regarding the CPI indexing methods. I do not know nearly enough about them.
This is part of the problem. I have heard that there are close to 10 different indexes to use for gauging prices, and by choosing any one of these, coupled with being able to choose any starting date, you get wildly different comparisons.
With oil, it's very easy to prove one way or another given the highly volitile price swings.

Add in this situation that I ran across today:
May 7 (http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/07/news/economy/gas_prices/index.htm?postversion=2007050714)... Analysts say prices are going up and could hit $4 soon because of refinery problems causing gasoline supplies to drop

Flynn said gasoline stocks have fallen for the past twelve weeks straight and are now at their lowest level for this time of year since 1956.

May 9 (http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/09/markets/oil_eia/index.htm?cnn=yes)...ONLY 2 DAYS LATER... Gasoline stocks are up. price has dropped (wow 2 cents) and oil supplys are up. EIA said demand over the last four weeks grew at a rate of about 1 percent.
The normal rate of growth is about 1.5 percent.
Refineries, closely watched due to their abnormally low rates of operation, ran at 89 percent capacity last week, up 0.7 percent from the week prior, EIA said.

Doesn't this mean supply should be down around 0.3 percent?

Can the analysts just shut up and say that it's all speculation? The supply just adds data to the speculation. I don't care what the heck is going on, I just want prices to be set on true supply and demand, and not instantatious panic with guesses as to why it happened.

[SeanF]

Doesn't this mean supply should be down around 0.3 percent?
No, it means supply is up 0.7 percent (or possibly more, depending on what exactly "up 0.7 percent" means).

Supply is available gallons, not unsold gallons.

[NEOWatcher]

No, it means supply is up 0.7 percent.
But they said capacity, not supply. Which, if I interpret it right means they have the potential to create 0.7% more gas than they have in the past.
Now, if usage is up 1%, which, if I interpret that right, means that 1% more gas is being consumed.
Now that's ok if in previous weeks we were consuming less than we were making, and the change in capacities does not drop it over the other side of the curve. But, the previous analysis was that we were consuming more than we had the capacity to make, and that's why supplies were down.
The numbers appear to make that situation even worse.

In summary, we were previously depleating supply faster than we were replenishing it.
Now we are depleating it 1% faster, but replenishing only 0.7% faster. Therefore, we should have reduced replenishment by 0.3% of an already deficit situation.

(or possibly more, depending on what exactly "up 0.7 percent" means).
This is part of what I mean. They start spouting these facts, and nobody really knows what they mean. I'm sure some of the experts do, but the meaning gets lost as soon as it hits the reporters eardrums.
Supply is available gallons, not unsold gallons.
Yes, see my explaination above.

[SeanF]

But they said capacity, not supply. Which, if I interpret it right means they have the potential to create 0.7% more gas than they have in the past.
They didn't raise the capacity. I suppose the capacity might have changed - which would change what the numbers actually mean - but that's not what the quoted sentence means.

What the sentence means is that the refineries were producing about 89% of what they're capable of producing. If you can produce 100 gallons an hour, but you only are producing 89 gallons an hour, you're running at 89% capacity.

[Pinemarten]

I emailed the EIA with this reuest:


Dear Sir,

You may wish to forward this to your 'webmaster'.

The price of gas seems to come up on this forum and others. I am the member known as Pinemarten. I try to explain that it has mostly to do with reserves of refined gas for cars/light trucks.

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=979794&postcount=1

Can you put a graph-type page on your site showing weekly/daily/monthly reserves/consumption/production etc?
It may help to show why prices are changing.

[SeanF]

And in some places, they won't let you sell cheap gas (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070509/ap_on_fe_st/odd_cheap_gas). :naughty:

[NEOWatcher]

Can you put a graph-type page on your site showing weekly/daily/monthly reserves/consumption/production etc?
It may help to show why prices are changing.
I can't wait to see... I have been looking for an overall graph to visualize what is happening, and keep coming up with nothing.
My suggested lines for a graph (starting 1970 or earlier to include the wildness of the 70's)
Oil production and import
Oil reserves
Oil price
Refinery output
Gas reserves
Gas consumption
Gas Price
Oil company profits

In my search, I ran across this chart (http://zfacts.com/p/35.html) of inflation adjusted gas prices.
It's a pretty good picture of why choosing a particular year as your comparison can be very misleading.
Just to pick some dates, and visual estimate of price comparisons...
1973 1.40
1974 1.80
1982 2.80
1985 1.60
1990 2.00
2002 1.25
so, compared to inflation, it has jumped a lot recently, and 25 years ago. The difference though could be that this one is here to stay.
But, if oil company profits are not out of line (percentage-wise) then there is not a whole lot of complaining that can be done.

[mr obvious]

Can the analysts just shut up and say that it's all speculation? The supply just adds data to the speculation. I don't care what the heck is going on, I just want prices to be set on true supply and demand, and not instantatious panic with guesses as to why it happened.

I agree there is a great deal of randomness in the pricing, and I usually laugh when I read analyses of price changes, of anything (including, but not limited to, oil). But, I will throw in a comment to say that I don't think there is anything that can be considered 'true supply and demand.' Perhaps you can explain what you mean by that, especially given that the true supply (if you mean, total amount, of oil, in existence on Earth) is not currently measurable.

[NEOWatcher]

But, I will throw in a comment to say that I don't think there is anything that can be considered 'true supply and demand.' Perhaps you can explain what you mean by that, especially given that the true supply (if you mean, total amount, of oil, in existence on Earth) is not currently measurable.
I'm speaking "supply" in a more economic sense. I consider the actual ability to supply it, rather than the potential to supply it. Similar to just about any natural resource industry. Iron is a good example here. The physical supply far outweighs the industry of supply.
And when I say true supply and demand. I'm speaking about a supplier being able to measuer what they have compared to what the buyer is able to pay at delivery, and continuing down the supply chain. Not paying prices for stock that has or has not been delivered, and for situations that have not affected the current stock.
Simply put...without the speculation.

[Pinemarten]

Here it is from the mouth of one of the horses:

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=31a4f185-99d0-43d5-9c72-561db6fed8c7&amp;k=27738


Quote:
Tony Macerollo of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, which represents major Canadian refiners, said he "categorically rejected" the argument.

While he conceded industry profit margins have increased, he said there were a number of reasons for the current high prices, including increased demand, speculation and the fact many North American oil refineries postponed upgrades in the wake of Katrina. "We may still be experiencing some catch up."

end quote

They shoot horses, don't they?

[EricM407]

I don't want to get into an argument regarding the CPI indexing methods.

Good, because I'm not arguing that at all. I'm perfectly willing to accept that inflation, when looking at the inflation adjusted price of gasoline, is whatever they say it is.

The last bit which you are disputing is where I say "gas is only increasing in price the same as everything else."

If it was going up "the same as everything else" the chart you chose to illustrate this fact would be a flat line, wouldn't it? It clearly isn't. It has a big jump at present. And it has another around 1980 which allows people to perform the mathematical trick of saying "It's the same price as it was in 1980, if you adjust for inflation."

However, 1980 was an anomaly. I doubt people want it to be the same price as it was in 1980. People were complaining then too.

Do you have evidence that gas is not increasing in price like everything else? It's not fair for you to select a specific short time frame

No, it's really not fair for you to pick a specific time frame that happens to coincide with it's peak price in the last half a century, match that to today, and say "See, it hasn't gone up."

That's why i took the largest range I could, but the data only go to 1980 on that CPI site.

The price data on gasoline, inflation adjusted, goes back as far as you'd need for any practical reason. I don't know why you'd even need to compare it to other commodities. Just (using one of the charts that are on hundreds of web sites in today's dollars) compare it to itself. Is it the same price as it was 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago? 40 years ago? If it isn't, then something other than inflation is going on.

I have looked at the CPI and matched it, as best as I could and it appears that gas has appreciated about the same as everything else

Only if you select a few certain years to compare to.

This goes back to the first point you started out with, where you say I can't claim 1980 as a starting point [or at least, suggest that it's odd that I select 1980].

It is odd that you select 1980.

Then you say I can't claim the 1920s as a starting point [e.g., it's not relevant].

Well, the oil industry and gasoline market of the 1920s probably have so little in common with today that it would hardly be relevant. I think we can agree to stick to post-WWII, can't we?

Why don't you figure the average inflation adjusted price from, say, 1947-2007 and use that? From some of the statements you've made, that seems to be what you really want to use. I think you'll find that 1980 and 2007 are both well above the average, and that we weren't actually "underpaying" in many of the years you think we were.

How about this, are you saying that gas prices are statistically significantly out of range for what one would expect from inflation,

The chart you linked me to seems to indicate that they are.

Are you additionally saying this is expected to be a sustained increase rather than a spike? If so, why?

I have no idea. All I know is inflation is not an explanation for the increase.

[Pinemarten]

Anyone else get a 'bump' on Thursday?

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=e199b805-7544-4f9a-80a2-6005559c60aa&k=62788

Quote:
Energy analyst Michael Ervin said the price increase reflects higher wholesale gas prices. Two weeks ago, Edmonton's wholesale gas price was 67.2 cents per litre. Now, it's 73.1 cents, an increase of about six cents.

"Inventories are tight ... in Western Canada and midwest United States," Ervin said.

The Calgary-based president of MJ Ervin & Associates said refining production levels have dropped over the past 15 weeks as refineries shut down temporarily for planned and unplanned reasons.

[Pinemarten]

Here is a link to an actual study on recent gas prices:

http://policyalternatives.ca/Reports/2007/05/ReportsStudies1624/

Some may claim it is biased. I think the 'gougeometer' is cute.

[mr obvious]

If it was going up "the same as everything else" the chart you chose to illustrate this fact would be a flat line, wouldn't it? It clearly isn't. It has a big jump at present. And it has another around 1980 which allows people to perform the mathematical trick of saying "It's the same price as it was in 1980, if you adjust for inflation."
However, 1980 was an anomaly. I doubt people want it to be the same price as it was in 1980. People were complaining then too.
No, it's really not fair for you to pick a specific time frame that happens to coincide with it's peak price in the last half a century, match that to today, and say "See, it hasn't gone up."
The price data on gasoline, inflation adjusted, goes back as far as you'd need for any practical reason. I don't know why you'd even need to compare it to other commodities. Just (using one of the charts that are on hundreds of web sites in today's dollars) compare it to itself. Is it the same price as it was 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago? 40 years ago? If it isn't, then something other than inflation is going on.
Only if you select a few certain years to compare to.
It is odd that you select 1980.
Well, the oil industry and gasoline market of the 1920s probably have so little in common with today that it would hardly be relevant. I think we can agree to stick to post-WWII, can't we?
Why don't you figure the average inflation adjusted price from, say, 1947-2007 and use that? From some of the statements you've made, that seems to be what you really want to use. I think you'll find that 1980 and 2007 are both well above the average, and that we weren't actually "underpaying" in many of the years you think we were.
The chart you linked me to seems to indicate that they are.

All this says to me that you don't like the way I picked the numbers. I don't have an issue with that; all I can say is based on what I've done, my analysis fails to exclude inflation as a cause for price increase.

I'd add that it's essential to compare the price of gas to the price of other items - I chose commodities for simplification, but it's certainly not restricted to those. If we didn't compare to other things, how could we possibly tell whether gas was actually increasing in price or not? You can't just look at the price in absolute terms because the purchasing value of the dollar is not constant. Thus, simply looking at the curve for gas alone and saying 'it should be a straight line' is not economically correct. Would you be happy if your salary/wage stayed in a straight line for the next 50 years? Would you be satisfied if I then claimed that you can't compare your wage to the price of commodities? They are all interlinked. Even if you look at inflation adjusted numbers, you need to compare to other things. In my opinion, historical charts are rarely smooth. Thus, you need to see whether there were any extenuating circumstances that might have caused a particular dip or spike.

Indeed, let's extend this further. Let's say you entered the job market earning $100/yr [all figures inflation adjusted]. Then over the next few years, your salary goes down, 90...80..70.. then back up to 95. Then it drops again 90...80...70...60... Then it goes back up to 105. Would you say it's fair to say your salary is rising much faster than inflation, because the jump from 60 to 105 is huge? If I were asked that question, I'd say I haven't received any substantial raises at all, ever (giving me that the $5 above 100 is a random spike and not a permanent deal - the jury is still out on this for gas). Would you say, like you do for gas, that I can't cherry-pick select regions and thus, I've done great?

Thus, if I were arguing from your perspective, I would look for other prices, and compare gas to them, to before 1980, but after WWII. I'll see if I can dig something up. I can say that I'm pretty sure the price for college tuition easily outpaces gas. But for some reason, despite the occasional article on college tuition and textbook prices, it somehow fails to garner the same amount of passion as gas, even with records numbers of people attending colleges.


I have no idea. All I know is inflation is not an explanation for the increase.

The key is why you don't think inflation is a sufficient explanation. If you have a positive (non-inflationary) explanation for why gas prices are increasing, that's a bonus, but all I'm looking for is an explanation of why inflation isn't enough.

[Pinemarten]

This is an explanation of why inflation isn't enough:


http://policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/2007/Gas_Price_Gouge_2007.pdf


Quote:
Gasoline price breakdown,
May 2007 Ontario
Cents/litre
Crude oil costs 44.6
Refining and marketing 14.0
Federal tax 10.0
Provincial tax 14.7
Total before GST 83.3
GST at 6% 5.0
TOTAL Normal Price 88.3
(at price for sweet crude oil of $U.S. 64 per barrel and
an exchange rate of $1.10 Canadian dollars to the U.S.
dollar)
Compared with prices in the $1.05-to-$1.10 range in
southern Ontario at the beginning of May 2007 , that’s
an excess profit to the gasoline industry of 16 to 21
cents per litre.

[mr obvious]

This is an explanation of why inflation isn't enough:


http://policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/2007/Gas_Price_Gouge_2007.pdf


Quote:
Gasoline price breakdown,
May 2007 Ontario
Cents/litre
Crude oil costs 44.6
Refining and marketing 14.0
Federal tax 10.0
Provincial tax 14.7
Total before GST 83.3
GST at 6% 5.0
TOTAL Normal Price 88.3
(at price for sweet crude oil of $U.S. 64 per barrel and
an exchange rate of $1.10 Canadian dollars to the U.S.
dollar)
Compared with prices in the $1.05-to-$1.10 range in
southern Ontario at the beginning of May 2007 , that’s
an excess profit to the gasoline industry of 16 to 21
cents per litre.

Ok - I see from your numbers that gas is more expensive than inflation, compared to the beginning of May. I'd add that based on my own observations and numbers in the US, I can say that gas has increased faster than inflation for about 3 months now. What I can't tell from all this is whether:

1) Gas is reaching it's fair market value.
2) Gas is peaking for now, but will drop back again (oscillatory) in a few months.
3) Gas is going up faster than inflation and will stay there because people are apparently willing to give the gas companies more profits, permanently.

If anyone asks, I don't know what the fair market value is. You say that gas companies have recently acquired an excess profit of 10-15 cpl. Why do you think you are qualified to set allowable profits for the companies [e.g., where do you get 'excess' from]? In other words, what is the "correct" level of profit for any company?

Are you saying that if I go into a supermarket and last week, ice cream was on sale for $3/half gallon and now it's back to $5/half gallon, that I can reasonably demand that the supermarket sell it to me for $3/half gallon because otherwise, they'd be making $2 excess profits?

[Pinemarten]

I think it is an ugly snowball that is running away. They have to keep the price up to keep supplies up. If they lower it people will go into a 'let's go driving -it's cheap now!' frenzy; and slurp up all the reserves like the pigs they are.
They would have to put the price even higher. Short of rationing, the price is the only thing that can keep supplies up. Remember the gas line-ups? We may have that again.

[mr obvious]

I recall a "Bloom County" from one of Breathed's (don't ask me to say that out loud) collections where a guy was at the gas station gushing about 69.9 cents a gallon. He was basically saying that since it was cheaper than everything (tidy-bowl, windex, etc.) they should use it for everything. His last line was 'Dump the milk, the cat drinks unleaded from now on!'

Perhaps we've been spoiled for too long.

[crosscountry]

I think for the time being we'll pay anything they charge.

[NEOWatcher]

Ok; Do I blame CNN or AAA for this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/05/17/summer.travel.ap/index.html

All sorts of statistics on the increase in the number of long distance travellers, but no statistics on how much shorter the trips are.
"High gas prices and increased vacation costs won't deter Americans from traveling this Memorial Day,"
Yes; it's not detering them from travelling, but it is detering them from a longer trip...
I would like to know the number of miles travelled vs last year...

[korjik]

Ok; Do I blame CNN or AAA for this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/05/17/summer.travel.ap/index.html

All sorts of statistics on the increase in the number of long distance travellers, but no statistics on how much shorter the trips are.
"High gas prices and increased vacation costs won't deter Americans from traveling this Memorial Day,"
Yes; it's not detering them from travelling, but it is detering them from a longer trip...
I would like to know the number of miles travelled vs last year...

This actually shows alot of why prices are the way they are. Until people start to really change their habits fuel-wise, the pricing cycle won't change.

[NEOWatcher]

This actually shows alot of why prices are the way they are. Until people start to really change their habits fuel-wise, the pricing cycle won't change.
But that is my point...they have changed thier habits. They are not driving as far. That statement was made but not quantified.

And, after looking at the AAA website, I blame them for the way it sounds, and the media for not discovering why it sounds the way it does.

What AAA is saying is...See our hotel discounts are helping people to afford to still drive. This is the part the media did not pick up on and is quite a bit of the end of the press release.

[Parrothead]

No surprise, we're headed into a long weekend and the price went up 5 cents/litre (22 cents/Imp Gal) overnight.

[Maksutov]

Fed up station owner shuts off gas pumps. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/25/gasprice.protest.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)


I wonder if there's an engine out there that will run on cheese fumes?

[Pinemarten]

There was a major power failure in central BC in the '70s that lasted most of the day over a large area during a busy summer weekend. Only one gas station in a hundred miles or so could sell gas.

He still used the old hand crank pump system.

Closing time was 6pm.
He closed on time with a very long line up.
When people complained he said "I could have tripled the price, we're even. Goodnight."

[Amber Robot]

Schwartz called that "outrageous" and said even he can't fill up his SUV at that price.

Um... maybe the gas prices are only half his problem...

[Noclevername]

Yeah, that one gave me a chuckle too.

[crosscountry]

and his kids driving too.





Maybe fewer drivers would cause less demand.

[Daffy]

We elect oil company people to control the federal government and people wonder why prices are going up (when crude is down).

Prices fall right before the last election, then the next day start rising again. And we are supposed to not notice, or at least believe supply and demand is at work.

One wonders whether to laugh or cry.

[Pinemarten]

We elect oil company people to control the federal government and people wonder why prices are going up (when crude is down).

Prices fall right before the last election, then the next day start rising again. And we are supposed to not notice, or at least believe supply and demand is at work.

One wonders whether to laugh or cry.

You may be right about the election connection.

As to crude and gas prices, many agree it is the lack of refineries and gas storage supplies that effect the price.

[Daffy]

You may be right about the election connection.

As to crude and gas prices, many agree it is the lack of refineries and gas storage supplies that effect the price.

And there may be some truth to it. But I can't forget that the refinery explanation didn't really start getting popular until crude prices started to go back down. Coincidence? Maybe.

[Pinemarten]

The refinery problem has been around for a while. For many reasons we haven't added any in 20 years or so. We are using more gas than we can refine. They are trying to control supply by increasing prices.

[NEOWatcher]

The refinery problem has been around for a while. For many reasons we haven't added any in 20 years or so. We are using more gas than we can refine. They are trying to control supply by increasing prices.
Why would they do that? The supply is already being controlled by capacity. The price is a consequence of this, and increased because they can.

[Daffy]

Why would they do that? The supply is already being controlled by capacity. The price is a consequence of this, and increased because they can.

Your last phrase is the the bottom line. Our anti-trust laws are no longer being enforced to any significant degree, so the global corporations can do pretty much as they please. Doesn't even require a conspiracy...they can to it right in our faces and no one even cares anymore.

Example: Halliburton can make billions and billions in Iraq, then relocate to Dubai to avoid paying taxes on it, and no one even bats an eye. Can you imagine the flak if that had happened 10 years ago? Clinton would have been hanged from a flagpole.

[SeanF]

Prices fall right before the last election, then the next day start rising again. And we are supposed to not notice, or at least believe supply and demand is at work.
I keep track of my gas purchases, and (by my admittedly anecdotal records) prices reached a low in January of this year - lower than they'd been any time since the summer of 2005. January's a far cry from "the next day."

Also, the drop in prices during October of '06 was not significantly different than a drop in September of '05, when there was no election.

One wonders whether to laugh or cry.
I'll laugh, thanks. :)

[Daffy]

I keep track of my gas purchases, and (by my admittedly anecdotal records) prices reached a low in January of this year - lower than they'd been any time since the summer of 2005. January's a far cry from "the next day."

Also, the drop in prices during October of '06 was not significantly different than a drop in September of '05, when there was no election.


I'll laugh, thanks. :)

I keep track as well. I have no idea where you live, but here, in the 6 weeks before the election prices dropped over a dollar per gallon. The very next day, they went back up 10 cents, and have been steadily rising ever since. Although I will grant that in the last week, they have dropped about 8 cents per gallon; after having risen by about $1.20, I am not impressed.

And it is not just oil. There is a massive transfer of wealth going on in this country...and I predict that within 50 years we will start to look like Mexico in terms of distribution of wealth.

Enjoy your laughter while you can.

[Pinemarten]

Why would they do that? The supply is already being controlled by capacity. The price is a consequence of this, and increased because they can.

I think part of the reasoning is the worry of a price drop emptying the storage tanks.
If they dropped the price tomorrow, everyone would go out and fill up, worried that prices would go up again. They would also have an excuse to drive more. The supplies would be gone in no time.

The profits seem reasonable to me. <does not run and hide, but stays to explain statement>

If a company is worth $1000, the return on that investment is expected to be 7-14%, so a profit of $100(10%) should be average.

If you look at the value of an oil company compared to it's profit, you may find it is reasonable. Investors would be leaving en masse and firing CEO's etc like crazy otherwise.

The profits seem large, because the companies are large.

[NEOWatcher]

I think part of the reasoning is the worry of a price drop emptying the storage tanks.
If they dropped the price tomorrow, everyone would go out and fill up, worried that prices would go up again. They would also have an excuse to drive more. The supplies would be gone in no time.
And that would make them happy, because they sold all that they could possibly sell at a price that they were willing to sell it. So no, I don't agree with that; It's profit, any corporation in this world would love to sell out of thier product completely for as much as they can get for it.

I wish the local story I read yesterday didn't drop off the site. It was a public Q&A with an oil representative who basically said "we can". He also had some other comment something of the nature of "we don't always make a lot of money, and now we are making up for it".

The part I do agree with though, is the fact that the government is allowing this to happen because they don't want to see shortages.

The profits seem large, because the companies are large.
The issue is that it never has been that way. The last few times I checked, the averages worked out to around 9%. But seems to have been sitting around 5% in years past. I can't wait to see what this quarter brings.
And yes; because they are big, the profits seem insane dollar-wise. But the bigger guys in most industries tend to do it with smaller margins so they can crush the competition. (I'm sure you can find exceptions, but I'm just talking trends)

And, don't take this as absolutes, because I'm trying to recall the dusty memory, so I could be off. But it is the residual that the data has left me with.

[Pinemarten]

Found a site that shows oil profits:

http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?pg=ch&symb=BP&time=10yr&freq=1yr&charts=65536&comp=&compidx=aaaaa%7E0&ind_compind=&uf=0&lf=33554432&ma=0&maval=60

This link is for BP. It is a programmable chart for all companies.

BP stock value = $35 - $67 over 10 years.

Earnings over same 10 years = $1.12 to $6.74 per share per year

Peak($6.74) in 2005(Katrina?) and only $2.56 in 2006 at $64 per share.

By rough math that is only 4% return average; and one good year at 10%.

If I were an investor, this oil company would be a waste of money.

[Lianachan]

I find it hard to be sympathetic. The UK is an oil producing country, thanks to Scotland - which produces more than enough oil for itself and the rest of the UK. I live within 10 miles of an oil terminal, and yet I pay more for fuel than probably almost everybody else on mainland Britain due to "transportation costs". And everybody else on mainland Britain already pays vastly more than anybody in the US.

[Pinemarten]

I have 3-5 refineries in view from my balcony. I feel for you.

[SeanF]

I keep track as well. I have no idea where you live, but here, in the 6 weeks before the election prices dropped over a dollar per gallon. The very next day, they went back up 10 cents, and have been steadily rising ever since.
South Dakota. :)

Here, the price hit its high of $3.00 on August 9th and had dropped to $2.09 by October 3rd. It was up again to $2.16 by election day and had hit $2.35 by December. By the end of January, it was back down to $1.99 and has been going up ever since (until last week, when it dropped about 10 cents).

But, of course, you can't just look at one incident. In 2005, the price was at $3.00 on September 5th and had dropped to $2.05 by December 6th. Similar autumn drop, just a month later - and no election in sight. Then in early 2006, it climbed from $2.17 on February 25th to $2.86 on April 22nd, again similar (although not as extreme) as this year's climb.

NOTE: These prices all reflect what I happened to pay for gas on the day I filled up - they're not averages or anything. :)

And it is not just oil. There is a massive transfer of wealth going on in this country...and I predict that within 50 years we will start to look like Mexico in terms of distribution of wealth.
We may look a lot like Mexico in terms of ethnicity in 50 years, too, but that's a discussion for another board... ;)

Enjoy your laughter while you can.
Thanks, I will. :)

[Pinemarten]

Here is a graph of daily gas prices in the US. 2005-6 compared to 2006-7.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/petroleum.html

[crosscountry]

I keep track of my gas purchases, and (by my admittedly anecdotal records) prices reached a low in January of this year - lower than they'd been any time since the summer of 2005. January's a far cry from "the next day."

Also, the drop in prices during October of '06 was not significantly different than a drop in September of '05, when there was no election.


I'll laugh, thanks. :)


n

[Noclevername]

I predict that within 50 years we will start to look like Mexico in terms of distribution of wealth.

Does that mean we'll be sneaking into Canada for minimum-wage jobs?

[Chuck]

House Approves Suing OPEC Over Sky-High Gas Prices (http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/topstories_story_142232433.html)“We don't have to stand by and watch OPEC dictate the price of gas,” Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., the bill's chief sponsor, declared, reflecting the frustration lawmakers have felt over their inability to address people's worries about high summer fuel costs.

[Ronald Brak]

House Approves Suing OPEC over Sky-High Gas Prices

Cool! Just think how much neat stuff we can have when foreigners are no longer allowed to set their own prices! With another bill to stop South Africa dictating the price of gold and diamonds we'll all soon be rich!

[Van Rijn]

They want to show they are Doing Something. Whether it makes sense or not isn't the point.

[Gillianren]

With another bill to stop South Africa dictating the price of gold and diamonds we'll all soon be rich!

South Africa itself doesn't dictate the price of diamonds. The DeBeers Corporation does. They're a monopoly, and they artificially inflate the price of diamonds. (This is one of those conspiracies I believe in, because evidence abounds.) It's one of many reasons I wouldn't buy diamonds even if I could afford to.

[Ronald Brak]

South Africa itself doesn't dictate the price of diamonds. The DeBeers Corporation does. They're a monopoly, and they artificially inflate the price of diamonds. (This is one of those conspiracies I believe in, because evidence abounds.) It's one of many reasons I wouldn't buy diamonds even if I could afford to.

Not quite a monopoly, but a price setter with about 50% of the world trade in gem quality diamonds. They certainly carefully regulate the rate at which their diamonds are put on the market to maximise their profits. Of course their greatest sucess has been convincing people that true love requires a diamond ring rather than merely a bottle of Jim Bean. Other companies with gem quality diamonds have benefitted from DeBeers promtion of the stone. I think DeBeers have already started marketing to convince people that only a certified natural diamond can assure true love and not a gaudy artificial one, although that's not the sort of thing I pay much attention to.

[Gillianren]

Thanks; I'll take a gaudy natural opal either way.

Actually, DeBeers is not above intimidating retailers by threatening to cut off their supply, and a fair percentage of the non-DeBeers supply (and, of course, an unknown amount of the DeBeers stockpile) is blood diamonds.

[Chuck]

We have a gullibility based economy. Wedding rings are just one expensive example. Sometimes it seems like there's nothing so stupid that people won't buy it.

Jewelry is fine for people who like it and can afford it, but couples are starting their married lives thousands of dollars in debt to buy a speck of rock. Even those who could afford a ring could have made a bigger down payment on a house or started a college fund for their future kids. The wedding ring tradition has become a wide spread mental illness.

[Harry Palmer]

95% of the price of an $8 gallon of petrol in the UK is UK government tax.

What is the % in the US?

[crosscountry]

in Texas it is about 75 cents per gallon. With is about 1/4 or 25% now. Other states more.

[Gillianren]

We increased it recently here in Washington, but I'm not sure what the percentage is. (We'd decreased our taxes somewhere else in '00, and then half the state was stunned when the level of state services went down.)

[Harry Palmer]

If the price in the USA reached the UK's $8 per gallon, would it have any impact on driving habits?

[Noclevername]

Sure, we'd need Mini SUV's. ;)

[Pinemarten]

95% of the price of an $8 gallon of petrol in the UK is UK government tax.

What is the % in the US?

Here is a break down of a US gallon:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/eia1_2005primerM.html

[mr obvious]

I remember reading [in newspapers] that people won't significantly change driving habits until gas reaches $4/gal, sustained for a year. We're not quite there yet.

[crosscountry]

probably won't change anything even then

Germans drive 120mph on the autobahn paying nearly the equivalent of $7 per gallon. And more and more people are buying cars.

[Ronald Brak]

probably won't change anything even then

Germans drive 120mph on the autobahn paying nearly the equivalent of $7 per gallon. And more and more people are buying cars.

German fuel efficency is about 13 kilometers a liter which is significantly better than the United States. This suggests high prices do have an effect despite the German love for large cars.

[crosscountry]

not at that speed anyway.

[Ronald Brak]

I wonder if there should be an anti-speeding ad that points out how little time the average speeder actually saves and how much it is costing him or her in petrol at today's prices.

[Pinemarten]

My car gets the same mileage at 170kph as it does at 90kph. The overdrive makes a difference.

[Ronald Brak]

My car gets the same mileage at 170kph as it does at 90kph. The overdrive makes a difference.

Wow! Your car must be incredibly inefficient at 90 kilometers per hour.

[Pinemarten]

At 90kph I get about 34mpg at 160-170kph I get about 32mpg. Well worth the time saving. In the city it is only about 22mpg.
I always work close to home or move close to work, that makes the biggest difference in my fuel budget.

My parking stall is at 53°32'27.52"N 113°25'48.26"W

Work is at 53°31'31.45"N 113°24'17.56"W

[Ronald Brak]

I had to look up what an overdrive was. We're rather fond of manuals here. When automatic cars get better fuel efficiency than manual cars you'll know the singularity is near.

[Pinemarten]

Manuals have OD as well, that's the circle around the number in the highest gear.

[Antice]

this "sixth" gear is useful if you are alowed to drive faster than 100kph. aint legal around here annyhow. max is a 100 kph on only one roads. 90 is normal for 4 lane motorways, else 80 is the norm. (we have really bad roads, so even slower is very common on large stretches of road)
american cars are fuel hogs compared to a lot of the other availible cars, but i love my 94 pontiac transporter to much to just get rid of it. even if it only goes 12 Kilometer/liter = 28.22574 Mile/gallon (US)
som of the newer peugots can do about 24 km/litre = aprox 56mpg (US)
American car manufacturers has got lots to learn about fuel efficiency yet.

[crosscountry]

Antice you got that right. Some of the German diesel engines can go forever on a tank of gas. Toyota has a good reputation too.

but I ride a motorcycle when the possibility is there.

[mr obvious]

Yes, Toyota has a good reputation. They appear to be sliding into the US mentality, at least in the US, though. Observe:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=3729

The part of interest:
The xB has gained 650 pounds, a foot in length, and three inches in width. Obviously, there’s a price to pay at the gas pump for that corn-fed heft. EPA numbers are down almost 25 percent for the city cycle (’06 adjusted), from 28 to 22 mpg.

Hopefully this is an anomaly. Preferably one due to time-lag (e.g., they started designing this back when people really wanted bigger SUVs and this was just time-to-market).

[Trebuchet]

The price is down about 20 cents here over the past couple of weeks. A good thing since we went out this afternoon and got my wife a new SUV. (Honda Pilot) Biggest and fanciest car we've ever owned.

[Elyk]

I wonder if there should be an anti-speeding ad that points out how little time the average speeder actually saves and how much it is costing him or her in petrol at today's prices.

That's why if you're going to speed you might as well make it count...Go full throttle and save some time.

[Ronald Brak]

Did fuel consumption and possible future gasoline price increases play much of a part in deciding what kind of vehicle to get, Trebuchet?

[Ronald Brak]

That's why if you're going to speed you might as well make it count...Go full throttle and save some time.

Well, the effects of friction aren't linear, so the faster you go the the more fuel you are going to burn per kilometer, and since the danger increase is not linear the police tend to come down hard on those they catch going full throttle. (Not much in the way of autobahns here, just places where no one is likely to catch you.) Ten klicks over the limit you get off fairly lightly. Fifty clicks over and you tend to lose your license.

[crosscountry]

The price is down about 20 cents here over the past couple of weeks. A good thing since we went out this afternoon and got my wife a new SUV. (Honda Pilot) Biggest and fanciest car we've ever owned.

why not get an expensive car that is more comfortable?


Most people think they need the SUV to haul stuff around when more often they are just hauling themselves around.

[snowcelt]

The Canadian dollar is going up so fast that, even though a barrel of crude is still at near highs, the price here in Edmonton has dropped! The price at the pump has dropped about ten cents a litre in the last couple weeks. The Canadian dollar has climbed to forty year highs to the greenback. You have to like world fuel prices being linked to the greenback if you live in a part of the world where you local peso appreciates.

[Trebuchet]

Did fuel consumption and possible future gasoline price increases play much of a part in deciding what kind of vehicle to get, Trebuchet?

If fuel consumption and price increases had played much of a part, we'd have been looking at a hybrid or something. Basically my wife decided what she wanted and that's what we got. I've been stalling on this for about a year now and finally gave in. Her '99 Accord has nearly 140,000 miles, which is not a huge amount by today's standards but was making her nervous.

One thing she was looking for was a more upright seating position and taller seats with better thigh support. That meant a taller vehicle. We actually looked at a Ridgeline but decided it was simultaneously too much of a truck and not enough of a truck.

The third row of seats was also a consideration. That will enable us to haul one extra person (her mother) to the vacation house along with all three cats. The "babies" ride in their carriers, belted in.

Speaking of trucks, my old Mazda pickup got 26 MPG on its last tank in mixed driving. That's not too bad.

[crosscountry]

Mother in law rides behind the cats?:lol:

[Pinemarten]

Well, the effects of friction aren't linear, so the faster you go the the more fuel you are going to burn per kilometer, and since the danger increase is not linear the police tend to come down hard on those they catch going full throttle. (Not much in the way of autobahns here, just places where no one is likely to catch you.) Ten klicks over the limit you get off fairly lightly. Fifty clicks over and you tend to lose your license.

This is one of the reasons I move close to work. When I first moved to Edmonton, I found a place to live before I found a job. Then I found a job on the other side of the city.
I was commuting to work one morning and got a ticket for going 109kph in a 50kph zone. The fine was $400, and the points increased my insurance to $4000 per year.

I moved.

[Trebuchet]

I'm constantly annoyed that living near your work seems NEVER to be listed as an option for reducing the impact of commuting. We hear lots about bicycles, busses, carpools, light rail and the like but never about optimizing locations. Of course I realize it doesn't work for everyone -- for instance virtually nobody with a normal-wage job that doesn't already have a house in Seattle can afford to buy one there. But my company employs thousands of people who pass each other on the freeway twice a day, going in opposite directions. Many of them work similar jobs.

You'd be justified in asking if I would take a pay cut to avoid commuting. The answer is I already did when I came here. And I've turned down better positions with my company because they would have involved commuting to a different facility. I live less than five miles from work and that's the way I intend to keep it.

[Pinemarten]

I am hoping companies will be given tax breaks to shorten employee commutes. Or is it already happening? Some already have daycares, etc.

[crosscountry]

most of us could start working from home.

[Gillianren]

Depends on the field, naturally. My boyfriend, who--when he's home, of course--works a little over five miles away is a supervisor; he can't realistically work from home. (Actually, I'm reasonably sure he can do his current work from home, vexingly enough.) My friend who's a librarian can't, either. I'm not sure enough people can for "most" to describe it. (I don't work at all, so there we all are, I suppose.)

[Musashi]

I wish there was a way for me to do my work at home... :)

[Pinemarten]

I have been considering starting a consulting firm over the internet. As soon as Fiji has WIFI on the beach, I intend to implement it.

[Musashi]

Electrical consulting? You'll have to let me know how it goes :)

[Pinemarten]

Once I have the market cornered I may need to offer you a job.;)

It will be a specific service that I shouldn't discuss too much at this time. Once I complete a list of 'clients' I am going to do a mass email of 'the plan'. It is not a new idea, just a way to cut a common cost by 75%. If they all get the email all at once they should discuss it enough that one of them will contact me as 'test' case. Others will realize the value of the saving and become clients.

Which sub-field are you in? I am industrial maint. to 600v.

[Musashi]

I hold a California contractor's license (C-10), so I could do just about anything. However, my personal preference is residential. (To be honest, I would probably need to take a refresher if I wanted to do anything above 277v.)

[Pinemarten]

Not much to refresh. Add a blue wire, and remember you can share three circuits with one neutral. Reverse motors by changing two phases instead of the 5-8 wires.
Oh, and don't work on it hot. It hurts much more.

Is their a shortage of journeymen down there as well? I am thinking of applying in Vegas to 'change light bulbs'.

[NEOWatcher]

Is their a shortage of journeymen down there as well? I am thinking of applying in Vegas to 'change light bulbs'.
I would break into LED's myself...more job security. ;)

[Maksutov]

probably won't change anything even then

Germans drive 120mph on the autobahn paying nearly the equivalent of $7 per gallon. And more and more people are buying cars.But going anywhere in Germany is a "kleinfarht".

If you don't have far to go, then the cost is minimal.

[crosscountry]

you haven't ridden with my roommate. He can burn a few liters running to the supermarkt 3 klicks away.

[ktesibios]

I can, for the most part, do without a car. I live a little over 1 mile from one of my workplaces and 2 miles from the other; on days when I don't need to shlep my tools I can and do walk it. I also live right around the corner from a supermarket.

I reckon that every year at insurance renewal time, when I send back the questionnaire with my odometer reading, someone at the insurance company looks at it and says "this guy lives in L.A.?!?".

BTW, over the past week and a half or so, pump prices here have blipped downwards by about 12 cents/gallon. This, of course, is because my car has been in the shop receiving a money transfusion. Prices should start going back up just about when I get her back...

[Tucson_Tim]

But going anywhere in Germany is a "kleinfarht".


I make a "kleinfarht" at work today - very embarassing. :o

[Gillianren]

Our cheapest gas station's down to under $3.20 a gallon right now. (Just after a friend quit his job because he was spending too much gas on commuting, too.)

[crosscountry]

Our cheapest gas station's down to under $3.20 a gallon right now. (Just after a friend quit his job because he was spending too much gas on commuting, too.)



I knew people that would drive 30 miles round trip to work minimum wage.


Of course those were my highschool days.

[SeanF]

I reckon that every year at insurance renewal time, when I send back the questionnaire with my odometer reading, someone at the insurance company looks at it and says "this guy lives in L.A.?!?".
You have to send in your odometer reading with your insurance renewal every year?! I never cease to be amazed at how different different parts of this country can be... :)

BTW, over the past week and a half or so, pump prices here have blipped downwards by about 12 cents/gallon.
Yeah, I saw $3.05 a gallon at a local station yesterday.

This, of course, is because my car has been in the shop receiving a money transfusion. Prices should start going back up just about when I get her back...
:lol:

[Delvo]

I thought of the idea of riding a motorcycle, to save on fuel among other reasons... but then I looked up their prices. They're just about as expensive as small cars that are still several times as big as them!

[dirty_g]

Ha your moaning at the cost? In England I think it is roughly the equivalant of around $7 a Gallon though we do litres here of course. He he. You have had cheap Petrol for a long time. Feel the pain as we aproach peak oil. Join ussssss..................

[crosscountry]

we'll still have about 1/3 the taxes you guys do. Germany has England beat though for gas prices. And to drive in Holland? fogedaboutit.


I'm looking forward to $3 per gallon.

[Musashi]

The European prices are not an effect of peak oil.

[Tucson_Tim]

I thought of the idea of riding a motorcycle, to save on fuel among other reasons... but then I looked up their prices. They're just about as expensive as small cars that are still several times as big as them!

You know, you don't have to buy a new large displacement motorcycle. If you bought a used, low-mileage, smaller displacement bike, say 400-650 cc, you could pick one up for $2000-$3000. You wouldn't have to pay for full-coverage insurance, you could get liability-only, and it would get 50+ MPG. Most of the larger motorcycles today, the ones greater than 1100 cc, only get 35-40 MPG, about the same as a Prius. A good used bike would be a Suzuki SV650.

[Van Rijn]

Ha your moaning at the cost? In England I think it is roughly the equivalant of around $7 a Gallon though we do litres here of course. He he. You have had cheap Petrol for a long time. Feel the pain as we aproach peak oil. Join ussssss..................

(1) I'm not sure who you are referring to, but I for one have not been moaning about gas costs. (2) Those price differences are primarily due to taxes, not "peak oil."

[Delvo]

You know, you don't have to buy a new large displacement motorcycle. If you bought a used, low-mileage, smaller displacement bike, say 400-650 cc, you could pick one up for $2000-$3000. You wouldn't have to pay for full-coverage insurance, you could get liability-only, and it would get 50+ MPG. Most of the larger motorcycles today, the ones greater than 1100 cc, only get 35-40 MPG, about the same as a Prius. A good used bike would be a Suzuki SV650.Ya, after looking some more I saw that a lot of what I was seeing had to do with the style of motorcycle I was looking at, and learned more about the differences between the styles... although I still don't get why so many of them have such huge displacements, especially the "touring" models since they aren't racers or off-road performance toys, or why the cheapest "touring" bikes are still more expensive than the most expensive of other types.

Actually, after looking at the motorcycle websites some more, I think the best two-wheeled motorized vehicle for me might be a modern 4-stroke-engine or electric scooter (which apparently some people consider to be a class of motorcycle and some don't): they're specialized for the road instead of being partially or entirely designed for off-road, they let you sit upright instead of crouching on your hands and balls, and they have more sensibly sized engines, all for a much lower price that's more in line with their size. (The bigger ones that look a bit more like a sport or touring motorcycle seem to also be meant more for the higher speeds and longer rides that people don't normally mentally associate with conventional scooters.)

But looking at scooters online has made me wonder about the definition of the difference between them and (other) motorcycles. I would have thought it was that scooters have a frame that's almost split into front and back segments with a gap you can step through and some flat floor space between them, but some scooter models have a higher floor than others or a ridge sticking partway up between separate right and left foot platforms, and in some cases that gest so high it seems to be somewhere between a motorcycle and a scooter... or just seems to fit the "motorcycle" category by this definition instead of the "scooter" category because there's just no gap at all and the ridge's top is no lower than the seat, like the Yamaha Morphous (http://www.yamaha-motor.com/sport/products/modelhome/479/0/home.aspx). If some like that are called "scooters", then maybe the actual defining trait is not the "gap" in the structure but the smaller wheel size...

[Tucson_Tim]

Motorcycle Online (http://www.motorcycle.com/) is one of the premier m/c websites, but it requires an annual fee to see the entire site - not much - about $12. There are many other m/c websites.

With the gas prices, scooters are getting more and more popular, some with larger engines that are capable of interstate highway travel. There are many different models by quite a few manufacturers.

[crosscountry]

Actually, after looking at the motorcycle websites some more, I think the best two-wheeled motorized vehicle for me might be a modern 4-stroke-engine...



modern? 4-stroke have been around a long time. Actually the first motorcycle (automobile of any kind) was a 4-stroke.
http://photos.crosscountryadventures.us/displayimage.php?album=54&pos=16

You can't even buy a 2-stroke for the road anymore, and for dirt they're being phased out due to noise and pollution.


We had a suzuki GZ250. Small bike but it got 70+ mpg and it could ride on the interstate. Don't try to pass though. It would have been a comfortable commuter. Here in Europe people are allowed to ride between cars. That bike would ride great being narrow. But it was still comfortable.

My Vulcan 500 rides good but only getsabout 42mpg, I'm dissapointed by that actually. My brother's new TDI Jetta gets more than that.

[Delvo]

I was talking about scooters, not motorcycles.

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

Oil prices have passed the record 90 $ US dollars, there are political concerns that Turkey might invade Iraq to hit the Kurdish and concerns about currency such as a weak US dollar...because this is largely political I don't think these subjects can be discussed

but how long before Oil hits 100 $ per barrel ?

[crosscountry]

there was a program here from the 1970s to the early 90s that limited the speed to 55mph or about 90kph. people sped anyway and it just cost them more in fines

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

see my post on the coming recession

something big is about to happen

[crosscountry]

the USD has dropped severly lately.

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

yeah, the Canadian dollar was @ $1.03.57 yesterday....somethings coming

[crosscountry]

I want to invest in foreign money right now. anyone have some money I can borrow?

[Neverfly]

I want to invest in foreign money right now. anyone have some money I can borrow?

Well, let's see...
You're in Texas..
I have some California currency I can trade with you.

[crosscountry]

yes, but the exchange isn't in my favor right now.

[davidlpf]

yeah, the Canadian dollar was @ $1.03.57 yesterday....somethings coming
A slowdown maybe may be comimg. Where my mother works the letting a few people go cause of the slow down because housing market, she works at a particle board factory. Also nearby they are clearing a path for a new four lane highway that will lead to a third bridge to the states. We do need the bridge the main bridge can have a line up for over a mile through the small town I live outside. Whether or not the bridge is ever built is anybodys guess. The point is the markets might slow down for a while but it will be back and rolling along as usual. I will make a guess in year from let say January things might look better in the States.

[crosscountry]

I will make a guess in year from let say January things might look better in the States.


I think it will take a lot longer till we recover.