Fuel prices to rise again.

[protouringuk]

Here in the Uk our goverment is just about to fleece us even more for fuel,they are suggesting that the price will increase by 5 pence pushing the cost up to approx £1.25 per litre,(approx $1.82).
Great living over here getting ripped off with everything......now wheres my passport time to move!

[shopking68]

wow $1.82 is cheap compared to here...

[John Wright]

$2.49/gal of 87 octane here right now....which is cheaper than I've seen for quite a while.

[Rhino]

wow $1.82 is cheap compared to here...

Out of curiosity, where do you live?
$1.82 per liter is significantly more expensive than here in the US. That equates to roughly $6.89 a gallon.

[79PonchoUK]

Out of curiosity, where do you live?
$1.82 per liter is significantly more expensive than here in the US. That equates to roughly $6.89 a gallon.

I don't think he read the 'per litre' part.

Our fuel prices are rediculous.

You could argue that if we can afford to run muscle cars then it's not that bad....but they're a toy.

People have to get to work on these prices and if you live a distance from your job you can spend over a quarter of your wage getting to it....you can spend half of your wage if you start using public transport.

It costs $2 for a bus that goes less than 2 miles from here to town, a taxi is $11 for the same journey.

Moving just small distances is expensive.

[jtkirk00]

"It costs $2 for a bus that goes less than 2 miles from here to town, a taxi is $11 for the same journey."

How much does it cost to walk or ride a bike those two miles? :bicycle:

"Moving just small distances is expensive."

It's really the convenience of moving just small distances that is expensive, not the moving itself.

Part of me wishes gas would get even more expensive so we will finally do something about efficiency standards.

[MuscleRodz]

Who is the mjor fuel provider there, BP?

[79PonchoUK]

"It costs $2 for a bus that goes less than 2 miles from here to town, a taxi is $11 for the same journey."

How much does it cost to walk or ride a bike those two miles? :bicycle:

"Moving just small distances is expensive."

It's really the convenience of moving just small distances that is expensive, not the moving itself.

Part of me wishes gas would get even more expensive so we will finally do something about efficiency standards.

Yes, because pregnant women often ride bikes, and so do people fetching supplies from the supermarket - which is 10 miles away. Want to work 2 miles away but need to come home at dinner to let your dog out?....better take a shower too or your shirt will be wet with sweat.

The hippy ideals of walking and riding everywhere only work so far. You can live that way, and people do without their cars all of the time....the problem is that many people have their lives running around cars they could afford 10 years ago, when fuel was nearly half the price.

Think of people in the rural areas, they're 10 miles from a supermarket - a supermarket that since opening has closed most local convenience stores. Can those people ride their bikes 10 miles for some milk and bread? Up country lanes with a rucksack? lol

I need my car to earn a living. I can't go to see a client on a fecking pushbike....I can't walk there either, even if it is only two miles away. The world doesn't work that way unless you're a student. :lol:

What I'm getting at is this hike in fuel pricing is happening too fast and it's putting a lot of people in the red. If it spanned 20-30 years then yes, people can adapt faster - their jobs in particular generally change in that period of time....but 10 years isn't a long time at all.

[jtkirk00]

OK, cool... now we're talking about a 10 mile trip instead of 2 miles. And we've introduced a pregnant woman into the equation. And now we're going grocery shopping too. As long as the variables of the discussion keep changing, it will never prove very useful.

My point is that there are alternative forms of transportation. It's easiest to hop in our car and drive some place. But we can walk, bike, carpool, take public transportation, etc. We could trade in our cars for ones with better fuel mileage.

Ultimately, I wish the US had the same gas prices as in Europe. Perhaps innovation would take place faster then and we could move beyond our reliance on oil.

[Rhino]

Ultimately, I wish the US had the same gas prices as in Europe. Perhaps innovation would take place faster then and we could move beyond our reliance on oil.

Unfortunately you're 100% correct. Until an alternative is cheaper we'll never see it happen on a large scale. What we will see is a more European-like trend toward smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles.

That's a future that I don't hold a lot of interest in.

[Randy67]

OK, cool... now we're talking about a 10 mile trip instead of 2 miles. And we've introduced a pregnant woman into the equation. And now we're going grocery shopping too. As long as the variables of the discussion keep changing, it will never prove very useful.

My point is that there are alternative forms of transportation. It's easiest to hop in our car and drive some place. But we can walk, bike, carpool, take public transportation, etc. We could trade in our cars for ones with better fuel mileage.

Ultimately, I wish the US had the same gas prices as in Europe. Perhaps innovation would take place faster then and we could move beyond our reliance on oil.

Unfortunately, not all areas have viable alternative transportation choices, like most cities have. Heck in Atlanta our public transportation system doesn't run overnight and little to none on Sundays, unlike other cities which operate all the time.

As for getting higher mileage cars, the automakers would love that. Not all of us can afford to do that, at least not with new cars. I roughly figured out that getting rid of my Dakota for a Civic for example, it was more than 10 years for me to break even with the fuel savings. Granted if fuel costs go up more, that would be shorter, but currently hard for me to justify.

[jtkirk00]

Exactly, Randy. With gas prices being so cheap (yes, cheap), there's little incentive to build more alternatives for transportation or to build more efficient cars. It'll take $4 gas to start the conversation again and then $6-7 prices to really make things happen.

[MrQuick]

I agree JT. I wish people would think with their heads and not with their pocket books. I find it funny that the threat of global destruction takes a back seat to our bank accounts.



fuel prices seem to be relative. I'd fill barrels if we had 1.82 a gallon in the summer.

I guess our taxes put the prices up and over.

What are the taxes like over in the UK??

Vince

[jtkirk00]

Vince - The $1.82 price is per litre, not gallon. Just under 4 litres equals a gallon, so their prices are much, much higher than ours. That's why I say ours is cheap.

There's an idea called the veil of ignorance that I wish folks would apply more often. If you had no idea what your own situation would be in life (i.e. income, location, etc), would you want to rely on a limited and polluting resource such as oil to provide your transportation. I would say not. You would like prefer a cleaner, renewable source of energy. So dispite the price of gas 10 years ago, today, or 10 years in the future, we should be working towards the right solutions now. Of course, there are many people with vested interests in that not happening (veil of ignorance be dammed) that it won't happen for a long time.

[fordsbyjay]

Here in the Uk our goverment is just about to fleece us even more for fuel,they are suggesting that the price will increase by 5 pence pushing the cost up to approx £1.25 per litre,(approx $1.82).
Great living over here getting ripped off with everything......now wheres my passport time to move!

This reminds me of healthcare. I moved to the US from Canada to get away from super high taxes and up until BP all you heard was how great health care is in Canada and England. My philosophy is if it is so damn great go get you some and don't let the door hit you on the way out. If it was so great people wouldn't be flocking to the States to get that government boot off their face. The price of oil is the same to buy around the world so all the extra is the government screwing you over.

[MrQuick]

Vince - The $1.82 price is per litre, not gallon. Just under 4 litres equals a gallon, so their prices are much, much higher than ours. That's why I say ours is cheap.

There's an idea called the veil of ignorance that I wish folks would apply more often. If you had no idea what your own situation would be in life (i.e. income, location, etc), would you want to rely on a limited and polluting resource such as oil to provide your transportation. I would say not. You would like prefer a cleaner, renewable source of energy. So dispite the price of gas 10 years ago, today, or 10 years in the future, we should be working towards the right solutions now. Of course, there are many people with vested interests in that not happening (veil of ignorance be dammed) that it won't happen for a long time.
thanks for the clairification JT... I misread what I thought was the equate to US... very strange since there is such a fuel surplus at this time. Maybe not across the pond. Yes, we have been spoiled for a long long time.

Here in the Uk our goverment is just about to fleece us even more for fuel,they are suggesting that the price will increase by 5 pence pushing the cost up to approx £1.25 per litre,(approx $1.82).
Great living over here getting ripped off with everything......now wheres my passport time to move!

[TonyHuntimer]

Exactly, Randy. With gas prices being so cheap (yes, cheap), there's little incentive to build more alternatives for transportation or to build more efficient cars. It'll take $4 gas to start the conversation again and then $6-7 prices to really make things happen.

JTKirk,
I don't know where you live...but last year at this time we were paying about $4.90 per gallon for premium in my area. Today I paid about $3.50 per gallon...so yes it got cheaper, but it's slowly creeping back up as it does every year at this time. If the price got to $6 to $7 per gallon like you want it to, the price of everything (food, mail, everything transported) would be fricken so expensive we'd all be in the poor house or living on the street. Especially if it happened in a short period of time like it did last year when it climbed about $1.75 per gallon in 3 months when we had an "oil shortage". Like usual, it was a short-lived BS "oil shortage". What happened to the oil shortage? Hmmm. It was BS...that's what happened. Just like it always is when the oil guys want to raise the prices.

Anyway, it sucks for the people in the UK who have to rely on their cars with the prices climbing so fast. It's too bad everyone can't own a little electric car like a Tesla or a small gas powered car like a Smart. I feel bad for them. Biking to work is an option for some, but I'm sure that only depends on the weather being decent. Here in San Jose I used to bike to work almost all year round back in the late 90's. Relatively low humidity meant that I didn't sweat much if at all...but then I'm not a sweater like some. :)

Tony Huntimer
RaceHome.com

[79PonchoUK]

The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. How do you reduce this reliance on oil anyway?

You're making cars out of plastic to save weight....takes a LOT of oil.
The more efficient components can no longer be made in house so more have to be bought in from a supplier....takes oil.

It seems electrical energy generated by nuclear power is the only way to avoid use of fossil fuels (and using pressed steel panels lol) - that has problems of it's own...not just the waste from the plant, but the 20 years it seems to take to get a nuclear site up and running. lol

Not just that, but the energy required to make these vehicles work is huge...then you have to use nearly as much to dispose of them again. Batteries don't last very long either. If anyone mentions hybrid cars as an alternative they need banning from the board. :lol:

It's really not as simple as just forcing people to want efficient technology. It has to be a slow transition or the rest of the world doesn't catch up.

Keep pushing things like this and there will be chaos. We'll still rely on foreign oil for the plastics, we'll probably have blackouts because demand for electricity outstrips supply and we'll end up with environmental disasters not just caused by oil, but by the manufacture of batteries.

This isn't 'demolition man'. We won't have that future by then. Things HAVE to move slowly.

Be well. :lol:

[Tony_SS]

would be fricken so expensive we'd all be in the poor house or living on the street.
Not trying to be chicken little here, but we are a c-hair away from total collapse. Gas is supposed to push $4 again by November, I think.

[jtkirk00]

When I say that gas is cheap, it's relative to the rest of the world. I think I paid high $2/gallon the other day for regular unleaded. To be honest, I don't even look at the price. I have to have the gas so what do I care?

Finding alternatives to oil (or ways of reducing the dependence on oil) is a very difficult problem. But there is no incentive to work on it when gas is so cheap. We'll just keep using until the incentive appears.

One of the easiest solutions to the issue is for people to move back to the cities. This is similar to what happens in Europe. When I lived in France 10 years ago, I could walk or train everywhere I needed to go. I lost 20 pounds too walking and eating better. Now, I drive 30 miles each way to work because we live in the burbs. We have a big house and yard, but I'm not helping things. Of course, I'm not complaining about gas prices either. I could certainly move closer to my job and have about half the space I do now.

None of this is an easy problem to solve. But if we support capitalism, then this is the price (pun intended) we pay.

[The Stickman]

Ultimately, I wish the US had the same gas prices as in Europe. Perhaps innovation would take place faster then and we could move beyond our reliance on oil.

Doesn't really work that way though does it. Consider the current laws on the book. Most states won't even allow you to change your current exhaust from single to true dual exhaust with dual cats because it alters the emmisions equipment. Legally I can't take off my emmisions computer controller carb for fuel injection as it alters the emmisons equipment. Sure you can go with a newer engine as long as you use all of it's smog equipment. But that's not innovation.

[The Stickman]

The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. How do you reduce this reliance on oil anyway?

You're making cars out of plastic to save weight....takes a LOT of oil.
The more efficient components can no longer be made in house so more have to be bought in from a supplier....takes oil.

It seems electrical energy generated by nuclear power is the only way to avoid use of fossil fuels (and using pressed steel panels lol) - that has problems of it's own...not just the waste from the plant, but the 20 years it seems to take to get a nuclear site up and running. lol

Not just that, but the energy required to make these vehicles work is huge...then you have to use nearly as much to dispose of them again. Batteries don't last very long either. If anyone mentions hybrid cars as an alternative they need banning from the board. :lol:

It's really not as simple as just forcing people to want efficient technology. It has to be a slow transition or the rest of the world doesn't catch up.

Keep pushing things like this and there will be chaos. We'll still rely on foreign oil for the plastics, we'll probably have blackouts because demand for electricity outstrips supply and we'll end up with environmental disasters not just caused by oil, but by the manufacture of batteries.

This isn't 'demolition man'. We won't have that future by then. Things HAVE to move slowly.

Be well. :lol:

Very well said. And consider this. In the early 90's GM had a car called the GEO Metro. I drove and loved these cars at work. They were tough little cars. Used a 3 cylinder engine. I drove one from my side of Pennsylvania to Pittsburgh on the other side about 6 hours away. I checked the mileage after I got there. I got 56 MPG. Ok this was a 1991 model car. Why is it now taking very expensive hybrids to get this kind of mileage some 20 years later?

[jtkirk00]

Doesn't really work that way though does it. Consider the current laws on the book. Most states won't even allow you to change your current exhaust from single to true dual exhaust with dual cats because it alters the emmisions equipment. Legally I can't take off my emmisions computer controller carb for fuel injection as it alters the emmisons equipment. Sure you can go with a newer engine as long as you use all of it's smog equipment. But that's not innovation.

It takes innovation at all levels... government, corporations and the individual. But the individual drives it all, it must start there.

As for why it takes fancy hybrids to make the same gas mileage as the early 90's, well, it's obvious. Who wants to drive a Metro when a Prius is the coolest thing ever. Who cares that a Prius takes up to 10 years to "break even." If we demand Metros, we'll get Metros. The technology to get great mileage has existed for decades. But it isn't profitable or desirable. With gas at $6/gallon, perhaps it will be.

[MrQuick]

It takes innovation at all levels... government, corporations and the individual. But the individual drives it all, it must start there.

As for why it takes fancy hybrids to make the same gas mileage as the early 90's, well, it's obvious. Who wants to drive a Metro when a Prius is the coolest thing ever. Who cares that a Prius takes up to 10 years to "break even." If we demand Metros, we'll get Metros. The technology to get great mileage has existed for decades. But it isn't profitable or desirable. With gas at $6/gallon, perhaps it will be.
its true, we are going to have to have a multitude of different systems working where they should be working in a more efficient way.
In California, switching delivery vehicles, municiple trucks and public transportation buses to natrual gas from diesel was a huge step. One step that the Pickin's plan highlighted. Imagine this change on a global scale. We would be able to export our resources for a change.

There are a lot of other placed we can cut our oil usage. Remember we still use heating oil to heat homes and businesses accross the Eastern side.

Honestly, I still don't buy full electric. Hybrids are great but the cost of the initial purchase is very high. Somthing I hoped would change but it seems to stall every time the price of oil/fuel drops.

Vince

[Twentyover]

Very well said. And consider this. In the early 90's GM had a car called the GEO Metro. ............Pennsylvania to Pittsburgh on the other side about 6 hours away. I checked the mileage after I got there. I got 56 MPG. Ok this was a 1991 model car. Why is it now taking very expensive hybrids to get this kind of mileage some 20 years later?


How many Metro's weighed 3500 lbs? How many carried a family of 5 comfortably? How many had power windows, seats, mirrors, and a host of airbags?

Ittakes energytoaccelerate weight. The more the car weighs, the more energy it takes to accelerate. As late as the mid-80's, some cars weighed less then a ton. How many production cars can make that claim today?

[BuddyP]

A couple points here guys, taxes are different between UK (Europe) and here. But ol Obbie is slowly trying to transform this country into socialism. Yes UK gas is more expensive (highly taxed)... but there are a whole lot more gov't funded "perks" (so to speak) than what we have in the US.

Secondly, if you snap your fingers and EVERY vehicle gets taken off the road in the US.... you've now only reduced our oil comsuption by 25%.

I do not want to drive around a little smart car. Going smaller, better milage vehicles in not the answer. There need to be a different means all together. As of today, it looks like electricity/batteries is the direction manufacturers are choosing to go. We are way to dependant on what we have today and take many things for granted. I gotta believe it's going to kick us square in the arse someday... and it may be starting to happen now.

I'm very suprised gas prices here havn't skyrocketed since the oil spill. Then Obbie puts a moratorium on the 3500 other rigs in the gulf (Why???). It's almost as if he's trying to get the price up?

[BuddyP]

I got 56 MPG. Ok this was a 1991 model car.were tough li Why is it now taking very expensive hybrids to get this kind of mileage some 20 years later?

Gov't regulations/safety equipment and emissions. More material, more cost, more weight. Gotta love big brother eh?

[paul67]

years ago I could could walk to work,but since cheap imports killed the manufacturing industry I have to drive, public transport not available,ho and did you know the Indian government subsidises the diesel at the pump,so when watching a program about a company trying to sell a tree plant oil they could not compete.And we in the western world have to cut your emissions :machine:

[mikedc]

A couple points here guys, taxes are different between UK (Europe) and here. But ol Obbie is slowly trying to transform this country into socialism. Yes UK gas is more expensive (highly taxed)... but there are a whole lot more gov't funded "perks" (so to speak) than what we have in the US.

Secondly, if you snap your fingers and EVERY vehicle gets taken off the road in the US.... you've now only reduced our oil comsuption by 25%.

I do not want to drive around a little smart car. Going smaller, better milage vehicles in not the answer. There need to be a different means all together. As of today, it looks like electricity/batteries is the direction manufacturers are choosing to go. We are way to dependant on what we have today and take many things for granted. I gotta believe it's going to kick us square in the arse someday... and it may be starting to happen now.

I'm very suprised gas prices here havn't skyrocketed since the oil spill. Then Obbie puts a moratorium on the 3500 other rigs in the gulf (Why???). It's almost as if he's trying to get the price up?


The whole reason the USA does not have any viable alternatives to massive conventional automobile usage is because of chronically low prices of gas.

Everybody complains about govt involvement in private industries when it's adding regulations onto our cars, but nobody complains that those regs have been holding down our fuel prices for decades.

[Taylor1969]

The whole reason the USA does not have any viable alternatives to massive conventional automobile usage is because of chronically low prices of gas.

Everybody complains about govt involvement in private industries when it's adding regulations onto our cars, but nobody complains that those regs have been holding down our fuel prices for decades.

the misinformation in this thread is rediculouns... This should be moved to the political section so that we can "start" talking politics.

[mikedc]

the misinformation in this thread is rediculouns... This should be moved to the political section so that we can "start" talking politics


I'm not laying blame. The policies have been in place for 30+ years. I'm not advocating any specific new actions.


I just said that our gasoline dependence has been boosted by long term low fuel prices, and that govt intervention on vehicle (CAFE rules) have held down gas prices. If you can tear down those ideas then I am listening.

.

[MrQuick]

The whole reason the USA does not have any viable alternatives to massive conventional automobile usage is because of chronically low prices of gas.

Everybody complains about govt involvement in private industries when it's adding regulations onto our cars, but nobody complains that those regs have been holding down our fuel prices for decades.
no your right Mike, but in the big picture its a huge money sckeme like illeagal drugs. Get them hooked up for cheap, give them a way to use it and you have a loyal customer for life.

But wait, we export more than half of the oil we produce for a profit then buy the oil we use at a discount but distribute for a profit. Its a money game.


Vince

[mikedc]

Yes, it is a money game.

But where does that leave us? The profits may get juggled around in the process of the whole thing but the bottom line is not much different than if they were not.

We still get fuel from the worldwide market. We still get it cheap enough to have hooked us. We still fight against any steps being taken to change the situation.

.

[jtkirk00]

But ol Obbie is slowly trying to transform this country into socialism. Yes UK gas is more expensive (highly taxed)... but there are a whole lot more gov't funded "perks" (so to speak) than what we have in the US.

Anybody else see the irony in this statement? :idea:

[MrQuick]

anybody else see the irony in this statement? :idea:
lol

[Tony_SS]

Very well said. And consider this. In the early 90's GM had a car called the GEO Metro. I drove and loved these cars at work. They were tough little cars. Used a 3 cylinder engine. I drove one from my side of Pennsylvania to Pittsburgh on the other side about 6 hours away. I checked the mileage after I got there. I got 56 MPG. Ok this was a 1991 model car. Why is it now taking very expensive hybrids to get this kind of mileage some 20 years later?

Try to find one of those Metros back when gas was $4 a gallon. Those little things were going for 4-5K. One sold on eBay for $10k!

I have 2 Swift GT's, same body as the Metro, but different suspension/drivetrain... 1300 DOHC, 4 wheel discs, stiffer suspension and 42-45mpg on the hwy. If gas goes back up again, I'll sell one and triple my money. :)

[mikedc]

The modern auto buying public in north america is not serious about mileage. These modern hybrids are trendy guilt-trip purchases more than genuine efficiency buys.

These days even a lot of "small" modern cars they're selling are above 3500 pounds. Fuel efficient cars do not weigh two tons.

[79PonchoUK]

[QUOTE=mikedc;683939]These modern hybrids are trendy guilt-trip purchases more than genuine efficiency buys.

QUOTE]

Agreed.

So many of them are bought so people can give the impression they're saving the environment. A Prius just about gets 50mpg if you're easy with it.

You can get 60mpg from some non-hybrid cars and still carry 5. If you really want economy then you don't buy a hybrid.

I can't understand why LPG isn't more popular in the UK. It's half the price of fuel. Cleaner, higher octane, is readily available in every city...and most towns...yet hardly anyone uses it. Granted, the conversion costs are quite high - $4-5k...but many people would make their money back in fuel savings over 24months. Only reason I haven't converted is because I do hardly any miles at all....with working from home.

Speaking of which, the development of the internet means that working from home is going to skyrocket over the next 5 years....particularly as businesses adjust their policies to keep work rate up when doing so.
Even if fuel prices drop, we're still going to have less cars on the road in 10 years time...not more. Mark my words.

Most vehicles on the roads will be delivery vans. lol.

[MrQuick]

in the states it is up to us.
Lets look at what has happened in the past few months.

Unemployment has risen, less people driving.
Municipals and fleet switching to LPG CNG etc.
Surge in hybrid vehicles.

This has all helped caused a fuel surplus in the country, demand dropped and so have the prices.
However.
At the same time, mass transportation cost has risen, local bus lines and subway systems have seen a drop in rider ship. More people start driving to fuel cost equaling the effort to use public transit.

More third world countries have traded bicycles for cheap gas powered vehicles. Large drivers spike in these countries. China, India, Thailand, etc.
What I am getting at is agencies have to try to work together. This has to be a global effort to make happen. We have shown that many small changes can make a difference. We can lessen fuel/oil consumption and push alternatives. Next time you are on the highway, glance around and see how many single riders are on the road.



Doesn't really work that way though does it. Consider the current laws on the book. Most states won't even allow you to change your current exhaust from single to true dual exhaust with dual cats because it alters the emmisions equipment. Legally I can't take off my emmisions computer controller carb for fuel injection as it alters the emmisons equipment. Sure you can go with a newer engine as long as you use all of it's smog equipment. But that's not innovation.
The EPA,CARB,GM and SEMA helped create the E-ROD (http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/27/gm-e-rod-crate-motor-no-longer-just-for-the-shiftless/)engine system. Its a great program and show that most are willing to bend the rules if it contributes to the greater good. Its a start.

Vince

[MrQuick]

the misinformation in this thread is rediculouns... This should be moved to the political section so that we can "start" talking politics. like? if you are going to make a statement like that please add more info or your opinion.It can be done without getting thrown into the politics hits can.


vince

[79PonchoUK]

It seems fashionable over there to whittle about the oil dependancy too.

If we think in a crazy 'worst case scenario' way, let's face it, out of the US, the UK, Japan, many european countries and most arab countries - the US is the LEAST dependant on oil.

Yes, you use the most (or thereabouts) out of any country, but you have such a scope for alternatives.

If you HAD to stop using imported oil, you'd have used the vast amount of space you have, the population of engineers and labourers to put alternatives in to practice very quickly indeed. You have huge amounts of coastline, large rail networks, a huge amount of power generation that's fueled by US resources, and enough farming to survive. You've also got half of your own oil consumption being satisfied from wells within your boundaries.

Let's face it....if the UK couldn't import oil any more, we'd lose about 95% of the population. We don't have the space to grow food for 70 million people....let alone fuels.

Japan wouldn't last 5 minutes.

It's not going to be an issue though is it. The countries that export oil need us to buy it even more than we need them to sell it. It's that important to them that it will never be unavailable, except in a scenario where oil is the least of our worries. lol. Our countries will eventually whittle down the requirements for oil anyway...simply out of economy. There's no rush.

...and when we're not dependant on oil, we're going to be dependant on something else - lithium, gold, gas, corn, whatever.

[Rhino]

That's a very valid and interesting way of thinking about it. On a global scale I think you're absolutely correct.

I believe when most people are talking about our dependence upon oil, they're assuming our current lifestyle and comfort level. If it came down to it, we would have to sacrifice a few things, but at least we would be able to survive.

[MrQuick]

Interesting points but a very old way of thinking....you can't pull your head under the covers and hope it will go away.
We don't use as much as so and so, so we are ok. No
If we don't have oil then we will use something else. No, we need more resources.
If we had 5 alternatives to lessen our dependency then demand would drop, prices would drop and carbon pollution would equalize.

Look at what Israel is doing. Creating a multi faceted power program that replenish's all of their energy demands. Hydro, solar, bio fuels and algae power with the waste product that can also feed animals, humans and fertilize crops.

The US is low?

statistics from the EIA as of July 2009
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

U.S. Crude Oil Production 4,950 ,000 barrels/day
U.S. Crude Oil Imports 9,783 ,000 barrels/day
U.S. Petroleum Product Imports 3,132,000 barrels/day
U.S. Net Petroleum Imports 11,114,000 barrels/day
Dependence on Net Petroleum Imports 57.0%
Top U.S. Crude Oil Supplier Canada - 1,956,000 barrels/day
Top U.S. Total Petroleum Supplier Canada - 2,493,000 barrels/day

U.S. Crude Oil Imports from OPEC 5,954,000 barrels/day
U.S. Petroleum Product Imports from OPEC 540,000 barrels/day
State Ranking of Crude Oil Production Texas - 1,087,000 barrels/day
Top U.S. Producing Companies (2007) BP - 654,000 barrels/day
Top U.S. Oil Fields by Production (2007) Prudhoe Bay, AK
Top Oil Producing Countries & Exporters #1 - Saudi Arabia (10,782 Thousand bbls/day)

[79PonchoUK]

Interesting points but a very old way of thinking....you can't pull your head under the covers and hope it will go away.
We don't use as much as so and so, so we are ok. No
If we don't have oil then we will use something else. No, we need more resources.


Hope what will go away? There is no 'it'.

Oil isn't going to run out any time soon. Technology will advance whether we pay $3 per gallon or $30. The rate will be different, but what's the impending doom?

I think it's just that the world has been educated to the usage of oil...false ideas of vulnerability have set in and now it's a demonstration of 'being a switched on person' to whittle, protest, warn, panic and whatever else over oil dependancy. The whole world is dependant on oil. As long as there is money, there is going to be a supply of oil to america. When oil runs out, (which, incidentally, has been 40 years away for the past 80 years) the development of technology, no matter how little the need may have been will have offered more economical alternatives than the huge efforts of digging energy up from deep underground.

It's such an uneconomical way of making energy that it's going to be replaced as a power source slowly, but surely, no matter what. You could argue that there's no harm in pressing the issue....but in isolated cases there really is harm....besides, why stress yourselves out over it. :lol:

There really is no panic though. Not when you stop thinking just about your own country and think about everyone else's too. Oil is safe, even if half of it ends up in the sea.

Can you ever imagine ANY country in the world saying 'we're not selling to america'? The arab countries that hate america with a passion still drive around in Chevrolets....they don't care really as long as it suits them.

[MrQuick]

Im not stressing over anything, we are just having a nice civilized converation about the world we live in.

Never said oil should go away. I use it.
Never said there was a panic, just there should be awarness. How many of us fire up the car to drive 3 blocks for a gallon of milk?
Never said oil exploration was dangerous, since the last oil leak, before that the last US oil rig accident was in 1969. This present problem was an avoidable leak which is the real crime. Putting profits over safety. sad. BP seems to be waiting for the flow to stop. So far its turned into a super well that seems to continue to leak. Strange.

On a side but related note. It would cost 12 trillion dollars to switch every fuel station in the US to sell E85 fuel. That alone would not be worth the effort.

My point is why waste money spent in foreign countries when we can lesses our usage by combining resources we have here?

Vince

[Rhino]

The traditional oil reserves they were speaking of 40 years ago probably have been depleted by now. At the time, oil prices were extremely low and there was no benefit to extract the "difficult" oil.
Through higher oil prices, and advancements in technology, oil that would have been previously untouchable is now being consumed.

I would agree that it seems doom and gloom sometimes, however barring further technological developments, current forecasts do seem rather accurate.

[MrQuick]

you never know...but the current development in the Arab countries is a bit curious. I remember an interview with the prince of Dubia. Oil reserves had very few years left but would not say exactly.

Vince

[Rhino]

I'm not doubting you, however I do doubt their motives behind those statements. Creating the perception of a scarce resource could prove just as profitable as it actually being scarce. With that said, I would agree that whatever is there is a finite, and dwindling, reserve.

Regardless of how much oil is actually left, I'm still a huge proponent of finding alternatives. Overuse (and complete dependence) on specific resources will never be a good thing. I like options.

[mikedc]

The middle-eastern oil reserves are probably inflated IMHO.

A few decades ago OPEC created a situation where countries were financially rewarded for inflating their oil reserve numbers. Then everybody's numbers coincidentally started rising at that same time.

According to their pre-inflation figures the big name countries of OPEC would be soon peaking, or even declining already.



Iraq is the lone holdout. It has a disportionate amount of oil still in the ground. Saddam was embargo'd for years and he couldn't sell nearly as much oil as his neighbors all did at the time. Its oil could play a very critical role in the coming years if the rest of OPEC's numbers start dropping when we don't expect them to. Iraq's oil might take on the importance that Saudi Arabia's oil has held up to now.

.

[CreepinDeth]

Fuel prices have gone down ~ $.50 a gallon since the BP oil leak around here.

http://www.chicagogasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

[crustysack]

since the BP oil leak around here.

I dont know if you've seen the video but that is a little larger than a "leak"
Even this catastrophic mess in the gulf will not change our consumption of petroleum products. There is just to much stuff made from oil that everyone uses on an everyday basis. The only time we are going to stop using it is when it runs out, and only then will we see large scale change. Unless of course some one invents the "Mr. Fusion" thing that Doc had on the back of the DeLorean, then we will finally get the flying cars I have been waiting for since I was a kid.

[MrQuick]

at least he didn't call it a spill. Leak is a better description. Ask any expert, thats one hell of a super well gushing.

My fear is that the oil and power companies will take control of the alternative power industry and hold it over our heads like a carrot.
same ole sh*t just a different resource.
vince