-
Hi Guest!
You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Gas price
- Thread starter jlaird
- Start date
Share this page
Online
jlaird said:
New technology is part of the answer but not THE answer. Currently there is no holy grail, with the possible exception of Nuclear to power our infrastructure. The price of gas is driven by demand (mostly in Asia/China) and commodity speculators driving the price of crude up.
If tomorrow we were to announce that we have opened all the areas we have to drilling (which CAN be done without destroying the planet), the speculative markets would collapse and the price of crude would drop, as would the price of gas.
Like it or not, we are a world that runs mostly on fossil fuels and that isn't going to change any time soon. We need to explore and tap the vast resources we have in our own country (such as ANWR and the vast reserve is the Dakotas and Colorado and Utah, off the coasts, etc) WHILE we explore new technologies to not only replace gas, but also to make engines and cars that are NOT cracker boxes, but are more efficient.
We need to do what can be done (and should be done) to bring the cost of crude down NOW. It isn't just the evil SUV drivers (like my wife who has a need for hers) who are hurt by our reluctance to drill and increase domestic supplies, it is also the truckers - many of them independent - who are going out of business; the price of Diesel is causing the price of transportation of goods to increase, which is effecting the price of everything else.
Alternatives are all fine and dandy, but in the meantime, I'm sick and tired of bending to the will of certain groups who want to see us move back to the stone age. Drill now, drill often, drill everywhere we can - and do so in a way that does not destroy the environment. At the same time invest in Nuclear and new technologies for the long-term.
Basil
RickB
Yoda
Offline
Right on Basil - I couldn't agree more.
One additional comment - we should build some new refineries as well to handle the increased supply that following your advice would bring.
My wife drives a Kia Sedona. I bought that 6000+ pound vehicle because of it's safety record and the fact that we routinely have to drive a large crowd around.
I want her driving something that will protect her and the offspring should something bad happen.
After recent attempts at tuning it now gets 18 mpg in town.
We are happy as this is a 20% increase in efficiency.
It hauls 8 people comfortably and the mileage is better on the freeway.
Is this: "not a valid form of personal transportation"?
Safety:
In a collision between my "SUV" and a commuter the people in the commuter would likely be seriously injured.
My eight people might sustain injury, but very possibly would not.
If my 6000+ pound SUV collided with a 2000 pound commuter I think it would have the greatest possibility of driving away from the carnage.
To recap:
If you have more than a few people to move around then IMHO you should responsibly do so in a large vehicle as the <span style="font-weight: bold">per-person fuel economy</span> is far better that way. This is better than using multiple vehicles to move many people to a single destination.
If you disagree then ask yourself if you think that taking mass transit is a "valid form of transportation".
If you want to move 1500 pounds of stuff somewhere it is way better to do so in one trip using a large vehicle than with multiple small vehicles or multiple trips. This argument is reasonable and mathematically sound.
Not to mention the fact that your 1500 pound load might be something that can't be split between trips (say, a spridget on a trailer?). Try doing that with your commuter, say bye bye to your little transmission!
One additional comment - we should build some new refineries as well to handle the increased supply that following your advice would bring.
My wife drives a Kia Sedona. I bought that 6000+ pound vehicle because of it's safety record and the fact that we routinely have to drive a large crowd around.
I want her driving something that will protect her and the offspring should something bad happen.
After recent attempts at tuning it now gets 18 mpg in town.
We are happy as this is a 20% increase in efficiency.
It hauls 8 people comfortably and the mileage is better on the freeway.
Is this: "not a valid form of personal transportation"?
Safety:
In a collision between my "SUV" and a commuter the people in the commuter would likely be seriously injured.
My eight people might sustain injury, but very possibly would not.
If my 6000+ pound SUV collided with a 2000 pound commuter I think it would have the greatest possibility of driving away from the carnage.
To recap:
If you have more than a few people to move around then IMHO you should responsibly do so in a large vehicle as the <span style="font-weight: bold">per-person fuel economy</span> is far better that way. This is better than using multiple vehicles to move many people to a single destination.
If you disagree then ask yourself if you think that taking mass transit is a "valid form of transportation".
If you want to move 1500 pounds of stuff somewhere it is way better to do so in one trip using a large vehicle than with multiple small vehicles or multiple trips. This argument is reasonable and mathematically sound.
Not to mention the fact that your 1500 pound load might be something that can't be split between trips (say, a spridget on a trailer?). Try doing that with your commuter, say bye bye to your little transmission!
V
vagt6
Guest
Guest
Offline
Can't have your cake and eat it too: smart political leaders know this. We can't ravage the planet and drill, drill, drill just for fun so we can drive gas guzzlers. It's silly, actually. Greedy.
It will take leadership from the tip top (i.e., the White House and corporate giants) to effect meaningful change. The rhetoric has already begun, current political candidates are talking about it already. Our generation may not witness the change, but the younger folks most certainly will.
Finally, the time has come: it seems we're approaching the fuel price "tipping point" at $4+ per gallon. Now, we will be FORCED to conserve and shun gas guzzling vehicles. It's just a matter of time now before the automotive industry redirects focus.
The fuel-comsuption future will be very, very interesting. New technologies and radically different modes of public transport will appear, and flourish. And with it, new investment opportunities for the financially astute. Keep your eyes peeled, you might just get rich off that new mode of transport!
Change is coming, sure as the sun rises . . . fuel efficiency and "green" industries will become the norm.
Sounds good to me . . . :thumbsup:
It will take leadership from the tip top (i.e., the White House and corporate giants) to effect meaningful change. The rhetoric has already begun, current political candidates are talking about it already. Our generation may not witness the change, but the younger folks most certainly will.
Finally, the time has come: it seems we're approaching the fuel price "tipping point" at $4+ per gallon. Now, we will be FORCED to conserve and shun gas guzzling vehicles. It's just a matter of time now before the automotive industry redirects focus.
The fuel-comsuption future will be very, very interesting. New technologies and radically different modes of public transport will appear, and flourish. And with it, new investment opportunities for the financially astute. Keep your eyes peeled, you might just get rich off that new mode of transport!
Change is coming, sure as the sun rises . . . fuel efficiency and "green" industries will become the norm.
Sounds good to me . . . :thumbsup:
Westfield_XI
Jedi Warrior
Offline
Dadandson said:
Actually I don't have any health insurance at all. I can afford to pay most any price, but since I retired, I have been rejected by EVERY company in Ca. It seems that I have tinnitus (a ringing in the ears) and that makes me inelegable. They call it a pre-existing condition. Combine that with high blood pressure, completely controlled by meds, and I am toxic to their profits, thus no insurance.
Heck, I would be glad to pay $9 a gallon if I could get insurance before I get much older. I have to stay alive for 10 more years to make it to Medicare.
Westfield_XI
Jedi Warrior
Offline
The best thing for America would be for the president to impose a tax to guarantee that the price of a gallon of regular will NEVER drop below $4. By giving some certainty that the era of cheap fuel is over for good, people will be able to invest in new tech without being ruined by falling prices a few months later.
Remember what happened back in '79? We all bought fuel efficient cars, then the prices plummeted and we went back to our gas hogs. We need to make sure the changes are permanent.
Remember what happened back in '79? We all bought fuel efficient cars, then the prices plummeted and we went back to our gas hogs. We need to make sure the changes are permanent.
Online
vagt6 said:
You are entitled to your opinion. I am going to ask this once more nicely - Don't take this thread into politics. I don't want to take this thread into a political discussion so PLEASE, I am asking once again, keep the political commentary oput of it. If I see one more reference to the administration, poliiticians, or the election, this thread will be gone. I don't want to take this thread (or any thread) into teh discussion of politics. Folks don't have to like that, but no-politics has been the rule here for as long as this forum has been in existance and, is a large part of why folks here get along regardless of their ideology. I <span style="text-decoration: underline">will</span> keep it that way.
JamesWilson
Yoda
Offline
Fuel here is the equivalent of $8.50 / US Gallon.
The price differene was a big shock when I first arrived years ago, but my main cars (a Peugeot estate car [US station wagon] and a Fiat Van-people mover) all get 40+ MPG so I'm probably spending less on fuel to cover a particular distance than most Americans do...
My sporty cars get rather less, but I drive them for fun, usually; and virtually never for economy.
The price differene was a big shock when I first arrived years ago, but my main cars (a Peugeot estate car [US station wagon] and a Fiat Van-people mover) all get 40+ MPG so I'm probably spending less on fuel to cover a particular distance than most Americans do...
My sporty cars get rather less, but I drive them for fun, usually; and virtually never for economy.
tony barnhill
Great Pumpkin - R.I.P
Offline
There's a wildcatter who wants to drill for oil on Jerri's farm in Tennessee...problem is, his contract is the industry standard: 1/8 for Jerri, 7/8 for him.....& when he's done with the land, he pulls off leaving her with his mess.......we said 'no'....pretty sure there's oil under there but if there is, it'll be there when my grandson wants to drill on better terms.
What little oil is there won't solve any problems in the near future....we need to reach down & touch our larger reserves in Alaska, the Dakota's, etc. while at the same time we continue loking for alternative energy sources that don't screw up other markets (like food!).
Oh, I saw a Smart car for 2 zipping down the highway the other day....guess they're here!
What little oil is there won't solve any problems in the near future....we need to reach down & touch our larger reserves in Alaska, the Dakota's, etc. while at the same time we continue loking for alternative energy sources that don't screw up other markets (like food!).
Oh, I saw a Smart car for 2 zipping down the highway the other day....guess they're here!
RickB
Yoda
Offline
Zimmmmy, around here we have many lanes on the freeways.
The left lane is for HOV - they are generous and allow any cars with 2 or more occupants and motorcycles with one.
Still, even so, the non HOV lanes are filled overflowing with single occupant cars. Many of them are little econoboxes sure, but their fuel per person ratio is not efficient.
When our family wants to do something together we take the Kia - the fuel per person ratio is great. Otherwise, when its just one or two of us we take the Midget. Again the fuel per person ratio is great.
That's the important statistic, fuel economy per person transported. Yes, carpooling is a great idea. From what I see it isn't very popular. We have van pooling here, you can call up & request a pick up and so it's kind of a mini mass transit. Many people use it, so the fuel per person economy is good.
We have the technology to convert gas driven cars to electric today. It's proven and uses off the shelf inexpensive components. Why isn't it being done?
The left lane is for HOV - they are generous and allow any cars with 2 or more occupants and motorcycles with one.
Still, even so, the non HOV lanes are filled overflowing with single occupant cars. Many of them are little econoboxes sure, but their fuel per person ratio is not efficient.
When our family wants to do something together we take the Kia - the fuel per person ratio is great. Otherwise, when its just one or two of us we take the Midget. Again the fuel per person ratio is great.
That's the important statistic, fuel economy per person transported. Yes, carpooling is a great idea. From what I see it isn't very popular. We have van pooling here, you can call up & request a pick up and so it's kind of a mini mass transit. Many people use it, so the fuel per person economy is good.
We have the technology to convert gas driven cars to electric today. It's proven and uses off the shelf inexpensive components. Why isn't it being done?
G
Guest
Guest
Guest
Offline
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]Change is coming, sure as the sun rises . . . fuel efficiency and "green" industries will become the norm.
[/QUOTE]
Great - let's encourage the geniuses that peddle biofuel to come up with some other equally insightful ideas.
Next stop $5 for a loaf of bread or a quart of milk...
[/QUOTE]
Great - let's encourage the geniuses that peddle biofuel to come up with some other equally insightful ideas.
Next stop $5 for a loaf of bread or a quart of milk...
RobT
Jedi Warrior
Offline
I have two theories on what is causing the extraordinary run-up in oil prices.
This theory, that is mine, is, as follows...hhhhum (i.e. sounds of clearing throat):
1) Speculation.
Hedge funds, that are mostly unregulated, are looking for new investments given the recent collapse in the credit markets.
Commodity futures, particularly oil, are seen as a reasonable investment and a good hedge against the US currency. And to date they would have been right! This has led in an increase in volume/price for oil forward contracts. Now one way to "hedge" a forward contract if you are a seller, is to buy oil today, and store it (often by just leaving it in the well). Then deliver the oil in the future to cover the forward contract. This then drives up near-term oil prices. Higher prices for oil in the near-term generates more speculation as the Wall Street analysts’ "trend" historic prices in developing their forecasts for future oil prices and so buy more forward contracts as speculative investments.
This all comes undone when the time comes to actually liquidate the forward contracts and deliver the oil. There is no true demand there, in fact demand has gone down in response to higher prices, and when that oil hits the market, prices plummet. The bubble bursts.
Now you might think the bright chaps on Wall Street would figure this out and not do something so irrational. Think again. Did someone say "sub-prime mortgage crisis"?
BTW NPR did a great piece on the sub-prime market collapse - "The Giant Pool of Money" - you can get on-line streaming at:
https://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1242
Really quite a story, and very well told.
I have another Theory.
My Theory Number 2, which is also mine, is, as follows:
2) Green House Gas Reduction
OPEC employs some smart economists. Those guys have probably figured out that world governments are getting serious about global warming, and will reduce green house gas emissions and hence fossil fuel consumption either through stricter efficiency requirements, or a carbon tax.
In either case, the effect would be lower prices/demand for oil, to the determent of those same OPEC oil producers.
So they think, why not just raise (or let the market raise) the price of oil by limiting supply. Fossil fuel consumption will drop in reaction, and the targeted green house gas reductions are (in part at least) achieved without government interventions, and the oil producers capture the value (with a carbon or fuel tax, the $$ go to the taxing government). That is why I think OPEC will not respond to the recent price run-up with increased production - their incentives are otherwise.
And those are my theories. Which of course could be completely off-base, but wouldn’t be the first time.
This theory, that is mine, is, as follows...hhhhum (i.e. sounds of clearing throat):
1) Speculation.
Hedge funds, that are mostly unregulated, are looking for new investments given the recent collapse in the credit markets.
Commodity futures, particularly oil, are seen as a reasonable investment and a good hedge against the US currency. And to date they would have been right! This has led in an increase in volume/price for oil forward contracts. Now one way to "hedge" a forward contract if you are a seller, is to buy oil today, and store it (often by just leaving it in the well). Then deliver the oil in the future to cover the forward contract. This then drives up near-term oil prices. Higher prices for oil in the near-term generates more speculation as the Wall Street analysts’ "trend" historic prices in developing their forecasts for future oil prices and so buy more forward contracts as speculative investments.
This all comes undone when the time comes to actually liquidate the forward contracts and deliver the oil. There is no true demand there, in fact demand has gone down in response to higher prices, and when that oil hits the market, prices plummet. The bubble bursts.
Now you might think the bright chaps on Wall Street would figure this out and not do something so irrational. Think again. Did someone say "sub-prime mortgage crisis"?
BTW NPR did a great piece on the sub-prime market collapse - "The Giant Pool of Money" - you can get on-line streaming at:
https://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1242
Really quite a story, and very well told.
I have another Theory.
My Theory Number 2, which is also mine, is, as follows:
2) Green House Gas Reduction
OPEC employs some smart economists. Those guys have probably figured out that world governments are getting serious about global warming, and will reduce green house gas emissions and hence fossil fuel consumption either through stricter efficiency requirements, or a carbon tax.
In either case, the effect would be lower prices/demand for oil, to the determent of those same OPEC oil producers.
So they think, why not just raise (or let the market raise) the price of oil by limiting supply. Fossil fuel consumption will drop in reaction, and the targeted green house gas reductions are (in part at least) achieved without government interventions, and the oil producers capture the value (with a carbon or fuel tax, the $$ go to the taxing government). That is why I think OPEC will not respond to the recent price run-up with increased production - their incentives are otherwise.
And those are my theories. Which of course could be completely off-base, but wouldn’t be the first time.
Westfield_XI
Jedi Warrior
Offline
tony barnhill said:
We have had ours since the 1st week of Feb.
Westfield_XI
Jedi Warrior
Offline
If I was a Saudi sheikh sitting on a finite pool of oil, how would it be to my advantage to pump it out as quickly as possible to make a bunch of Americans happy? I would want to squeze just enough out of the market to keep the consumers from turning to alternative sources, just like they did back in 1979. They have a responsibility to their children and grandchildren too, but they owe us nothing at all. In fact we owe them billions: the deficit spending supported by foreign investment.
As far as domestic sources go, why not use the North Slope oil that we have been selling to Asia for all these years. For that matter why not stop closing refineries here in the US? Most of the shortage of gasoline is not a raw material shortage, it's a refining bottleneck. There is very little profit in refining and the major multinationals don't want to be in that business at all.
As far as domestic sources go, why not use the North Slope oil that we have been selling to Asia for all these years. For that matter why not stop closing refineries here in the US? Most of the shortage of gasoline is not a raw material shortage, it's a refining bottleneck. There is very little profit in refining and the major multinationals don't want to be in that business at all.
Online
Westfield_XI said:
Not how the free market works - at least not what I was taught during MbA work. In a free market, you can't dictate to private companies who they can or can not sell to - it is a world market, period. The Oil flows both ways.
However, more supply (or even the threat of same) would cause the current bubble to burst - a bubble that is driven primarily by speculators.
