If the government was at all concerned about gas consumption ... especially CA, they would send a few dollars toward synchronizing traffic lights to maximize traffic flow. Also, any hippies still driving VW bugs of vans from the 70s should be shot, high relative gas consumption and high polluters when compared to the cars of today.
I've been reading about this stuff for awhile now - and although I was pretty pessimistic about it at first (like James Kunstler) I now think we'll be able to manage. The keys will be honesty from the government and oil producing nations (big if), the understanding by consumers that the quicker gas prices increase now (as painful as it might be) the better off we'll be in the long run, and that something approximating modern life is possible without the freedom of modern auto transportation.
As for gas companies trying to screw us I think that's a bunch of hog wash. Although they are making big profits now, it is NOT in their long term interests for oil to keep getting more expensive. Because as it does get more expensive people will find alternatives. Yes, corn has a much worse EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) than oil does, but there are other crops (sugar cane - actually the best oddly enough are acorns) that do much better - and as the oil gets harder to reach (deep oceans) and process (shale, sands, and heavy crude) that EROEI of oil won't look so pretty.
One question I have for oil optimists - if abiotic oil is true (the theory that oil is NOT a fossil fuel and is perpetually being regenerated) or if we do have 1,000 years of oil left in the ground, why oh why is anybody digging tar sand out of the ground? Do you know what you have to do to that stuff to make it act like real oil!?
One last point - I think society will BENEFIT from the increasing cost of oil (we'll never run out it will just become too expensive). We will have to rely on each other more - and consequently we will have a greater sense of community. The way we live our lives right now is not only bad for our planet, but bad for our selves. A world that is forced to be sustainable will also be much more psychologically healthy.
AH wrote:
I personally know quite a few people who have sold or are selling their SUVs and planning to replace them with sedans or minivans.
Funny you should mention that. I just traded in my Ford Explorer for a Honda Civic this past weekend.
NPV my friend, NPV.... money in the pocket now is worth a lot more to companies than money later. Stock prices now affect execitive bonuses, not what will happen years from now.
They tell you in business school how stock prices reflect future cash flows yada yada, but in reality our markets are much more short-term focuses than we are led to believe by the academics. Clear examples of this are companies whose bloated stock prices reflect 10%+ rates of growth well into the future...a level of growth no company can sustain in the long term.
Bottom line is it doesn't matter if the oil companies would be hurt a little by soaking up profits now, they'd probably do it anyway.
I had the son of an ex top-level executive telling me how the rising gas prices are due to the financing necessary due to the increased working capital that resulted from crude prices going up. Even when you factor in increased costs, and this finance charge (which, if we are nice and round up, explains 3%), we can only explain 40% (max) of the increase. The rest is explained by a DOUBLING of the Earnings Per Share.
You could say this is just supply and demand at work, but as I mentioned this ignores the fact that it takes years for demand to truly adjust. While I'd love to see SUVs on the roads decrease and such, I really don't think it's economically efficient for the few thousand shareholders of the major oil companies to get filthy rich while the rest of the economy is thrown into a major recession as a result. They can make good returns without bleeding the population. There are other ways to get the same result (incentives, stricter regs on vehicles, etc etc) without driving people who can barely make ends meet already bankrupt from gas prices.
Big oil really has a monopoly... a few companies are there, but the monopoly is oil itself. In my mind, this opens them up to regulation. Utilities have been under similar regulation for decades already.
Californian wrote:
Funny you should mention that. I just traded in my Ford Explorer for a Honda Civic this past weekend.
Wow, look who's late to the party??
( I get around by driving a Prius, taking the subway, or biking. I don't pay much for gas. I save my $ for a different type of "fuel.")
drunkard wrote:
Californian wrote:Funny you should mention that. I just traded in my Ford Explorer for a Honda Civic this past weekend.
Wow, look who's late to the party??
( I get around by driving a Prius, taking the subway, or biking. I don't pay much for gas. I save my $ for a different type of "fuel.")
Party? What party? I'm looking for something to do tonight.
i'm having a document review party; dinner and non-alcoholic drinks provided. plenty of ladies on this one, too. might be a bit of a trip for you, though; wouldn't want to waste anymore oil getting out here.
yeah those 4 hippies left in the country driving 3 beat up vw vans are to blame... not the 20 million yuppies who have purchased 40 million suv's in the last 5 years and each suv gets an awesome 12 mpg.you f***ing idiot
Synched Traffic Lights wrote:
If the government was at all concerned about gas consumption ... especially CA, they would send a few dollars toward synchronizing traffic lights to maximize traffic flow. Also, any hippies still driving VW bugs of vans from the 70s should be shot, high relative gas consumption and high polluters when compared to the cars of today.
maybe i am being a little naive about oil companies - and I did live in california during the blackouts - so I understand that free markets can be manipulated pretty easily.
But, I guess I feel like it's a waste of energy to focus on bitching at oil companies or oil producing nations. If the only reason that we are seeing high oil prices is their greed (and I still don't agree with that completely) than let's punish them for that greed. Let's make REAL investments in alternative energies.
And in the end oil is still relatively cheap. Matthew Simmons likes to remind people that it's still around 10 cents a cup. There aren't many substances that you can buy that cheaply. Although I think it's a mistake to think of the cost of something only in its up front cost. As a world we are paying much more than 10 cents a cup for oil when you look at environmental pollution and degredation.
here's an interesting look at why peak oil might be a reality. The top 22 oil fields and production rate changes. although there is a lot of missing data note that only two are looking to expand production.
1. Ghawar Unknown
2a. Burgan CONFIRMED DECLINE ~14%
2b. Cantarell CONFIRMED DECLINE ~14%
3. Bolivar Coastal Unknown
4. Safaniya-Khafji Unknown
5. Rumaila Unknown
6. Tengiz ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION POSSIBLE
7. Ahwaz CONFIRMED DECLINE ~64%
8. Kirkuk CONFIRMED DECLINE
9. Marun CONFIRMED DECLINE
10. Gachsaran Unknown
11. Aghajari CONFIRMED DECLINE
12. Samotlor CONFIRMED DECLINE ~ 9%
13a.Prudhoe Bay CONFIRMED DECLINE ~11%
13b. Kashagan ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION POSSIBLE
14. Abqaiq Likely Decline
15. Romashkino Likely decline
16. Chicontepec Unknown
17. Berri Unknown
18. Zakum Unknown
19. Manifa Unknown
20. Faroozan-Marjan Unknown
21. Marlim, Campos CONFIRMED DECLINE ~8%
chuck d wrote:
i'm having a document review party; dinner and non-alcoholic drinks provided. plenty of ladies on this one, too. might be a bit of a trip for you, though; wouldn't want to waste anymore oil getting out here.
well since you said plenty of ladies.....what's 2000 miles or so?
NEB wrote:
As a world we are paying much more than 10 cents a cup for oil when you look at environmental pollution and degredation.
Here's another pricing angle I'd like to hear thoughts on from some others.
It is the duty of every legitimate company to their shareholders to ensure that they will be able to remain in business. Assuming oil production will decline in 30/50/100 years due to declining resource, the oil companies will have to come up with something else to sell in order to remain in business.
With pretty much every type of business, this is done through internal R&D and obviously financed by products they currently sell. (I think this is akin to big drug companies using the bucks they make selling V1agra etc to develop the drugs they'll sell 10 years from now and remain in business.)
Given the massive transition our economy will need to undergo to switch over from an oil-based one, how much should the price of gas be to accurately reflect the true cost of finding and developing this future alternative?
What plans do the Shell's and Texaco's of the world have to remain in business as oil supplies dry up?
I've been a fan of Corolla's since 1974. I will take a look at THE SMART CAR when it arrives here, however. Tiny little bug of a vehicle.
Interestingly the Cooper Mini get ok mileage but also has a very high crash test rating.
If they made cars/trucks/etc that only went 40 mph then Americans might learn patience.
If the gov't were on the ball they would work on a MASSIVE expansion of America's rail lines. The future for mass transit lies there, unless you prefer horses, bicycles or Segways.
Caveat emptor.
One site "Clusterf*ck Nation" takes a very drastic view of the 'we're out of oil' future.
Grim.
Bear in mind one thing:
oil companies are currently raking in record profits, but they recently went through two bearish decades.
I am pretty happy with the recent performance of my stock in Exxon.
West of Boston wrote:
If the gov't were on the ball they would work on a MASSIVE expansion of America's rail lines. The future for mass transit lies there, unless you prefer horses, bicycles or Segways.
I'm sure that people inside the government have been contemplating/planning for the day when oil becomes extremely scarce/expensive/runs out, etc out for many decades. I would argue that they have much more information than we all do. Something tells me the government isn't to worried about oil not being able to meet our energy needs within the next 10 years. As with any crisis, people become irrationally fearful and all of a sudden there is talk of oil running out in the not-to- distant future. Three years ago very few people were talking about the supply of oil peaking or running out in the near future. Now we get $70 a barrel oil & $3.00 gas and suddenly, everyone seems to think impending doom is upon us. Call me naive, but I think an organization as sophisticated and well funded as the U.S. government has modeled every possible scenario in terms when oil becomes so scare that is no longer a viable source of energy. If $10.00 a gallon gas was around the corner and revamping our rail systems was the answer, then we'd already be moving in that direction.
I am not sure if an organisation which includes George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld can be called sophisticated, and I know you cannot say that they have looked at every scenario. Just witness Iraq where I think the only scenario they looked at was best case, and what they wanted to happen.
If everyone would just switch to diesel engines, we could fuel our cars off the biodiesel that is made from French Fry oil....McDonalds, Burger King and Wendy's would make a KILLING!
jamesey wrote:
I am not sure if an organisation which includes George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld can be called sophisticated, and I know you cannot say that they have looked at every scenario. Just witness Iraq where I think the only scenario they looked at was best case, and what they wanted to happen.
Last time I checked Dick and Bush were not hired by the American people to research and solve oil crisis.
Well perhaps if you would read the post I was responding to you would understand why I said what I said.
And also I would have thought that governing the country is a catch all which would most certainly involve dealing with current, and future, crisis.
You are obviously looking for something different in a president. I guess you are one of these people who voted for Bush because you thought you'd like to have a beer with him. From all of us - Good job.
But, I guess I feel like it\'s a waste of energy to focus on bitching at oil companies or oil producing nations. If the only reason that we are seeing high oil prices is their greed (and I still don\'t agree with that completely) than let\'s punish them for that greed. Let\'s make REAL investments in alternative energies.
The competitive market system does not work for oil companies for two reasons: (1) There are a dew major companies and its in their own best interest not to compete but to fall in line with price leadership. (2) Oil consumption has limited market elasticity (people need to drive)
Oil supply and pricing is absolutely vital to our countries interests. I do agree with you we need to do more than \"bitching\". We need to attack the politicians who allow oil companies to make these obscene profits at the countries expense. Price controls and greater monitoring of oil companies are needed and may be in our countries best interest. Fuel economy standards for automobiles need mandatory improvement.
We need politicians who will standard up to oil companies not owned by them.