Gas Prices Could Rise to $5 Per Gallon

[Quicksilver]

Whatever the reason the price of fuel is very likely to go "UP".
If the price goes up it seems only logical that people will spend
less money on other things and the beat goes on.....

[J.Belknap]

Wish I could retrofit a Mr. Fusion home energy reactor.

[J.Belknap]

Thanks for your .02 mD.... I don't know, part of me has the tin-foil hat on about a few opinions on the Mexico thing, but maybe I've just been working for the gov't for too long. In any case, your post reminded me that I need to brush up on the day trading stuff... in case I find some change in the back seat or something. Appreciate the post man.

[JCL]

I found this report interesting. Paul Sankey of Deutsche Bank - The End of the Oil Age, 2011 and Beyond. An analysis of supply and demand, key factors, and lots of projections. Recommended reading for those that haven't seen it.

What I found interesting was the strong expectation of electric vehicles becoming a factor.

The End of the Oil Age - 2011 and Beyond: A Reality Check

[motordavid]

Helluva read, JCL...thanks. I must admit I skimmed some of the 59+ pages, as only someone in the biz, or a shut in, would pour over all the data...

I don't disagree on electric/battery powered/hybrid cars coming of age, (and the DB guys certainly spent most of the space on that 'support theme'); in my post above I was not being critical of the electric car, et al, developments, but my point is that most of the US car buyers are not running out to buy one, soon. And, most of the US car owners are not tossing their car(s) tomorrow or next year, for one, imo.

Add in the source of that 'electric power', here in the US, (coal 45%, nat gas 23%+, nuke 20%, etc.), and while non-gas cars may support some oil usage decrease, that electric power generation comes from 'somewhere'...
mostly coal and gas and, some nuke, in the US. Coal plants are under the gun emissions/improvement-wise, a new US nuke plant has not broken ground in over two decades, and natural gas seems to be the semi-good stuff no one really loves.

One of the umptyseven graphs, with projections, seems to tell the tale on current and projected consumption: most of the 'us', country-wise, will keep the lid on, so to speak, while China increases consumption considerably...fwiw.

Jumping ahead, post reading-wise, I'm with X5 rolls, in regards to his point(s) on making a long jump for national industry coupled with top level practical research getting us/NA to the next level. The last possible and least effective method, imo, is taxing the hell out of 'petroleum', letting those increased taxes slide into the general fund of gov't, and then hoping some litany of 'gov't programs' is going to lead the way...

Gov't has not had a successful inventive, money saving, energy saving program in my memory.

Increased taxes to guide or change or adjust social/econ behavior is not the way to proceed these days; it simply taxes JoeSixPack, (and 200 million others in the US), effects no real improvements, and the money is literally pissed away in 'the gov't'.

Didn't mean to get on my anti-gov't rant, but $4-5 buck gas is only going to pinch many in the short-medium term and, other than its speculative and irrational 'support base', it will do little to spur real adjustment in our energy practices and usage.
GL, mD

Originally Posted by JCL

I found this report interesting. Paul Sankey of Deutsche Bank - The End of the Oil Age, 2011 and Beyond. An analysis of supply and demand, key factors, and lots of projections. Recommended reading for those that haven't seen it.

What I found interesting was the strong expectation of electric vehicles becoming a factor.

The End of the Oil Age - 2011 and Beyond: A Reality Check

[Quicksilver]

Originally Posted by motordavid

$4-5 buck gas is only going to pinch many in the short-medium term and, other than its speculative and irrational 'support base', it will do little to spur real adjustment in our energy practices and usage.
GL, mD

And thats my point. Sure i'm not as intelligent as the rest of you folks. I just look at the facts from my limited perspective and IMO the issues in the middle east and strife around the rest of the world will only stifle the economy going forward.

Not being shorted but as I see it, paying more money for gas will cause Joe consumers purchasing power to decrease measurably. I watching the local prices go up at almost the same speed as my gas gauge is going down.

In the meantime the price of commodities are on the rise and companies are raising prices for the goods they sell and giving you less for what they charge. If this keeps up; nobody is going to have much money to buy the basics let alone electric cars.

[JCL]

I understand the difficulties in raising taxes on fuel, and if it ended up in a general government revenue fund it would only potentially impact demand, while not doing anything to accelerate the development of alternatives.

But it doesn't have to be a net tax increase, if government can cut other programs to fund investment in new technologies.

Three years ago our provincial government implemented a carbon tax. It was revenue neutral, in that average consumers and earners came out identically, and there were additional tax benefits worked in to it to help very low income families. For those that doubted government, there was legislation that required the government to show how all the tax collected was returned to taxpayers in other ways, each year. There were also inevitably some winners and losers. If you had very inefficient home heating, and consumed more gas than the average household, you lost (until you invested in more insulation or a better furnace, if that was possible). If you had the ability to change your behaviour, or were low consumers of fossil fuels, you could win. We won, as we chose to move closer to work, downsize our rather empty large house, buy more fuel efficient cars, and so on. We wanted to do some of those things anyway, it wasn't all because of the tax, but we came out ahead personally. Across the larger population though, whether directly or indirectly, what the new tax did was to start (slowly) to shift the tax burden so that it was more directly linked to excessive consumption of fossil fuels, whether for transportation, heating, or industry. It was intended to change behaviours. I found it interesting how much support the tax received from the general population. I think it is one example of how government can, as X5rolls put it, provide a framework to support the desired end result, in this case for both consumers and industry.

I agree that electric vehicles will not have an immediate benefit in locations where power is primarily produced by coal or natural gas (we have a lot of hydro power here). I think that anticipating a potential shift to electric vehicles means that attention should be paid to cleaning up power stations, and not just tailpipes.

[Quicksilver]

And the beat goes on. High pump prices rattle drivers and businesses | Comcast.net

[X5rolls]

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

And the beat goes on. High pump prices rattle drivers and businesses | Comcast.net

It is a real crush, the additional costs are a big difference to many.

In the piece above (while I really do have empathy for folks who are struggling on a month to month basis) this quote jumped out as a bit off.

For drivers such as Robert Wagner, 51, a high school teacher from Thornton, Colo., the higher fuel costs mean cutting back on movies and dinners out for him, his wife and their two children. "We're very, very frugal right now," he said as he trickled enough $3.09-per-gallon gasoline into his Chevrolet Suburban to get him to his next pay day.

It's not like people didn't know Surburbans got horrible has mileage 2 years ago. I mean, come on now. Frugal would mean getting rid of the Surburban, not going to movies and eating at home. He needs to cut his expenses big time.

Give me 20 minutes going over his finances/expenses and I bet I could get him on a plan to reduce his costs significantly. There is nothing wrong with living within ones means.

On a final note, he should be reading the tea leaves about cuts in teacher union based benefits - think he may pay more soon and get less later. Think ahead and you might not be surprised while you trickle gas into your gas hog of a machine on your way to the movies and a resturant. Bet he doesn't teach economics.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by X5rolls

In the piece above (while I really do have empathy for folks who are struggling on a month to month basis) this quote jumped out as a bit off.

For drivers such as Robert Wagner, 51, a high school teacher from Thornton, Colo., the higher fuel costs mean cutting back on movies and dinners out for him, his wife and their two children. "We're very, very frugal right now," he said as he trickled enough $3.09-per-gallon gasoline into his Chevrolet Suburban to get him to his next pay day.

It's not like people didn't know Surburbans got horrible has mileage 2 years ago. I mean, come on now. Frugal would mean getting rid of the Surburban, not going to movies and eating at home. He needs to cut his expenses big time.

Give me 20 minutes going over his finances/expenses and I bet I could get him on a plan to reduce his costs significantly. There is nothing wrong with living within ones means.

I just went back and read this. Agree completely. I do think though that this is why the phrase "addicted to oil" is fitting. The subject of the article likely can't see the absurdity of the situation.