What If - Gasoline is $5 a gallon in 2010?

li_sailor

...no one would want to live 40+ miles from work anymore...

While I have no doubt that $5 gas would impact all transportation, I don't beleive this is so. As others have pointed out, there are too many factors in that decision. Besides...there is not enough market space near the cityat today's prices...and if demand were to go up, it would get even worse.

For many folks that drive 40 miles to work and have a 15 mpg vehicle, they could switch to a 30 mpg vehicle and reverse most of that increase. 40 miles @15 mpg costs $5.33 at $2. That goes up to $13.30 at $5/gal. Switch to 30 mpg @ $5/gal, it would go back down to $6.67.

gagrice

Where did you get the info on how green it was? They did not make the list at

It is not on the green list because the EPA & CARB have not tested them with ULSD or biodiesel. According to VW Engineers the TDI PD engine in the Passat will pass all of CARBs 2007 regulations when used with ULSD. Currently it is rated only one step below the Honda Civic Hybrid when Non California high sulfur gas & diesel is used.

Your cynical remarks about people driving large SUVs may have some merit. Most people that are driving new Excursions, Navigators & Hummers could care less about the cost of gas. In the case of my sister & brother-in-law with their 7 children a Suburban was one of the only vehicles they could legally carry their children in. They live 35 miles from Albuquerque with 5 miles of dirt road. They only go to town on Sunday to church and do their weekly shopping. My brother-in-law rides a motorcycle to work at Sandia Labs. I am sure high gas prices will have a big impact if they take a vacation. Or they may have to skip their vacation this year.

If gas was $10 a gallon it would not impact my lifestyle in the least. I feel for those that are not able to buy all these fancy high mileage cars. The people that are waiting on your table or doing your dry cleaning. They are stuck in the old Ford & Chevy tanks that were cast offs from those that have the money to buy a $30k to $50k car. A lot of people in this country are struggling to buy an old used $2000 car. For you to laugh at their plight is rather sick.

Now to the Passat TDI. I did not buy it for the maximum mileage. I bought it for the option of using biodiesel. If gas goes to $5 per gallon which I seriously doubt, biodiesel will become a very viable alternative. It is being processed and sold in Hawaii very close to # 2 diesel in the $3 per gallon range. Modern diesel engines burning B100 biodiesel are far more environmental & economically friendly than any hybrid on the market in the USA.

Lastly we are still a long way from the true cost of gas that peaked in the late 1970s and early 1980s. We will have to go somewhat higher to pass the highs of the early 1980s. In 2004 dollars the price of oil was $80 per barrel in 1979.

http://www.ghg.net/stuart/gasprice/gasprice.html

If the price of gasoline relative to wages were comparable today to what they were in 1920, we would be paying almost $10 a gallon for gas.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-06-03.html

gagrice

I see that the price of gas in Toledo Ohio has dropped 17 cents in a week. It is now selling for $1.97 - $1.99. The highest price is $2.13 per gallon. Hope the price drop makes it this way soon. Cheapest in San Diego is $2.41 with a whopping high of $2.97. No wonder people were lined up at the Costco today.

badtoy

How people expect the price of almost everything to rise over time, except for gasoline? Gas is cheaper today in relative terms than it was 30 years ago; when you add in the fact that most cars today get far better mileage than they did then, the portion of people's incomes that goes to gasoline has dropped dramatically. The exception to all of this, of course, is those who buy SUVs that average 14 mpg or less -- whose fault is that?

avalon02wh

For some reason I thought the TDI would get mid forty mpg. Consumer guide also measured the TDI Jetta at 38.5 mpg. Learn something new everyday.

On a related note, finding biodiesel should get easier in a year or two. There are plans to build the largest biodiesel refinery in North America at Minot, North Dakota. The facility will produce about 32 million gallons (100,000 tons) of biodiesel per year. They plan to use canola crops as a source (355,000 acres). This represents about one percent of all the crops planted in the state. That sets an upper limit on how many plants we could supply with feedstock for biodiesel. I would guess 10 plants if we could get the farmers to plant enough canola or soybeans.

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/state/11203944.htm

Are you sure that $10 a gallon costs will not impact your lifestyle? Have you considered the indirect costs?

Bob

brucej

"If the price of gasoline relative to wages were comparable today to what they were in 1920, we would be paying almost $10 a gallon for gas."

What's the difference between 1920 and now? From the sheen that protects your .37 stamp to the 10% plastic content of your "cotton" sweatshirt the "oil" factor of so many of our present day products is almost incalculable.

Forget about the stupid gas that you put in your stupid car. Haven't you been reading the business news for chrissakes?

The slow realization on the part of the business press that "Oh no, these increases in energy costs might actually force us to raise prices for our goods", is finally sinking in. How much more bad news do you think it is going to take to put either GM or Ford or some other blue chip company in a position that stockholders are no longer going to sit still for the trillionth excuse as to why they should hold on for the next reorganization? GM is currently responsible for over one hundred and sixty-five billion dollars of debt. Sales of GM products (and Ford too) are down considerably as people are reconsidering their purchases in reaction to higher gas prices. In the mean time the UAW has stated that renegotiating the health care portion of past agreements is off limits.

We are sitting on the edge of a tenuous cliff. We have had fun along the way. We have assumed the debt that fun demands from the less than rich. And the fun we've been having wasn't limited to individuals. The companies and the very government that continues to just barely govern joined in the merriment. The very same people that promised little Suzy and Johnny that they were wonderful children and should have everything that their little hearts desired at home, went to work every day and took those same sentiments to their jobs.

Complete health, dental, eye coverage? Not a problem. Inflation adjusted wages? Sure..why not? Fine...in a vacuum. But nature abhors a vacuum. Other workers in other places said, "Dental, what the hell is dental? I need rice for the kids. Where' s the pick and shovel? You only want me to work 12 hours? When do I start?"

This post started out, "what if gas costs x by x?" And everybody jumped into the fray about their driving habits. On and on and on we went as if the price at the pump was the real story. Our personal driving choices, regarding rising energy costs, are so insignificant that the lack of this realization is frightening.

It's not about you in your gas guzzler or your gas thrifty pod driving down the highway of life. It's much larger than that. In fact, the impact of rising energy prices will dominate the headlines from this point on. Wars have and will continue to be fought as the availability of energy shifts from one area to another. The viability of entire continents will rise and fall as a result of their access to energy changes.

My answer to, "What if gas is $5.00 by 2010?" Well, my answer is that it will be a small miracle if that is all the higher gas is by then. And if it isn't higher by then it will be because the price has been suppressed because we have entered into a fairly serious recession. And that means that plants will have been closed and people laid off. And that will mean a lower tax base. And that will mean that government services will be lessened. And that means that even if I personally can still afford to put gas in my tank I will be driving around in a greatly diminished America.

There is a big picture that is being overlooked on this forum. It is based on a self serving smugness that never has and never will provide a solution to the challenges that we are about to face. Pogo once claimed, "We have met the enemy...and the enemy is us." Pogo might have only been a cartoon but at least Pogo had a clue.

gagrice

I thought the TDI would get mid forty mpg.

The cars built on the Golf platform the New Beetle and Jetta all get in excess of 45 MPG. Many report getting in the low 50s out on the highway. The Passat is bigger & heavier with a larger TDI engine and a 5 speed automatic transmission. I felt that getting mid 30s was good considering a new car and the speed we traveled much of the last half the trip. As you have pointed out the production of biodiesel is on a rapid rise. This is good for our economy and environment. Biodiesel is Green House Gas neutral making it a much better fuel than gasoline or regular diesel. I will be ready when it is available with a car that can use it.

As far as $10 gas, my gas budget is smaller than most smokers tobacco budget. So I don't see it bothering me as much as it would the economy as a whole. It would probably cause a recession or worse. Having worked in the oil fields for the last 25 years I don't see the big panic. I am sure it is a political move to get some new infrastructure into place which will relieve the pressure for another 30 years. We need additional refineries and means of transport. It is not an oil shortage it is an oil production & transportation problem.

z28_sedan

Just to defend the honor of the TDIs, the late-model TDI Passat is not designed for "knock 'em dead" fuel efficiency. It has too much power for that (the previous generation of Passat TDIs got much better gas mileage, EPA 38-city/46-hwy, with a LOT less power). It is still significantly better than anything else in it's class, though.

My Jetta TDI on the other hand (owned since Jan 2005) has never gotten below 48.8 mpg for my 20-mile round-trip 85% highway commute. My best is 52.7 mpg and I'm hoping to top that now that warmer weather is here.

mvls1

brucej, your thoughtful insight provides a good basic outline of the consequences of ever increasing oil/energy prices. It is too bad that some people seem to feel that higher oil/gas prices are alright or even good for America or any nation for that matter. Right now I am a business owner in the service sector and MUST use gas (a lot of gas) each day to serve my customers. These customers do not want to pay any more than they already do for our services. If I try to pass any additional costs along to them, at the very least they will shop for another vendor that will service them for less than we are able to. Before anyone says well hey if they can find it cheaper, then why not, please stop and consider that cheaper is not always better. In fact it might not even be legal! Some businesses will cheat State, Local and Federal government not to mention their own customers to forestall loss of business. There are no free lunches in this world that I know of. In the end, someone ends up paying the bill. Gas at $5.00 a gallon will be paid for in more ways than at the pump! When that finally sinks in it will probably be too late to undo the price increases that will be seen in all the things that don't even have a gas tank!

By the way, I currently employ 20 people down from 40 two years ago all thanks to so called necessary increases in workers compensation insurance, liability/auto insurance and energy costs. All with no claims in the last ten years of business!

brucej

"Shell, which last year faced a corporate crisis after overstating its oil reserves, recently said its reserve replacement ratio had shrunk to 19%, the lowest of any oil major. This means Shell is finding less than one-fifth of what it produces.

“More and more countries are tipping over into absolute decline. There are 18 major producers and 32 smaller ones in decline already – that adds up to 29% of world production,” said Skrebowski."

Full story here:

http://www.sundayherald.com/49065

andys120

due to increases in gasoline prices. Sales of SUVs and trucks suffer as consumers react to higher prices.

I'm seeing and hearing anecdotal evidence of this from auto sales professionals as well as published reports like the above.

gagrice

“We’re at an all-time high in terms of vacancies. This time last year we had 800 and new jobs are being posted at a rate of 50 a day,” Rose added.

It sounds more like there is a man power shortage that is bigger than the Oil shortage. The so-called civilized countries have slowed their population growth to where there are no young people to do the work. That is why many companies are paying top dollar to keep us old dudes around. I would like to retire and they keep throwing more money at me. Young people better get educated and start carrying the load or they will be in for a real eye opener in 30-50 years when the real oil shortage starts to show up. New technologies will not happen without educated people to make it happen. Sounds like we need more engineers than we need environmentalists, lawyers and philosophers.

brucej

" Somehow, within the next few decades, we must find a new energy source that can provide a minimum of 10 terawatts of clean power on a sustainable basis, and do this cheaply. To do this with nuclear fission would require no less than 10,000 breeder reactors. Assuming we don't get it all from nuclear fission, where is that 10 terawatts of new power going to come from? Who will make the necessary scientific and engineering breakthroughs? Can it be cheap enough to bring 10 billion people, world population at that time, to a reasonable standard of living? Can it be done soon enough to avoid the hard economic times, terrorism, war, human suffering, that will otherwise occur as we fight over the dwindling oil and gas reserves on the planet? Energy may very well be the single most critical challenge facing humanity in this century."

-Richard Smalley- Nobel Prize Winner, Chemistry

brucej

Gagrice,

If you think its going to take 30 to 50 years for "the real oil shortage to show up", than I want you to send me some of that weed you've been smoking. In view of the mountain of evidence that indicates a much shorter time-frame, you could not possibly be sober to continue to hold that view.

PF_Flyer

Look, I'm not saying we should bury our heads in the sand on energy, but what purpose does the never-ending drumbeat of doom and gloom accomplish other than to frighten some semi-informed folks?

I remember being told we were OUT OF OIL 30 years ago. yet here we are, significantly more of us, driving more than ever in more efficient cars. Same for the impending ice age, killer asteroids, and California going to fall into the sea by the year 2000!

Being prepared is one thing, but when I look at selected quotes from an authority like a Nobel Prize winner, I'd like to see some possible solutions offered, not just "How can we possibly survive??" type of questions.

Should we have acted on the advice that "experts" were giving back in the 70's to melt some of the ice caps before the ice sheet covered New York City by the end of the century? Pardon me for being a skeptic, but most of this has the same kind of panic mentality running through it.

gagrice

Absolutely sober. I consider my sources at BP & Exxon more knowledgeable than most that you have quoted. The problem is not reserves, it is the production and supply chain that is inadequate. You have played into the panic, just as the doomsday pundits would have you do. Your mountain of evidence is based on very shaky soil. It is more a castle of cards. You can believe whatever suits you. That does not make it factual. If the world goes into chaos over the next 50 years it will not be from a shortage of oil. It will be caused by fanaticism of all types.

brucej

Fly,

It's time for the semi-informed to get informed. Who said we were out of oil 30 years ago? Please cite some examples. Ice caps? I haven't mentioned anything about ice caps. I've always thought that that tale was filled with science of a very suspect nature.

There is not a single major oil company (gagrice's BP and Mobile/Exxon included) that have come anywhere close to replacing the amount of oil used last year with new finds this year. If I'm using more oil every year than I continue to find do you not give that the assignation of "running out of oil?" I know I do.

Head in the sand, you say? Look, this is not rocket science. We are not finding adequate replacement for the amount of oil we are currently using. Forget about projected increased demand. WE ARE NOT FINDING ADEQUATE LEVELS TO MEET CURRENT DEMAND.

You'd like some possible solutions offered? Who the heck wouldn't? The thread that keeps winding its jolly way through this discussion is "everything's fine. I can keep on doing what I've always done regarding my energy usage. I can afford it. Not only that I can continue to afford future price increases too. And if you can't you're a looser. Eat my exhaust sucker."

Oh, woe is us? Yeah, woe is us. If we continue to deny what is repeatedly being confirmed by a number of experts in a number of fields and blindly stumble down the same path then...WOE IS US. I'm sorry if this discussion is a little unsettling to some "semi-informed." This needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

Our government has a tremendous track record of coming up with solutions in crisis situations. In the past we have had the luxury of time to pull us through some very dicey situations. You yourself want to see some "possible solutions offered." I haven't read anyone who has claimed that the solutions you seek won't take quite a bit of time to achieve. I keep reading things like, "Well when the price of oil get high enough, we'll go back to nuclear power." Uh huh. Even though we haven't built a new nuclear facility in 30 years we're just going to dust off the blue prints and bring a few thousand on line in a few years?

This doesn't even address the issue that as the price of oil increases there will be less money available to invest because if you spend more money for energy, guess what? You have less money to invest.

FDR said, "the only thing we have to fear.. is fear itself." Wrongo. My fear is we continue along with the mailaise that has become all too prevalent because its "frightening" to think about these unpleasantries. That's my fear and it is reinforced daily from the uninformed, selfish postings that I read on this forum.

falconone

WOW.... I finally agree with Gary. Well said!

brucej

"NEW ORLEANS - Oil company BP's existing oil and gas fields are posting production declines of about 3 per cent, Tony Hayward, the company's chief executive for exploration and production, said on Wednesday.

"That piece of the portfolio as a whole is declining around 3 per cent," he told an energy conference"

Full story here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=3&ObjectID=10119220

brucej

"The Reserve Replacement Ratio (RRR), excluding the impact of divestments and year-end pricing and including associates, was 49 percent," Shell said after it filed a report with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). "Including the impact of divestments and year-end pricing, the RRR was 19 percent."

Full story here:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/31/news/international/shell.reut/index.htm

brucej

A 15-year decline in oil reserves is spurring companies such as Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Exxon Mobil Corp. and ChevronTexaco Corp. to spend $76 billion in the next decade to boost supplies of oil from tar sands and diesel fuel from Qatari natural gas. Oil executives say they have no choice but to try alternatives to drilling because there is not much more crude to be found in their current fields.

``We're damn close'' to the peak in conventional oil production, Boone Pickens, who oversees more than $1 billion in energy-related investments at his Dallas hedge fund firm, said in an interview in New York Feb. 16. ``I think we're there.'' Suncor Energy Inc., the world's second-biggest oil-sands miner, is his largest holding.

Full story here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a3Iz1vRFvXuI&refer=top_world_news#

PF_Flyer

We're also starting to get very repetitive. We're out of oil.. no we're not... starts to get old after a while.

bruce, I KNOW you didn't mention ice caps. Those were all examples of "critical" problems that we've been informed of by so-called experts over the years. All of them sounding VERY authoritative with lots of letters behind their names. And a LOT of people believed what they said, even though they turned out to be pretty much dead wrong when all was said and done.

I appreciate the fact that you're concerned about the energy situation, but honestly, I don't think that anything anyone could say would make you consider the possibility that things might not be as close to disaster as you feel they are.

If your total input to this discussion is going to be to post quotes from articles and then, when you actually decide to post some of your own thoughts, you question whether people who disagree with those positons are using drugs, then this discussion is pretty much over and can be retired to the archives.

brucej

All I'm asking is that people who are saying that we have plenty of oil share their sources. I've been posting the sources behind my concerns from day one. And I keep hearing things like. "well you can believe what you want but I choose to believe my sources at company x" OK, fine. Put my mind at ease. Share your sources at company x. If they are so logical and authoritative they should put my mind at ease and I can go back to blueprinting that hemi with nitrous that I have been putting off for so long.

gagrice

Even though we haven't built a new nuclear facility in 30 years we're just going to dust off the blue prints and bring a few thousand on line in a few years?

Even though the US has been stymied on building new nuclear reactors, the rest of the world has not. This Alaskan Village is excited about getting a nuclear facility that will cut their electric bills to 1/3 of what they are now. There are very efficient nuclear reactors available. Remember France uses nuclear for 70% of their electricity.

The 4S is a sodium-cooled fast spectrum reactor -- a low-pressure, self-cooling reactor. It will generate power for 30 years before refueling and should be installed before 2010

http://www.primidi.com/2005/02/06.html

gagrice

Put my mind at ease. Share your sources

Did it ever occur to you that these oil company executives that are wringing their hands feeding you the "Doom n Gloom", may be part of the political process to get ANWR opened up. They all want a shot at those leases. Prudhoe Bay and the other North Slope fields are just about as easy to get oil from as the Saudi desert. Most of the gas fed wells produce 1500 + barrels per day. The average cost to get the oil in the Pipeline headed to market is 83 cents per barrel. They are calculating a huge margin of profit even if oil were to drop back to $10 per barrel. Plus the additional fact that people will not be so adverse to building more refineries that are needed to alleviate these shortages when an accident occurs, such as the BP refinery fire. Exxon & BP have taken more than 250 billion dollars worth of oil out of Alaska. They are convinced there is more than that left. A pretty good incentive to make people change the laws on ANWR.

brucej

I think nuclear is a great idea. Let's get cracking. Hurray for France. (Now go to work and find out how long it took the French to build those plants) My issue is how long its going to take and who is currently concerned enough to get the ball rolling.

Regarding your Alaskan village reactor. The article states"...if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves it -- which could cost millions of dollars to Toshiba -- the 4S reactor could be installed by 2010." So, it hasn't been approved yet. Again, this is my point. How much time does it take to get one of these approved? "Should be installed" and "could be installed" are two entirely different scenarios.

gagrice

How much time does it take to get one of these approved?

I think it will be approved. It is a very remote site accessible only by air. That gives it a better than average chance. The people are all for it, so you don't have NIMBY as you do in most areas of the USA. It will depend on how many environmental lawsuits hold it up in court is my best guess. If we could cut off the oil to a few environmental groups things would get done a lot sooner, for a lot less money.

brucej

This is conjecture on your part. Share some FACTS!

brucej

You think it will be approved? Why? Where are your facts?

PF_Flyer

I don't know that "dueling links" is going to sway anyone. But to pull a quote from your own source bruce...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a3Iz1vRFvXuI&refer=top_world_news#

"Oil futures show crude prices will stay close to $40 a barrel until 2011 because of rising demand, spurring investment in projects once considered to be marginal."

Given that the runup in the oil market has prices north of $50/bbl, I was kind of surprised to find that quote in the same story. If you wanted to paint the worst picture possible, you certainly cherry picked the right ones for your post bruce.

How about this gem from the same article?

New Production

Companies will produce 10.1 million barrels of oil a day by 2030 from projects in Canada and Qatar, more than Saudi Arabia does today, according to forecasts by the International Energy Agency in Paris. That's 8 percent of the world's total.

Sort of paints the picture a different way doesn't it?

So I guess we're back to having to agree to disagree about this. Once we got to the point of questioning people's sobriety and asking folks to "prove" things, I'm thinking were about ready for final comments in this one.

gagrice

The facts are these people are trying to resolve their dependence on oil. They ship all their diesel for electricity on barges. This is also very problematic for the environment. The only people that are against it currently are the villagers that were not picked to get the free reactor from Toshiba. It is kind of like the only native opposition to ANWR are the villages that will not benefit from the oil money.

The long winters without large volume transport requires the town to maintain very large fuel tanks - the total storage capacity is more than 3 million gallons between the town and the airport, which equates to more than 4,000 gallons for every resident.

http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05.html

http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/122604/loc_20041226003.shtml

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6913415/

PF_Flyer

Nuclear is SO far afield from what I think the original intent of this topic was, that I think we're done. This is an automotive message board. Unless someone has proposed nuclear powered vehicles, I think discussion of nuclear power plants will have to take place elsewhere.

When this topic appeared, I assumed it was going to be about how increased gas prices would affect what we drive, how we drive, what vehicles we buy, what the manufacturers would come up with as far as new vehicles, alternative fuel vehicles. All of that stuff. We're hopelessly off into OPEC, ANWR, oil reserves, drilling, etc...

Time for this one to be put to rest.