Gas to plummet below $25 a barrel next year

[snakesht]

Originally Posted by Scissors

$4.19/gallon

That explains why you weren't very bothered with it, i guess.

I had a Mitsubishi Endeavor which I bought when gas was ~$2. I didn't need an SUV, but that thing was freaking awesome. After gas got above $3/gal, I started thinking about trading it in. Traded the Mits for my Jetta when Gas was $3.79 and Diesel was $4.25. Kept my truck though. I got a 3" lift and 33X12.5 tires when gas was $4.09/gal

[ty454]

Better short oil! Or...long oil??? Crap, can't decide... Either way, Merril has it covered.



Friday, October 17th, 2008
Oil is Headed for $150 a Barrel, Gold for $1,500 an Ounce, Merrill Analysts Predict

Oil is Headed for $150 a Barrel, Gold for $1,500 an Ounce, Merrill Analysts Predict

[636blurr]

^^^ well ya they wanted people to invest.

[636blurr]

Originally Posted by Gaolee

Gasoline was pushing $5/gallon around here when I put a new engine in the old van. Dumb? Yeah, probably.

The price of oil is doing what commodity prices do- collapse when demand collapses. When the economy recovers, and it will, the price of oil will rise with it. If this is a long, deep, nasty recession worldwide, the price of oil could go well below $25/barrel. If the economy comes roaring back, the price of oil could climb back over $100 fairly quickly.

We discount Keynesian economics, but the price of oil is behaving almost like the government counterbalance Keynes suggests. It spikes and kills the economy when things overheat, then it tanks when the economy tanks. High prices and disruptions were a big part of why we had such a nasty time in the 1970s, and then we got away with economic irresponsibility after about 1983, in part because the price of oil didn't spike with respect to the economic cycles. There are plenty of other more important reasons for why the economy overheated like it did and then crashed like it did, but oil prices were spiking at about the time the whole mess came to a head. Low oil prices are going to be part of what bails us out, no matter who's in power or what policies are in place.

Something to think about- if we weren't so dependent upon oil, we would be insulated from these fluctuations and our personal and collective behavior would be the reason for economic cycles.

You just do not get it, the least of the worlds worries right now is how cheap gasoline is. People are going to be having trouble affording out current cheap gas, so raising them really accomplishes nothing except setting people back.

again, lead by example, untell you chest pounding libs man up and go all green, well, zip it.
Feel Free to Participate in this thread I started a couple of weeks ago DO you use alternative Energy?

[Gaolee]

Originally Posted by 636blurr

You just do not get it, the least of the worlds worries right now is how cheap gasoline is. People are going to be having trouble affording out current cheap gas, so raising them really accomplishes nothing except setting people back.

again, lead by example, untell you chest pounding libs man up and go all green, well, zip it.
Feel Free to Participate in this thread I started a couple of weeks ago DO you use alternative Energy?

We do a bunch of different things to avoid excess energy use, although it could be more. Getting the Husqvarna running again is partly because it's fun, partly because it will get over 50 mpg. If we needed another vehicle, a diesel would be high on the list, and I would be looking into converting it to run on waste vegetable oil. We don't need one, and if you trace the cycle, buying a newer more efficient car is probably just as damaging to the environment as recycling the old one endlessly. There's no reason to remelt steel if it's still functioning reasonably well in the shape it's already in.

Back to the original point. Right now, cheap gasoline is having a countercyclical effect, and it's going to help get us out of the recession we are in a bit quicker. So, raising the price of fuel, however it happens, isn't good in the very short term. Over the next five years, we should ensure efficiency by phasing in some way of making fuel more expensive. It doesn't have to be taxes. Fuel mileage standards won't do it- those are government mandates, and they don't do anything except cause a lot of finger pointing from all sides. Higher fuel prices will bring market forces to bear on efficiency. I am convinced American engineering is equal or superior to anything else, but we have had the wrong incentives all along. Given the right incentives, whatever's left of the big three will come up with all kinds of innovations. We just have to make sure the incentives are there.

[636blurr]

Originally Posted by Gaolee

We do a bunch of different things to avoid excess energy use, although it could be more. Getting the Husqvarna running again is partly because it's fun, partly because it will get over 50 mpg. If we needed another vehicle, a diesel would be high on the list, and I would be looking into converting it to run on waste vegetable oil. We don't need one, and if you trace the cycle, buying a newer more efficient car is probably just as damaging to the environment as recycling the old one endlessly. There's no reason to remelt steel if it's still functioning reasonably well in the shape it's already in.

Back to the original point. Right now, cheap gasoline is having a countercyclical effect, and it's going to help get us out of the recession we are in a bit quicker. So, raising the price of fuel, however it happens, isn't good in the very short term. Over the next five years, we should ensure efficiency by phasing in some way of making fuel more expensive. It doesn't have to be taxes. Fuel mileage standards won't do it- those are government mandates, and they don't do anything except cause a lot of finger pointing from all sides. Higher fuel prices will bring market forces to bear on efficiency. I am convinced American engineering is equal or superior to anything else, but we have had the wrong incentives all along. Given the right incentives, whatever's left of the big three will come up with all kinds of innovations. We just have to make sure the incentives are there.

Why? Let people live the lives they choose. If someone wants to buy a jacked up SUV that gets 4mpg and they can afford it why in the fuck do you possibly care?
Do not give me that for the enviroment BS. our homes Emit more "greenhouse gases" than our automobiles do. The simple fact is we have an impact on our enviroment, that much we know, and in the last 30 years, we have taken remarkable stides to clean ourselves up. There is no evidence to suggest we are running out of oil anytime soon, hell we have shale oil we can use that at this time is limitless twords out knowledge. SO I ask, what is so fucking horrible about people just living their damn lives?
I have alot of ways I think people should live there lives, being more self sufficient is one of them, but it will not be I to legislate those beliefs on others. that my friend, is not freedom.

Edit: couple more thoughts, first off, using used vegetable oil to power your diesel is all fine and dandy, but obviously if everyone did that then how much used vegetable oil would be left over?
Second the Japanese have speerheaded lots of new technology that at some point may indeed take over oil but that is still a ways off. TO say that technology will not come about is ignorence on the highest level to say even lightly. Also consider that the germans even had wood burning engines in ww2, however again, what is most practicle, evil oil.
third, educate yourself on why we chose oil for our combustable engine to begin with, the entire story is quit interesting and water powered, electric, and ethenel powered engines were around before combustable. Once you have educated yourself on this sensless left wing propoganda, maybe we can have an adult conversation.
I am also sure its dated earlier however doing a quick search wikki has the first electric powered vehicle in 1828 Electric motor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More on the history of the automobile engine and designs. Automobile History - The History of Cars and Engines

The First Car - A History of the Automobile

[Gaolee]

If the price of fuel goes up, people can still buy jacked up fuel sucking SUVs. My point, and you are studiously missing it for some reason, is the market will deal with people who don't think about it, but buy SUVs because they are fashionable or something. There's a whole lot of mindlessness about the average buyer, and if the price of fuel were high, they would want something else. Fuel economy standards don't have any effect on the market. They just cause frustration on the part of the manufacturers because they have to build things nobody wants and frustration on the part of buyers because they can't get what they want.

So, we change the market, not the way the market works. There will still be a market for everything you are talking about, and if people want to spend the money on fuel, let 'em.

For now, gasoline and diesel internal combustion engines are what we use for a lot of good reasons. I doubt we will abandon them any time soon. But, when you look at the amount of chemical energy in a gallon of gasoline burned in an internal combustion engine, a whole lot of it gets used up as heat and just wasted in other ways. With the right market forces working as incentives, Americans will figure out how to make them more efficient while also working on alternatives. Why would we want to leave it to the Japanese?

There have been all kinds of alternates to running automobiles. Electrics were a much bigger portion of the market a century ago, such that the market was back then. There were also steamers. They could run on just about anything, but had some other issues making them less than ideal. So, there's nothing new here. My point goes back to market forces. When the price of fuel goes up, the demand for innovation and our willingess to pay for it goes up. When the price of fuel stays low, we don't care and the work doesn't get done. If the price of fuel is high, innovation pays. It's a simple idea and it works. We need to ensure we have high fuel prices in 2012.

[636blurr]

Originally Posted by Gaolee

If the price of fuel goes up, people can still buy jacked up fuel sucking SUVs. My point, and you are studiously missing it for some reason, is the market will deal with people who don't think about it, but buy SUVs because they are fashionable or something. There's a whole lot of mindlessness about the average buyer, and if the price of fuel were high, they would want something else. Fuel economy standards don't have any effect on the market. They just cause frustration on the part of the manufacturers because they have to build things nobody wants and frustration on the part of buyers because they can't get what they want.

So, we change the market, not the way the market works. There will still be a market for everything you are talking about, and if people want to spend the money on fuel, let 'em.

For now, gasoline and diesel internal combustion engines are what we use for a lot of good reasons. I doubt we will abandon them any time soon. But, when you look at the amount of chemical energy in a gallon of gasoline burned in an internal combustion engine, a whole lot of it gets used up as heat and just wasted in other ways. With the right market forces working as incentives, Americans will figure out how to make them more efficient while also working on alternatives. Why would we want to leave it to the Japanese?

There have been all kinds of alternates to running automobiles. Electrics were a much bigger portion of the market a century ago, such that the market was back then. There were also steamers. They could run on just about anything, but had some other issues making them less than ideal. So, there's nothing new here. My point goes back to market forces. When the price of fuel goes up, the demand for innovation and our willingess to pay for it goes up. When the price of fuel stays low, we don't care and the work doesn't get done. If the price of fuel is high, innovation pays. It's a simple idea and it works. We need to ensure we have high fuel prices in 2012.

so lemme get this straight, your argument is just simply to raise gas prices that the consumer really will not notice or care about so that the autmakers will make a vehicle that does not exist, that the technology may not exist for so the consumers will not want but rather that they are forced to buy (imaginary fairly land vehicle) becouse you do not think people should drive anything other than what your party deems fit for the people becouse you yourself are to much of a goddamn hypocrite to take the steps yourself? (owning a 50mpg motard that you use for play hardly counts as doing your part).
Where do you come up with this brainwashed pro government anti american blither? R you even paying attention to what your saying? Forcing people to own a product that may or may not be able to be made to cause high gas prices again, for what purpose?
Man your the last person on here I ever thought I would say this to.
But simply, Go fuck yourself you goddamn communist piece of fucking shit.

[Mooosman]

Originally Posted by Gaolee

My point goes back to market forces. When the price of fuel goes up, the demand for innovation and our willingess to pay for it goes up. When the price of fuel stays low, we don't care and the work doesn't get done. If the price of fuel is high, innovation pays. It's a simple idea and it works. We need to ensure we have high fuel prices in 2012.

+1


My thoughts exactly. When fuel prices are artificially high, the demand for more efficient cars will go way up, and automakers will get their ass in gear and respond with better, more fuel efficient cars. The reason the automakers didn't care about green cars during the SUV boom was because SUVs were what was selling. They were the 'trendy' thing to have.



Nick

[Mooosman]

Originally Posted by 636blurr

But simply, Go fuck yourself you goddamn communist piece of fucking shit.

Ah, Blurr has invoked the McCarthy defense: call anyone that doesn't agree with you a communist. Well played, Blurr...




Nick

[636blurr]

Originally Posted by Mooosman

Ah, Blurr has invoked the McCarthy defense: call anyone that doesn't agree with you a communist. Well played, Blurr...




Nick

Gee, facist would have fit the bill more appropriatly however since socialism "the lefts twisted view" is not far from communism then it is a fitting statement.
But lets educate your burn brain dead heads a bit more. First if gasoline is high then what happens? all products go up accordingly, no fucking shit, that means the first to be noticed will be your food. Think about that for a second, you are saying that people in AMERICA should not be able to eat well becouse you do not like seeing anyon in an SUV. Basic Economics OHHH you didnt think of that did you.

As for your 100 miles to the gallon vehicles, well they do not exist, Myth busters did a test on all the bullshit we have heard about for years, and guess what, its fucking bullshit and marketing gimics for the cars we drive today.

You also want better gas mileage and less emsission. so thats like saying create a motor that we will not allow to run. Huh. may as well have your old lady kick you in the nuts when your trying to have a baby.

[94rf900r]

I bet as soon as summer comes around again that shit will be right back up to $4 and climbing. but its not price gouging its just price gouging.

[Gaolee]

Originally Posted by 636blurr

so lemme get this straight, your argument is just simply to raise gas prices that the consumer really will not notice or care about so that the autmakers will make a vehicle that does not exist, that the technology may not exist for so the consumers will not want but rather that they are forced to buy (imaginary fairly land vehicle) becouse you do not think people should drive anything other than what your party deems fit for the people becouse you yourself are to much of a goddamn hypocrite to take the steps yourself? (owning a 50mpg motard that you use for play hardly counts as doing your part).
Where do you come up with this brainwashed pro government anti american blither? R you even paying attention to what your saying? Forcing people to own a product that may or may not be able to be made to cause high gas prices again, for what purpose?
Man your the last person on here I ever thought I would say this to.
But simply, Go fuck yourself you goddamn communist piece of fucking shit.

Market forces are American, as far as I can tell. I also don't care what people drive. My point is to harness market forces to spur innovation. The technology isn't so far out of line from what it needs to be. Take a look at the level of horsepower a stock engine has now in comparison to what it was fifteen or even ten years ago. Technology is advancing all the time. Markets provide the incentives.

If fuel prices were high, and people still wanted SUVs but also wanted efficiency, I have no doubt Americans would figure out how to make them efficient. There's all kinds of technology to do so already in place, but the incentives to use it aren't there. Use of lightweight materials, precise manufacturing, carefully mapped fuel injection and so on has produced 200 horsepower out of 1000cc motorcycle engines. Apply the same kind of thinking to getting 30mpg out of a Chevy Suburban, and it would probably get done. It might be a hybrid, but it also might be a pure gasoline engine.

So, if that makes me a communist, so be it. I always thought a communist was for collectivizing everything, not using market forces for a beneficial end. What do you know- communists like the market.

The motorcycle is a small thing, sure, but it means I will be commuting with far less fuel used. I don't need to carry around a whole van to get myself from one place to another. The van gets used to haul big loads, and when it isn't necessary, I use alternate transportation. I could give you a very long list of things we have done as a family to reduce our energy use, a lot of it for reasons associated with prices. Market forces at work again. Go figure. We are somewhat more sensitive to energy prices than some people. Perhaps less than others. It's market driven, and it has to be in order to work.

[636blurr]

Originally Posted by Gaolee

Market forces are American, as far as I can tell. I also don't care what people drive. My point is to harness market forces to spur innovation. The technology isn't so far out of line from what it needs to be. Take a look at the level of horsepower a stock engine has now in comparison to what it was fifteen or even ten years ago. Technology is advancing all the time. Markets provide the incentives.

no you are willing to force people to "take a step back" so spur innovation that is already there. Do you really think the Big 3 give a fuck if a car gets good gas mileage? standard marketing drive is people want smaller more efficeint cars which is why the japanese became so damn successfull to begin with. If the big three do not catch the boat, the someone else will, and they will go bye bye, that is basic economics, stay the fuck out of it and do not decline my life nor the people of the worlds lives becouse you want to "spur innovation" while you yourself dont do a fucking thing to contribute to it. There are plenty of companies offering alternative vehicles yet again, you choose not to buy them, You do not have to buy from the big three, so simply FUCKING DONT. that is as American as it gets, YOU MAKE THE CHOICE, not haveing the goddamn government force a company to do something that it does not want to for no legitimate reason whatsoever.

If fuel prices were high, and people still wanted SUVs but also wanted efficiency, I have no doubt Americans would figure out how to make them efficient. There's all kinds of technology to do so already in place, but the incentives to use it aren't there. Use of lightweight materials, precise manufacturing, carefully mapped fuel injection and so on has produced 200 horsepower out of 1000cc motorcycle engines. Apply the same kind of thinking to getting 30mpg out of a Chevy Suburban, and it would probably get done. It might be a hybrid, but it also might be a pure gasoline engine.

blah blah blah, all the above is done with automanufactures struggling to meat bullshit Emissions regulations that eco jack asses put forth, either you want better gas mileage or you do not. make up your fucking mind, but you cannot have it both ways.

So, if that makes me a communist, so be it. I always thought a communist was for collectivizing everything, not using market forces for a beneficial end. What do you know- communists like the market.

NO it makes you fucking worthless for forcing your Ideals down someone elses throat. Although I am sure that you would of had no problem living under a communist regime where the government dictates to the people who all have redistributed wealth (save for the government of course)
I have no use for anyone that would force further hardship on me, my family, or my friends to "spur innovation" for absolutly no reason whatsoever other than your own ignorence and or party driven blither you seem intent on pushing. Again, if you want innovation, take the step forward champ, lead by example. Build an electric car, build a hybrid car, sell off your gas guzzling vehicles. take public transportation, yet you chooose to do none of those things.

The motorcycle is a small thing, sure, but it means I will be commuting with far less fuel used. I don't need to carry around a whole van to get myself from one place to another. The van gets used to haul big loads, and when it isn't necessary, I use alternate transportation. I could give you a very long list of things we have done as a family to reduce our energy use, a lot of it for reasons associated with prices. Market forces at work again. Go figure. We are somewhat more sensitive to energy prices than some people. Perhaps less than others. It's market driven, and it has to be in order to work.

Save the bullshit hypocrite, what you are doing is the same as the vast, vast majority of American yet somehow you feel it necissary to force Idea's that you yourself are not following. Why dont you put your money where your mouth is and make your house Green? Or buy a "green" home? By an electric motorbike, get rid of the extra motorbikes, quit wasting oil recourses to run around a track for no reason whatosever. Then you can at least suggest what people should do. but in the meantime SHUT THE FUCK UP and let me live my life how I deem fit and you live your life how you deem fit, Do you understand that ya worthless fuck or is your socliast brain incapable of understanding that?

Oh and again. MOVE TO FUCKING EUROPE and leave American to the Americans.

[Gaolee]

Beats me why I am trying to get the point across here. It's certainly not something to get too excited about, because none of us has much impact one way or another in the grand scheme of things.

There are a number of people who bought vehicles which use a lot of fuel even while prices were high. They posted up right in this thread. I use fuel to go around in circles on a track, and did so this summer even though fuel prices were high. It is what I like to do, and we have a choice. High fuel prices don't preclude anything anybody wants to do.

For the time being, our economy will benefit from lower fuel prices. It is good to have the price low during a down cycle, since the government's ability to be a counterweight is limited now. In the long term, we will benefit from having higher fuel prices. It's not a matter of forcing anybody's ideas on anybody else. It's a simple reality that people generally pay attention to things in a very economic way. When fuel prices are low and the economy is good, fuel efficiency is not very high on people's list of reasons to make one choice or another. When fuel prices go up, the choices may or may not be different. If the big 3, or maybe big two or maybe just Ford, will figure out how to satisfy demand and make money by building what people want, including increased fuel economy. If people want SUVs with high fuel economy, somebody will make them. No problem. Or jacked up trucks.

No inconsistency here. I don't think mileage standards work. Emissions standards are necessary because emissions is a perfect example of the commons problem. It's a classic American issue, dating back to the 1600s in New England.

Sorry you are getting so wound up. I don't see this as much of anything to get wound up about. It's just an analysis of the facts at hand and human behavior. I doubt most people really care much about what they drive or ride near as much as people on this forum do.

Now, as far as electric or alternative motorcycles are concerned, there's a company converting KLR650s to diesel for the Marines. I thought one of those would be pretty great, since they get close to 100mpg if you can keep your hoof out of it. They are priced way out of what I can afford, so I don't have one for the time being. Sure WVO has its issues. If all of us was taking the used fryer oil from the local burger joint, the price of waste vegetable oil would go sky high. Until then, it's just burning waste. I can't do it just yet, though. As far as a green house, we have been slowly insulating our house, and we chose to live within walking distance of just about everything we use at home. We don't burn gasoline to get groceries, for example. It was a choice we made twenty years ago. We chose to live where we do partly because there's public transportation to get to where I thought I would be working. It didn't work out that way, but it will one day. There's a lot of ways to go after the problem if you chose to. If you don't want to, that's fine with me as well.

It's all about economics, not coercion.