What will collapse first? The USA or the oil price...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4399537.stm

Time for hydrogen cars methinks!

Time for another invasion methinks!

^ *groans* :D

But you Brits are lucky. Given that you already pay high gas prices, if prices were ever to go that high, I am sure that the government could wipe out all gas taxes at least initially to help cope with the price shock. Not to mention that you have a superb public transport infrastructure (that you guys inexplicably put down constantly, but that is the subject of another thread). Here in the US, we are absolutely screwed! We rely entirely on gas for our transport network, and don't really tax it.

I heard somewhere that there might be fuel protests again soon with the spiralling cost of oil.

Right ho! Get those rubby dinghies the Royal Navy call frigates and load em up... we're off to take those colonies back!!

And what will they have to defend themselves? Never mind tanks with no fuel - the GIs won't be able to get to "work" either... ;)

(and yes, before some overly serious Yank comes along moaning, I'm joking......)

donqui is right though, the cost of crude is a lower percentage of our actual prices than in the usa so because we have higher taxes we are less affected by swings in raw prices.

What will collapse first? The USA or the oil price...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4399537.stm

Time for hydrogen cars methinks!
I just read this article myself and was going to post something on it. Scary thought, I predict that this will have a profound impact on the US automobile industry. If these prices are around for more than a year, our cars may end up looking more and more European. The surge in demand along with the risk of severe shortage due in large part to instability in the Middle East is what is contributing to these prices. Hopefully this will have a future positive impact, but we can only hope.....

I just fuelled up at US$2.19 at a Quicktrip here in suburban Atlanta. Keep in mind, prices this high are unheard of here and I have never seen them over $2 for unleaded in my lifetime.

Well, I think that for the moment as long as prices increase gradually we will be OK. I have been hearing reports stateside that if gas today were to be charged at 1980 prices, that, with inflation, we would be paying $3.00 a gallon. If it spikes up, all hell will break loose. And this just not apply just to the US. While European are more resilient to such fluctuations in terms of transport, the use of gas permeates all aspects of modern lilfe, as we will all be affected.

Just out of curiosity, the oil crisis in the 1970s, what was the effect over in Britain?

We pay on average about 82p ($1.50ish) per litre here... it hurts.

If my conversions serve me right, there are 4.5 liters per gallon. In the states, we are paying about $2 per gallon for gas. So, that means that we are paying about 23p per liter here in the states!!!

No wonder we are addicted gas.

Good. I hope it stays inflated and we are forced to use alternatives.

I think we're above average when it comes to petrol prices compared to the rest of Europe. I seem to remember hearing somewhere it was almost 90p in the Netherlands. Petrol in the US is very cheap though.

Good. I hope it stays inflated and we are forced to use alternatives.

Those Hummer drivers certainly have something coming to them. haha...

^ *groans* :D

But you Brits are lucky. Given that you already pay high gas prices, if prices were ever to go that high, I am sure that the government could wipe out all gas taxes at least initially to help cope with the price shock. Not to mention that you have a superb public transport infrastructure (that you guys inexplicably put down constantly, but that is the subject of another thread). Here in the US, we are absolutely screwed! We rely entirely on gas for our transport network, and don't really tax it.

Well it should serve as a lesson to your inadequate government to finally get off its backside and start doing something to change the culture in your Hummerfied country :yes:

Yep. I hope people feel the burn when driving in their SUVs! I can't stop people from driving them, but maybe this spike will convince of how important not only for the environment, but for our economy, it is to conserve energy.

izze gut for les dutch :)
We sell gas at a price parred with oil prices :D
money money money!

hmmm... I'm car shopping at the moment. I narrowed it down to the Nissan Altima and the Toyota Matrix. What do you guys think?? The Altima gets 23 mpg, Matrix 28 mpg. The Altima is slightly more attractive to me.

Both MPG's you quote are awful. How about a car that can get about 38-45 MPG? These are commonplace over here!

one thing is that we have moved away from oil powered heating in this country, we did iafter the original oil crisis of the 70s so we are less affected than the usa where a large chunk of the country is heated by oil.

Both MPG's you quote are awful. How about a car that can get about 38-45 MPG? These are commonplace over here!

really? how can that be? even the hybrid Toyota Prius gets 50 mpg.

oh wait, I'm talking about city driving, not highway driving. In that case, the Matrix would get 36 mpg maybe?? it's a small compact hunchback car.

plenty of fat to burn though :rofl:

thats because american cars are bigger and heavier so they get less fuel economy.

The funny one is when our 2 litre beasts go faster and accelerate quicker than 5 litre American cars!

no shit sherlock :)

looking at Toyota's website, the corrola gets 40 mpg hwyway.

the echo gets 41 mpg hwyway.

but those cars are small and ugly.

^ And they steer occaionally :lol:

^ *groans* :D

But you Brits are lucky. Given that you already pay high gas prices, if prices were ever to go that high, I am sure that the government could wipe out all gas taxes at least initially to help cope with the price shock. Not to mention that you have a superb public transport infrastructure (that you guys inexplicably put down constantly, but that is the subject of another thread). Here in the US, we are absolutely screwed! We rely entirely on gas for our transport network, and don't really tax it.


Better still we're the only member of the G7 that is a net oil exporter :)

i thought we weren't anymore - or is that just net fuel production including gas?

one thing is that we have moved away from oil powered heating in this country, we did iafter the original oil crisis of the 70s so we are less affected than the usa where a large chunk of the country is heated by oil.
All the gas we use in our boilers is specific to the North Sea I believe. We will have to convert our boilers and fires i think when we start having to use Russian and other gas which I believe has a slightly different makeup.

I use oil fired heating due to my location. I'm paying about 50% more than this time last year.

As far as car fuels go, well we've really got to look at transport issues and alternative fuels. In my opinion everyone makes a big noise about it but really just skirt around the issues. like pensions we've got a fuel timebomb ticking away and no one is seriously tackling the issue.

Fact of the matter though I don't think the government will dare rase petrol much if any because people need their cars, companys need their cars and trucks and the price at the moment is at breaking point any higher and the economy will suffer even more!

that's one thing that has always bugged me... companies whine and bitch about the price of oil... why don't they collabourate with other companies and jointly solve the oil price problem by getting an alternative fuel developed? Surely it would pay off in the long run cause they could get a royalty pot and distribute the money between them for their IP which they can license to other manufacturers and they'd break the dependancy on oil... in a roundabout way it would also sort out a lot of the tensions and conflicts in the middle east because their cartel would be broken by the liberation of the wests demand on oil... as demand would be down dramatically there would be a corresponding drop in oil prices too!

i thought we weren't anymore - or is that just net fuel production including gas?

we are in financial terms but might not be in barrel terms anymore- north sea oil is a premium type of oil or something.

You have to remeber that we buy our petrol in gallons, a different quantity to an American gallon

The Prius easily does 99mpg that is british gallons

brent crude is indeed a premium type of crude. high quality and requires less distilling, also it commands a higher price becuase it comes from a stable region so prices are secure.

I use oil fired heating due to my location. I'm paying about 50% more than this time last year.

As far as car fuels go, well we've really got to look at transport issues and alternative fuels. In my opinion everyone makes a big noise about it but really just skirt around the issues. like pensions we've got a fuel timebomb ticking away and no one is seriously tackling the issue.

well, its not like somebody will flip a switch and all the oil will be gone. The supply will diminish over time, prices will only ever go up - the alternatives will become attractive to people and eventually oil will price itself out of the energy market.

That's the optimistic view.

I'd bet within the next fifty years somebody will come up with a solid-state electrical storage device that can store an equivalent amount of energy in the same volume as chemical fuels. And the reason - the astronomical cost of oil. Not because its a good idea, but because there will be a market for it.

You have to remeber that we buy our petrol in gallons, a different quantity to an American gallon

The Prius easily does 99mpg that is british gallons

oh, i didn't know there were American gallons and British gallons.

the confusing world of measurements.

it would not be so confusing if we would have just adopted the metric system already!! :rant: :speech:

The stupid thing is petrol is sold in litres!!!, anyway why dont they just produce more oil instead of being greedy bastards!

actually, isn't our north sea oil shite for things like fuel up perfect for applications like plastics?

hmmm... I'm car shopping at the moment. I narrowed it down to the Nissan Altima and the Toyota Matrix. What do you guys think?? The Altima gets 23 mpg, Matrix 28 mpg. The Altima is slightly more attractive to me.

In briths terms that equates to about 27 mpg and 33 mpg respectively. Are thos urban/extra urban, combined or something else?

those would be urban i believe. we call it city driving. and extra urban would be highway mpg perhaps.

This book looks like a good buy for anybody intertested in what could happen post peak oil:

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/1902636457.02.TZZZZZZZ.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865714827/qid=1112565702/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-6380611-5716143
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/1902636457/customer-reviews/ref=lm_lb_1/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/202-7152844-8859836

Not read it myself yet but the reviews sound interesting.

The first review:

Proponents of the "Peak Oil" theory argue that global oil production will "peak" (meaning that one half of all known reserves will have been recovered) at some point between 2000 and 2010, and afterwards production will irrevocably decline, never to rise again. However, the demand for oil will continue to rise and the spread between falling supply and rising demand will rapidly grow, as no adequate alternative energy source will be available to cover the shortfall. Doomsday will then be at hand. The price of petroleum, and petroleum-related products (i.e., just about everything) will skyrocket; transportation, communications, agriculture, indeed, every major industry in the world, will sputter to a standstill; the world economy will stagger and collapse; civil authority will dissolve; and the noisy, messy experiment that was industrial civilization will expire in a world-wide bloodbath, or "die-off," that will reduce the human population by 90 percent, or more, and will leave the planet devastated, ruined, and, quite possibly, dead.

It would be easy to dismiss this apocalyptic vision as alarmist nonsense if only the "Peak Oil" proponents weren't so bloody convincing. By and large, they are a sensible, reasonable-sounding group of Cassandras, who dispense their grim forecasts as soberly as the subject allows. Virtually all of them rely upon the pioneering work M. King Hubbert, a research geophysicist who, in the mid-1950s, created a model to estimate the productive life of energy reserves. In 1956 Hubbert used his model to predict that oil production in the continental United States would peak sometime between 1966 and 1972. U.S. oil production did , in fact, peak in 1970 (and has declined by 50 percent since), and Hubbert and his forecasting model, dubbed "Hubbert's Peak," passed into the arcane lore of petroleum geologists. Other petroleum scientists have refined Hubbert's model and have applied it to global petroleum reserves. Although results differ depending upon the variables used by different researchers, the consensus is that the "Hubbert Peak" of worldwide oil reserves will occur sometime between 2004 and 2007. In other words, as I sit at my keyboard writing this review the high noon of petroleum-based industrial civilization may have come and gone, and the whole human enterprise may be inexorably descending into twilight and darkness. Sic transit gloria mundi - with a bullet.

If the Cassandras are right, and the end of the world is imminent, it has received remarkably little coverage in the conventional media, although the internet hosts many excellent websites that the curious or concerned citizen may consult to learn as much as he or she would like about the post-petroleum world to come. Recently this state of affairs has started to change, and several good books have been published on "Peak Oil" and its consequences. First among these, is Richard Heinberg's "The Party's Over," a sober, detailed contribution to the literature, which clearly and fluently describes the fossil fuel bender the industrial world has been on for the past 100 years, and what we can expect to follow from it. Although Heinberg does his best not to induce white-knuckled panic in his reader, the picture that emerges from his book is absolutely frightening, particularly the notion that, at this late date, we can do nothing to prevent the catastrophe from occurring. At best - that is, if the entire human race sets aside all its disputes and immediately mobilizes its combined efforts to solve this one problem - the scale of the catastrophe might be reduced. At worst, in 50 to 100 years time, the greatest disaster in human history will have taken place, and the relatively few survivors of this disaster will dwell in a stateless, Hobbesian world that will make present-day Liberia look like Shangri-La.

Or so the argument runs. Perhaps Heinberg and the other "Peak Oil" prophets are wrong. Perhaps Hubbert's model is defective and world oil production will not peak tomorrow, or next week, or next year. Perhaps the USGS's estimate of world oil reserves is correct and the peak of production will not occur until 2020. Perhaps a previously overlooked, gigantic new field, the equivalent of three or four Saudi Arabias, will be discovered and delay the peak until the early years of the 22nd century. Perhaps. But the point is, Heinberg et al. will inevitably be right someday. Someday, worldwide production of cheap, high-grade crude oil will peak, and the longer that peak is delayed, the more horrific the following decline will be, unless the nations of the world take immediate action to prevent the disaster. This preventive action will entail much more than just developing an adequate replacement for cheap petroleum; although, as Heinberg makes clear, no alternative currently on the drawing board appears to be sufficient. Rather, if we are to avoid the catastrophic consequences of "Peak Oil" we will have to drastically rearrange our affairs - politically, economically, socially. Or, to be blunt, capitalism, certainly as it is currently practiced, will simply have to go. Unfortunately, it is difficult to conceive of a socio-economic system less capable of dealing with the coming crisis than neo-liberal capitalism. But there it is.

Of course, if Heinberg and the other proponents of Peak Oil are right, time has already run out for Petroleum Man, and there is little that can be done to avert doomsday. We shall see. This morning (March 5, 2004) the front page of USA Today warns that record gasoline prices will continue to rise, and there is a likelihood of gas shortages this summer. The "Nation's Newspaper" also reports that the loss of 2.1 million jobs in the USA during the last three years appears to be permanent. Both of these developments fit neatly into the predictions of "Peak Oil." One thing is certain: we live in interesting times. Anyone who wants to learn just how interesting these times are is well advised to read and ponder "The Party's Over." We've been warned. Will we act?

Man, you know the oil companies are loving every minute of this. They've been gagging for a way to jack up profits perpetually for years, and they finally found it in the NeoCon's bloodthrist for perpetual global war by the US on anyone who doesn't see things it's way.



Oh and btw Euro folks... Russia, France and Germany were recently added to PNAC as being unsavory opponents of the US agenda, and who will have to be throttled... Better shape up, or Bush's successor will probably be nuking you!

Well, I think that for the moment as long as prices increase gradually we will be OK. I have been hearing reports stateside that if gas today were to be charged at 1980 prices, that, with inflation, we would be paying $3.00 a gallon. If it spikes up, all hell will break loose. And this just not apply just to the US. While European are more resilient to such fluctuations in terms of transport, the use of gas permeates all aspects of modern lilfe, as we will all be affected.

Just out of curiosity, the oil crisis in the 1970s, what was the effect over in Britain?

I remember images of huge queues at petrol Stations in the UK and I know it cocked up the chances for Concorde to have any global sales success... also it led to rise of Thatcherism

For more specifics about the effect on the UK economy I got this from msn website:

In the 1970s soaring oil prices led to runaway inflation, an outbreak of terrible industrial relations and the worst falls in UK shares since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Is this what we should expect this time?

Oil lubricates the world economy. Whether it is petrol for cars, diesel for lorries, bunker fuel for ships or kerosene for aircraft, almost all world trade and the vast majority of industrial output is intimately connected to the price of black gold.

When oil prices soar, costs inevitably go up. Whether we feel them as consumers depends on the pricing power of suppliers, but for investors in most shares they are a plain negative. Companies that can pass the higher cost of oil in the prices they sell their goods at may get less business, while those that swallow the cost keep their customers but suffer lower margins. Overall, the level of economic activity falls.

Quadrupled prices

In the 1970s these factors hit the UK hard. The Arab-Israeli war of 1973 led to the quadrupling of oil prices from $3 per barrel to $12 almost overnight.

Simultaneously, the secondary banking crisis in the UK was undermining financial confidence in the UK At that time, too, we should recall that North Sea oil was barely beginning, and the UK was still a major net importer. Interest rates had to rise to stabilise the pound, jumping from 8.75% in the January of 1973 to 13% by November 13.

Other effects took longer to come through. Inflation, which had already been between 7% and 9% in the early 1970s, soared to 16% by 1974 and 24% in 1975. Employees sought to retain their standard of living in real terms through wage demands which led to a worsening industrial relations climate and ultimately the winter of discontent.

It took more than a decade, some would argue two decades, to squeeze out of the system inflationary expectations that had begun with the oil shock.

While searching for the above piece found this interesting article

UK feared Americans would invade Gulf during 1973 oil crisis

Heath feared US planned to invade Gulf

Owen Bowcott
Thursday January 1, 2004
The Guardian

Ted Heath's government feared - at the height of the 1973 oil crisis - that the White House was planning to invade Saudi Arabia and the Gulf to secure fuel supplies, according to Downing Street files released today.

Suspicions about Richard Nixon's administration as it struggled to shake free from the Watergate scandal, the documents show, were reinforced when the prime minister was only belatedly informed of a worldwide nuclear alert declared by the US.

The files, handed over to the National Archive in Kew under the 30-year rule, expose a disturbing and acrimonious episode in "the special relationship" between London and Washington.

In the aftermath of the Yom Kippur war, America blamed Britain for failing to open its military bases. The defeated Arab nations then imposed an oil embargo on the west.

The US defence secretary, James Schlesinger, told Britain's ambassador in Washington, Lord Cromer, "it was no longer obvious to him that the US could not use force".

Schlesinger had already clashed with Lord Carrington, the British defence secretary. The ambassador's interview was no more amicable. "Couthness is not Schlesinger's strong point," he said in a cable to London. "One or two of his remarks bordered on the offensive."

But it was the substance of Schlesinger's remarks which set alarm bells ringing. "[One] outcome of the Middle East crisis," he told Lord Cromer, "was the [sight] of industrialised nations being continuously submitted to [the] whims of under-populated, under-developed countries, particularly [those in the] Middle East.

"Schlesinger did not draw any specific conclusion from this but the unspoken assumption came through ... that it might not ... be possible to rule out a more direct application of military force".

A week later, in mid-November, Henry Kissinger, the US secretary of state, warned that if the Arab oil embargo continued unreasonably and in definitely, America would have to decide what counter-measures were necessary.

In the grip of an international security crisis, Heath commissioned a report - titled Middle East: Possible Use of Force by the United States - from Percy Cradock of the joint intelligence committee.

The 22-page survey, delivered to the prime minister in December, warned that the most likely US military action was the seizure of oil-producing areas. Such a move might be triggered by a resumption of the Arab/Israeli war and protracted oil sanctions.

"The United States might consider it could not tolerate a situation in which the US and its allies were at the mercy of a small group of unreasonable countries. We believe the American preference would be for a rapid operation conducted by themselves to seize oilfields ... The force required for the initial operation would be of the order of two brigades, one for Saudi operation, one for Kuwait and possibly a third for Abu Dhabi.

"The build-up would require the presence of a substantial US naval force in the Indian Ocean, considerably more than the present force. After the initial assaults ... two [extra] divisions could be flown in from the USA."

British bases such as that at Diego Garcia would probably have to be used, Cradock observed. The Russians might well fly troops into the region to defend the Arabs. US/Soviet confrontations were unlikely but could not be ruled out.

"The greatest risk of such confrontations in the Gulf would probably arise in Kuwait where the Iraqis, with Soviet backing, might be tempted to intervene." Nato allies, including Britain, would be pressed to provide political and military support.

During the Yom Kippur war, in October 1973, Schlesinger had told Carrington that: "The Americans had paid £14m for facilities in Diego Garcia and might be expected to be allowed to use them."

But it was the full-scale nuclear alert - declared on October 25 that year, supposedly in response to Soviet fleet movements in the eastern Mediterranean - which most infuriated Ted Heath.

The prime minister, the documents reveal, only learnt about it from news agency reports while in the Commons.

"Personally," he told his private secretary Lord Bridges, "I fail to see how any initiative, threatened or real, by the Soviet leadership required such a worldwide nuclear alert.

"We have to face the fact that the American action has done immense harm, both to this country and worldwide."

Man, you know the oil companies are loving every minute of this. They've been gagging for a way to jack up profits perpetually for years, and they finally found it in the NeoCon's bloodthrist for perpetual global war by the US on anyone who doesn't see things it's way.



Oh and btw Euro folks... Russia, France and Germany were recently added to PNAC as being unsavory opponents of the US agenda, and who will have to be throttled... Better shape up, or Bush's successor will probably be nuking you!

Yes the Oil Companies are loving the fact the the world may soon be close to its end.

Yes, people who work and run oil companies are people too, theres no point having loads of money if theres nothing to spend it on, they have families to support just like you and I :bash:

Stop all this corporate bashing. Do you really think they are all rubbing their hands in glee, with horns on their heads.

but corporations arent human, just like any organisation! They all have their own lust for survival which often goes against human needs

oil and petrol consumption represents a much lower proportion of our gdp than it used to. We don't need to worry too much just yet.

Both MPG's you quote are awful. How about a car that can get about 38-45 MPG? These are commonplace over here!

Remember that a US gallon is smaller than an Imperial (British) gallon. 38-45mpg in the UK would translate to 33-38mpg in the USA.

really? how can that be? even the hybrid Toyota Prius gets 50 mpg.

oh wait, I'm talking about city driving, not highway driving. In that case, the Matrix would get 36 mpg maybe?? it's a small compact hunchback car.


50mpg in the US equates to 58mpg in the UK. That's probably an urban/highway mix measurement. For years, many models in the UK (mainly turbodiesels) have been able to achieve 55-75mpg at a steady 56mph. Elsewhere in Europe they've marketed even more economical models - for example the VW Lupo in 1.2TDi guise was capable of 94mpg. The US has very limited diesel use in cars mainly because it hasn't yet adopted low-sulphur diesel use (although that's set to change in 2006) and the NOx emissions legislative limits from diesels are higher in Europe than they are in the US - although the gap is narrowing fast.

i dont think the post oil scenario of global doom and gloom is right because mostly its easily overcome. we already have other power technologies, all our electricity can be derived from other things like wind, solar and nuclear with hydrogen propulsion for cars and planes and so on.

no shit sherlock :)

looking at Toyota's website, the corrola gets 40 mpg hwyway.

the echo gets 41 mpg hwyway.

but those cars are small and ugly.


The European Yaris (hatchback version of the Echo sedan) is far more attractive and a big seller.

Your comments are proof - if any were needed - that with oil prices on the march upwards, it's the Americans who will have by far the biggest change in mindset to make in the years to come.

You have to remeber that we buy our petrol in gallons, a different quantity to an American gallon

The Prius easily does 99mpg that is british gallons


LOL rubbish. More like 60mpg. Remember petrol-electric hybrids only have the advantage of far better fuel economy during low speeds/urban driving, when the car is often running on electric power; at optimum economical speeds (55-56mph) they're the same as any other petrol car of similar ilk.

Just thought I would resurect this thread given that it was idleing at the bottom of the threads... and especially given its current relavence!

I agree with goth, in that the post oil world will not be as dire as many think.

Hydrogen cars now!!

http://media.canada.com/6c8714d8-471c-4ede-8876-90dda09eae8f/jetsons.jpg

Why is hydrogen good?
Isn't it just like a highly unstable battery?

You use energy to get it from water, then you put it in your car and run it though the fuel cell and it turns back to water. So whats the point? Shouldn't we just develop highly efficient and long lasting batteries to cut out the middle man?

PLEASE correct me if i'm wrong. I dont really know what im talking about.

You are correct in that hydrogen is just an energy storing technology and not an energy producing technology.

The key is energy densities - the potential energy per kg of stored hydrogen is superior to the best we can get from the equivalent kg of battery. At the moment. It just a superior storage medium.

its blindingly obvious that pedal cars are the way forward. They would cut down on pollution and obesity at the same time.