Liquids by the Gallon

At first i just planned to put this in casual, but i thought it might be a fun debate.

Patchouli Oil is $806.40 a gallon

Milk is about 2.88 cents on average(I disagree with their price here)

Tabasco is $94.46--I go through actual gallons of the stuff. I am also never sick. coincidence?

I, like everyone else hate paying more at the pump. however when i compare the costs versus the costs in other countries and rate its importance to my needs in terms of paying for my lifestyle by getting to and from work--as well as the more important reality of the freedom an automobile gives me vs. the grim inefficiency of public transport, I wonder if it is all that bad.

I think that the list shows that --as they claim on the website-- gas is one of the cheapest liquids out there.

The point is that compared to much of what are arguably non essentials, is the price of gasoline--even setting it at 3 dollars a gallon, really an injustice or something we should complain about?

I don't think the cost of the gasoline relative to other products is what concerns most people. Nor is it the cost of gasoline compared to its price fifty years ago, even indexed for inflation.

What really causes people grief is how fast gasoline has risen in price. Five years ago it was under $1.50. In that short space of time, it has virtually doubled. Granted it has come back down to what I unfortunately consider a bargain ($2.10 in Idaho Falls today), but when it was high we were looking at an inflation rate of about 15% (compounded) over the five years. Inflation on everything else is just over 3%.

Luckily I don't have to commute very far to work, so doubling my budgeted amount for gas was something I could cope with. For those who have to commute long distances, however, and especially companies (like FedEx) that depend on large quantities of fuel for their day-to-day operations, doubling the cost of gasoline cuts deeply.

Not only that, but comparing the price of a gallon of gas to a gallon of other liquids isn't a fair comparison.
Not only is this what I'd consider a luxury item, most people don't tend to use it by the gallon. Those that do have no reason to worry about the cost of gas.

Again, not generally used by the gallon, for most people.

Probably a better comparison than Patchouli Oil or Tabasco, but still apples-to-oranges.

I am not arguing the non essential nature of the other liquids. i am merely saying that when you factor in the importance of the gasoline the price is rather reasonable. One always must remember that increased demand always leads to higher prices. its why i don't have a problem with ticket scalpers or stores that raise prices before the holidays.
The intrinsic value of anything is always what someone is willing to pay for it.
If one guy will give me 50$ for something--why would I then give it to another for 10?

The other liquids are NOT essential. No, most will never ever purchase gallons of most
of them. Shipping companies obviously feel the bite--but again compared to other countries we are still very cheap.

So are the prices really too high?

Actually, the price of gasoline is much higher than it appears at the pump. The bulk of the cost to the gasoline consumer is externalized. The government uses various methods to externalize the cost of gas, including tax subsidies, program subsidies, and protection subsidies.

The International Center for Technology Assessment released a report called The Real Price of Gas in 1998. Though dated, it is an excellent primer on how the cost of gas at the pump is an illusion.

On tax subsidies:


On program subsidies:


On protection subsidies:


On Environmental, health, and social costs:


This is from their introduction, and since these numbers are from 1998, when gas was around $1 per gallon, we can imagine that the cost has increased:


It is easy to see why these costs are externalized. If we had to pay the actual cost at the pump, there would be some really major problems! Of course we do pay them, but in hidden ways of which most of us are completely unaware.

Quark, to objectively evaluate these costs, you must also factor in the benefits as well. Despite the sentiment of many...these aren't simply provided to enrich oil companies...most of these subsidies are provided to ensure adequate supply, particularly domestically. Let's examine some of the quoted 'costs'....



How much would crude cost if exploration and development weren't encouraged? How much more reliant would we be on foreign oil? Why wouldn't we want to encourage investment in nonconventional fuels? Why wouldn't we want to encourage enhanced oil recovery, and what might crude oil cost without it? How much more would oil cost if depreciation weren't accelerated?



OK, now it's clear the authors are REALLY reaching. The oil business is now responsible for the creation of the transportation infrastructure? How dare they!!! Who are they to provide us with means for getting to work, seeing our friends and relatives, in general greatly enhancing our daily lives. I wonder why they stopped there? What about the evils of the plastics industry, the textiles industry, the airline industry, the entire manufacturing industry (machines run on fuel, don't they?), in fact any industry or product that uses electricity (all of which is produced from either fossil fuels or plants that were built using them). Now lets look at the cost of the transportation infrastructure cited. Isn't that something like 96% of all the costs they cite here....essentially rendering their eventual conclusion insignificant if it, as it should be, is excluded?



By all means, we should stop safeguarding these resources immediately. That should do wonders for ensuring stable supply, and its associated lowered price. Ditto for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Prices would be much lower if OPEC was unaware that we had access to 6 months reserve, during which we wouldn't need to provide them with any revenue whatsoever. Ditto for local and state government protection. Wouldn't we all be much better off if, for example, local refineries were subject to increased terrorist attacks (and lets not discuss the associated environmental cleanup costs and increased health costs of those affected).

No, if you really want to examine the cost of oil, I think you should take a good look at the taxes associated with it. Although these have decreased relatively as the price of a gallon has increased, I still think its informative. As shown here, taxes amount to about 54 cents per gallon. Of course, if those were eliminated, they'd just be replaced somewhere else. But it is worth noting that government profits more from a gallon of gas than the oil companies do, don't you think? Maybe that explains all the costs noted above...the government is just protecting its revenue.

The point is that compared to much of what are arguably non essentials, is the price of gasoline--even setting it at 3 dollars a gallon, really an injustice or something we should complain about?

Yes, and the reason is becausse a large part of our economy is based on the assumption that gas prices would remain low indefinitely. The price of gas effects a whole lot more than what it costs to fill your car up at the pump.

It affects the cost of every single product we buy because it increases the price of transportation. Most companies do not buy locally anymore, we live in a global economy. That means that the products and raw materials are transported from a long distance, often from the other side of the world. Transportation requires lots of fuel. Secondly, most companies employ just-in-time inventory strategies which means frequent inventory replenishment instead of having things in stock for extended periods of time. That also means frequent use of transportation.

It also affects the cost of many raw materials which in turn effect the cost of products we buy. Anything made with plastic is using oil products.

Finally it affects the cost of utilities because of the cost of heating oil and electricity production. A large portion of electricity is produced using natural gas.

The price of these other liquids by the gallon is only fun trivia becausse the only one of them that keeps our economy running and affects virtually everything in our lives is oil.

again,yes the rest of the liquids are not crucial necessities--but really we're to blame for allowing our dependency to grow so great. The alternatives--and the profit potential is there. If no one does anything about it--should we really complain much if Big Oil raises the rates?

Is the price of gasoline--even setting it at 3 dollars a gallon, really an injustice or something we should complain about?

My first thought was to wonder what the average journey length was. I found (from these sites 1 & 2) that in the USA it is 29 miles, equating to an average of 55 miles at 32 mph. Of course, this will be higher for people commuting in from rural or suburban areas than for those inside big cities.

But in turn, those in big cities are much more likely to use a bus or subway or other public mass transit system because such modes of transport are more more likely to be quicker than private cars, and to exist at all, in big cities.

This didn't seem particularly unreasonable - the USA is a very big country, after all.

But in Britain (physically smaller in area than all US states except Rhode Island & Hawaii, I believe) the average journey is 19 miles. (Decreasing to something like 7 miles in London, as you'd expect.)

I was taken aback by this - not so much by the length of US commuter journeys as by how close the UK figure was to it. The UK journey is 65% of the size of the US one, even though the UK is far, far, smaller than 65% of the USA's land area. It's more like 2% of the land area, with no deserts and fewer, smaller mountains and lakes that might cause engineering problems in roadbuilding (source CIA Factbook).

So road journey lengths - which must in some way be related to the impact of rising fuel prices on the public - in both places must be based on something other than simple physical geography.

(In all this, it's worth remembering that the average journey lengths are for ALL private car trips, not just commuting, so will be nudged up slightly since travelling to see friends & relatives will often involve much longer journeys than we'd be prepared to put up with twice a day for work.)

Then I found this page here

The pertinent paragraph is, with my emphasis

So America relies on private cars far more than the rest of the world because of the way America uses the land. Instead of having retail, housing and industry all mixed in together in cities, America prefers to have large areas of housing-only suburbs, with concentrated retail and industrial areas some distance away.

Even if you wanted to, walking, cycling or public transport would be impractical.

But culturally, even in big cities, people choose to drive rather than walk, even on very short journeys.

All of this has only been possible based on an assumption of cheap gas. Prices are high now, not because of any particular problems with supply (like the oil shock of the 1970s) but just because of a combination of high demand for crude oil, driven by Asian economic growth, and reduced US refining capacity, caused by the succession of strong hurricanes that has hit the Gulf coast this year.

While the refining capacity might recover and even grow, it's unlikely that the high demand is going to do anything but get higher in the short of medium term.

Then, taking into account the real-terms cost of oil-based fuel (taking inflation out of the picture) already mentioned, and the 'hidden subsidies' for road transport compared to other forms, especially in freight (as detailed by Quarkhead), it seems that whoeever said that the scare value of pump prices today doesn't come from their absolute levels, but from the rate of increase that has got them there so quickly.

And finally, if you compare pump prices in the US with, well, with pretty much anywhere in the industrialised world, and the USA is even now paying substantially LESS for gasoline than most other countries.

Most of the difference is, of course, taxation, but then the CIA Factbook entry for the USA says itself ' Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure' so maybe fuel taxes SHOULD be raised, causing short-term pain now, to invest in such infrastructure (ooh, just an idea, by filling the potholes that infest the freeway network?).

AsideYes, the logistics of retailing, in particular, rely on fuel costs, but decisions to move to hub & spoke and J-I-T distribution, and to use road instead of rail, have been taken on the commercial assumption that lower inventory costs would not be outweighed by higher fuel costs. If prices rise further, that assumption will be proven wrong. Don't blame government, because they don't ultimately control pump prices anyway in a market economy. Blame private business management, for making shaky assumptions.)

I guess I don't really understand why you asked the question.

As the price of oil increases it is going to result in more money coming out of your pocket both directly and indirectly. I'd say that is something to be angry about. Towards the lower end of the income spectrum it will hurt more than at the upper end. If the price continues to go up the some goods will become unaffordable for lower income people, they won't be able to travel as much and they may even have trouble heating their homes.

Are we to blame for allowing the dependency to grow? As a society yes, as individuals we are powerless to do anything about it. You cannot escape oil unless you go live in a commune off the grid.

Should we actively pursue alternatives and get off the oil based economy? Absolutely. Any beef about this one should be taken up with the Republicans since the oil industry has them in their pockets.

Perhaps you could clarify the question you are asking.

I think you could make a debate about oranges into a partisan issue.

I think as Americans, our major concern is cost and convenience. As long as alternative fuels aren't easily accesible or economical, we're not going to use them until we have to. It's not like there are 15 DNC reps on the nightly news saying to trade in the Excursion for a hybrid Civic!

The reality is that, as nearly every part of our economy is driven, consumers make the real decisions. If we demanded that Auto Makers explored alt fuels and we stopped purchasing high-consumption vehicles (as this is where a large majority of our consumption comes from), chances are that either prices would fall to meet demand or alternatives would arise (generally from new companies or those bright enough to be innovative). If the Europeans, for instance, introduced an alternative that was safe-enough, economical-enough, and relatively similar to the automobiles that we're used to... chances are that said European company would bring it stateside and it would be successful.

Do the Republicans have BP in their Pocket, for instance? If BP and _____ auto manufacturer introduced an alternative fuel vehicle into the US Market that was both economical and convenient, while the fuel sources were readily available... don't you think the US market would be more apt to purchase said alternative?
The problem is now, that a hybrid, for instance, is a few thousand dollars more expensive and still relies on gasoline.

Energy is a very partisan issue aevans and there are millions of dollars in campaign contributions and lobbying dollars to prove it for decades - see opensecrets. Since the mid-nineties contributions have increasingly gone to Republican politicians from the oil and gas industry. Why is that? Perhaps because Democratic politicians have constantly been trying to push higher fuel efficiency, cleaner fuel standards, funding for alternative energy research. That would detract from the profits of the companies giving these contributions, we couldn't have that...

The really ridiculous thing is that if Republicans would do the right thing they could win big on this issue on many fronts. The American public obviously cares about the issue but energy independence could work well with their national security platform as well. If we didn't have to worry about oil then all of a sudden the middle east becomes a non-issue, nothing more than the same skimishes and injustice in Africa that no one seems to care about.

The most recent "energy bill" gave little in the way of solutions to problems and was more about pork for the energy industry.

In recent months the only people I have heard talking about any sort of realistic solutions are Democrats.

So yes it is a partisan issue although I really believe it shouldn't be. I think both sides should be trying to outdo each other's plans, instead you have one side trying to make progress and the other digging in their heels for the status quo. It should also be of particular interest for American companies because right now they are falling behind by clinging to the old ways instead of innovating.

You didn't address my whole post again.

Basically, what I'm saying is that if the market dictated that they wanted alternative fuels, that it was truly important, someone would find a solution. We're a demand driven market, CJ, it's not the government's responsibility to drive consumer trends.

Politicians and big money are and always have been synonomous, from everything to the automobile industry to cigarrettes. We can point fingers, but the bottom line is that if people keep smoking, frankly, cigarrettes will probably be sold.

Let's use the SUV sales as a generic analogy. According to CNN Money, Gas prices may be driving down SUV (high gas consumption sales).
http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/13/pf/autos/suv_prices/

Why? Is it because Americans are all conservationists? Of course not. It's just too pricy to drive the larger vehicles (like my darn Chevy truck!). Hence, compact sales increase (etc).

If a major fuel producer introduced an economical alternative to the market, it would take off like a rocket. All that would require is a manufacturer to couple with one of the big 4 oil companies, and BAM- you've got alt fuel X at the pumps all across America, selling itself out regularly.

If I were to venture a guess, I think that BP is poking around w/ Hydrogen, and even marketing the benefits in a few commercials here in the states.

However...to finalize this thought before I get sidetracked!...the US government isn't capable of effectively holding the reigns to commerce. If you expect them to spend tax dollars on chasing alternative fuels, all you're asking for is a large amount of waste and likely more pork belly projects.

I'd put my money on a major oil producer and one of the world's successful automobile manufacturers to lead the way...

Let's not forget bottled water. Best marketing ploy ever dreamed up - get (a whole lotta) people to pay a couple of bucks for a glass of H2O. What was it George Carlin said about that....



You're joking, right? Fuel companies and auto manufacturers have resisted alternatives to conventional fuel vehicles for decades. It has taken damn near a century for companies to even consider alternatives to fossil fuels! Shoot, there are so many viable fuel alternatives out there, but big oil and the Big 3 are hardly interested. As long as they're raking in profits from old technology, why bother?

Not to mention the fact that both oil and car companies have agressively bought technologies that could revolutionize the industry (and threaten their profits) and have then sat on them and let them die.

Why is it that in several decades there have been no significant improvements to the combustion engine, that some new technology hasn't emerged? It certainly isn't because people haven't thought up the ideas and built prototypes - just pick up any issue of Popular Science or Popular Mechanics if you don't believe me.

These companies are doing everything possible to protect their turf and their bottom line and they have no interest in getting into additional technologies any more than is necessary for PR purposes so they can say they are good corporate citizens based on empty gestures.


It is the government's responsibility to lead, especially if it is in our national interests. We are marching toward an energy crisis on a global scale, we just don't know when it is going to hit. There are issues of national security at stake here, there are issues with the economy at stake here.

A forward thinking government sees these things and puts in place programs to encourage the business world to invest in the future. At this point I'd settle for a thinking government.

First, there have clearly been extremely significant improvements. A typical engine of today generates twice the horsepower and gets twice the gas mileage of its counterpart from several decades ago...a four-fold improvement. Second, every alternative technology that has emerged has simply been found lacking in some significant aspect, leading to it being rejected by the marketplace. Simply put, the combustion engine remains in place because its the best alternative available.



Which is exactly why we currently remain an oil-based economy, and any plan to change that is so easily demonstrated to be completely uneconomical. It is also why we have remained an oil-driven economy regardless of which party has been in control. Aevans is right....we are an oil based economy because it makes economic sense. Until that changes, we are going to remain an oil based economy...and you and everyone else is better off economically because of it. No amount of Big Oil, Republican-in-their-pocket rhetoric is going to change that fact. If you doubt it, by all means, feel free to propose a viable alternative.



A thinking government is aware of the realities of the situation, and takes steps accordingly, which is precisely what this, and every other administration we've ever had, has done. The various plans that have been discussed on this board have been quickly shown to be monumental programs, requiring massive investment. Let me guess...fund it from repealing the tax cuts to the rich, right? We're certainly lucky that's such a limitless well, otherwise we might have to seek out a viable alternative.

You are correct, but you are missing the point. The cost of generating power through alternative means and the cost of using other energy sources doesn't come down magically. The cost comes down through technological advance.

There has been extreme resistance to undertake those projects because of the cozy relationship oil companies enjoy with our government.

And it isn't rhetoric, it is proven fact whether you want to accept it or not. There is a documented quid pro quo relationship there. Here's more proof, lobbying dollars. What exactly do you think those companies are spending millions in documented (doesn't even consider the undocumented dollars) dollars for? It certainly isn't to allow for advancement of technology. It is to maintain the status quo and increase profits, the approaching future be damned.


Really? Then please do articulate the Bush energy plan so we'll know what our government is doing to save us from this crisis. If you are going to stand behind that statement then prove it and lay out your case. Let's all look at it and see what is fluff, what is pork and what is real.

It isn't just Bush by the way, no administration has ever dealt with this in any genuine fashion. But you seem to feel that we have so please do enlighten me as to what our current president is doing about it. Clearly it shouldn't be too hard if every administration has been doing it.

Stating we are approaching an energy crisis is simple science that any high school student is aware of.

CJ, I don't disagree on this. In fact, my argument essentially supports the magnitude of the problem. Our economy is COMPLETELY oil-based. Oil is used for EVERYTHING. Therefore....changing it is simply MASSIVELY expensive. Given that, it is everyone's economic interest to essentially prolong the status quo as long as possible. Our economy depends on it. Will oil eventually become uneconomical? Absolutely. At which point...all the various alternatives will be utilized. People are very, very clear in the marketplace on this (and on environmental issues, as well). They're all for fixing the problem, as long as it doesn't cost them anything. That is not currently possible, and until it is, it won't be fixed. Conversely, once it is possible, it will fix itself. The government continues to encourage oil production because everyone benefits from it. Postponing the inevitable changeover is in everyone's economic interest, and that is why every administration we've had has done so. The realities of the situation dictate it.

As usual it seems we agree on the principle but I disagree with your assessment of how to solve the problem.

I'm not trying to suggest that we do something to impede oil production, waht I am suggesting is that we need to come up with a plan for how we get off oil and what we do when using oil becomes more expensive than using alternative energy sources. If we don't start thinking about this now and get some solid, executable plans in place then it will be a complete disaster when it happens in the future.

There are tons of things we could be doing as individuals and tons of things the government can be doing to lead us into the future.
- We could be funding research either directly or indirectly. That means either research grants given to groups that want to undertake this kind of research or offering significant tax breaks and credits for doing this kind of research. This is a power the federal and state governments can exercise to coax business into moving in a direction they desire.

- At the same time federal and state governments can encourage consumers to purchase things like hybrids, build green buildings, use green power, etc. They can do this by offering tax incentives that either equalize the price or let you come away making a little bit of money. They can offer lower interest rates to banks for the purposes of mortgages on green buildings. This wouldn't be necessary forever, once critical mass was reached the market would have already changed and the incentives could be taken away.

- Funding for public transit can be increased, many cities have proven that if you partner with developers to create housing around transit then people will utilize it. There are tons of major cities that would benefit from this.

- Laws that discourage sprawl could be passed.

I'm certainly not an expert in this area but there are tons of proposals that could be studied and improved. Then there are things we haven't even thought of yet.

There is a difference between acknowledging the status quo and being realistic about what you can achieve and sticking your head in the sand in the hopes that the problem will go away or someone else will solve it.

Right now our government is doing the latter when they need to be doing the former.

Yes, we are an oil-based economy, and yes, changing it will be massively expensive, but changing is not an option . We can continue to bury our heads in the sand, or start planning for the inevitable. Changing everything in our oil-based infrastructure all at once with no forethought or plan is insane, not to mention impossible.

Unfortunately, most of our old-school leaders would rather remain ostriches. After all, it probably won't happen on their watch. The time for planning isn't when we've reached crisis level. Um, that's why it's called "planning".

The entire oil reserve doesn’t have to dry up before the economy suffers. Production will not be able to keep up with demand, the gap will grow, and this will affect every aspect of everyone’s lives, from food on the table to being able to turn on the lights.

When none other than the sneermeister himself agrees with the experts’ estimates, you know we’re in trouble. (Of course, Cheney’s solution probably has more to do with co-opting Middle East oil than finding alternatives) .

I, for one, would rather plan for when (figuratively) the lights go out, rather than wait until they do and go "oh damn, now what?"

I don't buy into the "oil will run out" argument (at least, not any time soon).

Right now, we use oil which is cheap to extract: liquid petroleum oil.

It is estimated, however, that the world has a supply of trillions of barrels of oil in the form of oil shale. The US alone has over 2 trillion barrels of shale oil. Between 500 billion and 1.1 trillion of those are recoverable: which is enough oil for between 68 and 140 years of oil consumption. The economical extraction cost for this oil is in the $75-90 dollar per barrel range--fairly close to where we were a few months ago.

In other words, the oil situation is at its worst right now--at the cusp between where liquid crude is profitable and where shale oil becomes viable. Once shale oil facilities come on-line, the price of producing oil from them will drop.

Here is the RAND Institute's study on oil shale: Oil Shale Development in the US.

Gas prices have dropped below $2 per gallon here in Ohio. I'm fine with that level, compared to the $4 per gallon that it was when I was in Italy in 1997.

In reply to DaffyGrl, I think you are forgetting that while our government leaders may be short-sighted, the oil industry is not. They have clear (profit) motivations for not going out of business. Oil being a very long-term product (it takes years to permit and build new facilities), oil companies look very far into the future.

More to the point, you are forgetting what makes market economies so efficient... the market will anticipate shortages, price them accordingly, and thus motivate a gradual transition to other energy sources as they become competitive.

An oil shortage, if it occurs, will not happen overnight. As primary supplies become scarce, and harder to find, oil producers will raise prices to cover their additional expenses, as well as (as we saw recently) prices may increase above supply costs due to demand forces. As prices increase, other forms of energy will become competitive. This not only will encourage development of alternatives, but also, by providing competition to oil as an energy source, help keep oil prices from being driven higher by scarcity demand (instead of being forced to buy oil, there will be other alternatives).

Other forms of oil production will become viable alternatives... oil shale or biowaste are two promising methods already being evaluated for large scale production.

And here's the beauty of a strong market. Oil traders, anticipating coming shortages, will price up oil ahead of the shortage, thus bringing these forces into play before they are direly needed.

I agree, the government is short-sighted, and can only be trusted to react to problems as they occur. But businesses can and do take a much longer view, and as long as the market remains open and competitive (a government regulatory job), the transition should be relatively painless.

PS My one concern would be the volatility of the oil market, which is likely due to there being no competitive alternatives at this time. I would venture, and hope, that as oil becomes more expensive, the existence of viable alternatives would help dampen swings in the oil market.

You forgot the numerous taxes on gasoline that actually serve to make it more expensive. Gas taxes by state In my home state of CA, there are $0.50 cents of taxes added to each gallon of gas. If those were repealed, the price of gas would fall by up to that much. Given that gas is back down to around $2.30 where I live, it's possible gas would be less than $2 a gallon were it not for taxes.



Inventing a new engine is a pretty difficult task. I take it by your comment you're not only not an engineer but don't know anything about engineering. Instead of just citing two magazines known for valuing sexy over practical, why don't you pick a couple of the miracle engines they've presented and give us links.

I'll provide an economic and engineering based answer to your rhetorical question. No new engine has been invented because it's incredibly difficult to do so. Beyond the technical hurdles, there is the enormous cost of changing an infrastructure based on a particular technology. There is no reason to take that step until it's necessary. ICE's work fine so there's little incentive to invest in new technology.

The chicken littles and "eeeeeeeevil Big Oil" types are amusing, or at least they would be if they're cockeyed ideas had less traction among the political and chattering classes.

Here's a question for them: Have you started planning for your vacation to the Moon yet? Now, that may seem like a silly question. After all, we currently don't take vacations on the Moon. Nobody knows how much it will cost to do so, nor how common such vacations will be, nor how we'll get there, nor what the amenities and attractions will be, nor what the alternatives will be. These are fundamentally the same questions regarding oil, and predictions that "we're running out."

Are we running out? In the sense that we're utilizing what is believed to be a finite resource, yes.

That doesn't answer in any fashion the question of "when will we run out", which is what all the brouhaha is about.

!) We do not know what the total quantity of petroleum bound up in this rock hurtling about the Sun is, so how can we predict when an unknown quantity will be exhausted?

2) We do not know what our future consumption will be.

3) We do not know what our future alternatives will be.

So, who's scheduling their Moon vacation? Saving up for it? Booking passage? Buying gear? How about spending 10 hours this weekend planning the vacation. A waste of time you say, too many unknowns? So what, you should buy the gear now, because you know that some day you're going to take a vacation on the Moon. Of course, if that day doesn't come for 50 years, it may have been a whole lot wiser to have spent the money for the Moon gear on a Hawaiian vacation instead, but hey, at least you "planned."

Perhaps the single greatest constant in our love/hate relationship with oil has been the consistent prophecy that "we're running out of oil." Thus far, the accuracy of the predictions over the last 130+ years? 0.00%

But, just for sake of argument, lets say that they chicken li, er, prophets are right this time? Will the tap shut off immediately? Or does it slowly taper off? Even the doomsayers acknowledge that the second is the case, and every past energy transition has occurred gradually. So to will this one. I'd suggest that y'all spend your energies worrying about the coming Konservative Kristian Kooks' Theocracy. While even more unlikely than the catastrophic oil depletion, at least it will give some the smug assurance of their moral superiority along with the tingling anticipation of impending victim status. A twofer! Booyah!

As for the price of gasonline, well, the most expensive gas I ever bought was in April of 2004. hmmmm...... Oh, and it was well worth it.

A very simplistic and uninformed statement of the problem bikerdad. First of all when we run out (which could be centuries away) isn't as important as when we hit peak production. Peak production is the point (and we won't know till after we've hit it) when we simply cannot produce more oil on an annual basis, production will decrease year after year from then on. If you want to read more about it wikipedia has a good primer on the subject. Once that happens it will have an adverse effect on the economy because the price of oil will steadily increase as demannd continues to grow and supply decreases.

Most experts in the field, including oil industry experts, believe this is going to happen within the next 10 to 20 years.

Your analogy of planning a trip to the moon is completely ridiculous because of the huge difference in severity. You are talking about something as trivial as tourism and I'm talking about the future of our economy and issues of national security.

Part of the problem is people exactly like yourself that refuse to acknowledge hard science because it doesn't fit their political agenda, their world view or their "values". As long as we still have people like that in influential positions then we won't come up with an effective solution to this problem.


I think you'd be surprised at the nifty technology the oil industry has developed for the purposes of exploration and for gathering oil. They know to a near certainty how much oil can be obtained before they even start drilling.

You are correct, my analysis was simplistic, as I forgot to include the perfectly predictable impact of technological progress on the location, extraction, and consumption of petroleum. My bad. Let's plug it in and see if it clarifies matters at all.

Moving beyond the mysteries of technological progress, let's consider the matter of "peak production." I could point you to hard science rebuttals of Peak Oil theorists, but there aren't any because the Peak Oil folks haven't made their data available to the scientific community. As I'm sure you know, "hard science" requires such opportunity for review, so I'm puzzled by your characterization of Peak Oil theory as hard science. There are less technical rebuttals out there, lots of them, but I'll save the link electrons since I doubt that your ideological blinders will allow an open-minded appraisal.

Let's consider though the dismissal of my analysis of "simplistic" in contrast to the sophisticated, fully developed Peak Oil theory. Peak Oil theory depends on knowing how much oil is in the ground, our efficiency in locating and extracting the oil, and our future consumption. What does consumption have to do with it? As a general rule, we don't go around producing massive quantities of stuff that nobody wants, therefore production is inextricably linked to consumption. Once you know those three factors (factors which are incredibly complex), then you can make reliable predictions. Must I point out that we don't even know the one fixed element in the equation (the quantity of oil in the ground), much less can we reliably predict even 10 years out the other two. We may be able to predict how much oil is in any given find, but since there are massive swaths of our planet that haven't been explored yet, such predictions are only useful with regards to "known reserves."

But hey, don't pay any attention to me, because, as a result of the last "Peak Oil" crisis, we've been in the dark for better than 150 years, so my ignorance is understandable. After all, that's about when whale oil production peaked...

You are talking about predicting a specific date and once again you are missing the point. Based on your responses here I take it you believe we'll have all the oil we want for as long as we want it? Every 8th grade earthy science student knows we won't Bikerdad.

This isn't about doomsday predictions or anything it is about taking prudent steps today to head off a very real and potentially devastating problem which will likely occur during our lifetimes.

As for "specific dates", hey, its the Peak Oil types who have offered them, not I. November 24th, 2005. We're on the downhill slope now.... or not. Whether a specific date, or a range of near time dates, the same problem of insufficient knowledge remains. I realize its Daffygrl who brought Peak Oil into the conversation, but even her quote from Dick Cheney reveals the knowledge gap. Cheney's quote references known reserves.

Frankly, I think you're clueless as to how quickly we can transition energy sources or technologies, when the economics make sense. I simply suggest that you look into commercial and military aviation's switch from internal combustion reciprocating engines to jets. Oh, but those both use petroleum fuels, sayest thou, they don't count. Hows about the American railroad's transition from coal powered steam locomotives to diesel-electrics. The first diesel-electrics appeared in the mid 1920s as switchers, then larger, more powerful locos entered high speed passenger service in limited numbers during the mid 1930s. In 1945, there were 38,853 steam locomotives in service on the Class 1 railroads, vs. 3,816 diesels. The Big 3 locomotive makers built their last steam locomotives for domestic service in 1949. In 1950, the ratio of steam to diesel was 25,640 to 14,047, in '55 it was 5,982 to 24,786, and in 1960 there were only 261 steamers versus 28,278 diesels. In 15 years, coal fired steam went from 85% of the fleet, to less than 1%. Why? Was it because diesels were more powerful? Nope. Cheaper to build? Not at first. Faster? Not until well into the 1960s. Oil was cheaper than coal? Nope, especially not for the railroads who's primary business was hauling coal. No, its because they made more sense economically.

Since the transition, diesels have become cleaner, much more powerful, less expensive, safer, and more reliable. However, until they became economically competitive with steam, they were inconsequential. Ditto for other energy sources. Once either the cost of oil becomes high enough or the cost of alternatives becomes low enough, we will transition. And undoubtedly a lot of people will be thrown out of work as a result, while scads of new jobs are created in the new energy source. And, to CJ's delight, Big Oil will be screwed.

So no, I'm not worried. I am interested, as I think the transition, when it comes, should be fascinating.

Grace and peace, BD

We've discussed Peak Oil several times in the past. I'm all for discussing it again. It is a critical issue and deserves all the attention we can give it. Among other posts I discussed the topic here and here. I'll take the liberty quoting from the later:



The issue of Peak Oil is not simply one of availability of oil or an alternative but one of availability at what economic price and at what environmental price. Even if we confine ourselves to alternative hydrocarbons their are abundent supplies of heavy oils, tar sands, oil shales, and coal that can be converted into transportation fuels. tar sands and heavy oils may be economic at price levels existing today. The others are not. All, however, have carbon cycles that are worse than that of recovering traditional petroleum, refining it, and burning it. That is because all require a great deal more energy input for an equivalent energy output. Consequently, a lot more greenhouse gases will be released at the very time that it is becoming apparent that we have to reduce our release. There are other environment problems with all of these alternatives as well including large water consumption and pollution of processed water.

Tabasco is $94.46--I go through actual gallons of the stuff. I am also never sick. coincidence?

Yum!! Tabasco!! I love it too and i think I go through it by the gallon too!!! (sorry I know off topic but i feel it is rare people like tabasco that much. Do you like Tony Chacheres?)

is the price of gasoline--even setting it at 3 dollars a gallon, really an injustice or something we should complain about?

Considering the number of gallons of it that we end up consuming daily, i'd say yeah this is something we should complain about. Is it an injustice? I don't think so. Increased demand with unchanging supply, precipitates an increase in price. Whats unfair about that?