How high can gas go?

[Jumpem]

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
I can't comprehend why anyone would own a vehicle that costs that much to operate. Why not use public transportation or ride a bike?

I spend $250-300 on gas and I drive a Honda Fit. We are thinking of getting a small AWD SUV (think Rogue or Forester), even knowing our gas costs would go up by $100 or so.

 

[Fritzo]

Not sure where you got your figures, but they're actually saying prices may go down this summer because people are driving less. So, the answer to your question: I would say $3.50-$4.00/gal

Keep in mind that OPEC is shooting itself in the foot. High energy prices harm economies, and young economies can be destroyed. When this happens, oil usage goes way down, and a glut of production hits the market. Speculators will then loose their shirts, and oil prices drop like a rock.

This has happened 3 times that I know of: to a lesser extent in 2006 (gas got to $1.89 at one point, but was short lived due to Katrina), in the mid 80s' (we had about 6 years of .89 gas), and in the late 70's (gas got to .35 at one point!)

I'm predicting something similar is going to happen here within the next 2 years.

What's cool about these situations is they cultivate advancements in technology. I'm betting hybrids will become the norm within the next 10 years, and pure electrics starting to trickle in. By the middle of the century, I'm seeing oil usage drop significantly, and the mid-east's economy tanking because they have no other natural resources to offer---other than solar.

Solar has an interesting future. NW Ohio is a hotbed for solar research (believe it or not), and they're making breakthroughs in inexpensive polymers for solar panel use. The idea is to make roof shingles out of this stuff and hooking it up to the electrical grid. They're saying they could generate up to 40% of our power needs if a large number of buildings put these shingles in place.

Wow...I really went off on a tangent here.

 

[owlface]

Originally posted by: Fritzo


Solar has an interesting future. NW Ohio is a hotbed for solar research (believe it or not), and they're making breakthroughs in inexpensive polymers for solar panel use. The idea is to make roof shingles out of this stuff and hooking it up to the electrical grid. They're saying they could generate up to 40% of our power needs if a large number of buildings put these shingles in place.

Wow...I really went off on a tangent here.

Glad you did! Do you have any links to morre info on these shingles?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Not sure where you got your figures, but they're actually saying prices may go down this summer because people are driving less. So, the answer to your question: I would say $3.50-$4.00/gal

Keep in mind that OPEC is shooting itself in the foot. High energy prices harm economies, and young economies can be destroyed. When this happens, oil usage goes way down, and a glut of production hits the market. Speculators will then loose their shirts, and oil prices drop like a rock.

This has happened 3 times that I know of: to a lesser extent in 2006 (gas got to $1.89 at one point, but was short lived due to Katrina), in the mid 80s' (we had about 6 years of .89 gas), and in the late 70's (gas got to .35 at one point!)

I'm predicting something similar is going to happen here within the next 2 years.

What's cool about these situations is they cultivate advancements in technology. I'm betting hybrids will become the norm within the next 10 years, and pure electrics starting to trickle in. By the middle of the century, I'm seeing oil usage drop significantly, and the mid-east's economy tanking because they have no other natural resources to offer---other than solar.

Solar has an interesting future. NW Ohio is a hotbed for solar research (believe it or not), and they're making breakthroughs in inexpensive polymers for solar panel use. The idea is to make roof shingles out of this stuff and hooking it up to the electrical grid. They're saying they could generate up to 40% of our power needs if a large number of buildings put these shingles in place.

Wow...I really went off on a tangent here.

hmm i have heard the price is expected to shoot up.

I do agree that OPEC is shooting itself in the foot. not for what you say but on the fact the high prices are getting people to put money/time into looking for alternative sources. I think the high prices are going to drive a alternative fuel on the market far faster then if gas stayed at say $2/gallon

I just hope that OPEC has nothing to do with the alternative fuel.



edit: i forgot ot put in for the OP's question ehh.

I do think $3 was the magic number. people are now starting to look at alternatives.

with gas at $4 and very possibly hitting $5 this summer (then going down to $3.75-4 and stay there) it iwll really get people to do something. but the $3 amount i think really started it.

 

[AMCRambler]

How about this...everybody on the board kicks in $50 for R&D costs to develop a truly fuel efficient, inexpensive vehicle. 182,340 users x $50 each gives the developer about $9,117,000 to get the job done. That ought to be enough for some break through work to be put into a hybrid car right? Then we all buy one and stop bitching about gas prices, which never accomplished anything anyway. Who's in?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
How about this...everybody on the board kicks in $50 for R&D costs to develop a truly fuel efficient, inexpensive vehicle. 182,340 users x $50 each gives the developer about $9,117,000 to get the job done. That ought to be enough for some break through work to be put into a hybrid car right? Then we all buy one and stop bitching about gas prices, which never accomplished anything anyway. Who's in?

well..it would be a good start..

 

[vi edit]

I've currently got a 12 mile round trip commute that will be cut down to about 6 miles round trip in a year. I've got a car that pulls about 25MPG in an 80/20 city/highway mix.

13 gallons of gas will last me a solid month to a month and half with typical commutes at that point.

It'll cost me an extra $15 bucks a month if gas goes up a $1.00 more a gallon. With my current drive it would run me $30 a month at that increase. I won't lose any sleep over it.

If I was desperate, I'd just cut back on premium foods, unneeded travel, wine/beer budget, and unneeded luxuries like satellite radio, music subscriptions, and cable TV.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: owlface

Originally posted by: Fritzo


Solar has an interesting future. NW Ohio is a hotbed for solar research (believe it or not), and they're making breakthroughs in inexpensive polymers for solar panel use. The idea is to make roof shingles out of this stuff and hooking it up to the electrical grid. They're saying they could generate up to 40% of our power needs if a large number of buildings put these shingles in place.

Wow...I really went off on a tangent here.

Glad you did! Do you have any links to morre info on these shingles?

Here's a government link to the general idea of the technology:

http://www.osti.gov/accomplish...0014517/DE00014517.pdf

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Not sure where you got your figures, but they're actually saying prices may go down this summer because people are driving less.

you're the first one i saw who said prices will go down. I highly doubt that. OPEC and oil companies will squeeze us for all they can while they still can.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
How about this...everybody on the board kicks in $50 for R&D costs to develop a truly fuel efficient, inexpensive vehicle. 182,340 users x $50 each gives the developer about $9,117,000 to get the job done. That ought to be enough for some break through work to be put into a hybrid car right? Then we all buy one and stop bitching about gas prices, which never accomplished anything anyway. Who's in?

There already is a $10 million dollar prize competition for a 100+ mpg car. None of the major auto manufacturers are competing. Car companies need to stop selling 30 mpg cars as "high fuel efficiency" when they have the technology for 70+ And consumers need to learn to buy a smaller car.

 

[moparacer]

Car companies need to stop selling 30 mpg cars as "high fuel efficiency" when they have the technology for 70+ And consumers need to learn to buy a smaller car.

I have been saying that since gas went over 2.00 a gallon. There is NO excuse for cars and trucks basically getting the same fuel mileage they did 15 or more years ago. The cheap oil in the 90s set us up for the situation we are in now....


Oh yea did you hear? One of the candidates running for the presidency is going to "go after" big oil....

Bwaaahahahahahaa

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Imagine this....


Exxon gets charged $22.81 (2007 inflation adjusted) for each barrel of oil in 2002.

Magically, that oil goes to $64.92 by 2007.

That means that if they sold the same amount of oil in 2007 as they did in 2002, then their profit would jump massively, right?

Then, since it takes the same manpower to refine and sell that oil, their fixed costs are lower per $ per barrel. If that's true, then the profit margin % would increase somewhat.

Since oil skyrocketed in the later part of 2007, profits would be boosted even more then.

It's not exxon's fault for passing on costs to customers, nor is it their fault for running a correct business.

Do these profit numbers not take into account Exxon's costs? If so, the only way their profits can increase by that much is a disproportionate increase in price at the pump in comparison to raw materials. If that is the case, what you are saying is wrong, this isn't just the affect of oil costing more, but a company seeking more money.

Passing costs onto a customer = profit should stay the same

 

[slsmnaz]

Originally posted by: skace

Passing costs onto a customer = profit should stay the same

not the profit dollars but the %

 

[IceBergSLiM]

well....much higher than $5 and the minimum wagers will not be able to afford to work. At $4+ I am going to talk to my boss about telecommuting a few days per week.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: skace

Passing costs onto a customer = profit should stay the same

not the profit dollars but the %

Why would it be the %? If I'm a business and my raw goods go up by 5%, if I sell my good at a significant price increase, I may only need to raise my side of things by 3% to cover costs. If I'm blindly raising my end product by 5%, then yes I'm purposefully looking to make additional money.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Imagine this....


Exxon gets charged $22.81 (2007 inflation adjusted) for each barrel of oil in 2002.

Magically, that oil goes to $64.92 by 2007.

That means that if they sold the same amount of oil in 2007 as they did in 2002, then their profit would jump massively, right?

Then, since it takes the same manpower to refine and sell that oil, their fixed costs are lower per $ per barrel. If that's true, then the profit margin % would increase somewhat.

Since oil skyrocketed in the later part of 2007, profits would be boosted even more then.

It's not exxon's fault for passing on costs to customers, nor is it their fault for running a correct business.

Do these profit numbers not take into account Exxon's costs? If so, the only way their profits can increase by that much is a disproportionate increase in price at the pump in comparison to raw materials. If that is the case, what you are saying is wrong, this isn't just the affect of oil costing more, but a company seeking more money.

Passing costs onto a customer = profit should stay the same

If it costs Exxon $100 to buy a barrel of oil and they sell the distillates for $110, then 6 years later it costs them $200 to buy the barrel and they sell the distillates for $220, then nothing has changed. However, people will suddenly claim they are now making double the profit, which is unimaginable!?!?!?

Yet, they still maintain a 10% profit.

The $$ figure doesn't matter.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Not sure where you got your figures, but they're actually saying prices may go down this summer because people are driving less.

you're the first one i saw who said prices will go down. I highly doubt that. OPEC and oil companies will squeeze us for all they can while they still can.

Wow! The news people are listening to me!

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
People said the 3 dollar "psychological barrier" would be huge when it was broken, and nobody ended up really caring when it happened.

It made a difference for me. I moved, and when I got a house I greatly favored ones closer to work than further away. $300/mo in gas vs. $120 means that a 25 mile commute would take $200/mo away from what I can pay for a house. I now live within two miles of my work.

 

[TrueBlueLS]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
well....much higher than $5 and the minimum wagers will not be able to afford to work. At $4+ I am going to talk to my boss about telecommuting a few days per week.

Exactly. I know a lot of minimum wagers where I live are high school students. It just makes me wonder what the companies will do once the kids quit because they have no money to gas up or maintain their car.

 

[Nitemare]

I'd say about 5-6 and we'd either bomb Saudi Arabia or kick all the tree huggers aside and start our own oil and refineries.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: sportage
All the media is focusing on that $4 mark.
By this time 2009 $4 will seem like a bargain.
Just try to imagine a figure of $7.85 on the gas pump.
So much for all the hype about energy independence
from every president since..... Washington?


PS...

We will have moved onto alternative energy sources long before that point.

You're kidding, Right? :roll:


Just a little fun facts...
@ $7.85 a gal x 10 gal tank = $78.50
50 gal suv tank @ 7.85 a gal x 50 gal = $392.50

There's just to many powerful rich assholes that are entrenched in the current system to expect the country to change fuel sources.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If it costs Exxon $100 to buy a barrel of oil and they sell the distillates for $110, then 6 years later it costs them $200 to buy the barrel and they sell the distillates for $220, then nothing has changed. However, people will suddenly claim they are now making double the profit, which is unimaginable!?!?!?

Yet, they still maintain a 10% profit.

The $$ figure doesn't matter.

However, they could sell it at 210, which would pass the cost increase onto customers while maintaining their same profit. They purposefully went to increase their profit by a percentage based system...

I'm not saying they shouldn't ever increase their profits. But if the % has given them such a massive amount of wealth then it is obviously compounding the issue and they are turning a blind eye to it and a very open eye to the $$$ they can rake in.

I'm just saying, there is a big difference between "We are passing the costs onto the customer" and "We are passing the costs and additional money for us onto the customer". There is no way you can put 100% of the blame on the raw material in the second scenario, only the first.

 

[Dirigible]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: Auryg

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
If the gas does go up to $4.00 a gallon, I'm riding a bicycle to work permanently. No way in hell I'm paying $50.00 to fill up my Jetta. That'll be $200 a month just in gas.

Lol I pay $350 a month to fill up my SUV
now probably $400

I can't comprehend why anyone would own a vehicle that costs that much to operate. Why not use public transportation or ride a bike?

City mentality. A very good portion of the United States lives either in a somewhat rural area or in a sprawling city. We're not addicted to cars; we need them, unless we're all going to pack up our bags and move.

Yeah..this isn't exactly bicycle territory.

There are people in Alaska and South Dakota who post on mtbr.com that ride in conditions like that all year. Not short trips, either. Studded bicycle tires, Surly Pugsley, that sort of thing makes it possible. I'm a bike nut, and even I think they're crazy.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
How about this...everybody on the board kicks in $50 for R&D costs to develop a truly fuel efficient, inexpensive vehicle. 182,340 users x $50 each gives the developer about $9,117,000 to get the job done. That ought to be enough for some break through work to be put into a hybrid car right? Then we all buy one and stop bitching about gas prices, which never accomplished anything anyway. Who's in?

There already is a $10 million dollar prize competition for a 100+ mpg car. None of the major auto manufacturers are competing. Car companies need to stop selling 30 mpg cars as "high fuel efficiency" when they have the technology for 70+ And consumers need to learn to buy a smaller car.

yea sure
you can stick a tiny engine on a cycle frame and sure, you'll get ridiculous mileage. course if you get hit by a civic you are going to die.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: skace

Passing costs onto a customer = profit should stay the same

not the profit dollars but the %

Why would it be the %? If I'm a business and my raw goods go up by 5%, if I sell my good at a significant price increase, I may only need to raise my side of things by 3% to cover costs. If I'm blindly raising my end product by 5%, then yes I'm purposefully looking to make additional money.

Salary increases are done in % (for the most part)
Inflation is based on a %
Sales/Income tax is based on a %
Investments/rate of return are based on %

A % of profits is an objective number that you can use to evaluate performance from year to year.

Absolute dollars are not.