How much longer?

On Apr 5, 3:32*am, buttman wrote:

I'm not an economist, but it seems with the increase in demand for
alternatively fueled cars, (hybrids, hydrogen powered, etc), the
demand for fuel will go way down, bring the price down with it.
Additionally, once the auto industry completely converts to hydrogen
(or whatever fuel type comes out on top), that technology will trickle
into aircraft engines.

The real problem is that it will only get worse before it gets better.
Unless something unforeseen happens, the price will only go up for at
least a few more years until it starts dropping again. The real
question is will the hobby survive until energy prices drop back down?

That is what happened in the 70s. We decreased our demand, and the
price of oil eventually went down. The problem is, the world
situation is different now than it was back then. Now we have China
and India ramping up demand. Even if we significantly decrease our
demand, the worldwide demand for oil is only going to continue to go
up. And that means that the only way the price will ever go down is
if the supply goes up. As I understand it, right now the supply is
bottlenecked by the lack of refining capacity. The refineries are
running at nearly 100% capacity. And there doesn't seem to be much of
a push by the oil companies to build more refineries. Given the
increase in demand, I would think that will change.

By the way, take a look at this list. This is the list of countries
that supply oil to the United States, in descending order by oil
volume. If you count Algeria, there are only three Middle Eastern
countries on the list! Canada actually has more known reserves of oil
than Saudi Arabia. But the oil is in the form of oil shale, which is
more expensive to extract and refine. Anyway, the point I am really
making is there is still plenty of oil in the ground to satisfy
demand. The real problem is that there isn't enough refining
capacity.

1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil


Phil

"Phil J" wrote in message
...
On Apr 5, 3:32 am, buttman wrote:

I'm not an economist, but it seems with the increase in demand for
alternatively fueled cars, (hybrids, hydrogen powered, etc), the
demand for fuel will go way down, bring the price down with it.
Additionally, once the auto industry completely converts to hydrogen
(or whatever fuel type comes out on top), that technology will trickle
into aircraft engines.

The real problem is that it will only get worse before it gets better.
Unless something unforeseen happens, the price will only go up for at
least a few more years until it starts dropping again. The real
question is will the hobby survive until energy prices drop back down?

That is what happened in the 70s. We decreased our demand, and the
price of oil eventually went down. The problem is, the world
situation is different now than it was back then. Now we have China
and India ramping up demand. Even if we significantly decrease our
demand, the worldwide demand for oil is only going to continue to go
up. And that means that the only way the price will ever go down is
if the supply goes up. As I understand it, right now the supply is
bottlenecked by the lack of refining capacity. The refineries are
running at nearly 100% capacity. And there doesn't seem to be much of
a push by the oil companies to build more refineries. Given the
increase in demand, I would think that will change.

By the way, take a look at this list. This is the list of countries
that supply oil to the United States, in descending order by oil
volume. If you count Algeria, there are only three Middle Eastern
countries on the list! Canada actually has more known reserves of oil
than Saudi Arabia. But the oil is in the form of oil shale, which is
more expensive to extract and refine.

Just a small nitpick, the Canadian non-conventional oil is in the form of
oil-sand / tar-sand. IIRC oil shale is located under Colorado and is
reported to contain more oil than the mid east or Canada. IIRC the Colorado
oil shale is deeper underground than the Canadian tar-sand but Canada is now
developing & using SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) to recover
deposits that are too deep for economical open pit extraction. I suspect
that this technology could be applied in Colorado if there was the will to
develop these deposits. IIRC tar-sand production cost is ~$60 and suspect
that Colorado oil shale woild be similar but YMMV. We can only speculate as
to the motives that prefer war to domestic development.

Anyway, the point I am really
making is there is still plenty of oil in the ground to satisfy
demand. The real problem is that there isn't enough refining
capacity.

1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil


Phil

On Apr 6, 5:01*pm, "Private" wrote:

Just a small nitpick, the Canadian non-conventional oil is in the form of
oil-sand / tar-sand. *IIRC oil shale is located under Colorado and is
reported to contain more oil than the mid east or Canada. *IIRC the Colorado
oil shale is deeper underground than the Canadian tar-sand but Canada is now
developing & using SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) to recover
deposits that are too deep for economical open pit extraction. *I suspect
that this technology could be applied in Colorado if there was the will to
develop these deposits. *IIRC tar-sand production cost is ~$60 and suspect
that Colorado oil shale woild be similar but YMMV. *We can only speculate as
to the motives that prefer war to domestic development.

Interesting! I hadn't heard about the Colorado oil shale before. I
just did a little surfing and it sounds like it would require a lot of
water to extract this oil. There is concern that it would use all the
capacity of the Colorado river that is not currently allocated.

Personally I wish we had taken the money we have wasted on the war and
put it to work here at home for research into alternative energy
sources. Then it would have funded more American jobs, and maybe
contributed to a long-term sustainable energy plan. I would like to
see a serious, well-funded attempt to develop a working fusion
reactor, for example.

Phil

IIRC tar-sand production cost is ~$60 and suspect that Colorado oil shale
woild be similar but YMMV. We can only speculate as to the motives that
prefer war to domestic development.

This is probably a topic for a different thread, but it does make you wonder
about the true motives of those who would see people suffer on an
unprecedented economic scale rather than develop our known oil reserves.
Bottom line: When gas hits eight bucks a gallon, you're going to see
economic pain on an unprecedented level.

An interesting question to ponder: At what price point do the masses rise up
and over-ride the environmentalist rules that currently restrict the
process?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:NteKj.55766$TT4.55642@attbi_s22:

IIRC tar-sand production cost is ~$60 and suspect that Colorado oil
shale woild be similar but YMMV. We can only speculate as to the
motives that prefer war to domestic development.

This is probably a topic for a different thread, but it does make you
wonder about the true motives of those who would see people suffer on
an unprecedented economic scale rather than develop our known oil
reserves. Bottom line: When gas hits eight bucks a gallon, you're
going to see economic pain on an unprecedented level.

An interesting question to ponder: At what price point do the masses
rise up and over-ride the environmentalist rules that currently
restrict the process?

You are a moron


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:NteKj.55766$TT4.55642@attbi_s22...
IIRC tar-sand production cost is ~$60 and suspect that Colorado oil shale
woild be similar but YMMV. We can only speculate as to the motives that
prefer war to domestic development.

An interesting question to ponder: At what price point do the masses rise
up and over-ride the environmentalist rules that currently restrict the
process?

Did Ron Paul get ANY delegates?

On 2008-04-07, Jay Honeck wrote:
This is probably a topic for a different thread, but it does make you wonder
about the true motives of those who would see people suffer on an
unprecedented economic scale rather than develop our known oil reserves.

I'm not sure about 'suffer'; for instance, gasoline in Ireland is around
60% more expensive than in the United States, yet the Irish GDP per
capita overtook the USA a good two years ago now.

You can maintain a good standard of living while using less oil, for
example, driving a vehicle that gets 35 to the gallon isn't what I'd
call a decrease in living standard over driving an SUV that barely gets
12. Turning off the AC when you're not in the house makes a tremendous
difference. The power company in Texas mistakenly sent me the bill for
the people who moved into my place after I left, and the TNMPE bills all
had a 'last 12 months usage graph' on them. The new occupants used
*twice* as much power as me; I suspect they didn't turn the AC off
during the working day. Incidentally, that place had very little in the
way of good insulation - not even double glazing, and that seemed pretty
typical in the area I lived in. Over here by contrast virtually everyone
has good insulation and double glazing. These things significantly
reduce heating costs in the winter *without* degrading the quality of
life (in fact, improving it, since the home is quieter).

Much of the high energy cost people have done by their own choice. I
choose to operate an aircraft with a large engine for the airframe - I'm
not whining, it's a choice I made.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Jay Honeck schrieb:

An interesting question to ponder: At what price point do the masses rise up
and over-ride the environmentalist rules that currently restrict the
process?

whatever the price is: what will mankind do after that? you're only
moving the finding of a solution to later generations.

#m

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:07:57 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:



An interesting question to ponder: At what price point do the masses rise up
and over-ride the environmentalist rules that currently restrict the
process?

At what level of soreness do you wake up and realize how hard the
petroleum economy is f***ing you?

--
Dan
T182T at 4R4

On Apr 5, 12:47 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much more
will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? At what price point
will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?

Example: While on our trip back from Florida a couple of weeks ago, we paid
$5.20 per gallon in St. Louis. Since we needed 60 gallons, we paid over
$300 for a single tank of gas -- something I *never* thought I'd see.

That price has more than doubled in just the last few years, and there
appears to be no end in sight. So the question is: How much higher must gas
go up before *you* hang up your headphones for the last time? Anyone care
to predict what year the last personal flights will occur in America?

In my case, I rent a nice, fairly new Australian "ultralight" (really
an LSA) for about $110 an hour. It burns just over 4 gallons/hour of
premium autogas, so if the price of fuel doubled, I'd only be out
another 20 dollars. In the scheme of things that isn't very much. A
full tank of fuel costs about $140 for over 6 hours of flight time.

When I tried going for my PPL I was paying $250 an hour for a clapped
out 172. I have no idea how people can justify the extra cost of GA in
Australia. Paying almost a weeks wages for a long cross country gets
old really fast.

Cheers,

Al