Former Shell boss predicts $5/gal gas in 2012 in America

[Rey C.]

I think OPEC (and the other cartels) has it figured out pretty well: when the global economy gets too soft, demand is going to drop off, so they cut supplies and try to maintain a price that still works for them. Then as the global economy recovers, they slowly increase output as the demand drives the price up. Then you add in that oil (and gold) is priced in U.S. $, so when the dollar falls vs. the Euro, Pound or Yen, they do whatever they can to offset that affect and maintain their profits. On our side of the pond, you have refiners that play with gasoline output to manipulate the price to their benefit in the same way that OPEC does... and you have futures traders who add to speculation and volatility.

So with all due respect to the debate about global warming, etc., can someone tell me again why we aren't more heavily pursuing alternative fuels, such as cellulosic ethanol??? It wouldn't have to replace 100% of our imported oil demands, which is another fallacious argument I have heard (anything that is not an instant 100% replacement is not viable). Let's say that bio fuels could only meet 20-30% of our transportation fuel needs within 5-10 years. Why would this NOT be the way to go? What am I missing??? Maybe I'm screwy (on this issue ). Help me out. :dunno:

With the huge demand for automobiles and a growing middle class in China, and other emerging economies, I'll be surprised if we DON'T have $5/gallon gas here sooner than later.


_____________________

I like the latter option better. Elk can suck on my tailpipe.

Elk_steaks_good! Rey C. like elk steaks!!!

 

[winsomelosesome]

All this talk about being too big and remote, that big gas-guzzlin cars/jeeps/trucks are essential...

You guys seem to be forgetting about the biggest country in the world, which contains the coldest inhabited place in the world, and has a road network bettered by most of the world...

Aye, you guessed it, Russia.

Now seeing as I've walked for miles in a Siberian winter without any adverse effect on my health, and how those Russians manage to get to all of their remote communities via the powers of the railways for the most part, I'd say you guys are whingeing just a wee bit the now!

 

[Boothbabe]

I'm sorry, but comments like these are fucking ignorant. Get off your bike-riding high horses and realize that there are differences between North America and Europe that make it a lot harder to ride a bike every day to get around to places. A lot of the people here do not live in cities with public transit and proper bike lanes; especially here in Canada, where there are a total of six LRT/metro trains in the country (and only four of them are what I would call convinient and useful to commuters). Everywhere else has to rely on poor bus services that are often twenty minutes late on their routes. And plenty of people bike in North America, but it is a little harder to do here than it is in almighty Europe where there are bike lanes all around the cities and bikes on the side of the road that you can rent. My city has bike lanes on major streets, but there is absolutely no kind of places downtown where you would feel safe locking your bike up, let alone any places that you wouldn't be breaking the law in by leaving your bike there. Of course, I shouldn't also have to tell you it is kind of hard to ride a bike when you spend the majority of the months under snow.

And, also, in case you didn't notice, uh... Canada and the States are a lot bigger than Europe. A lot. Quite frankly, you cannot work and live in North America without making driving your main mode of transportation. There is no bullet train to take you from Chicago to St. Louis in an hour. The only way we can get from A to B in a timely manner is by driving or flying because there is no other practical mode of transportation. I live twenty minutes outside of the biggest city in the province, I drive in there nearly every day for work, not to mention I have to go their to do my shopping, go eat, visit friends, get a haircut, slap my bitch up, etc. There is no way I could ride a bike to Saskatoon; there is no safe way to do it on the highway and I would probably get ran off the shoulder if I could make it through the minus -24 degree weather and the snow. Saskatoon is also the only major city for three hours (south) and six hours in any other direction and there is no connections to these cities aside from the highway and airports. No trains, no way to bike and the bus services in my part of the country are severely limited. I often drive a hundred kilometers or more in an average workday. Biking would simply be impractical to my needs and to many other people who live in North America, as well.

Ignorance. It's the most abundant element in the universe and we never run out of it. :thumbsup:

Bullshit. You're all just a bunch of lazy, fat ass amerifags.

 

[Hot Mega]

All this talk about being too big and remote, that big gas-guzzlin cars/jeeps/trucks are essential...

You guys seem to be forgetting about the biggest country in the world, which contains the coldest inhabited place in the world, and has a road network bettered by most of the world...

Aye, you guessed it, Russia.

Now seeing as I've walked for miles in a Siberian winter without any adverse effect on my health, and how those Russians manage to get to all of their remote communities via the powers of the railways for the most part, I'd say you guys are whingeing just a wee bit the now!

What are you doing walking for miles in Siberia during winter? Although walking might be preferable to driving miles on M56.:o

 

[winsomelosesome]

What are you doing walking for milese in Siberia during winter? Although walking might be preferable to M56.:o

Was out at Lake Baikal and the town I was staying at, a place called Listvyanka, basically consists of one looooooooong street.

Plus it's manly and that, yae know?

 

[Hot Mega]

Was out at Lake Baikal and the town I was staying at, a place called Listvyanka, basically consists of one looooooooong street.

Plus it's manly and that, yae know?

On 'business'? Ever been to Yakutsk?

 

[winsomelosesome]

On 'business'? Ever been to Yakutsk?

Haha, nah no for business, for pleasure. I study Russia and did a year abroad there a couple of years back. Never been to Yakutsk but want to one day. I did the Trans-Siberian in the winter of 08-09. Siberian cities were limited to Irkutsk and Listvyanka, then onto the Far East of Russia. Still cold out there right enough!

 

[Hot Mega]

Haha, nah no for business, for pleasure. I study Russia and did a year abroad there a couple of years back. Never been to Yakutsk but want to one day. I did the Trans-Siberian in the winter of 08-09. Siberian cities were limited to Irkutsk and Listvyanka, then onto the Far East of Russia. Still cold out there right enough!

I see.

 

[Rey C.]

All this talk about being too big and remote, that big gas-guzzlin cars/jeeps/trucks are essential...

You guys seem to be forgetting about the biggest country in the world, which contains the coldest inhabited place in the world, and has a road network bettered by most of the world...

Aye, you guessed it, Russia.

Now seeing as I've walked for miles in a Siberian winter without any adverse effect on my health, and how those Russians manage to get to all of their remote communities via the powers of the railways for the most part, I'd say you guys are whingeing just a wee bit the now!

Just so I understand, you're not seriously suggesting that walking and building multi-billion dollar railway systems are better solutions to our fuel issues than development of bio fuels or whatever... are you???

Where would the money come from to build these railways? We don't currently have the money to rebuild our crumbling bridges and highways.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

Bullshit. You're all just a bunch of lazy, fat ass amerifags.

Maybe they are. But I'm Canadian. The only reason I don't drive a dogsled is because gas is cheaper than dog food.

 

[D-rock]

I would like to add on the people with what they said about biking. Where I'm at is practically impossible. I live in a rural area so not only would a great many people where I'm at have to drive over 10 miles (16km) one way, but once it snows it's pretty much impossible. There is no way you can ride a bike through the stuff. I don't know if people have tried to peddle through more than a trace of it, but it just doesn't work. That's not to mention it's slippery not just for yourself but the cars around you. The roads are in disrepair. The roads can get lonely at night so even thought it’s low crime area I could see some people worrying about their safety if some random jerk drives along by you, especially if they bike rider was a woman. There isn't always that much space off the side of the road where you can get out of the way of cars, especially when snow gradually gets piled up there from the plows. There are no street lights so anybody going out in a bicycle would have to do it almost totally in the dark or at best the light of the moon.

Because of the distance biking somewhere even during the best days of summer would be an incredible and time consuming pain in the ass. Still it somebody has to go and get food there is no way they carry it home in a bicycle. I'm sure people also don't want to wake up four three hours earlier than normal to work to be able to get there.

Decent public transportation would be nice, but that's not very realistic for this area either and in any case it's non-existent around here.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Bullshit. You're all just a bunch of lazy, fat ass amerifags.

Canada also ... and I don't have a huge, fat pair of ass cheeks to crawl inside of to keep warm while traversing the tundra.

 

[winsomelosesome]

Just so I understand, you're not seriously suggesting that walking and building multi-billion dollar railway systems are better solutions to our fuel issues than development of bio fuels or whatever... are you???

Where would the money come from to build these railways? We don't currently have the money to rebuild our crumbling bridges and highways.

Those railways weren't built in the modern era to be fair, it was begun under the Tsarist Empire and expanded later under Soviet rule.

However in the long-term it's far more sustainable than two or three vehicles per household. I can understand why people in remote locations do it, but what about in the city? Some have metro systems and shitloads of buses, but people still just go for low-mileage cars. It's in the cities that changes have to be effected, not in the far-off village.

Essential travel by private transport is one thing, but more often than not in developed nations it's a convenience and not a necessity.

The only problem you'll get is that the private sector won't build a railway at huge cost, it generally takes a governmental initiative.

 

[Rattrap]

I sort of addressed Plasma's point below in my post, conceding that I do have sympathy for generations' unsustainable worldview (that people can and should be wherever they want in relation to where they work and that they can always drive or fly the distance), but that said, the post has a certain entitlement. It's subtle, ubiquitous, and very prevalent in North America. I'll explain...(this is, of course, not directed at you, Plasma, but at your points)

A lot of the people here do not live in cities with public transit and proper bike lanes; especially here in Canada, where there are a total of six LRT/metro trains in the country (and only four of them are what I would call convinient and useful to commuters). Everywhere else has to rely on poor bus services that are often twenty minutes late on their routes.
[...]
And plenty of people bike in North America, but it is a little harder to do here than it is in almighty Europe where there are bike lanes all around the cities and bikes on the side of the road that you can rent.
[...]
There is no bullet train to take you from Chicago to St. Louis in an hour. The only way we can get from A to B in a timely manner is by driving or flying because there is no other practical mode of transportation.

I'll readily admit that the infrastructure, especially in many parts throughout North America, are very automobile-centric. You still have choices; you can move to somewhere that you don't have to rely on an automobile (even just moving closer to where things are), you can lobby your respective government to get things changed (elect people who have an idea of what urban planning is), you can start a group - or you can pay more and more as time goes on at the pump. These are not the exclusive options, of course.

Quite frankly, you cannot work and live in North America without making driving your main mode of transportation.

This point is absolutely false. You can; I did. You just have to make different choices. I've yet to ever operate an automobile - ever - and I've had little trouble getting to any of my jobs. Why? Because I made sure to work near where I live, or live near where I work.

Of course, I shouldn't also have to tell you it is kind of hard to ride a bike when you spend the majority of the months under snow.
[...]
Saskatoon is also the only major city for three hours (south) and six hours in any other direction and there is no connections to these cities aside from the highway and airports. No trains, no way to bike and the bus services in my part of the country are severely limited. I often drive a hundred kilometers or more in an average workday. Biking would simply be impractical to my needs and to many other people who live in North America, as well.

I would like to add on the people with what they said about biking. Where I'm at is practically impossible. I live in a rural area so not only would a great many people where I'm at have to drive over 10 miles (16km) one way...

Here's the North American entitlement: to live where we want, regardless of the geography's ability to support us living there. I saw it all the time on the news in the States with examples such as areas that suffered from wildfires or floods - every year, and people would rebuild their houses over and over. Worse is when they expect the Government to pay for it.

Right now, people can live far away from cities, commute in daily, etc., only because gas is affordable. Otherwise, it isn't sustainable. It's suburbia. Third repetition: suburbia is not sustainable. Not everywhere is ideal for people to live - not every space should have people there.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

Wowee, a mature reply! Rep for you. Hopefully I can reply likewise, so here goes.

I'll readily admit that the infrastructure, especially in many parts throughout North America, are very automobile-centric. You still have choices; you can move to somewhere that you don't have to rely on an automobile (even just moving closer to where things are), you can lobby your respective government to get things changed (elect people who have an idea of what urban planning is), you can start a group - or you can pay more and more as time goes on at the pump. These are not the exclusive options, of course.

Theoretically, all those options you listed are possible, but depending on where people live, they aren't as practical and as rewarding as they may seem. With the recession, it is really hard for anyone to make plans to move anywhere, even if it is only thirty kilometers south as it is for me. I can't speak for anyone else here, but in my case, I live in the most economically-prosperous province in Canada and outside of the most prosperous city (which, unfortunately, is where all the jobs are, because the city I live in is little more than a bedroom community with a A&W). Housing has literally doubled (maybe tripled) in the past ten years, making moving somewhere else a little difficult. And I believe people have been lobbying the government for change, and they will be buying new buses and creating new bike trails. They will also be taking the first steps towards a LRT which, god willing, I will be able to use in sixty years (I am a strong supporter of building both a LRT here and an advanced bullet train system in Canada and have signed several petitions supporting that, but I guess such things aren't feasible at the moment). But, the government in Saskatoon isn't the most... productive. It took twenty years to decide to build a new bridge that the city has needed for a long time, they're tearing down one that is right in the middle of downtown and probably won't be rebuilt for decades. The bus drivers' union recently went on strike, though it ended quickly, as well. There's plenty of options, and I assume that the larger the population the more options, but for me, as an example, it is hard to get any of that done when you live in a "city" of 6,000 people and a province that is larger than California with 1/37 the population.

This point is absolutely false. You can; I did. You just have to make different choices. I've yet to ever operate an automobile - ever - and I've had little trouble getting to any of my jobs. Why? Because I made sure to work near where I live, or live near where I work.

I guess you are right here, but again, this is a little difficult for a guy who can barely afford to live as is. :tongue:

Here's the North American entitlement: to live where we want, regardless of the geography's ability to support us living there. I saw it all the time on the news in the States with examples such as areas that suffered from wildfires or floods - every year, and people would rebuild their houses over and over. Worse is when they expect the Government to pay for it.

Right now, people can live far away from cities, commute in daily, etc., only because gas is affordable. Otherwise, it isn't sustainable. It's suburbia. Third repetition: suburbia is not sustainable. Not everywhere is ideal for people to live - not every space should have people there.

I would agree with you here except for the fact that I really don't want to live where I do. The city sucks, Saskatoon sucks, Saskatchewan (for the most part) sucks, and it is really windy here because Alberta blows and Manitoba sucks as well. I didn't choose to build a city here, but because someone was foolish enough to hire me and because I can (barely) afford housing, I live here. I can't live any closer because decent housing costs too much and the only places I would be able to afford suffer from some of the highest crime rates in North America. All I can do right now is hope that they build a LRT before gas runs out, or a bullet train so I don't have to miss football games.

 

[Rey C.]

Those railways weren't built in the modern era to be fair, it was begun under the Tsarist Empire and expanded later under Soviet rule.

However in the long-term it's far more sustainable than two or three vehicles per household. I can understand why people in remote locations do it, but what about in the city? Some have metro systems and shitloads of buses, but people still just go for low-mileage cars. It's in the cities that changes have to be effected, not in the far-off village.

Essential travel by private transport is one thing, but more often than not in developed nations it's a convenience and not a necessity.

The only problem you'll get is that the private sector won't build a railway at huge cost, it generally takes a governmental initiative.

Comparing my experiences in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles - D.C. has a very good public transportation system, IMO. L.A., not so much. L.A. is a city where people rely on their cars. I guess it's a cultural thing. I can't really explain it. I've never lived there, but I have friends who live in New York and some of them don't even have driver's licenses, much less cars.

I don't disagree at all with what you're saying about trying to convince more people in urban areas to use public transportation, whenever possible and practical. But we have to remember that even these mass transit vehicles tend to use some sort of fossil fuel based propulsion... even if they're electric (assuming that electricity comes from a coal fired plant). So we go back to what I keep bringing up (that people keep ignoring ): alternative fuels which are not based on food staples. It's not an either/or proposition. It's not as if we'll some day flip one off and flip another one on. But I've been reading a fair amount about switchgrass as part of cellulosic ethanol production over the past few days and I'm amazed that people aren't waking up to the benefits of pursuing this as ONE of the major options.

As for expanding train service... they've been talking about commuter service through this area for about 15 years now. But I haven't heard the first train whistle yet. In rural areas, this is not a unique situation. And with the economy down and the federal deficit up, I doubt I ever will hear that train whistle. There is currently no will (or ability) in the U.S. to borrow yet more money to fund train services, which will probably never be able to cover the basic operating costs, and will always need to be subsidized. We're going to see a loss of teachers, police and fire fighting services next year in many localities around the U.S. With property values down and more foreclosures to come, the tax base is eroding.

Also, we've focused a lot on people, what and how they drive and with Rattrap's post, even where they live. But no matter what those variables look like, another one is the fact that over-road trucks continue to be diesel powered. Moving that fleet to bio-diesel (over time) would put a big dent in our oil imports.

 

[winsomelosesome]

Comparing my experiences in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles - D.C. has a very good public transportation system, IMO. L.A., not so much. L.A. is a city where people rely on their cars. I guess it's a cultural thing. I can't really explain it. I've never lived there, but I have friends who live in New York and some of them don't even have driver's licenses, much less cars.

I don't disagree at all with what you're saying about trying to convince more people in urban areas to use public transportation, whenever possible and practical. But we have to remember that even these mass transit vehicles tend to use some sort of fossil fuel based propulsion... even if they're electric (assuming that electricity comes from a coal fired plant). So we go back to what I keep bringing up (that people keep ignoring ): alternative fuels which are not based on food staples. It's not an either/or proposition. It's not as if we'll some day flip one off and flip another one on. But I've been reading a fair amount about switchgrass as part of cellulosic ethanol production over the past few days and I'm amazed that people aren't waking up to the benefits of pursuing this as ONE of the major options.

As for expanding train service... they've been talking about commuter service through this area for about 15 years now. But I haven't heard the first train whistle yet. In rural areas, this is not a unique situation. And with the economy down and the federal deficit up, I doubt I ever will hear that train whistle. There is currently no will (or ability) in the U.S. to borrow yet more money to fund train services, which will probably never be able to cover the basic operating costs, and will always need to be subsidized. We're going to see a loss of teachers, police and fire fighting services next year in many localities around the U.S. With property values down and more foreclosures to come, the tax base is eroding.

Also, we've focused a lot on people, what and how they drive and with Rattrap's post, even where they live. But no matter what those variables look like, another one is the fact that over-road trucks continue to be diesel powered. Moving that fleet to bio-diesel (over time) would put a big dent in our oil imports.

I agree about the move away. It's essential to start with the urban areas though as while fossil fuels do pollute, it's only above a certain level that it fucks up the planet, hence we didn't see up until the past century. One of the problems is that with so many people in the urban areas, you have to bring down not just vehicle pollution, but energy consumption for everything. That means a lot of convincing, but if you can do that, you do allow more time to bring rural areas closer to urban ones through public transport. Immediate changes would kill half of them off.

With new fuels, I'm still curious as to why something like solar power hasn't taken off in the Southern regions of the USA in particular. All that sunlight and heat for half the year, and it goes to waste. Even fitting cars with the potential for both, so in summer yer flyin on the sunlight, and in winter if you need it you can use some sort of alternative fuel. Of course the technology might be lagging for now, but as I said in an earlier post, implementation tends to really push innovation and advancement.

I guess in the end it's the absolute lack of desire to move forward from some quarters that really exasperates me. Round these parts folk go mental because they don't like how a windfarm looks, not aesthetically pleasing enough! What a mental stance to adopt. I can understand leaving some areas untouched, but let's face it, there's a lot of countryside, not all of it needs to be postcard material.

 

[Master Roshi]

just remember the price of oil is not set by the oil companies, the dollar is starting to devalue at a record pace (just look at Russia and China because they have now dumped the dollar as the world reserve currency), yup the gas pumps and the grocery stores are where your gonna see the most hyperinflation, and with about 40 million americans on food stamps your gonna see riots in the cities of the USA like you have never seen before once the price of food starts to skyrocket

 

[Master Roshi]

I hope people on this forum know how to fast because that is a skill you are gonna need when this crisis hits home

 

[winsomelosesome]

I hope people on this forum know how to fast because that is a skill you are gonna need when this crisis hits home

As long as there's folks nearby, ye've got something tae eat.