Petrol Prices

[andrewbcalculating]

I got sent this on an email and instead of sending it off to people as I don't do that kind of thing, I thought I should post it here to get through to a number of people. I don't own a car so I don't know how practical it is but if the facts below are true then it seems a good idea, I hope people don't mind.



"See what you think and pass it on if you agree with it

We are hitting 106.9 p a litre in some areas now, soon we will be faced with paying £1.10 a ltr. Philip Hollsworth offered this good idea:

This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the 'don't buy petrol on a certain

day campaign that was going around last April or May! The oil

companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't

continue to hurt ourselves by refusing to buy petrol. It was more of >an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them. BUT,whoever
thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can really work.

Please read it and join in!

Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us
to think that the cost of a litre is CHEAP, we need to take
a ggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the market place
not sellers. With the price of petrol going up more each day, we
consumers need to take action. The only way we are going to see the
price of petrol come down is if we hit someone in the pocket by not
purchasing their Petrol! And we can do that WITHOUT hurting
ourselves. Here's the idea:

For the rest of this year DON'T purchase ANY petrol from the two biggest oil companies (which now are one), ESSO and BP.


If they are not selling any petrol, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit. But to have an impact we need to reach literally millions of Esso and BP petrol buyers. It's
really simple to do!!

Now, don't wimp out on me at this point... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!!

I am sending this note to a lot of people. If each of you send it to
at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300)... and those 300 send it to at
least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) ... and so on, by the time the
message reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached
over THREE MILLION consumers! If those three million get excited and
pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have
been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed it... ..

THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!!

Again, all You have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all.(and
not buy at ESSO/BP) How long would all that take? If each of us
sends this email out to ten more people within one day of receipt,
all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the
next 8days!!! Acting together we can make a difference If this makes
sense to you, please pass this message on.

PLEASE HOLD OUT UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE 69p a LITRE
RANGE

It's easy to make this happen. Just forward this email, and buy your
petrol at Shell, Asda,Tesco, Sainsburys, Morrisons Jet etc. i.e.
boycott BP and Esso"

|<o>|

[rurudyne]

Interesting idea.

I do agree that the problem is dependence on OPEC nations for oil; but, I see the demand for cheap oil essentially being the carrot that keeps us snuggled up to their spigot. It simply cost more to pump oil out of the ground in the United States or the North Sea and the like. Likewise, alternate sources of energy are only profitable if the price point for energy is high enough.

I point this out because I think it has reasonably been proven that private individuals will often exert themselves if they sense an opportunity to make money for themselves. The principal difficulty or obstacle against investment in many sources of oil (such as a Colorado shale deposit reputed to be bigger than Saudia Arabia was at the start of it all) and alternate energy sources is the fear (possibly irrational at this point) that too low energy prices could return.

So as odd as it may seem, high oil prices are good for things like energy independence.

I also think it had been fairly well established that politicians LOVE power and thus the response to situations like marginal important industries has always been grants and subsidies which more often than not come with strings attached; but, there is a dark side to government giveaways like this because an industry may fall into the habit of doing only enough to get the promised handout and if the government wants more done then such "business leaders" will want to at least see the promise of more money up front. In short, we haven't altered the desire for money one bit, only addressed who provides it (or rather if it is directly provided by customers rather than taken by force of law from the public at large).

Now, thanks to the gray smudge of air that used to be China I don't think the oil prices will ever drop much, but it doesn't take a lot to rally cries to politicians to save native jobs and some such ... after all, politicians can be SUCH cowards when it comes to electability.

There was an idea that I suggested some years ago that never really had a chance because of the common cowardice of American Congressmen. The interesting thing about the idea is that it was shaped to ensure that if the reasons for it becoming policy were ever invalidated (say if a reliable and cheap alternate energy source became available) then the convergence of egalitarian sentiment (propelling political cowardice if it came to that) and the fact that a government would not be benefiting (by either taxes raised or power acquired) should see the rise of demand for a full and complete end to the law.

Essentially the idea was to determine a price point for a barrel of oil at which enough native reserves or alternate energy sources to wean so much dependence from foreign oil or else reach for other goals. You then create a fluctuating import tax on oil that the government collects after sale: if the price per barrel is below the set point it is taxed to be at the set point. If it is at or above the set point no tax is levied. The other half of the equation is that you allow domestic producers of oil to privately collect the same surcharge but that this money is not given to the government (except that it may be taxed as part of any earning). This allows private industry the room to find ways to provide energy profitably "on their own" (which is to say, not holding out their hands for government subsidies).

While this approach may seem rather Prince John, please realize that it is precisely this aspect that makes the whole thing work. Given that China is only likely to be gobbling up more energy resources it really is unlikely that the oil will ever again be cheap; however, what this system actually does is guarantee native energy companies (including those developed that can just skimp by on prices like these) that the price of energy won't "fall so low" that they will either go out of business or have to start demanding public monies. Likewise, one shouldn't expect a government to actually ever get much tax revenue from such a system if it were done right. But, the day the reason for it all is clearly invalidated the Prince John aspect of it all will ensure its quick and final demise (populist politicians would be screaming to the heavens against its unfair aspects and conservatives would bristle against the taxes and anti-business aspect equally).

I really do believe it to be wiser to bet on people's self interest and baser natures (even their political cowardice if it should come to that) than to bet on their sovereign nobility of character — call me a pessimist that way.

I should also point out that such a system would even be legal under the U.S. Constitution as it actually is rather than in accordance to the pretend powers that Congress has accumulated for itself over the last 100 years. Anything that could live within said document should be fairly said to accrue little power to a government and therefore little reason to maintain it (unlike subsidies) into the distant future. Again, me betting on people's baser natures.

[panderson]

Ok - while I cover gas and water at my energy consultancy firm I do listen inon the oil desk
Prices in the UK are techncially higher than elsewhere due to tax, and to some degree this insulates us to the highly volatile variations in oil price on a day-to-day basis. Recently, the exchange rate has been in our favour, as crude oil is bought in USD, so we have been better of than the states in this regard. It is interesting to note that a number of parties in the value chain are starting to stop selling crude in USD as a result of the exchange rate
As to the matter at hand, the idea of boycotting certain stations, you do have to question source - why Esso and BP and not Shell? is the sender from Shell PLUS while this may impact on forecourt prices, where do you think other suppliers and independents and supermarkets source their oil from? The majors are so entrenched in projects all over the world that you will still be putting money their way whatever the case
The current high price of oil does indeed push eyes to sources of fuel form other sources, such as the aformentioned renewables, but in the first case, many eyes are looking to Russia and projects such as the Sakhalin fields as well as Turkamnistan. This is creating a strong link with Russia for both oil and gas. This intself is not horrendous, but the EU is having issues with this with respect to converging the energy resources around a new main source, and one which has strong state controls. Poltiics is becoming more and more entwined with energy - take the recent move by UK gov to nuclear - but with regard to oil and gas we are more often now seeing govenments or state owned companies playing hard boil to retain to take back national assets. In essence, the oil and gas majors got a good deal on assets years back and the govenments want both more control for security of supply and to enahnce revnues in the current high price market. Soo... I know I am rambling - very tired - I think boycotting certain forcourts for a day may send a message, but need to question what effctivly it will do
OH and it is worth noting, that pure supply-demand factors - real supply crunches are becoming less an influence on pricesa than specualtion on where matters are going and fincial players love to spec prices all over the place. Indeed, it was noyted that when crude went over 100 USD a few weeks back this was on the basis of one trade when a trader took a hit to secure the deal just so he could say he pushed it to this record limit - there was no real reason for it to go that high
Oh - sorry - forgot one thing - curren thigh prices are self defating in the fact that they cause concerns of global recession and resulting lower demand, pulling them down again - even though the recession itself may actually receed - again...speculation
OK done my rant

[rurudyne]

transforce ... even in the US the tax on gas is an issue. And you folks have it dramatically worse than we do. My condolences for that. To paraphrase Churchill (badly): "Never have so many paid so much to be spent by so few."

panderson ... good points. I would also like to add that getting cozy with Russia always comes at a higher price than you suspect at first. If the Tzars or the communist or this ill-defined lot (communist, capitalist, latter-day-Soviets, Russian mob, what?), Russia has been the same angry, bureaucratic bear all along no matter which ruling party it held in its mouth like a chew toy.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

As a non-driver who thinks there are too many cars on the roads, I wouldn't want prices lowered, as then people would be able to afford to drive even more than they do now. High petrol prices will at least deter some people (not the very rich, obviously) from driving unnecessarily. Also, if petrol taxes were cut, they'd have to tax something else or cut public services.

I would be in favour of them abolishing road tax and putting extra on petrol, since it's the amount people drive that kills and pollutes, not whether they keep a car in their driveway.

And they should tax flying even more and use the money to reduce train fares!

Martin

[grahamthomson]

I have a side-question for Shockprowl if he's around: (Or anyone else in the know about these things.)

How does the emergency services pay for their fuel? Are they subjected to the same taxes/prices as the general population? Or does it come in on a separate system and you refuel at your own depots?

Obviously big fire engines can't fit on normal fuel stations, but I have seen ambulances and police cars fill up.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Cars are ugly, noisy, smelly, expensive, selfish, isolating, manners-destroying, landscape-destroying, fitness-destroying, polluting and kill about ten people in the UK through accidents every day. One of the inventions we never should have invented.



I agree that people living in the countryside shouldn't be penalised for the majority of selfish/lazy city people who drive when they don't need to. Unless they are commuters by choice who drive a long distance into the city every day when they could easily live closer to work and not drive at all.



The current (let alone future) level of driving is unsustainable, and both people and governments need to start changing the way they live - less waste, less electricity usage, less kids and less distance travelled. In a society as well off as ours compared with the majority of the world's population, responsibilities must come before rights - if we care about the future of the planet.



or



I know which I'd choose!

Martin

[kayevcee]

I spend about 90 minutes a day Monday to Saturday on buses along with every ned, junkie and murderer under the sun. I've witnessed abuse, drug use, violence, vandalism, sectarianism and people trying to piss on the back seat. And yet I still get on every morning and every evening. Why?

Because I'm f***ing crazy, that's why.

If we're going to encourage people to use public transport it might be an idea to... encourage bus companies- in Glasgow, anyway- to hire bouncers to sit up the back and eject anyone dropping their chips on the floor, smoking spliffs, randomly breaking into sectarian song, harassing other passengers, fighting, spitting or listening to f***ing trance techno music at the highest volume their mobile phone can manage. Maybe if the insides of our buses weren't dirt encrusted war zones we'd get more punters willing to travel on them.

Hmm. This post went somewhere other than where I was planning.

-Nick

[The Doctor]

I agree with every word, but would just add that the high prices of public transport are daft. In that regard alone, I can understand why people stay in their cars.

No interest in cars myself. Never wanted one. Walking is good for me.

-Ralph

[rurudyne]

Some years ago I came up with the loopy idea of giving employers who actually own their place of business and who could demonstrate that their employee's average commute was within the range of the local community a break on their local taxes.

Of course, the idea was to reward people for hiring local and help a town keep money flowing and/or staying in the community ... but traffic reduction works too.

You may have noticed it, but I imagine that you get better results when betting on people's self interest rather than their altruism or native nobility.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

transforce said:

My car is most upset you called her ugly.

Please assure her it's nothing personal.

I respect you for making the choice not to drive as it must be difficult at times. Maybe transport is better where you live, but where a lot of people live it's rubbish.

Well, my parents bought me lessons and I passed my test first time. Quite enjoyed it. Went to university in Coventry, lived on campus first year, then had to find my own place the following year. Saw lots of students renting places miles away and getting the bus in, thought that was a bit stupid, so found myself cheap lodgings within walking distance (a mile and a bit) of campus. Walked in and back every day for six years.

Got a job in Cardiff, which was on the outskirts for the first few months then due to move offices to the city centre, so I rented a place on the outskirts for those first few months, while looking for a place in the city centre. Now I live near the city centre (getting on for two miles from where I work), and have walked in and back for a bit over five years. Only exercise I get, a brisk walk.

My house is a lot smaller than it would be if I spent the same money further out and got the bus in, or had a car, but I value living within walking distance of work more than having a bigger house. Often I get very wet when rained upon, but I put up with that. (It only annoys me if I'm wet on account of a car going thoughtlessly through rather than around a puddle, but I'm quite good at avoiding that now.)

I know I've been lucky to be able to make these choices, but my point isn't that everyone could and should do the same, so much as that our society's all set up wrong for sustainable living. We shouldn't have big cities with all the jobs in one big lump and all the nice places to live several miles out. We should have a more homogeneous mix of jobs and homes, so that everyone can live comfortably close to where they work.

And this is how I think more towns will be designed in the future, to not make the same mistakes again.

In the meantime, there are lots of things people could do more to improve the situation, such as car share with colleagues or neighbours who work close to where you work. Let's see an end to traffic jams made up of four-seater cars all containing one person!

If cars were adapted to run on something other than Petrol/Diesel/Gas then that might help the situation, but a good alternative is yet to be found. Electric cars are still rubbish and not that eco friendly unless you could guarantee the electricity came from a wind farm.

That still wouldn't solve the problem of deaths on the roads, congestion, concreting over more and more land to accommodate more and more traffic. The only hope for the future people is to reduce the number of private vehicles on the road - through a combination of improved public transport, living closer to where you have to be each day, lift sharing, and in the case of journeys under two miles, getting a bit of exercise.

Martin

[kayevcee]

transforce said:

Electric cars are still rubbish and not that eco friendly unless you could guarantee the electricity came from a wind farm.

I'd take issue with the end of that, actually. A thousand electric cars powered by a central oil-fired power station is considerably more efficient and cleaner than a thousand petrol engines. A large setup can be kitted out with all sorts of heat exchangers and flue treatment to maximise the energy yield and limit the resultant exhaust gases in ways that a car-scale engine can't. Also the combustion is more complete- the station would produce marginally more CO2 but significantly less CO and carbon particulates, both of which are bad news for human health at ground level. Of course, this remains academic until someone can, as you say, make an electric car that can cover a reasonable distance between charges and safely reach motorway speeds.

-Nick

[rurudyne]

transforce said:

If cars were adapted to run on something other than Petrol/Diesel/Gas then that might help the situation, but a good alternative is yet to be found. Electric cars are still rubbish and not that eco friendly unless you could guarantee the electricity came from a wind farm.

Fun information!

There is this fellow here in the States who is now in the job of modding vehicles to produce better performance and economy.

He usually starts with a Duramax Diesel engine just because. These workhorses are rugged and flexible at any rate.

In addition to converting the diesel to run on pretty much anything that will burn he includes a "burning agent" in the form of co-injected hydrogen. This enables him to halve the amount of fuel required AND double the power (transforming an old clunky H-1 Hummer in early attempts into a vehicle with 600 HP and getting about 17 MPH for example ... actually almost triple the original horse power of the GM engine it started out with).

As an added benefit to burning hydrogen, the water produced by that half of the exchange helps to cool the engine too while cutting emissions in half (or to about 25% if figuring power and displacement to emissions).

Also, because the hydrogen (a tank in his conversion in good for about 700 miles) is a burning agent he doesn't have to use high grade combustionables for the other half of his fuel consumption. He has, for example, run iterations of this idea off of strained grease from kitchens. This last even produced an entertaining story when he was asked by engineers working for GM to demonstrate his technology: once his fear that the grease had congealed in the cold weather was proven false some of the engineers couldn't even tell that the engine was running! This is because of the lubrication effects of the grease that resulted in much lower internal friction and, therefore noise. BTW ... lower friction would result in lower power losses and help to overcome burning an inferior combustionable material like Corn Oil is.

Now, for the performance buff I'd like to see shoe horning one of these engines into a Corvette or some mid-engine platform. Coupled to a nearly indestructible Allison 5 speed and a tall final gear you would be able to burn rubber in all 5 gears and STILL get 20 MPG or more (lower curb weight). Toss in a capacitor hybrid-electric for around town and low speed and where's the guilt?

But aside from that, he speaks of FULL SIZE cars using SURPLUS turbines driving electric (an arrangement like that used in diesel locomotives) that can get 80-100 MPG and still have the ability to burn rubber.

[grahamthomson]

Shell are reporting record profits of £13.9 billion.

I couldn't even imagine the amount of fuel consumed for them to make that much money.

[rurudyne]

Rent and drive and Humvee for a few days and it may be comprehensible.

[grahamthomson]

I think in the UK you can only rent Humvees as a stretched limo version for school discos and C.H.A.V. weddings.