# Petrol Prices ~ got to be worth a try!!



## Mackie (May 18, 2005)

We are hitting 123.9 a litre in some areas now, soon we will be faced with paying 2.00 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 aggressive 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 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!!!

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


----------



## Caz (Jul 21, 2002)

Nice idea, however I know for a fact that BP supply petrol to others. For instance Sainsbury's (I was a PFS manager there and ours came from BP Buncefield - well before it blew up, then it was Coreyton - on a  BP tanker no less!) So you really want to hurt them you'd have to stop buying petrol from the other places that they supply petrol to too or they'll just make up for the lack of trade in their own sites by hoicking the price at supermarkets etc. and claim it's our fault. Don't know where Tesco, Adsa or Morrisons get their fuels from but you can bet it's one of the big suppliers too. 
What might help is to stop buying anything BUT petrol from them as petrol stations themselves aren't terribly profitable so rely on a lot of kiosk sales too - hence why BP etc. are so keen to do things like Wild Bean Cafe etc. 

What also concerns me is that the pretrol price crisis is apparently global so, for this really to have any effect on the oil suppliers, you would have to target the whole world and ask everyone to stop using BP / Esso. I'd love to see it work though. I'll do my bit and buy Shell from now on. They're cheapest around here anyway!

C~x


----------



## DizziSquirrel (Feb 15, 2005)

Also many car drivers Like me Dh have company fule cards so have no choice but to by from esso   

Have to agree the rising cost of fule/living is getting scary!

Prehaps we could debate/have a poll on here to see whos worried/affected or not 

~Dizzi~


----------



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

I read "The Long emergency" by James Howard Kunstler.  In the last 200 years, there has been an explosion of growth due to cheap fossil fuels.  Now it is running out.  What next?

Kunstler writes a lot about "peak oil".  That is how he makes his living, but if you type in "peak oil" into a search engine, you will come up with a lot of info on the subject.  Basically there isn't any more being made.  The world has exploited all the big fields, and they are running out.  

If we all stopped using oil, in any shape size or form, then perhaps we could lower the price of oil.  What do I mean by "If we all stopped using oil, in any shape size or form", that means planting seeds by hand; tilling fields with horses, fed on crops we grow with our own hands; no fertiliser, pesticide, etc.;  harvest by hand; clothes spun from our flock of sheep, eat off plates made of wood and clay, and so on.  Oil is in *absolutely everything*. 

Sadly the  only way for the oil price to go is up!  And no I don't know where the price will start to flatten out.  

Lorna


----------



## Fidget (Jan 27, 2005)

Sadly I feel there isnt a great deal we can do abou the oil prices........ the trouble with the UK is the high tax on top of the fuel cost.......

Lorna,

Can you Clarify what you mean, by _" There isnt any more being made"_ As I am not sure I am following you on that.

Thanks

Debs


----------



## foxylady73 (May 11, 2008)

Fidget, sure Lorna will reply but Peak Oil basically is the point when the maximum rate of global petrol production is reached, after that the rate of production enters terminal decline.  Consumption needs to be mitigated before the peak or a world energy crisis develops as availability drops and prices rise.  The supply is fixed because it's no longer being produced.  Millions of years ago, volcanic sulfur lined the ocean floor and plankton and bacteria that thrived in the oceans settled in porous limestone.  These were then capped by shale or salt, allowed to heat and become pressurised to form oil.  All we are doing is extracting what is there naturally, it's not something we can make as it takes millions of years.  Hence depletion as oil demand has increased more than new oil discoveries.

Sorry if this is boring, but I personally think it's something we should all be concerned about.  There is lots of reading on the internet if you are interested and there have been some good articles in the Economist recently.

Foxy


----------



## Fidget (Jan 27, 2005)

Thank you for clarifying the point 

Although I have to say working for an oil company, new fields are still being discovered, and also new ways of getting the oil from the ground are being developed all the time.

This doesnt mitigate the fact that we will use it all up _eventually_ but I am not so sure that point has been reached _yet_

The only way to ease this is to use our supplies more efficiently, however the constant hype about 'not using' our cars is not always possible, perhaps we should be encouraging more companies to allow their employees to work from home?


----------



## Catb33 (Aug 1, 2006)

I can't see oil prices going down unless the govt reduce the tax given that something like 63% is tax. The argument for high taxes is to stop us using the cars as often but it's not worked so far. Even though fuel has gone up so much lately, people don't stop driving. That said, I think twice about how fast I need to go or if I need to make a particular journey so perhaps it is working.


----------



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

Sorry Fidget and foxylady73, I have taken so long to reply, I am just really, really busy at the moment. But as I would love to share my views, I have written something. Of course, no one may want to read them.. 

Fidget,

foxylady73 did a brilliant explanation of why 
> " There isnt any more being made"
Far better than I ever could have done.

Although just to be contentious, typical Lorna, I will have to disagree with foxylady73, 
You say 
> Consumption needs to be mitigated before the peak..
Well I think peak oil has arrived and past. Good ol Hubbert predicted, back in the 40s that US oil production would peak about 20(?) years after the peak finds. He was a few years out, but not by much. Researchers then updated his theories to apply to the rest of the world, and they said 30 years after the last major finds, oil production would fall. Well the last major finds were in the 70s and in the early 2000s , it would appear that the output from many fields is stagnant/slowing down. OK all theories depend on how fast the world uses oil, so the estimates of when oil runs out, are always plus or minus, a few years.

Mainstream news, talks about peak oil occurring in 2012. I thought Great, I have 2-3 years to get ready for oil becoming so expensive, I have to change my life. What I should have been reading, is all those individual bloggers, who say peak oil occurred 1-2 years ago, maybe as long ago as 2004. You can only see peak oil in hindsight, and it is very difficult to see it even then..

I know consumption is rising, so I think we are already into the oil production falling, consumption rising scenario, and things will only get worse. Although high oil prices may cause a world wide recession, which will mean the world will use less oil, and so the price will fall temporarily. We may mean we get some short term relief.

Why does mainstream news report peak oil as several years away, and people like Kunstler, and others, say, peak oil occurred, 1 - 4 ago? Well, IMO, it is how you count reserves!

Anyone, who is anybody, like governments, oil companies, big business, banks, whatever, benefits if world oil stocks are at an all time high. And if they told the real truth, it would bring pain, catastrophe?, to whoever dared to step out of line, and reveal the real truth. Ahhhh, Lorna, is just a conspiracy theorist at heart.

So lets look at oil companies! Why would they benefit, from announcing that their oil reserves are high? Suppose you have two oil companies of equal size. Company A says it has reserves of one billion barrels of oil, while company B says it has a 2 billion barrels. In this case Company B share price will be a lot higher, than company A. My figures have been picked out of the air, just for illustration.

This practice could continue indefinitely, just till we hit peak oil. Now we have passed peak oil, it is becoming obvious, that oil companies do not have anywhere near the reserves they claimed. A few, not all, have started to adjust downwards the amount of reserves they have, on their end of year statements. And for those unfortunate few, their share price, has dropped. And it is quite possible that other oil companies will also have to reduce their estimations of just how much oil theyve got!

What about governments? Take OPEC. The cartel says you are allowed to pump out a certain percentage of your reserves very year. Ill try and illustrate this with made up figures that makes the maths easier.
Take 4 countries. A states it has 10 billion barrels reserve.
B states it has 20 billion barrels reserve.
C states it has 50 billion barrels reserve.
D states it has 100 billion barrels reserve.
So country D is allowed to pump twice as much oil as country C, five times as much oil as country B, and ten times as much oil as country A.

So if country D says it reserves are 200 billion barrels of oil, then it is allowed to pump four times as much oil as country C..
There is no magic overseer, checking exactly how much oil any country really has, and besides that, how do you check, *precisely* how much oil is in an oil field? It is long way below ground. You can guesstimate, with some degree of precision, but you will almost certainly be out by a percentage.
So it is in country Ds best interest to overestimate the amount of oil in the ground, so they can pump more out.

And if you want some really complicated stuff, about how seriously over inflated oil reserves are; you have to look to the machinations of world leaders. Back in the 70s and 80s it was in the Wests best interests, to get everyone to claim they had huge reserves of oil. It was clearly ludicrous for country D to claim that it had 200 billion barrels of oil, but by doing so the West was able to manipulate things, to topple Russian Communism. Clearly excessive oil stocks were not the major reason, why communism collapsed, but it played a part. And those excessive claims of oil reserves have not been downgraded since then.

Why would banks and big business want us to believe there is more oil than there is? The Feel Good Factor! We would think the good times will go on forever, so we spend more money, and they make more money. Another really complicated subject, that I have only skimmed the surface of.

So over estimates of oil reserves have been going on for years, and has been encouraged by anyone who has power and/or money.

So back to the question, Why does mainstream news report peak oil, as several years away, and people like Kunstler, and others, say, peak oil occurred, a few years ago? Mainstream news looks at published reserves, while people like Kunstler believe that we have 20% to 30% less. And with the rush to write down oil reserves, I am beginning to think Kunstler might be right. Do your own research, and make up your own mind.

Onto Fidgets comment
> new fields are still being discovered, and also new ways of getting the oil 
> from the ground are being developed all the time.

New fields being discovered. Yes and no. The Geology, the physics, the chemistry, etc, of oil is fairly well understood. Oil is a valuable commodity, so in terms of oil, we have mapped the world, and everyone knows where the rocks are, that might contain oil.
Now oil companies, may only just have started exploring some areas, and so can claim they have found a new field, but everyone has sorta always known it was there. Ok you might drill in a likely area and come up dry.
What about drilling in an area, where the geology is wrong? Could oil companies suddenly find a field? No. You will never find oil in your back garden, however deep, or however often you drill!

Lets talk about oil fields. Back in the 1800s, people noticed black stuff seeping out of the ground. They shoved a pipe in, and hey presto, oil came gushing out. Well I might have simplified that a bit! You did very little work, and got lots of oil. And for every unit of energy you put in, you got masses of units of energy out.

In the early 20th century, prospectors, began drilling for oil. They found it. And for every unit of energy they put in, they got between 20-50 units of energy out.

As those wells dried up, and the cost of oil rose, it suddenly became attractive to exploit the vast fields under the North Sea. No sane oil company in the 1950s would have developed the North Sea fields. They just were not profitable. It costs a lot of money to get the oil out of the North Sea, *and* for every unit of energy you put in, you get 12 units out.

The newer fields the oil companies are now developing, require, even more money to exploit than a North Sea oil field, and the returns are becoming smaller. For every unit of energy you put in, you get only 4 or 5 units out. But with oil heading for 200 dollars a barrel, they start to become economically feasible!

But at what point does it make sense to develop a field. Should we develop say the Alaskan oil shales? They are vast, and hold huge amounts of oil. And if you count world oil reserves, my understanding is that Alaskan oil shales count for a significant minority of the available oil in the world.

But extracting oil, from the Alaskan oil shales, requires us to develop a whole new set of technologies. Yes, we can get the oil out of Alaskan oil shale in a lab, but it will 5-10 years to scale the technology up, to produce millions of barrels of oil. And then our best guesstimates are, if I remember rightly, is that for every unit of energy you put in, you only get 1.5 units out.

At what point do you stop, pulling oil out of the ground? When every unit of energy you put in, you only get 0.5 unit out, ie you pump twice as much energy in, as you get out? When it only makes sense to develop a field when oil is 1000 dollars a barrel? I dont know.
So when people say, There is plenty of oil there., they are right. But does it make financial or energy sense to develop it? So does it make sense to count the oil in the Alaskan oil shales as reserves.

And there are other issues with the Alaskan oil shales, like it would be an ecological disaster to develop it. But are we so desperate, we dont care, and destroy millions, and millions of acres of wilderness, just to get that oil. Probably we will get that desperate!

Moving on. My understanding is that all the big fields like the Ghawar Field, in Saudi Arabia - 71 billion barrels of oil, have been developed. Lets create an imaginary world, where an oil company suddenly brings a 50 billion barrel oil field, on line today. That would keep the world going for decades, even with increased consumption rates. But that isnt happening, the new fields that are being developed now, are 40-50 million barrel fields or less, and will keep the world going for a few years at most.

Also the new fields are deep wells, that cost a fortune to build, and you need to use clever(expensive) techniques to get the oil out. The oil is often contaminated with pollutants, like sulphur, which have to be removed before the oil can be used. And that costs a lot of money. And so on. The new fields are *not* the easy to access, easy to pump out, gigantic, clean oil fields of the past. They are a total different kettle of fish.

The mainstream media listens to the oil companies, or to government spokespersons, and it isnt in the oil companies or governments interest to talk about these problems. OK people like Kunstler make a very nice living, talking about a world after oil, but some of what they say makes sense. Well at least to me it does.

so I am afraid Fidget that, when you say 
> new fields are still being discovered, and also new ways of getting the oil 
> from the ground are being developed all the time.
I am not filled with confidence about our oil based future.

And there are other issues. For us in the West, most of our oil comes from other countries, most of which are unstable. Kunstler hypothesised, about what would happen if Saudi Arabia stopped pumping oil.
The massive amount of money that Saudi Arabia makes from selling oil, keeps the current rulers, The House of Saud in power. But looking at the politics of the region, and I cant say I have looked very hard, there are simmering undercurrents, and it wouldnt take much to topple The House of Saud. It is likely that the replacement regime, wouldnt like the West, and may well stop exporting oil, overnight. And other countries in the region would probably follow suit. It is actually in their best interest to stop supplying us with oil.
So if oil supplies from the Middle East were cut off, where would that leave us, in the UK? I dont know. North Sea oil has largely gone. Maggie Thatcher started, and Tony Blair continued, to squander that. It isnt a nice thought!

You wouldnt just be unable to buy petrol, but all those big supermarkets wouldnt be able to get deliveries of food, and so we would go into a shop, and find nothing but empty shelves. The Daily mail had an article on this Nine meals from anarchy - how Britain is facing a very real food crisis http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1024833/Nine-meals-anarchy--Britain-facing-real-food-crisis.html 
And there would be endless numbers of power cuts as electricity would be in short supply, so how do the water companies pump water or dispose of sewage! I dont want to think about that.

Another scary thing is that pre oil, the world had about 1 billion people. And that was probably the carrying capacity of earth. Cheap, plentiful oil allowed us to grow more crops, and support more people. Now we have around 6.7 billion people on earth, (http://www.peterrussell.com/Odds/WorldClock.php) who are sustained by cheap, and freely available oil. But we dont have cheap, freely available oil, any more. So what happens to the extra 5.6 billion people?

Everyone goes, well we will just use alternatives! Well renewables, cant be made without oil. And besides that what happens on a cloudy windless day. Everyone stops using electricity?

Nuclear? Well it takes 20-30 years to design and build a new generation of nuclear power stations. And if every country in the world, starts building nuclear power stations, the world runs out of Uranium235 in about 30 years. So we could build fast breeder reactors, that generate plutonium, and so generate their own fuel, but then do you want every country in the world, to have access, to the materials to create nuclear bombs?

This is huge subject. I only know a tinsy weensy part of it. The issues are enormous, and I only understand, a fraction of what is involved. I am sure, someone is going to tell me I got this part wrong, as they know so much more than me. But, IMO, what we are arguing about is detail.

The basic message which will not go away is that - Oil is running out. And there are no easy solutions.

Lorna

/links


----------



## foxylady73 (May 11, 2008)

Hi Lorna

There is economic analysis to support both sides of the argument on whether peak oil has already been reached or is still to come as well as a number of alternative theories, it's a very subjective subject.  You are right that one of the nmain difficulties in forecasting peak oil is the lack of clarity surrounding the reserves classified as proven.  Oil companies, Producer Countries and Consumer States all have reasons to overstate their proven reserves.  Discoveries have been less that production since 1980, while production growth trends were flat from 2005-2008.  As peak oil occurs when peak global production is reached, in my opinion we are very close to hitting that point now.

Hubberts original prediction of peak oil occuring in 1995 was off beacuse oil consumption dropped in the late 70's and early 80's before rebounding in the mid 80's.  As you say - the only reliable way to time this is in retrospect.

There are so many documented arguments around the subject but I think everyone is in agreement that as consumers, this is something we need to be concerned with and is certainly something our governments need to address.

Foxy x


----------



## AmandaB1971 (Feb 19, 2006)

Well, all that aside this Government is raking in a huge amount of money through the stealth taxes placed on motorists.  The harsh reality is that motorists are a soft target for taxation and the only way to address it even in part is to make sure you remember these horrendous taxation issues when you next go to the polling station.

I have voted labour all my life and I'd rather vote for the raving monster loony party than labour again after the last few years.  They have done absolutely nothing for me and my DH and the number of stealth taxes introduced simply makes me furious.  

Axxx


----------

