The rising price of petrol, when will it end?

Team4Luke

notsoblue wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Pufftmw wrote:

Rising price of petrol will end when the oil runs out - simples

that won't happen for many many many years - there is a lot of the stuff down there.

Getting more and more expensive to get to it though.

don't be so sure, isn't it Saudi that only has about 75 years worth left, this is why there is the great oil race to the north and south polar ice caps.

I don't get this, more and more expensive to get it. The world economy has gone belly up, everyone/business is cost saving, sacking workers, making efficency gains, no pay rises, chopping pensions etc etc, so can we assume everyone in the oil business is also "all in it together" and taking their share of the cuts ?? I suspect not :!:

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I don't have a car. The only reason I can think of that I would need a car is if I worked or lived somewhere in the country.

Wait until you have a young family.

You can get by without a car, but having one makes life a lot easier. ANd I'd bet that your partner will categorise it as something she needs.

+1.

+2

W1

dodgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

dodgy wrote:

This thread isn't about the un-avoidable costs associated with motoring, such as insurance, VED, depreciation etc. It's about fuel costs, one of the only aspects you have control of, you drive less - you pay less.

So again, fuel is cheap, it certainly is if I can take a carload of people to Edinburgh and back for just over a tenner each.

...which you can't if you factor in running costs of those miles, depreciation and a proportion of the "fixed costs". Unless you want to delude yourself as to the real cost.

Sigh...

But this thread is about fuel specifically. Of course there are costs attributed to using your car. But this thread is about the direct costs relating to usage of fuel.

The OP wasn't complaining about how much his servicing, VED, insurance, depreciation was costing him. No, he was complaining about the increase in costs associated with fuel. Before fuel was the price it is now, he was still servicing his car, he was still losing money on it and he was still paying VED. Only now it's significantly more expensive becuase of the rise in fuel prices.

Can't believe I had to explain that :roll:

Change 'he' for 'she' as appropriate above.

Don't sigh and roll your eyes - someone said they could get to Edinburgh and back for £60 in a car. They can't. That's all.

I can't believe you didn't get that.

W1

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

Aparently you're in "fuel poverty" if you can't keep a house at 18 degrees C. Poverty my harris. If energy was taxed at 58% I bet we'd use a lot less of it....

"Fuel poverty" is about how much of your income it costs to keep your house at that temp. More than 10% and you are deemed fuel poor. Why does this seem so ridiculous to you?

And quite a few people are in "transport poverty" by the same measure - with many needing cars to to get to work (or anywhere in fact).

NSB doesn't care about that though. He doesn't use a car :roll:

dodgy

W1 wrote:

dodgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

dodgy wrote:

This thread isn't about the un-avoidable costs associated with motoring, such as insurance, VED, depreciation etc. It's about fuel costs, one of the only aspects you have control of, you drive less - you pay less.

So again, fuel is cheap, it certainly is if I can take a carload of people to Edinburgh and back for just over a tenner each.

...which you can't if you factor in running costs of those miles, depreciation and a proportion of the "fixed costs". Unless you want to delude yourself as to the real cost.

Sigh...

But this thread is about fuel specifically. Of course there are costs attributed to using your car. But this thread is about the direct costs relating to usage of fuel.

The OP wasn't complaining about how much his servicing, VED, insurance, depreciation was costing him. No, he was complaining about the increase in costs associated with fuel. Before fuel was the price it is now, he was still servicing his car, he was still losing money on it and he was still paying VED. Only now it's significantly more expensive becuase of the rise in fuel prices.

Can't believe I had to explain that :roll:

Change 'he' for 'she' as appropriate above.

Don't sigh and roll your eyes - someone said they could get to Edinburgh and back for £60 in a car. They can't. That's all.

I can't believe you didn't get that.

Hey, I'm sighing again, and rolling my eyes.

My car is costing me money just sat on the drive. The direct additional cost is in fuel, in the main, when I drive it.

But that's OK, you're being deliberately obtuse for some reason, I don't spend that much time on here but perhaps this is your usual MO.

Who cares :roll:

W1

dodgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

dodgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

dodgy wrote:

This thread isn't about the un-avoidable costs associated with motoring, such as insurance, VED, depreciation etc. It's about fuel costs, one of the only aspects you have control of, you drive less - you pay less.

So again, fuel is cheap, it certainly is if I can take a carload of people to Edinburgh and back for just over a tenner each.

...which you can't if you factor in running costs of those miles, depreciation and a proportion of the "fixed costs". Unless you want to delude yourself as to the real cost.

Sigh...

But this thread is about fuel specifically. Of course there are costs attributed to using your car. But this thread is about the direct costs relating to usage of fuel.

The OP wasn't complaining about how much his servicing, VED, insurance, depreciation was costing him. No, he was complaining about the increase in costs associated with fuel. Before fuel was the price it is now, he was still servicing his car, he was still losing money on it and he was still paying VED. Only now it's significantly more expensive becuase of the rise in fuel prices.

Can't believe I had to explain that :roll:

Change 'he' for 'she' as appropriate above.

Don't sigh and roll your eyes - someone said they could get to Edinburgh and back for £60 in a car. They can't. That's all.

I can't believe you didn't get that.

Hey, I'm sighing again, and rolling my eyes.

My car is costing me money just sat on the drive. The direct additional cost is in fuel, in the main, when I drive it.

But that's OK, you're being deliberately obtuse for some reason, I don't spend that much time on here but perhaps this is your usual MO.

Who cares :roll:

Do you get it now? If you only count the fuel, you can probably get to Edinburgh and back for £60. But that's just the fuel cost, not the real cost - so saying "it's cheap" is a bit misleading, as is comparing it to the train cost, because in real terms the cost is much higher than just the fuel.

It's not being obtuse, it's being accurate. Sorry if that's offensive to your MO.

Paulie W

W1 wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

Aparently you're in "fuel poverty" if you can't keep a house at 18 degrees C. Poverty my harris. If energy was taxed at 58% I bet we'd use a lot less of it....

"Fuel poverty" is about how much of your income it costs to keep your house at that temp. More than 10% and you are deemed fuel poor. Why does this seem so ridiculous to you?

And quite a few people are in "transport poverty" by the same measure - with many needing cars to to get to work (or anywhere in fact).

NSB doesn't care about that though. He doesn't use a car :roll:

You're doing your argument a disservice by bringing the issue of energy bills into this. There is no direct parallel. Owning a car falls into that category of things - like having a phone, owning a tv, having internet access - which are no longer deemed as luxuries but are not in the category of absolute essentials like heating your home, food, etc.

dodgy

W1 wrote:

Do you get it now? If you only count the fuel, you can probably get to Edinburgh and back for £60. But that's just the fuel cost, not the real cost - so saying "it's cheap" is a bit misleading, as is comparing it to the train cost, because in real terms the cost is much higher than just the fuel.

It's not being obtuse, it's being accurate. Sorry if that's offensive to your MO.

But this thread is about fuel - FUEL!

Jesus christ!

Other costs of owning a car have gone up, some of them may have actually gone down. But one thing has risen considerably.

Can you guess what that is?

PS - You can't offend my MO

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

NSB doesn't care about that though. He doesn't use a car :roll:

I don't care about arguing with you about it. Its just not that important to me. I've even said in my posts in this thread that people who live in rural areas need them to get about.

You're a troll W1. Willfully misconstruing people's posts just to win imaginary arguments.

notsoblue

Greg66 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I don't have a car. The only reason I can think of that I would need a car is if I worked or lived somewhere in the country.

Wait until you have a young family.

You can get by without a car, but having one makes life a lot easier. ANd I'd bet that your partner will categorise it as something she needs.

I get that. But it would be a bit silly to start a family without being able to afford to have a car. Its also a bit silly for economically middle class people to complain about tax on petrol. Especially economically middle class people who live in urban areas. Just MTFU and stop whining about something thats probably around 2.3% of your disposable income.

I'm pretty damned sure that the people complaining about tax on this thread are perfectly able to afford to run a car.

woodnut

notsoblue wrote:

I'm pretty damned sure that the people complaining about tax on this thread are perfectly able to afford to run a car.

Funny but true

Paul E

woodnut wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I'm pretty damned sure that the people complaining about tax on this thread are perfectly able to afford to run a car.

Funny but true

Exactly, it's just eating into more and more of their disposable income but that's the state of things at the moment and not much we can do about it.

Jez mon

Team4Luke wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Pufftmw wrote:

Rising price of petrol will end when the oil runs out - simples

that won't happen for many many many years - there is a lot of the stuff down there.

Getting more and more expensive to get to it though.

don't be so sure, isn't it Saudi that only has about 75 years worth left, this is why there is the great oil race to the north and south polar ice caps.

I don't get this, more and more expensive to get it. The world economy has gone belly up, everyone/business is cost saving, sacking workers, making efficency gains, no pay rises, chopping pensions etc etc, so can we assume everyone in the oil business is also "all in it together" and taking their share of the cuts ?? I suspect not :!:

Oil reserves are quoted in two ways, total reserves, and economically feasible reserves, so just be careful when quoting a number of years (especially as predicting oil usage is difficult!). This is because not all oil is particularly easy to get to, and not all oil is equally valuable. For instance, the heavy crude oil found in Canada takes a lot more refining than that found in Saudi. So naturally, the cheapest, most economical oil is extracted first. Once that starts becoming more scarce, you have to go for the more expensive option, and so on.

When you look at all the hard work that goes into getting oil from the ground to the pump, it's actually (I think) a fairly good value for money product. Most of the cost in the UK is due to the ridiculous fuel duty, but then again, much of our deficit has come from a reduction in tax income, so we can't really afford tax cuts =(

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

Some people need to buy fuel and it is expensive

I mainly drive to work (TBF its a 60 mile round trip and inaccessible by public transport - when the clocks change I'll resume a part cycle commute) - I'm spending c£220 a month on diesel. It's a fooking nightmare. My wife fills the scenic about twice a month. That's another £120.

TheStone

Jez mon wrote:

When you look at all the hard work that goes into getting oil from the ground to the pump, it's actually (I think) a fairly good value for money product. Most of the cost in the UK is due to the ridiculous fuel duty, but then again, much of our deficit has come from a reduction in tax income, so we can't really afford tax cuts =(

+1

A finite resource taken from the ground, refined, shipped round the world, delivered locally and then distributed via a forecourt, for about 50p/litre (excluding tax).

I far as I can tell, that's 35 million joules for 50p. How much man power would that equal?

.... plus tax!

CiB

Shameless lift from elsewhere but I read this recently re the true value of petrol - it's prob worth sharing.

Put a fiver's worth of petrol in your car and drive it until it runs out. It might get you 40, 50 miles, and take about an hour. When it runs out, get out and push it back home and see how long it takes you. That's the value of fuel.

Trouble is we have evolved into a car-dependant society. Bikes are only useful for transporting Person A from Location B to Location C, carrying nothing more than a small payload, within a 2 hour radius at most.

roger_merriman

W1 wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

dodgy wrote:

I can drive to Edinburgh and back, a total distance of 440 miles on about £60 of diesel. My car can seat 5 adults in comfort.

I think £12 return per person on 440 miles is fantastic value. In other words, car fuel is cheap - too cheap, possibly.

Even £60 per person (single car occupant) is pretty good value when expressed against average income.

indeed a trip I do fairly often is drive to wales it's about £40 something in fuel and £5 to cross the bridge so about £50.

very difficult to get anywhere nr close by train in terms of cost.

not helped by a taxie at the end.

Er, and the rest.

Running a car is at least 40p a mile.

That makes Edinburgh by car £176.

maybe for your car?

But even if I round up heavily I can't quite hit 30p a mile.

The combo of being a safe bet with insurance, being a cheap as chips run about, i.e. minimal garage costs/fuel

and the car is worth naff and I got it free as a cast off many years ago so depreciation is hardly a issue.

daviesee

Wait till Rick gets back and this becomes about social morals

Some simple facts:-

Oil reserves are finite.
All the easy oil has been got.
Future oil reserves are in hostile locations or need a lot of refining.
Demand for oil in the developing Countries is increasing.
Viable alternatives are not efficient enough yet.

Add these together and there is only one conclusion. The price of oil is only going to go up.

Whining will not change any of that.

Be glad you like cycling. There are those that will have cycling/public transport/walking forced upon them in our lifetime. I give cars as we know them 10 years, 20 max.

MaxwellBygraves

Don't have a car, simples.

Yes, I know it's not as easy as that for a lot of you, but not running a car is nice.

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Wait till Rick gets back and this becomes about social morals

Some simple facts:-

Oil reserves are finite.
All the easy oil has been got.
Future oil reserves are in hostile locations or need a lot of refining.
Demand for oil in the developing Countries is increasing.
Viable alternatives are not efficient enough yet.

Add these together and there is only one conclusion. The price of oil is only going to go up.

Whining will not change any of that.

Be glad you like cycling. There are those that will have cycling/public transport/walking forced upon them in our lifetime. I give cars as we know them 10 years, 20 max.

Yeah yeah :P

What you say is all correct.

Only thing I'd add is the geo-political element > though that's not something particularly new.

It's amazing how closely inflation follows oil prices. It's present in virtually all parts of the supply chain for almost anything.

Tend to think an alternative will be find when the demand for it is great enough > whether that's a green solution or not is another matter.

cyclingprop

Jez mon wrote:

much of our deficit has come from a reduction in tax income

Or more accurately spending too much and selling our gold reserves below cost etc...

bails87

cyclingprop wrote:

selling our gold reserves below cost etc

You mean selling them, and then the price going up in the future?

Those are two very different things. As someone elsewhere said: "If it was so obvious that gold prices were on the way up, all the city slickers would have piled in and made a fortune to the benefit of your pension and mine: instead they decided to buy USA mortgages" which turned out well.

Also, haven't we still got 300 tons of the stuff left?

neiltb

over here, the oil sands guys idled the extraction of oil when the price went below $80 a barrel, it didn't make sense to do it.

TheStone

cyclingprop wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

much of our deficit has come from a reduction in tax income

Or more accurately spending too much and selling our gold reserves below cost etc...

Gold is fairly insignificant in the whole scheme of things. Where brown showed himself to be clueless was by announcing the whole thing to the market before hand, pushing the price even lower.
But then, they also sold the 3GL licences at a peak.

It's correct that much of the deficit has come from a reduction in tax income, but the tax income was raised by the debt bubble. To assume that gdp or tax receipts will be back at that level any time soon is crazy.

richVSrich

i was in copenhagen for the weekend - lovely place - good mix of history, modern architecture, and lots of bikes!!

what my friend explained to me was that car prices are really expensive (they have a huge amount of tax added to them - dont know the exact figures...) but basically that means not many people have cars - the roads did seem empty...rush hour was ...unnoticable! ...so most families have multiple bikes...normal bikes for for your general to-ing and fro-ing , but there was a lot of cargo bikes, baby /passenger bikes (the combined ones , with the kids at the front, and not the attached trailer things)..i even saw some with 2 kids in the front - like a twin buggy-bike

obviously the infrastructure is slightly more bike orientated and copenhagen is a lot smaller than london...but food for thought?

(i know i'm not answer the original question directly...but the rising price of petrol will end when it's deemed worthless, when we have no more need for it...ok, not exactly true...when the demand has fallen below the supply!)

iPete

Rich, James Cracknell manages it around town: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/new ... heels.html

DonDaddyD

I just wish they'd get a move on with this hydrogen fuel cell technology.

£1.39.9 is steep by any stretch of the imagination.

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I don't have a car. The only reason I can think of that I would need a car is if I worked or lived somewhere in the country.

Wait until you have a young family.

You can get by without a car, but having one makes life a lot easier. ANd I'd bet that your partner will categorise it as something she needs.

I get that. But it would be a bit silly to start a family without being able to afford to have a car. Its also a bit silly for economically middle class people to complain about tax on petrol. Especially economically middle class people who live in urban areas. Just MTFU and stop whining about something thats probably around 2.3% of your disposable income.

I'm pretty damned sure that the people complaining about tax on this thread are perfectly able to afford to run a car.

But you also said

notsoblue wrote:

Driving is a luxury in London.

Which suggests that you think having children in London is a luxury.

Anyhoo. I really don't subscribe to the argument: "if you can afford it, you shouldn't complain about it". It suggests that the general population are properly regarded as cash cows to be milked by taxation until they are dry; or to mis-quote a former Lab Chancellor that would be "to squeeze everyone until the pips squeak"

davis

DonDaddyD wrote:

£1.39.9 is steep by any stretch of the imagination.

But that's just it -- it isn't expensive for the amount of work to get it, and the work that it can do for you.

richVSrich

iPete wrote:

Rich, James Cracknell manages it around town: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/new ... heels.html

Awesome!!

no more excuses then!