Petrol for under $1 litre - NO MORE - Page 2

EL_futuraistic · 27-09-2005, 09:00 PM

Well, i am certainly one of those people who blames the government for everything... especially the petrol price. However over the last month through both reading newspapers, and indeed this thread i now understand thats clearly not the case. The petrol excise has been high for many years, and if they do lower it they will only have to pickup the slack elsewhere. Its an old saying but "it would be robbing peter to pay paul"

I think the fuel card is a good idea, however it does lead towards "big brother" society with the government knowing where your travelling. (although im sure they already know).

I am of the opinion now that $1.20 per litre is a good price to be paying, the days of 98.9c per litre are over. I am not sure as to how long we have before fuel runs out, but either way by the time that comes around we will have far more advanced technology and may not be using petrol.

Black XR6 · 27-09-2005, 10:20 PM

Q. Does anybody know approximately how much longer the natural resource that is oil will remain? I read alot about it running out etc but is it really close to running out or do we have lifetimes of oil still remaining.

XplosiveR6 · 27-09-2005, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black XR6

Q. Does anybody know approximately how much longer the natural resource that is oil will remain? I read alot about it running out etc but is it really close to running out or do we have lifetimes of oil still remaining.

its all in the air at the moment, no body really knows, some say 20years, some say 40, but you never know, we may just find a huge oil supply tomorow. or it may be just the petrol companys who are the ones trying scare tactics to find an excuse for the petrol prices being so high

XplosiveR6 · 27-09-2005, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EL_futuraistic

but either way by the time that comes around we will have far more advanced technology and may not be using petrol.

but you know the scary thing about that, is that oil is required to make that "advanced technology", it takes fuel to make fuels, to put it into perspective, to make 1 part hydrogen, it requires something like 3 part fossil fuels

Black XR6 · 27-09-2005, 10:41 PM

dammit they should just invent fission fuels and be done with it.

Electric · 27-09-2005, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black XR6

Q. Does anybody know approximately how much longer the natural resource that is oil will remain? I read alot about it running out etc but is it really close to running out or do we have lifetimes of oil still remaining.

Have a read of this, there are 2 pages, plus all the links.

It will scare the cr@p out of you, even if there is just an element of truth to it.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

4.9 EF Futura · 28-09-2005, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EF_Dave

its all in the air at the moment, no body really knows, some say 20years, some say 40, but you never know, we may just find a huge oil supply tomorow.

Agreed. There is plenty of literature on the internet (i.e. dont take it as gospel) on the matter.

It roughly relates to the link posted electric, and is based on the theory of "peak oil".

i.e. 1 oil field, starts of pumping a certain amount per day, in the middle of its life will "peak" (i.e. that's the most it will ever pump in one day) and then begins to dwindle. The challenge is to apply this to global oil production.

FYI Australia's oil production peaked many years ago and is now in decline.

Have a poke around the assosciation for the study of peak oil. They have monthly newsletters etc.

www.peakoil.net

XAGSV8 · 28-09-2005, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black XR6

Q. Does anybody know approximately how much longer the natural resource that is oil will remain? I read alot about it running out etc but is it really close to running out or do we have lifetimes of oil still remaining.

First it was the late 70's then 2010 and the latest I have heard is 2060 to be the closest calculated figure.

As for the fuel tax, if it is taken off fuel it will only have to be gotten from somewhere else to pay for things.

The MaDDeSTMaN · 28-09-2005, 12:29 PM

I think part of the reason so many people are so quick to demand the government do something about the price of petrol is because for how many years now everybody suspected there was something sus about the weekly rise and fall of petrol prices, yet nothing was ever done seriously done about it, so naturally people suspect the fuel companies are milking it for every cent, just like how they always used to put the prices up for weekends and even more so for holidays and long weekends.

My 2c worth

Pilch · 28-09-2005, 01:15 PM

It's probably a long way from the truth, but in a conversation some time ago it was believed we'd run out of air before we run out of fossil fuels. It has some substance too..... consider a 600cfm carby, it consumes masses of air compared to the fuel it uses!!! Sure air is more renewable then fossil fuels but do you honestly think the air is being renewed quicker then it is being consumed???

Just another perspective to consider.....

VertexZ · 28-09-2005, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Wrong, GST came in a few years ago.

What about GST ? that can and should be removed, when i voted for the GST i was under the impression all other taxes would be removed, quite naieve ehh....

Correct, the GST came in 5 years ago. I wasnt referring to that. I was referring to the fuel excise. People always seem to forget the good things: remember when the GST came in, you got an income tax cut! And quite a number of items reduced in price. It did dispose of all taxes. It was never meant to rid us of excises on fuel, alcohol and ciggys and stamp duty (a state tax ayway).

How can the GST be removed? Oh the price of fuel's gone up, lets make it gst exepmt and result in a price drop of 11cpl. And what, next week remove the gst on plumbers because they are too expensive? The GST can not and will not be removed on fuel. again, the money would have to come from somewhere else. Also, remember GST revenue goes to the states, so perhaps thats something for your premier, not Howard.

THe bottom line is that the only 2 influencing factors are the price of crude and the refiners margin. Do you really dont think Australia can influence the price of crude oil?

As much as some people expect the PM to move heaven and earth for them, its just not possible and a fact of life!!!

XplosiveR6 · 28-09-2005, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilch

It's probably a long way from the truth, but in a conversation some time ago it was believed we'd run out of air before we run out of fossil fuels. It has some substance too..... consider a 600cfm carby, it consumes masses of air compared to the fuel it uses!!! Sure air is more renewable then fossil fuels but do you honestly think the air is being renewed quicker then it is being consumed???

Just another perspective to consider.....

well they say for every year you drive your car, on avarage you should plant 7 trees to come out even. that most certainly is not happening.

**Falcon Coupe** · 28-09-2005, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VertexZ

It did dispose of all taxes. It was never meant to rid us of excises on fuel, alcohol and ciggys and stamp duty (a state tax ayway).

All taxes ? why is my income tax not 10% then, the explanations i read in the paper regarding how GST would work missed the part about all excises staying put, the goverment gained millions from GST taxing the black cash market when it's spent elsewhere, looking back i should not have voted for it.

brenx · 28-09-2005, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parawolf

Personally i'm happy for the government not to reduce taxation on petrol.

HOWEVER those people that are in jobs that require you to have a car for work should be given an allowance by the employer to pay for the petrol (or get given a fuel card which incorporates private usage at a rate of perhaps $80 inc gst a month).

Those that require a car to get to work (no public transport) should be given monthly/fortnightly whatever concessionals (or a concessional card) from Centerlink which the federal and state government pay for until regular and reliable public transport is generated so that you can get to work in a timely fashion. Having to transfer over three types of vehicle/routes should be deemed 'acceptable', eg bus to train station, train station and then tram to nearby.

As the state and federal governments would both be losing revenue - they would then also get centerlink collecting information on where people live and where they work therefore giving them some planning as to what areas need more public transport.

It's a bit harsh - but if there is say only 20 years of petrol left - then may as well start planning now...

That'd totally screw most shift workers. For example : I work for the state gov't. I can work anywhere from ROSEBUD -> ST Kilda. We're they put me is where I have to work. I have very little choice. When working in the afternoons you finish anywhere from 7pm ->11pm the same on weekends. Our morning's start @ 7am. In some staff members cases that means up @ 5am. Trains start around 6am. No good if you start @ 7 and your two hours away from work. Public transport is way to unreliable too. I used to catch a bus and train when I used to work for a engineering company. I was late at least 2 out of 5 days due to train or bus cancellation.

The economy is now setup in such a way that both parents have to work to be able to afford to eat, drive to work and afford a family home. Now if everything was cheap enough that a family could buy a home on a single income? That'd save families plenty of $.

I had to laugh @ Mr Howards comment on the ABC. It was about AWA's. He stated the general populations income is too high. Basically becoming a burden on the economy. He never mentioned the population is increasing hence wages being higher. Bigger population = more $ tax wise too. He's a smart man but it doesn't take much to make him look stupid like the interviewer did.

VertexZ · 28-09-2005, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

All taxes ? why is my income tax not 10% then, the explanations i read in the paper regarding how GST would work missed the part about all excises staying put, the goverment gained millions from GST taxing the black cash market when it's spent elsewhere, looking back i should not have voted for it.

all indirect taxes then

on the upside of the gst, at least most people understand it, and its transparent. you'd be lucky to find too many people who could understand and justify the old setup of wholesale sales taxes. It was a very e setup to say the least. Anyway, we are stuck with the GST, and its not going to change anytime soon!

Note also that the fuel exice is now fixed - it was presviously indexed for bi-annual increases (in the same way alcohol and smokes are)

EL_futuraistic · 28-09-2005, 11:47 PM

Well, yet again i am amazed at the fuel prices.

The price of oil per barrel has dropped by a few dollars. As a result this week petrol has come down from $1.30c per litre.

Yesterday it was $1.22 per litre, this morning it was $1.22 per litre and then this evening its now back upto $1.29 per litre.

And as far as im aware, the price of fuel per barrel has not risen since it dropped at the start of the week.

Just as i thought i was beginning to understand fuel pricing too.

JADED6 · 29-09-2005, 04:27 AM

^^ Agree....

xurbanx · 29-09-2005, 05:23 AM

it doesnt bother me if petrol prices are 1.20, ill worry a little if it peaks at 1.60 (hope not), at the end of the day its a cost of living like someone said here, there are alternatives to driving to work

cArSiK · 29-09-2005, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EL_futuraistic

Well, yet again i am amazed at the fuel prices.

The price of oil per barrel has dropped by a few dollars. As a result this week petrol has come down from $1.30c per litre.

Yesterday it was $1.22 per litre, this morning it was $1.22 per litre and then this evening its now back upto $1.29 per litre.

And as far as im aware, the price of fuel per barrel has not risen since it dropped at the start of the week.

Just as i thought i was beginning to understand fuel pricing too.

It takes about two weeks for a change in the price per barrel to make its way to a change in the pump price.

James

4.9 EF Futura · 29-09-2005, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EL_futuraistic

Well, yet again i am amazed at the fuel prices.

The price of oil per barrel has dropped by a few dollars. As a result this week petrol has come down from $1.30c per litre.

Yesterday it was $1.22 per litre, this morning it was $1.22 per litre and then this evening its now back upto $1.29 per litre.

And as far as im aware, the price of fuel per barrel has not risen since it dropped at the start of the week.

Just as i thought i was beginning to understand fuel pricing too.

Confusing yes. But oil by the barrel is only one input into the price. What you should be looking at is the price of refined petrol as quoted by the singapore indices. This is where our refineries base the spot price and also the price we pay for the 70% or so of refined product we import. It's roughly indicates the global price of petrol.

Price of crude oil will undoubtedly affect the cost of refined fuel - but supply and demand for refined petrol will have a significant impact also. This is what we experienced following hurricane katrina. With significant refining resources out of action in the US there was greater demand on the global market - this was impacted by speculative behaviour.

Quote:

The economy is now setup in such a way that both parents have to work to be able to afford to eat, drive to work and afford a family home. Now if everything was cheap enough that a family could buy a home on a single income? That'd save families plenty of $.

Whilst the dual income family often cries poor, let us not overlook the $40,000 falcon parked in the driveway, the 80cm television perched on top of the TV cabinet, the mobile phone with a video camera on it. Let us not forget the fact that people now borrow much more money from the Bank than they used to (when they know damn well they didnt HAVE to spend that much on a house - they WANTED to) and hence see 50% of their income go straight into mortgage repayments. Individuals must take responsibility for the lifestyle they have geared themselves towards.

Quote:

I had to laugh @ Mr Howards comment on the ABC. It was about AWA's. He stated the general populations income is too high. Basically becoming a burden on the economy. He never mentioned the population is increasing hence wages being higher. Bigger population = more $ tax wise too. He's a smart man but it doesn't take much to make him look stupid like the interviewer did.

You would be aware that participation in the workforce and employment levels are very very high at the moment. i.e. economy moving towards "full employment". Labour prices rise significantly, as does the price of everything else. But if wages increase at a rate higher than inflation (without assosciated productivity gains) then economically speaking - yes, the general popluation's income is too high and is placing inflationary pressure on the economy. This is the sole reason a conservative government tries to move away from centralised wage fixing (hence the reference to AWAs) - if wage rises arent linked to productivity then it's going to cause inflationary pressure.

luke · 29-09-2005, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Electric

Have a read of this, there are 2 pages, plus all the links.

It will scare the cr@p out of you, even if there is just an element of truth to it.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

now those are some powerful words

i just hope it's not true.

luke

parawolf · 29-09-2005, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brenx

That'd totally screw most shift workers. For example : I work for the state gov't. I can work anywhere from ROSEBUD -> ST Kilda. We're they put me is where I have to work. I have very little choice. When working in the afternoons you finish anywhere from 7pm ->11pm the same on weekends. Our morning's start @ 7am. In some staff members cases that means up @ 5am. Trains start around 6am. No good if you start @ 7 and your two hours away from work. Public transport is way to unreliable too. I used to catch a bus and train when I used to work for a engineering company. I was late at least 2 out of 5 days due to train or bus cancellation.

Fair commentary too. Public transport is useless at being peak travel at one train every 8 - 10 minutes on the busiest lines. In London it is one train even 2 minutes. You don't see it running to a schedule, it is just that if you miss a train, the next one will be along in 2 minutes. The timetable does not say "11:42 11:44 11:46 11:48 11:50" It has "Every two minutes".

What government need to do, and its a damn shame public transport is now privatised (does that make it private transport, but I digress...), is to bite the bullet and nearly double the services. What I hate being a regular (daily) tram user is during peak times, my tram comes along every 5 minutes, but it is a Single carriage! Just making these trams double carriage means that you don't need to run double the number of tram drivers, and you carry more people. Also charge less and yoiu will increase the attractiveness of people using the service too.

When was the last time someone saw development of public services apart from buses (which are slow and tiresome at best) in these new outer suburbs? Damn i'm fortunate that I am able to afford an inner suburb house near established public transport, but what about those that live in Craigeburn but work in Port Melbourne - because that is where their job is for your skill set? How do you get to work apart from driving?

It is a crying shame that public transport was sold off - because it was fair from profitable and far from established, and no agreements were settled on in regards to expansion of the network.

However if the state government can LOSE money shelling out petrol concession cards to people that cannot use Public Transport they will identify what is required - but this is going to take 5 - 10 years to get say a train system out to Craigieburn buy then - could you imagine the traffic into the city via the Hume/Sydney Road *YIKES*.

I'm just making a suggestion - but yes you brought up excellent points that not everyone can make the switch over to PT for various reasons. However what my suggestion offers is discounted petrol to road users such as yourself. All you need is a letter from your manager/supervisor/HR dept saying that you work shift, and work at various locations and therefore *NEED* a car. Which means that if you get this documentation you should be able to depreciate your car if you can't already, and you get concessional rate petrol. Win - win scenario until you get public transport or change jobs no?

brenx · 29-09-2005, 11:51 AM

Yes and no. Either way the gov't would never do it due it meaning less $ for them. They are only interested in the short term (3 years). Although I think only having 1 gov't style in for 3 years is good for some things. On the other hand 3 years isn't long enough to implement any decent policy in the long term.

Neeek · 29-09-2005, 02:47 PM

One statistic I heard (can't remember where) is that the cost of most essentials such as milk, bread and God knows what else has gone up FAR more proportionately than petrol over the past 20-something years.

Granted, most of us spend far more on petrol than we do on french sticks, but it's another thing to think about.

If the above statistic is true, then it's simply the case that Australia's had it good for a long time and that's got to end sometime - maybe right now. Had the climb been gradual (like a pint of milk), this whole argument would be moot.

As for suggestions that poor little Mr Howard will be shoved out of his chair over the rising fuel costs, that just makes me laugh. Does anyone seriously believe that any other PM or any other political party would be able to "fix" this "problem"? Not a bleedin' chicken's chance in Thailand, mate.

It's a pain in the bum, these high fuels costs, and it affects some people more than others. For those doing silly-high mileages out of necessity in cars, trucks or anything else that burns fuel, I empathise. For those of us who can recoup the costs of higher petrol prices by other means... well, I think you can guess my feeling on the matter.

HSE2 · 29-09-2005, 03:16 PM

The Government is always going to be a target while the budget projections are as far out has they have been in the GST era. Each time the surplus is out, they are going to get increased attention. Questions are always going to be asked.

I know Russia is looking at capping prices in agreements between the companies and the Government. Allowing price jumps uncontrollably will be disastrous. Allowing the price to jump to 250 on the back of speculators will bring the world to a stand still. They can forget terrorism fears.

But then again Russia is one country where its oil reserves are very likely understated and by as much as 1/3. One of the short comings this industry faces are engineers. New technologies require expertise and this too is in short supply.

The MaDDeSTMaN · 29-09-2005, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSE2

New technologies require expertise and this too is in short supply.

Indeed. I'm not sure how this reminds me, but anybody else think that bio-diesel could be quite helpful in reducing costs? I'm the first to admit I don't know all that much about it, and that it's not much good to most of us that don't drive (nor have any interest in) diesel powered vehicles, however it could be quite a cost saver for those who currently run on diesel, considering it can be made from recycled waste products that people currently pay to dispose of.

Just a thought I think is worth considering.

VertexZ · 29-09-2005, 07:03 PM

as big as a $10bil surplus sounds (ok, it is big!), it only equates to about $500 for that year for every man, woman and child. But you do have to keep plenty in reserve for the bad years, plus use some of it to pay off government debt.

santoitaliano · 29-09-2005, 08:43 PM

i thought the price range of petrol was going to be capped at $0.03 a day? this would at least give consumers a chance to take advantage of a rising pump price... you go home one night and see petrol at $1.20 and think, ill fill up later, come back and its at $1.30....

johnydep · 29-09-2005, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AU XR8

Petrol prices

John H claims we will never pay less then $1 a litre in the future and has told us to get use to it

:

I began to give up of ever paying less than a dollar a litre when all the Petrol stations started putting in new signs with an extra digit.
And when Petrol hit 1.20 a litre, I knew there would never ever be petrol for less than a dollar ever again.

HSE2 · 30-09-2005, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The MaDDeSTMaN

Indeed. I'm not sure how this reminds me, but anybody else think that bio-diesel could be quite helpful in reducing costs? I'm the first to admit I don't know all that much about it, and that it's not much good to most of us that don't drive (nor have any interest in) diesel powered vehicles, however it could be quite a cost saver for those who currently run on diesel, considering it can be made from recycled waste products that people currently pay to dispose of.

Just a thought I think is worth considering.

One issue with Bio diesel is that there is no standard for it. Companies like John Deere and New Holland are prepared to ok the use right now provided the right standards are adopted. The USA is the handbrake. Their policy is tied up in red tape and doesn't look like going any where until the end of the year at the earliest.

I used to think there would be a replacement for fuel that might mean a small alteration to the engines that we know today. Just think of how many combustion engines are in this world today that would become completely worthless if that couldn't happen. What would you do with them all? Would it become like guns with buy back schemes? I thought it was common sense. Back in those days’ people always knew oil was going to run out but thought that a procession plan would kick- in, in a seamless fashion. Petrol was sure to get expensive but what point was there in introducing hardship and making the oil companies richer when they were about to go out of business. Why should a select few profit while the world would spiral into irreversible economical oblivion. Rationing and capping of oil prices where always considered economic certainties to protect the global economy. Governments would have to step in. What people didn't commonly understand that sizeable increases in costs would have the same affect as completely running out or if you like, gold. Everyone knows it is rare and expensive but hardly anyone goes looking for it. Difference is we don’t rely on gold like we do oil. A common theory in those days was that the world would go full circle. We would return to steam and the horse and cart because humans had over populated the world to the point of it not being able to sustain that population. They say that humans are the biggest plague the world has ever known and that we relatively run unchecked.