Fuel Prices

[newmercman]

You know those wealth creating industrial sectors? Well who exactly are they creating wealth for? It isn’t you or me, that’s for ■■■■ sure!

As for tidal not being 24/7/365, really? I mean really? Have you never been to the seaside?

Yes, obviously there would have to be significant investment, that is good for the economy, a healthy economy depends on redistribution of wealth, the man on the street has a few quid I his sky rocket, he buys stuff with it and the cycle continues.

Instead we have the current situation where working people are watching every penny and the rich just hoard their money to the benefit of nobody but themselves.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
You know those wealth creating industrial sectors? Well who exactly are they creating wealth for? It isn’t you or me, that’s for ■■■■ sure!

As for tidal not being 24/7/365, really? I mean really? Have you never been to the seaside?

Yes, obviously there would have to be significant investment, that is good for the economy, a healthy economy depends on redistribution of wealth, the man on the street has a few quid I his sky rocket, he buys stuff with it and the cycle continues.

Instead we have the current situation where working people are watching every penny and the rich just hoard their money to the benefit of nobody but themselves.

Wealth creation means the industry that pays the wages that pays the electricity bills and the taxes that pays for the power stations or in this case wind turbines etc.Which is probably why Cameron has had to go grovelling to the Chinese for much of the cash needed to pay for many of his infrastructure projects.Which will then need to be re paid with interest from the wages which aren’t being earn’t here because the Chinese have most of the wealth creating industry.At which point all bets are off when we’re suddenly confronted with the PLA,or at least bank of China,on our doorstep claiming the equity and freehold in our assets to pay what we ‘owe’ them.Nuclear and renewables in this case being the most expensive least cost effective option possible and therefore just adding to those debts.

[newmercman]

Have you looked at the taxes that these companies pay? It isn’t anywhere near as much as you suggest it is, I’ve been in business since the early 90s with a sabbatical around the millennium and I’ve not paid anywhere near as much tax as I did on PAYE and I’ve always had a lot more cash in my back pocket than when I was employed. This has all been above board too, not by hiding any of my income. Multiply that by the size of the company and you can see that company taxes are nowhere near enough to pay for anything much at all.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
Have you looked at the taxes that these companies pay? It isn’t anywhere near as much as you suggest it is, I’ve been in business since the early 90s with a sabbatical around the millennium and I’ve not paid anywhere near as much tax as I did on PAYE and I’ve always had a lot more cash in my back pocket than when I was employed. This has all been above board too, not by hiding any of my income. Multiply that by the size of the company and you can see that company taxes are nowhere near enough to pay for anything much at all.

It’s always been the case that companies and self employed will try to minimise their tax exposure using good accountants.In this case I was referring more to the usual PAYE burden on the reasonable paying employed jobs in industry.While now most of that is a case of companies having also minimised their wage cost exposure to go with company taxation.In which case low wage service sector employment,using in work top up benefits,isn’t going to pay for all the extra costs of expensive nuclear and renewable energy anyway.

IE the worst of all worlds situation of deluded greens calling for more expensive economically unviable fuel costs,in a non Fordist low wage environment.

As opposed to what’s needed in the opposite.Of low energy costs in a highly industrialised high wage Fordist economic system such as that pre 1973 energy cost environment.We won’t get that,by leaving fossil fuels in the ground,by pricing them beyond what they are worth and going for less economically viable alternatives.

[newmercman]

If I knew fuel was going to stay this low (I’m paying around 40c a litre nett) I’d go and buy my old Peterbilt and put a bit of bling back in my trucking!

[carryfast]

newmercman:
If I knew fuel was going to stay this low (I’m paying around 40c a litre nett) I’d go and buy my old Peterbilt and put a bit of bling back in my trucking!

I told you it makes sense and put that old school N14 in it.

Having said that at less than 25p per litre you’ve obviously got the luxury of being able to agree with boredivdrivin’s lot that it’s far too cheap here at almost £1 per litre and we need to put another 80p per litre tax on it to stop people using it.

[winseer]

I don’t remember people moaning about “Oil being too cheap” in the 1990’s when it was $12 a barrel.

I don’t remember people complaining about “low rates” for driving either, despite the fact that in the early 90’s - there was a recession AND housing slump on at the same time - caused by high interest rates in the wake of the ERM collapse.

[carryfast]

Winseer:
I don’t remember people moaning about “Oil being too cheap” in the 1990’s when it was $12 a barrel.

I don’t remember people complaining about “low rates” for driving either, despite the fact that in the early 90’s - there was a recession AND housing slump on at the same time - caused by high interest rates in the wake of the ERM collapse.

I’d doubt that figure.

It seems obvious that stabilising the supply and price regime at $20-25 a barrel in real terms is where we need to be.While everything since 1973 has been mostly ridiculous levels of oil price inflation.Interspersed with inevitable temporary oil price corrections and resulting short economic recoveries,if any. Followed by collapse in demand again when the price inevitably goes back up to usual post 1973 type silly rationed supply levels.

inflationdata.com/inflation/Infl … _Table.asp

Added to which is the crippling combination of road fuel duty and VAT here.

[winseer]

Carryfast:

Winseer:
I don’t remember people moaning about “Oil being too cheap” in the 1990’s when it was $12 a barrel.

I don’t remember people complaining about “low rates” for driving either, despite the fact that in the early 90’s - there was a recession AND housing slump on at the same time - caused by high interest rates in the wake of the ERM collapse.

I’d doubt that figure.

It seems obvious that stabilising the supply and price regime at $20-25 a barrel in real terms is where we need to be.While everything since 1973 has been mostly ridiculous levels of oil price inflation.Interspersed with inevitable temporary oil price corrections and resulting short economic recoveries,if any. Followed by collapse in demand again when the price inevitably goes back up to usual post 1973 type silly rationed supply levels.

inflationdata.com/inflation/Infl … _Table.asp

Added to which is the crippling combination of road fuel duty and VAT here.

Assuming your meaning is that you “don’t believe Oil was ever that low in the 1990’s”

Try this…

This chart looks like it got down to $18 in 1992-3 and all the way down to $10 in 1999!

He speaks the truth

Winseer - Straight up, no bull - Take like Tequila - love it, hate it, or just can’t do it - but never doubt it.

[carryfast]

Winseer:
[

Assuming your meaning is that you “don’t believe Oil was ever that low in the 1990’s”

Try this…
0
This chart looks like it got down to $18 in 1992-3 and all the way down to $10 in 1999!

The figures I posted show a ‘nominal’ low of $11.91 in 1998 but an an ‘adjusted’ real terms figure of $17.26 for whatever reason. IE collapse in the value of the dollar possibly ?.Which as usual then leapt back to stupid levels again in around 5 years.Heading for the economically suicidal figures which have resulted in the latest collapse in demand and probably,predictably, temporary,price correction.With as usual taxation distorting any benefits to the consumer here anyway.With a pump price of around £2 per gallon in 1990 with 59% tax jumping to over £3 per gallon in 1998 with over 80% tax.On that note as I’ve said we need oil stabilised at around $20-25 max in real terms and a massive reduction in taxation at least here.Together with a total ban on further exports of our own oil.

[winseer]

Carryfast:

Winseer:
[

Assuming your meaning is that you “don’t believe Oil was ever that low in the 1990’s”

Try this…

This chart looks like it got down to $18 in 1992-3 and all the way down to $10 in 1999!

The figures I posted show a ‘nominal’ low of $11.91 in 1998 but an an ‘adjusted’ real terms figure of $17.26 for whatever reason. IE collapse in the value of the dollar possibly ?.Which as usual then leapt back to stupid levels again in around 5 years.Heading for the economically suicidal figures which have resulted in the latest collapse in demand and probably,predictably, temporary,price correction.With as usual taxation distorting any benefits to the consumer here anyway.With a pump price of around £2 per gallon in 1990 with 59% tax jumping to over £3 per gallon in 1998 with over 80% tax.On that note as I’ve said we need oil stabilised at around $20-25 max in real terms and a massive reduction in taxation at least here.Together with a total ban on further exports of our own oil.

As this chart shows, the exchange rate was about $1.60 to the pound during the time WTI troughed down to the $10 I showed on the previous chart. The Brent Crude chart wasn’t around to be traded as a contract in the 90’s, hence why I’ve used WTI rather than Brent for these examples.

$1.60 to the pound exchange rate and $10 oil makes it around £6.25 in sterling cost terms. That’s pretty damned cheap even for now… With the exchange rate in the $1.40’s right now - it’s going to take WTI falling to even LOWER than last time’s $10 low - to make the equivalent cost dip beneath £6.25 now.

[carryfast]

Winseer:

Carryfast:
The figures I posted show a ‘nominal’ low of $11.91 in 1998 but an an ‘adjusted’ real terms figure of $17.26 for whatever reason. IE collapse in the value of the dollar possibly ?.Which as usual then leapt back to stupid levels again in around 5 years.Heading for the economically suicidal figures which have resulted in the latest collapse in demand and probably,predictably, temporary,price correction.With as usual taxation distorting any benefits to the consumer here anyway.With a pump price of around £2 per gallon in 1990 with 59% tax jumping to over £3 per gallon in 1998 with over 80% tax.On that note as I’ve said we need oil stabilised at around $20-25 max in real terms and a massive reduction in taxation at least here.Together with a total ban on further exports of our own oil.

0
As this chart shows, the exchange rate was about $1.60 to the pound during the time WTI troughed down to the $10 I showed on the previous chart. The Brent Crude chart wasn’t around to be traded as a contract in the 90’s, hence why I’ve used WTI rather than Brent for these examples.

$1.60 to the pound exchange rate and $10 oil makes it around £6.25 in sterling cost terms. That’s pretty damned cheap even for now… With the exchange rate in the $1.40’s right now - it’s going to take WTI falling to even LOWER than last time’s $10 low - to make the equivalent cost dip beneath £6.25 now.

The chart which I posted more or less agrees with yours in terms of what ‘it’ describes as the ‘nominal’ price at that point.

However somehow it then converts that to almost the required $20 range in terms of ‘adjusted’ real terms price today.Which is obviously the relevant like with like figure needed.While at present,even with all the hysterical low oil price bs it’s sitting at over $30 in up to date real terms.With all the signs showing that the suppliers are again talking about cutting supply as usual and the investors all rushing in again hoping for the illusion of a high unit price as the figure heads back up again.Until the downward cycle starts again as consumption goes south as the price goes north as usual.

While,as proved in the late 1990’s,our problem is one of economically suicidal, inflationary,over taxation.As much as,if not more than,equally economically suicidal,artificial,inflationary,deliberate interference in the supply of the product and speculation by get rich quick commodities dealers regards same.

[boredwivdrivin]

Carryfast:
In which case even the global warmist believers wouldn’t class water vapour in the atmosphere as the largest contributor to the green house effect on Earth

No idea wot are saying . are you saying water vapour is a greenhouse gas ?

All power stations that get hot produce water vapour ( nuclear , oil , coal etc all produce heat making steam driving turbines ) so cant see why burning renewables would make any difference .

CF:
the greens will have no problem with hydrogen fuelled internal combustion engines.So why the need for electric vehicles.

Difference is basically ease of refuelling . easily done with electricity

[boredwivdrivin]

Carryfast:
Although if I read it right you actually said you don’t want oil burned as fuel because you think that competes with your preference in the chemicals fraction of refined crude.

Basically , but cant happen tomorrow .

Oil tax could be doubled tomorrow tho , and revenue hypothicated for renewable investment .

Got to withdraw the drugs from the junkie slowly at first , or might kill patient

[boredwivdrivin]

Carryfast:
Together with a total ban on further exports of our own oil.

I doubt englands oil exports would run a fleet of wheelbarrow ! Wytch farm and some of south downs hardly rivals kuwait .

So i assume you mean scottish oil ■■

Isnt it funny that UKIP want independence from EU , yet want another EU countries oil .

UKIP dont like taking it from Brussels but quite happy to bend over and spread their cheeks for the Arabs and the Russian oligarchs .

Not to mention oil being the single biggest sponsor of Muhammedism
World wide

Some consistancy and a joined up international policy would be appreciated .

Is far simpler to argue if England wants it independence from EU and Scotland in particular , …

Its needs a policy for energy independence too

[carryfast]

boredwivdrivin:

Carryfast:
In which case even the global warmist believers wouldn’t class water vapour in the atmosphere as the largest contributor to the green house effect on Earth

No idea wot are saying . are you saying water vapour is a greenhouse gas ?

All power stations that get hot produce water vapour ( nuclear , oil , coal etc all produce heat making steam driving turbines ) so cant see why burning renewables would make any difference .

CF:
the greens will have no problem with hydrogen fuelled internal combustion engines.So why the need for electric vehicles.

Difference is basically ease of refuelling . easily done with electricity

Fine.So you’re talking about a world in which the breakup of the UK is a done deal.In which water vapour isn’t a greenhouse contributor let alone the largest one.In which renewables are obviously going to meet all of the current and extra burden on the electricity supply of domestic and hydrogen production requirements anyway.So no need to worry about the water vapour issue of the extra load on steam turbine driven electricity production anyway.Even if it is or isn’t a green house gas.

While assuming the choice between hydrogen powered ICE or electric/fuel cell is just a matter of filling then the greens will obviously have no issues about the freedom of choice for anyone choosing the hydrogen ICE route not electric or electric fuel cell one.

Last but not least your ideas for doubling of the current uk road fuel taxation regime will obviously also apply to the rest of the world and all modes of transport if it’s to effectively bring an end to fossil fuel use.Not that fossil fuels would any longer be an economically viable production prospect at that point anyway so good luck with trying to obtain it then for your preferred oil based chemical covered world.

At which point I’m guessing that Nicola Sturgeon has now rejoined the pro UK pro fossil fuel use side of the argument.Together with zb Obama.

[bluey_circles]

Carryfast:
While,as proved in the late 1990’s,our problem is one of economically suicidal, inflationary,over taxation.As much as,if not more than,equally economically suicidal,artificial,inflationary,deliberate interference in the supply of the product and speculation by get rich quick commodities dealers regards same.

you what ?

[bluey_circles]

boredwivdrivin:
I doubt englands oil exports would run a fleet of wheelbarrow ! Wytch farm and some of south downs hardly rivals kuwait .

So i assume you mean scottish oil ■■

Isnt it funny that UKIP want independence from EU , yet want another EU countries oil .

UKIP dont like taking it from Brussels but quite happy to bend over and spread their cheeks for the Arabs and the Russian oligarchs .

Not to mention oil being the single biggest sponsor of Muhammedism
World wide

Some consistancy and a joined up international policy would be appreciated .

Is far simpler to argue if England wants it independence from EU and Scotland in particular , …

Its needs a policy for energy independence too

the UK is currently using around 1,300,000 barrels per day, at the moment Scotland is producing less than 500,000.

So unless we start developing our own energy from alternative sources (Nuclear, Fracking, Wind, Tidal) then we will always be at the mercy of the middle east. And as we should be able to see by now, the true costs of us permanently interfering in other countries affairs is coming in at an astonishing cost.

[carryfast]

Bluey Circles:

Carryfast:
While,as proved in the late 1990’s,our problem is one of economically suicidal, inflationary,over taxation.As much as,if not more than,equally economically suicidal,artificial,inflationary,deliberate interference in the supply of the product and speculation by get rich quick commodities dealers regards same.

you what ?

I was referring to the fact,of an example,of a massive reduction in the price of oil in the late 1990’s,coincided with a massive increase in the pump price of road fuel. Probably because of an increase in taxation from around 60% to over 80%.

As for artificial supply interference and speculation.

oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Su … asing.html

nytimes.com/2012/04/11/opini … .html?_r=0

[boredwivdrivin]

Carryfast:
Fine.So you’re talking about a world in which the breakup of the UK is a done deal.In which water vapour isn’t a greenhouse contributor let alone the largest one.In which renewables are obviously going to meet all of the current and extra burden on the electricity supply of domestic and hydrogen production requirements anyway.So no need to worry about the water vapour issue of the extra load on steam turbine driven electricity production anyway.Even if it is or isn’t a green house gas.

you may be right . im going to library to check it out .

i certainly have never heard of water vapour being an argument for/against renewable/oil power before .

my understanding is that the sun is biggest generator of water vapour , and without either there would be no water cycle or life on earth . the idea that renewables would generate more water vapour than nonrenewable sources of energy sounds daft . any power station that burns things generates steam to drive the turbines .

only kinetic energy sources ( wave , tidal , wind ) do not generate steam to drive turbines so i cant see how these would make alleged problem worse .

i SUSPECT this is just on of those ideas from yankee climate change deniers who seek to prove than man made emissions of fossil fuel greenhouse gasses are insignificant , compared to natural sources .

but , ive never made any claims on here about climate change and am open minded . clearly the climate and seasons are changing but im not 100% convinced this is due to either CO2 or methane , and my arguments for becoming an energy independent country are not related to this issue .i would certainly doubt tho that burning fossil fuels does our environment any good …

Carryfast:
While assuming the choice between hydrogen powered ICE or electric/fuel cell is just a matter of filling then the greens will obviously have no issues about the freedom of choice for anyone choosing the hydrogen ICE route not electric or electric fuel cell one.

i think the environmental impact of electrical energy must include the batteries required to store the energy on a vehicle . this is an obvious disadvantage of electric vehicles .

contrasting with the excellent methods of distributing electricity we have right now .

so probably electric vehicles now and hydrogen vehicles for the future .

Carryfast:
Last but not least your ideas for doubling of the current uk road fuel taxation regime will obviously also apply to the rest of the world and all modes of transport if it’s to effectively bring an end to fossil fuel use.

we would need UK to be ruling rest of world to achieve this surely ?
i reckon the Arabs might be upset . ill stick to worrying about England thanks all the same .

Carryfast:
At which point I’m guessing that Nicola Sturgeon has now rejoined the pro UK pro fossil fuel use side of the argument.Together with zb Obama.

ive really not much idea about what these foreigners think and care even less . providing they dont interfere with my life of course .