bald bloke:
Nothing wrong with Costco.
To me there is, the fact that its not easily accessible to anyone/everyone & it’s not nationwide-but Asda is:grin:
chicane:
Dan ze Man:
Im trying to get my head around this.A manufacturer makes a product ( Fuel in this case ) he has his margins set up so that he makes some money. That can’t be affected no mater the price of an oil.
Biggest looses in this case will be oil producers. Future explorations might be canceled/suspended, until it becomes profitable again but that about it.
That’s about it, the ones that put in all the money and take all the risk producing the raw materials get what the market will bear while the processors and supermarkets all add on their costs+margin.
Basically in the modern western economy the primary producers get screwed while the middlemen laugh all the way to the bank.
You sound like a Farmer!!![emoji6]
Big Truck:
chicane:
Dan ze Man:
Im trying to get my head around this.A manufacturer makes a product ( Fuel in this case ) he has his margins set up so that he makes some money. That can’t be affected no mater the price of an oil.
Biggest looses in this case will be oil producers. Future explorations might be canceled/suspended, until it becomes profitable again but that about it.
That’s about it, the ones that put in all the money and take all the risk producing the raw materials get what the market will bear while the processors and supermarkets all add on their costs+margin.
Basically in the modern western economy the primary producers get screwed while the middlemen laugh all the way to the bank.
You sound like a Farmer!!![emoji6]
Good guess, I was for most of my life. Now drive lorries through the winter and contracting through the summer 
The observation about primary producers holds true whatever the commodity whether wheat, oil, iron…can’t think of a single raw material that isn’t struggling at the moment and I really can’t see that changing any time soon
As do the laws of ‘supply and demand’ i.e. too many drivers = pish poor rates
Winseer:
Hydrogen production would be as cheap as chips if the Electricity used to electrolyze sea water was practically free from Nuclear production.Oxygen production would be cheap too, saving the NHS a bit of dosh as well.
The inconvenient fact is that nuclear doesn’t just have the potential to turn a large part if not all of the country into an uninhabitable wasteland.It’s actually one the most expensive ways of generating electricity possible.Which is why we haven’t,so far, gone for a nuclear powered energy policy and we aren’t filling our cars and trucks with hydrogen instead of petrol and diesel.Although on that note that hasn’t stopped the greens from infiltrating the government and putting us on that path by closing down our coal fired energy production.Not to mention trying to spread the bs idea,that a fuel which requires more energy to produce than it contains,is an economically viable idea. 
The key in all of this is Russia, it’s economy is based on oil and gas, it is starting to become a little bit too powerful and it doesn’t play the game the way the west wants it played, so if it can be bankrupted by low oil prices then that is good for the west.
OPEC can afford to take a temporary hit, the US has capped wells all over the place waiting to start pumping again as soon as Russia has tanked and their oligarchs have been replaced by Western oligarchs. The fact that nobody objected to lifting sanctions against Iran is proof of this.
Pimpdaddy:
bald bloke:
Nothing wrong with Costco.To me there is, the fact that its not easily accessible to anyone/everyone & it’s not nationwide-but Asda is:grin:
Yes up the Asda !! 
newmercman:
The key in all of this is Russia, it’s economy is based on oil and gas, it is starting to become a little bit too powerful and it doesn’t play the game the way the west wants it played, so if it can be bankrupted by low oil prices then that is good for the west.OPEC can afford to take a temporary hit, the US has capped wells all over the place waiting to start pumping again as soon as Russia has tanked and their oligarchs have been replaced by Western oligarchs. The fact that nobody objected to lifting sanctions against Iran is proof of this.
That theory makes no sense.It doesn’t matter how low the price goes because it’s an infinite resource for the foreseeable future especially in the case of Russia’s reserves.In which case the Russians will just open the taps to provide more product for the same amount of income in real terms just like everyone else is doing.All of which can only be a good thing ‘if’ only the government would stop ripping everyone off with extortionate fuel taxation which defeats the object.
The Iran thing is just more proof of the bonkers erratic nature of US foreign policy in which Obama is helping Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions which will come back to bite the west big time.IE why does a country floating on a sea of oil need nuclear power.
Of course it makes sense, they starve out the Russians and take over the place, that’s business 101.
The world is run by the money men, at the moment economies are on their arse, they can scoop up the stuff they don’t already own for peanuts, once they’re happy with their new toys the prices will rise again and they’ll be quids in.
newmercman:
Of course it makes sense, they starve out the Russians and take over the place, that’s business 101.The world is run by the money men, at the moment economies are on their arse, they can scoop up the stuff they don’t already own for peanuts, once they’re happy with their new toys the prices will rise again and they’ll be quids in.
How does lower oil prices make any difference to a country that’s floating on a sea of the stuff.That idea only works in the case of a finite product IE a shopkeeper wants a certain price for a certain amount of product.Any reduction in the unit price of the product means the shopkeeper gets less money for the same amount of finite product.
In the case of oil its just a case of getting the same amount of money by telling the customer take as much as you want just so long as I get the same amount of money as before.Which is how it was before OPEC’s embargo. 
Trust me the west will blink first in that argument because we can’t take that type of depletion rate race of our reserves v Russia’s and collapse in tax revenues.
All that’s needed is for America to tell Putin that the Ukraine argument is over and it’s in all our interests to stabilise oil prices at pre 1973/1960’s levels in real terms and stop taxing the stuff for more than it’s worth and tell the Greens to do one.Everyone then wins.
Carryfast:
That theory makes no sense.It doesn’t matter how low the price goes because it’s an infinite resource for the foreseeable future especially in the case of Russia’s reserves.In which case the Russians will just open the taps to provide more product for the same amount of income in real terms just like everyone else is doing.All of which can only be a good thing ‘if’ only the government would stop ripping everyone off with extortionate fuel taxation which defeats the object.The Iran thing is just more proof of the bonkers erratic nature of US foreign policy in which Obama is helping Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions which will come back to bite the west big time.IE why does a country floating on a sea of oil need nuclear power.
Nuclear is not all that dangerous, it gets a bad press as it is also used in weapons of mass destruction, but as a power source it is very safe, even the major accidents claim few lives; No one has yet died of radiation poisoning following the Fukushima disaster. Meanwhile they are dropping dead like flies in China mining the rare earth element Neodymium to produce the all powerful magnets used in the wind turbines.
You are correct to suggest nuclear power is expensive, however if you are going to compare it to fossil fuels then you really need to factor in the true and long term consequences of continuing to use fossil fuels.
In the UK alone, it is estimated air pollution is costing the NHS £15 billion per year and claims around 29,000 lives per year. And that cost pales into insignificance when you start to bring in the costs of climate change, harvests failing and global migration that will make the syrian refugee crisis look like a package holiday gone wrong. Burning fossil fuels is the most expensive of all as it is destroying our fragile atmosphere.
If the motorist was to foot the bill for the damage they do to peoples health by compensating the NHS for their treatment, then fuel would need to rise by up to 80p per litre.
Bluey Circles:
Nuclear is not all that dangerous, it gets a bad press as it is also used in weapons of mass destruction, but as a power source it is very safe, even the major accidents claim few lives; No one has yet died of radiation poisoning following the Fukushima disaster. Meanwhile they are dropping dead like flies in China mining the rare earth element Neodymium to produce the all powerful magnets used in the wind turbines.You are correct to suggest nuclear power is expensive, however if you are going to compare it to fossil fuels then you really need to factor in the true and long term consequences of continuing to use fossil fuels.
In the UK alone, it is estimated air pollution is costing the NHS £15 billion per year and claims around 29,000 lives per year. And that cost pales into insignificance when you start to bring in the costs of climate change, harvests failing and global migration that will make the syrian refugee crisis look like a package holiday gone wrong. Burning fossil fuels is the most expensive of all as it is destroying our fragile atmosphere.If the motorist was to foot the bill for the damage they do to peoples health by compensating the NHS for their treatment, then fuel would need to rise by up to 80p per litre.
All of which is fine for the Green Party faithful but not for anyone who thinks that you’re making double standards comparisons which downplay the ‘true’ risks and health implications of nuclear v fossil fuel energy provision.Or who doesn’t believe that CO2 cooked Venus.Let alone the idea of an extra 80p per litre on fuel taxation.Although in true Green Party fashion I’m guessing that you won’t impose those prices on aircraft or rail fuel, because they don’t fit the anti car anti truck crusade which is the real Green agenda.
As I said if the Green Party wants Green Party policy then at least get an electoral mandate first.On that note I don’t think you’ll find any majority against the idea of 1960’s type road fuel prices in real terms.Together with a more sympathetic tax regime,which doesn’t actually defeat its own object by acting as a deterrent against consumption of the product that provides the revenue.
Carryfast:
Bluey Circles:
Nuclear is not all that dangerous, it gets a bad press as it is also used in weapons of mass destruction, but as a power source it is very safe, even the major accidents claim few lives; No one has yet died of radiation poisoning following the Fukushima disaster. Meanwhile they are dropping dead like flies in China mining the rare earth element Neodymium to produce the all powerful magnets used in the wind turbines.You are correct to suggest nuclear power is expensive, however if you are going to compare it to fossil fuels then you really need to factor in the true and long term consequences of continuing to use fossil fuels.
In the UK alone, it is estimated air pollution is costing the NHS £15 billion per year and claims around 29,000 lives per year. And that cost pales into insignificance when you start to bring in the costs of climate change, harvests failing and global migration that will make the syrian refugee crisis look like a package holiday gone wrong. Burning fossil fuels is the most expensive of all as it is destroying our fragile atmosphere.If the motorist was to foot the bill for the damage they do to peoples health by compensating the NHS for their treatment, then fuel would need to rise by up to 80p per litre.
All of which is fine for the Green Party faithful but not for anyone who thinks that you’re making double standards comparisons which downplay the ‘true’ risks and health implications of nuclear v fossil fuel energy provision.Or who doesn’t believe that CO2 cooked Venus.Let alone the idea of an extra 80p per litre on fuel taxation.Although in true Green Party fashion I’m guessing that you won’t impose those prices on aircraft or rail fuel, because they don’t fit the anti car anti truck crusade which is the real Green agenda.
As I said if the Green Party wants Green Party policy then at least get an electoral mandate first.On that note I don’t think you’ll find any majority against the idea of 1960’s type road fuel prices in real terms.Together with a more sympathetic tax regime,which doesn’t actually defeat its own object by acting as a deterrent against consumption of the product that provides the revenue.
I doubt you will find many people in the green party who support nuclear energy!
And yes, I would definitely impose massive taxation on air travel and air cargo. Less so on Rail as they are electrifying the network, which does give the long term possibility that the power could come from less damaging sources than fossil fuel. and even as it is, the pollution is created away from population centres (so only wrecking the planets atmosphere). The big problem with road fuel is that the pollution is being created within the densely populated areas, and we are now learning that this is creating major health problems for many.
But getting back on topic - if oil prices were very high then alternatives may be developed, but sadly I imagine it is going to be cheap and plentiful for a very long time to come, which is a poor thing for both our health and the health of the planet we live on.
And just out of interest, for anyone thinking lower fuel prices is good for the haulage industry … has anyone had a pay increase because of the high profits, or have rates been cut by the hirers leaving margins just as tight as ever.
Bluey Circles:
I doubt you will find many people in the green party who support nuclear energy!And yes, I would definitely impose massive taxation on air travel and air cargo. Less so on Rail as they are electrifying the network, which does give the long term possibility that the power could come from less damaging sources than fossil fuel. and even as it is, the pollution is created away from population centres (so only wrecking the planets atmosphere). The big problem with road fuel is that the pollution is being created within the densely populated areas, and we are now learning that this is creating major health problems for many.
But getting back on topic - if oil prices were very high then alternatives may be developed, but sadly I imagine it is going to be cheap and plentiful for a very long time to come, which is a poor thing for both our health and the health of the planet we live on.
And just out of interest, for anyone thinking lower fuel prices is good for the haulage industry … has anyone had a pay increase because of the high profits, or have rates been cut by the hirers leaving margins just as tight as ever.
As I said Fossil fuel is only ‘damaging’ in the eyes of a fringe extremist political group with no electoral mandate and a government which is stupid enough to go along with it because it thinks that high fuel taxation adds to revenues rather than reduces them and economic growth.
Ironically trucks are no dirtier and would actually be cleaner running than diesel trains assuming a change to spark ignition and LPG.While assuming you’re talking about the green dream of unlimited fossil fuel free cheap electricity 
then you’ll obviously have no problem with hydrogen fuelled internal combustion engines with zero road fuel taxation in that case.Bearing in mind that water vapour from power station emissions and hydrogen fuel use is a bigger so called green house gas than CO2 supposedly is.
As for so called ‘cheap’ road fuel it isn’t cheap at all because of the punitive taxation on the product.Which as I said still defeats the object of raising production to increase demand.Which is why we’ve still got car users and truck operators minimising their fuel usage by cutting mileage,thereby not enough demand for drivers,because the taxation regime still makes road fuel costs much too high.Let alone production increases creating an environment of higher profits and higher wages in the industry.
To which your answer is lets put another 80p per litre on the price. 
If one factors the environmental issues OUT of “fuel” altogether - we might actually see a clearer picture here.
Fossil fuels have some way to go yet, since it’s basically decomposed life that one is converting back into the CO2 in the atmosphere that represents the start of the lifecycle between fauna, flora, and the planet itself.
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a fraction of 1%. If it ever rose to 3%, we wouldn’t be able to breath the atmosphere - and if it fell to zero - the green planet would be laid waste.
Balance is the key. Nature will get rid of excess CO2 by proliferating things like jungle and forests. Human life reaching new all time highs every day will make sure it never falls to zero.
We should stop worrying about trying to manage that balance ourselves, and concentrate on how the planet ends up attacking us during it’s own re-balancing process. Climate change is nature - not us affecting nature by what we think is CO2 management. There are other factors involved, mostly non-man-made that lead to serious changes in the climate. If this were not so, then these things wouldn’t run in cycles from the dawn of time - would they?
Precession has more effect than is generally realized. There have been around 80 ice ages since the dawn of man - and not one of them was caused by mankind putting pollution into the atmosphere nor volcanoes (at least not 80 times on the spin!) nor asteroid/comet impacts - also not loads of times on the spin…
I don’t think our current radical changes in climate we see every day now - have anything to do with the relative ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ that Mankind’s efforts for or against the environment either.
We need to manage the change - instead of trying to prevent something that occurs every 24,800 years or so regular as clockwork, highly likely related to precession.
There’s even another long cycle where the Solar System wobbles up and down the galactic plane. At the point it crosses the “thick” of the Galaxy - our Solar neighborhood has a lot more objects drifting into it from the outside - that might rain down on the inner planets and cause mayhem once every few thousand years or so. We can’t do anything about it - so we should shore up our flood defences, sea walls, and protect our food production from excessive radiations - rather than pretend that we can put less CO2 into the atmopshere and solve anything whatsoever.
An alien intelligence might argue that “If you REALLY want to cut down on CO2 into your atmosphere… Why don’t you cull the 7bn humans on your planet, seeing as you’ve clearly outgrown it before achieving any kind of spacefaring ability worth anything to the wider galaxy…”
Cosmic Tyranny is, has been, and will always be a lot harsher than anything we’ve ever come up with on Earth…
Stop worrying about Nuclear - and build enough of them so that supplying and managing the waste gets cheaper in turn. Use the practically free electricity to move us onto a Hydrogen based economy, bearing in mind that Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe and there’s more surface water on the Earth than all the land - arable or not - put together.
It makes sense to keep on using Fossil Fuels whilst we still have them. To turn against fossil fuels before we’ve got a real long-term viable alternative in place is as daft as “ceasing farming” because it “harms the soil” or “running vanguard submarines without nukes on them”.
Meanwhile, the Oil price continues to slide… It’s dipped down to $27.75 in the last few hours. It’s not been that low since 2004.
With Iranian oil supposedly coming online soon, and Russia bulk-supplying China now, thus removing China from the mainstream market as a buyer… Next stop $20? - Then back to “It’s the Economy Stupid” years when oil was $12… Plastics might start to be made in the west again. Last time around, China pretty much built up a huge infrastructure of plastics industries, all but shutting out the west entirely. Even in the 70’s - any plastic worth it’s tat used to have “Made in Hong Kong” written on it somewhere eh? 
As I said ‘if’ it’s supposedly all about greenhouse effect then staying with the unproven ( more like total bs ) link of CO2 is likely to turn out to be the better option than going with the more likely one of more water vapour emissions.
As for the era of expensive oil that was always a man made rip off.Of artificially limiting the supply and pricing accordingly of an effectively foreseeably limitless supply commodity.While now it’s the taxation regime which is the problem as fuel prices ( hopefully ) return to a level that reflects that limitless supply status.
What’s all this about Water Vapour being a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2?
There’s bugger all water vapour on Venus - considered to be the biggest runaway greenhouse zone in the entire solar system!
S03 dissolved into any loose H2O on the entire planet - is a one-way ticket.
Fuming Sulphuric Acid has absolutely no water in it anymore, and is a dehydrating agent to boot…
There’s an argument for “cloud cover” to have an effect - but clouds can be made out of a lot of things - few of them being “Water Vapour”.
Remember when some was expected to be found in the atmosphere of Jupiter - only for bugger all to be found there as well… 
Winseer:
What’s all this about Water Vapour being a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2?There’s bugger all water vapour on Venus - considered to be the biggest runaway greenhouse zone in the entire solar system!
S03 dissolved into any loose H2O on the entire planet - is a one-way ticket.
Fuming Sulphuric Acid has absolutely no water in it anymore, and is a dehydrating agent to boot…There’s an argument for “cloud cover” to have an effect - but clouds can be made out of a lot of things - few of them being “Water Vapour”.
Remember when some was expected to be found in the atmosphere of Jupiter - only for bugger all to be found there as well…
That’s because CO2 didn’t cook Venus.Atmospheric pressure possibly added to the small matter of being much closer to the sun is wot dun it.
While even the believers obviously haven’t got a clue what they are on about when they say lets replace petrol and diesel powered vehicles with nuclear electricity powered hydrogen fuelled ones bearing in mind the amount of water vapour that will add to the planet.
Carryfast:
Winseer:
What’s all this about Water Vapour being a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2?There’s bugger all water vapour on Venus - considered to be the biggest runaway greenhouse zone in the entire solar system!
S03 dissolved into any loose H2O on the entire planet - is a one-way ticket.
Fuming Sulphuric Acid has absolutely no water in it anymore, and is a dehydrating agent to boot…There’s an argument for “cloud cover” to have an effect - but clouds can be made out of a lot of things - few of them being “Water Vapour”.
Remember when some was expected to be found in the atmosphere of Jupiter - only for bugger all to be found there as well…
That’s because CO2 didn’t cook Venus.Atmospheric pressure possibly added to the small matter of being much closer to the sun is wot dun it.
While even the believers obviously haven’t got a clue what they are on about when they say lets replace petrol and diesel powered vehicles with nuclear electricity powered hydrogen fuelled ones bearing in mind the amount of water vapour that will add to the planet.
The 90 bar atmosphere is about CO2 heated to pour on even more pressure… The sulphuric acid in the clouds is about the atmopshere also being anhydrous.
The “closer to the sun” on it’s own doesn’t work, hence why the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead - but the surface of Mercury isn’t, and the darkside is some way below zero to boot in the case of Mercury. Completely different due to pretty much zero atmosphere as opposed to a thick heavy one of CO2.
Oxygen is heavier than Nitrogen and Ozone too. If it were not for this, we’d have Ozone creeping around at ground level, and we’d all be gassed. Ozone is highly toxic. Nitrogen is only a problem “Under pressure” again.
Normal Oxygen isn’t a problem, unless it’s too pure - in which case it can lead to blood clots later on. That’s why scuba gear is “air” as opposed to pure Oxygen. Even with “Air” one runs the risk then of narcosis from the under-pressure nitrogen being breathed at depth. I’m surprised Oxygen/Helium as devised by Cousteau isn’t used more often though. I would have thought we could all live with a daft voice for a while with no bad after effects…
Winseer:
The 90 bar atmosphere is about CO2 heated to pour on even more pressure… The sulphuric acid in the clouds is about the atmopshere also being anhydrous.
The “closer to the sun” on it’s own doesn’t work, hence why the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead - but the surface of Mercury isn’t, and the darkside is some way below zero to boot in the case of Mercury.
We know that Mercury has daytime temperatures of 400 C + with no atmosphere and the Sahara desert is supposedly the result of a slight shift on pole angle and orbital changes.In which case move Earth to where Venus is and increase atmospheric mass and pressure to 90 bar and it’s a fair bet the place would get just as hot as Venus regardless of CO2 atmospheric content.
Carryfast:
Winseer:
The 90 bar atmosphere is about CO2 heated to pour on even more pressure… The sulphuric acid in the clouds is about the atmopshere also being anhydrous.
The “closer to the sun” on it’s own doesn’t work, hence why the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead - but the surface of Mercury isn’t, and the darkside is some way below zero to boot in the case of Mercury.We know that Mercury has daytime temperatures of 400 C + with no atmosphere and the Sahara desert is supposedly the result of a slight shift on pole angle and orbital changes.In which case move Earth to where Venus is and increase atmospheric mass and pressure to 90 bar and it’s a fair bet the place would get just as hot as Venus regardless of CO2 atmospheric content.
As I said, you cannot increase the atmosphere here to 90 bar without a similar atmosphere to Venus. Oxygen/Nitrogen under heat might increase the pressure to 1.5bar if you’re lucky.
When was the last time you saw 1500mb on a weather chart… I don’t think I’ve ever seen it, and we’ve supposedly heated up a few degrees over the past few decades already enough to precipitate abnormal weather patterns - just not significantly higher atmospheric pressure.
The mean temperature on the surface of mercury isn’t hot enough to boil water (let alone lead!) at 1bar but easily enough to boil ALL water away at the <1mb pressure that it actually has there.
Compare this to Venus, where it’s hot enough to melt lead (the 400c+ you speak of) all the time.