Expensive oil => Rich oil companies

Books, television programs, films, magazines or music to share, counselor to discover ... Talk to news affecting in any way the econology, environment, energy, society, consumption (new laws or standards) ...
User avatar
bham
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1666
Registration: 20/12/04, 17:36
x 6




by bham » 29/09/07, 09:59

indy49 wrote: Here is why rising oil prices are beneficial long-term :
Consumers who are tired of paying more and more will buy cars that consume less and less (or invest in the insulation of their housing, etc ...)
Thus, the manufacturers of cars (or insulators), to be able to continue to sell, will invest in technos which make it possible to save energy. It takes time, but it is effective. You just have to see the investments that were made during the previous oil crises to convince yourself!
The more expensive the dirty energies, the more profitable the clean (or less dirty) energies, and therefore the more they develop.

Indy, I find your demonstration very convincing but I put a "social" downside. Indeed, concerning cars, consumers who are fed up with paying more and more and who will buy cars that consume more and more are consumers who can financially buy a new car, which is far from being the best. case for everyone.
This means that those who are fed up with paying more and more but who cannot buy a new car, will either get around the problem in part (HVB, fuel instead of diesel, pantone, ... carpooling , rental ... etc), either will take more public transport (this implies that they are in large cities), or that they will continue to be tired of paying.
There remain those who can afford to buy a new car and don't mind paying more and more to hydrate their 4x4 V8, their petrol V6 minivans or their big German sedan.
So in practice, with a higher fuel price, will the car renewal rate be higher, ie will it be higher in number of new cars sold and in frequency of renewal? it depends in part on the progress made by car manufacturers. We have seen that Citroën was offering a hybrid car study with the C-Cactus at a reasonable price that I find very interesting.
But if the progress in consumption of car manufacturers is not so convincing, some potential buyers may eventually fall back on smaller cars because the children have gone to live their lives, ... etc but this will be compensated by those who make them. (children).
So in summary, the increase in fuel prices can lead to:
-short term :
1-sanitation of the vehicle fleet, that if car manufacturers provide a concrete response in terms of consumption, even at the cost of more embodied energy to manufacture (hybrid) cars.
2-a disaffection of a part of the population towards the automobile in favor of public transport or carpooling, which is not applicable everywhere, far from it.
3-a drop in purchasing power for the population who can neither buy new, nor take public transport, nor .....

- medium and long term:
1-an obvious cleaning up of the car park, but would it not have been done as quickly without an increase in fuels by the simple game of renewing the fleet? Let us not forget that the evolution towards a clean car is not done only according to the price of the barrel, it is also done because the manufacturers know that there is an expectation of the population for more respect for the 'environment, less greenhouse gases, fewer polluting particles, and if we go further, fewer politico-financial problems on a global scale, fewer international conflicts linked to energy.

My reasoning can also apply to housing. Regarding insulation for example, either you opt for basic insulation, inexpensive, with very average performance, or you opt for efficient and / or environmentally friendly and then you have to bank.
And I am not talking about the premiums and tax credits which only apply if you bring in a craftsman, who will take his margin and play the role of VAT collector for the State.

To conclude, I drive little, so I don't suffer too much from the increase in fuels and finally, I choose to use eco-friendly insulation, therefore more expensive for my house, although I heat myself with wood and that I could do without (insulators).
0 x
User avatar
bham
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1666
Registration: 20/12/04, 17:36
x 6




by bham » 29/09/07, 12:05

bham wrote: So in summary, the increase in fuel prices can lead to:
-short term :
1-sanitation of the vehicle fleet, that if car manufacturers provide a concrete response in terms of consumption, even at the cost of more embodied energy to manufacture (hybrid) cars.
2-a disaffection of a part of the population towards the automobile in favor of public transport or carpooling, which is not applicable everywhere, far from it.
3-a drop in purchasing power for the population who can neither buy new, nor take public transport, nor .....

I would add:
4-a considerable enrichment of the oil companies (and not only in the short term), subject of this post. I think I will soon buy a maximum of TOTAL shares : Lol: : Shock:
Their enormous profits will make it possible to drill and prospect for oil where it was not profitable before and, of course, in the thawed arctic. So awesome ! : Evil: When are the oiled polar bears?
As I wrote on an older topic:
-or fuel prices increase by themselves, by stock market effect or supply / demand effect or due to international conflicts,
-or they increase by increasing fiscal taxes.
I think that it is not necessary to increase the fiscal taxes since the barrel of oil becoming more and more expensive, the taxes automatically increase in proportion since they represent 80% of the price at the pump. The increase in the price of a barrel alone is therefore already a deterrent.
0 x
User avatar
bham
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1666
Registration: 20/12/04, 17:36
x 6




by bham » 01/10/07, 10:09

I invite you very strongly watch this video:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3057e ... r_politics

This is a video from the Ardisson program (April 2006), which interviews Eric Laurent, author of the book "the hidden face of petroleum".
We learn that the 1973 oil crisis was due to a secret agreement between producing countries and oil companies to raise the price of a barrel of oil. Indeed, Rockefeller had declared that the Oil Companies would need to make big investments to set up the offshore platforms and to continue the exploration and the exploitation.
The author also confirms the stakes in the Middle East and in particular in Iraq for the control of oil wells, given that Saudi Arabia's oil capacities are in decline.
So we navigate between information, disinformation.

It just so happens that we are at a pivotal period when the oil companies need colossal sums to continue prospecting and exploitation.
And if, to contradict Jancovici, we fixed the price of a barrel of oil at a minimum price of 20 dollars, what would happen?
-No more Iran war project
-Stop mining the least profitable wells and oil shales in Canada
etc -...
-If you have other ideas ....
-And in the end, wouldn't we develop alternative solutions faster ?????

What do you think ?
0 x
bamboo
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1534
Registration: 19/03/07, 14:46
Location: Breizh




by bamboo » 01/10/07, 14:20

Hi Jean,

We agree, but that's another problem ...
It is not the oil tankers who will be responsible for reducing the weight of the cars :D

A+

jean63 wrote:well agree with you on the principle, but from there to make it a reality .... modern vehicles consume relatively less than those of 10 or 20 years ago..although I read an article recently explaining that the old version of the BMW ... consumed no more than the very recent version BECAUSE OF WEIGHT (+ 500 kgs dedicated to the whole armada of modernism installed on board).
[...]
0 x
bamboo
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1534
Registration: 19/03/07, 14:46
Location: Breizh




by bamboo » 01/10/07, 14:32

Hi bham,

We fully agree on the difference in short and medium term effects.
MAIS : Cheesy: I remain convinced that the price has more impact than people's good conscience. Touching the wallet always has more effects than trying to tickle people's goodwill (e.g. effect of automatic radars, or the big 4x4s that are sold for driving in town ...)

As for Ardisson and his guests ... I don't choose them for information :D Maybe I'm wrong, but hey ... it looks a bit (a lot) like soliciting.

Fix the price of oil at $ 20? (ceiling, I guess, not floor)
For the new techno to develop, we also need colossal means. An example: if oil costs little, fuel oil costs little, then why would an individual buy high performance insulation? No interest...

The only interest, in my humble opinion, of this solution, is to take revenge against the oil companies, but that does nothing for the planet.

On the other hand, I would fully agree to ban all new drilling. It protects the planet, and it puts pressure to discover new sources of energy (hoping that they are less polluting)

A+
0 x
User avatar
bham
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1666
Registration: 20/12/04, 17:36
x 6




by bham » 01/10/07, 16:47

indy49 wrote: As for Ardisson and his guests ... I don't choose them for information :D Maybe I'm wrong, but hey ... it looks a bit (a lot) like soliciting.

Hi indy49 and thanks for your reply.
Soliciting, yes no doubt, and if that can reassure you, I am not a follower of Ardisson. But I think that Eric Laurent is not the first comer in journalism and that his statements are verifiable.

indy49 wrote:Fix the price of oil at $ 20? (ceiling, I guess, not floor)
For the new techno to develop, we also need colossal means. An example: if oil costs little, fuel oil costs little, then why would an individual buy high performance insulation? No interest...

Yes indeed "ceiling".
Regarding colossal means, why not use them immediately for the development of new energy techno? renewable rather than for the exploitation of an energy which we know but which is not renewable and which will cause damage to the environment.

And if oil costs little, what is the corollary?
-The exploitation of the least profitable wells stops, the expensive exploitation projects are abandoned, the production decreases rapidly and a scarce oil has the same deterrent effect as an expensive oil, with the advantage of not destroying yet plus the environment.
But I am well aware that this solution is the one which is the most improbable from an economic point of view since it is easier to make people feel guilty and to make the little ones pay than the big ones who don't give a damn about the pockets on the back of our planet. So it's a solution that would screw up a hell of a mess.
Raising the price of oil remains the most easily applicable solution, because it suits financial circles and decision-makers and it does not upset habits, but it is also the most hypocritical in relation to the environment since this the latter will continue to suffer from it and that this will not allow the transition to a renewable energy economy more quickly.
indy49 wrote:On the other hand, I would fully agree to ban all new drilling. It protects the planet, and it puts pressure to discover new sources of energy (hoping that they are less polluting) A +

Excellent idea which is somewhat similar to mine and a little less difficult to apply than mine (see above) although without much hope. To offer anyway to Jancovici and Hulot just to see ...
0 x
bamboo
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1534
Registration: 19/03/07, 14:46
Location: Breizh




by bamboo » 01/10/07, 18:01

bham wrote: To offer anyway to Jancovici and Hulot just to see ... [/ b]


In any case, Jancovici is for the increase in the price of gasoline :D
(I am listening to his interview in 2006 on Europe 1)
0 x
User avatar
bham
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1666
Registration: 20/12/04, 17:36
x 6




by bham » 01/10/07, 18:36

indy49 wrote: In any case, Jancovici is for the increase in the price of gasoline :D


Yes I know, I saw him again on France 2's "science on tour" show last Saturday. He may have strong ideas on the subject, but that should not prevent him from hearing other options.
0 x
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14141
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 01/10/07, 19:14

Hello Indy49
indy49 wrote:The only interest, in my humble opinion, of this solution, is to take revenge against the oil companies, but that does nothing for the planet.


In my opinion, it is extremely dangerous for democracy to titillate our oil companies. The leaders of these companies there of a notorious greed and greed usually do not hesitate to maintain and finance the local guerrillas who massacre the natives at all times without the slightest qualm. :frown:

All this to keep monopolies and the mountain of dollars that go with them. If a government dares to touch the grisbi of the oil companies, the attacks will rage ... but this time at home. : Cry:

a+
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
User avatar
bham
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1666
Registration: 20/12/04, 17:36
x 6




by bham » 02/10/07, 07:41

Flytox wrote: All this to keep monopolies and the mountain of dollars that go with them. If a government dares to touch the grisbi of the oil companies, the attacks will rage ... but this time at home. : Cry:
a+

Would you like to imply that terrorists are not always what we think? Have we been deceived? : Lol: : Evil:
Unfortunately, it is very likely everything you write.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 148 guests