What if gas cost $10 a gallon?

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by Marine1, May 22, 2008.

  1. Marine1

    Marine1 Guest

    Editor's note: This is one in an occasional series of financial what-ifs.

    In four years, U.S. gas prices have doubled to more than $3.70 a gallon, and crude oil has tripled to around $125 a barrel. Allowing for inflation, that's higher than prices were during the 1978–83 oil shock that triggered a recession and sky-high interest rates. But . . .
    What if gas cost $10 a gallon?

    What if gas cost $10 a gallon? - MSN Money
  2. It won't matter if gas costs $10.00 a gallon . . .

    . . . . as so much of the economy will already be shut down before it hits $10.00 a gallon.

    No matter where you live you can already see retail outlets closing.

    Look for more and more restaurants to begin closing.

    Look for more and more bars to begin closing.

    Request the government to quit lying about unemployment and give the totals not only for those collecting unemployment compensation but also include those who can no longer collect unemployment but are not employed and those who have never been in the unemployment system but cannot find a job such as students and stay at home parents trying to enter the job market.

  3. If it hits 10, then I think its about time to buy one of these.....Optibike - TFOT
  4. LiveToShoot

    LiveToShoot Guest

    Crazy times, present and predicted in our future, for fuel prices...
    'Squawk Box' Guest Warns of $12-15-a-Gallon Gas

    Fortunately I live just over a mile from work, so riding a bike is an option...an option that I have used a few times already...
  5. killer

    killer G&G Newbie

    It is part of the plan to shove "green" down out throats. We simply don't get it, but we will then. No one will be able to drive to work. We will all live in the cites, one big happy rat nest.

    Even the French the past 30 years figured out nuclear power was needed...not us.

    Sitting on more coal and natural gas than we can use in 5 billion years the "greens" throw every road block they can to prevent using it.

    When the riots and unrest begins (probably this summer) we will get it through our fat heads, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," like Obama says.

    We will go "green" one way or another...that is the plan.
  6. Windwalker

    Windwalker G&G Newbie

    The lives of people are more important than the lives of animals. Drill where we need to drill, offshore, Alaska, Montana, and any other place in our Country as necessary. Put an embargo on U.S. oil so that it can not be exported. Start immediately building from 12 to 20 nuclear powerplants across the United States. Grant tax breaks, low cost loans and other help as necessary to companies developing alternative fuel from solar, wind power, water power, hydrogen and other alternative fuels.
    Also, prevent any foreign company or Nation from drilling any new wells in United States Territory including offshore within the 7 mile limit.
    We can become independent from foreign oil but we need to start now.
  7. snuffysmith

    snuffysmith Guest

    What will happen? This country is teetering on the edge of a deep pit and who knows what will tip it over? I'm just glad I'm retired. I feel sorry for those people(some my relatives) who have to commute back and forth to work. Lord knows it's hard enough for them now but what will happen to all the businesses and factories when the workers can't afford to come to work?

    The high cost of fuel may be the cause of food spirling up as the cost to transport same goes out of sight. It's all tied together.
    Last edited: May 22, 2008
  8. CrazyIvan

    CrazyIvan G&G Enthusiast


    I say gather the torches and pitchforks. Storm washington and US-based Fuel Refineries. Let's take this back!
  9. neophyte

    neophyte Wonderment :) Forum Contributor

    Sickingly Fascinating

    Sickingly fascinating. A less than third world country ruling the USA and the world.
    Guarded by all nations, benefited to the highest possible position; allowed to dictate to the same "countries" that have litterly spent billions on a country that cannot grow grass.
    I do believe in "Free enterprise" but consider the fact. Nations have spent our money building infrastructures, developing equipment, for these fine folk to live greater than 'kings'

    Without the world over-seeing these oil countries; how will they survive another countries take over without the help. What would happen if food trade was stopped, what would a complete embargo do, what would happen with a ''blockaide''

    Giving the parameters; We as a nation are being held hostage by a country that has what we deem to need and they could care less.
  10. TXplt

    TXplt Gun Toting Boeing Driver Forum Contributor

    It's already starting--American to ditch 50 or so MD80's. That part is fine--replace with 73's; the cut backs and layoffs are not fine and will ripple thru all sectors. As people pay more, work harder, lose their jobs, and still can't make ends meet, they will borrow more and tack more debt onto our already massive debt. Government agencies won't be able to make revenue targets either; good thing they're not in debt too :( -- as this scenario plays out, our economy begins collapsing and shutting down. Finances fail as there isn't any real money to cover any of the debts--just 1's and 0's in a computer and not enough 1's. Inflation is already climbing thru all sectors just like we thought it would with high energy prices.

    The cards are falling. We can stop them, but as Windwalker said, need to start now.

    The good news is that this will force the greens/demagogue's/do-gooders hands, and most of us will say "screw this, let's start building power plants and drilling right now--no matter what the law is." If the law gets in the way, we'll build and heat and cool and feed our families first anyway--no matter what. If they don't change the law, it's pitchforks and torches. As people begin to starve, we'll start doing what we have to do to survive and should have been doing years ago. The stand in the way people will starve and/or be forced out of the way. All will be well after Darwin kicks in again.

    It'd be nice not to have to get to this point; maybe we can fix it before people start not being able to afford food ?
  11. Hey TXplt this is an airplane question. I just want to know if it would work. Could you take off in an old TriStar and then cruise wit just the tail engine or use just the two under the wings. Would that save fuel? It's just a thought. I don't even know if Delta still has TriStars.

    I'm with you. I'm tempted to go buy some sugar and yeast and make my own ethanol, but I would still go to prison if the revenuers found out.
    Last edited: May 22, 2008
  12. CrazyIvan

    CrazyIvan G&G Enthusiast

    As long as the weight in and of the plane is low enough that it could be propelled and held up safely by use of a single or dual engine(s), it would work just fine.

    It also depends on their ability to start & stop an engine mid-flight.
    Last edited: May 22, 2008
  13. TXplt

    TXplt Gun Toting Boeing Driver Forum Contributor

    LOL Jim--about the whisky/ethanol part !

    After the plane gains energy (i.e. after gear and flaps are up and sufficient speed is attained), a 747-400 which has 4 engines can cruise relatively comfortably on two of those, depending on terrain height and weight (which depends mostly on how much fuel has burned off). For a mid-weight airplane, this altitude would be in the high teens or low 20's. For 3 engines, low 30's. Unfortunately, because the airplane was designed as a system, all of these altitudes are well below our optimum altitude for efficient operation. In all but some very extreme cases, it actually takes a fair bit more fuel to cruise with an engine shut down than with all 4 running. This is due both to peak height capability as well as having to displace the rudder to trim for the engine out condition. An inventive sort might be able to figure out how to shut engines down and "drift down" but the fuel to keep the engines lit at idle for the descent isn't much and this wouldn't save much (if any) gas--it would make me more nervous in getting them re-lit though.

    We actually compute a 3-engine point of no return on the flight plan which allows for continued flight on 3 engines to destination (or the next available alternate), or return back to alternate, ensuring sufficient fuel. The fuel burn on 3 engines for any long haul flight is always higher than if all 4 are running. I suspect most other aircraft are the same (although have heard yarns when in fighters/trainers about folks shutting down an engine up high and drifting down back to an airfield--suspect these are more tall tales than anything else). P3's did loiter an engine to save gas I believe, but that was cruising at an altitude far below their optimum altitude for operation. So, the bottom line is that shutting down an engine so much decreases you altitude capability that it makes you burn more fuel at the lower altitude.

    Oh, BTW (forgot), I think the Tri-Star was a great airplane. No mainline carrier has flown them for quite a few years (Delta did in the past, and ATA did for a while). Guess we're getting old !

    Have a good one :)
    Last edited: May 22, 2008
  14. Coeloptera

    Coeloptera G&G Newbie

    The thing is, there are ways to be energy efficient and environmentally aware at the same time. Heck, some of them even have sidelines that pay.

    Coal-burning can potentially be scrubbed clean by algal colonies in smokestacks. Smart Economy: Algae bioreactor scrubs CO2 from power plant smokestacks to produce biofuels

    2006 story. This needs research money poured into it. Burn coal (which we have a lot of), help the coal-mining industry, create power, then skim the algae for biodeisel. It's literally a win for everybody.

    TXplt and I just keep going on and on about nuclear reactors with supplemental breeder reactors on-site. France laughs at the rest of us about that.

    Fusion power desperately needs research money and effort. Like it's a national defense issue, which in some ways, it is. If we are beholden to countries in the Middle East for power we will always be in danger because we will always be messing about in that part of the world.

    And since the oil companies are showing such record profits, make them spend some of it on less environmentally invasive and damaging ways to get at the oil we have in the US. Maybe throw some aid Canada's way to get their oil shale in exchange for favoured trade status on purchases.

    Fuel-cell and hybrid cars, public transportation that's worth a ****, there are so many ways to help with energy and actually reduce basic pollution at the same time.

    But for now...oh, there will be a backlash. I'm not sure at what point, there will reach a point where the lowest-income employed people stop being able to afford to go to work, eat, and pay rent. The effects will ripple through many segments of the economy as leisure industries take a huge hit. Their money? It's going to the oil companies.

    Worst-case scenario? Government takeover of the oil industry. If they push much harder that may start to look like a viable option to a lot of people.

    - Coeloptera
  15. TXplt

    TXplt Gun Toting Boeing Driver Forum Contributor

    There's similar technology to fliter out NOx and SO2 from coal fired plants (taking the place of scrubbers) and produce sulfuric and nitric acids (which are useful products). We got lotsa coal, and I agree we need to start burning and scrubbing. (and start DOING !) The thought of gov't taking over the oil industry gives me the willies--look at the TSA--none of us would have any gas, and those who did would be paying $50 a gallon. Our military works well (expecially well from the people end); however, I don't think I'd classify our acquisition process economically as a bargain--we spend lotsa $. It's a necessary situation which makes up for the free market failure of a public good. But it's not economically efficient in any way. I think potentially opening up the oil taps and using $ proceeds to build reactors, power plants, hydrogen cars, etc would work; the TVA I think was reasonably successful and the market does justify gov't intervention in public utilities. The only way anyone could drop the price of oil would be by boosting output, though. This means more supply in the near term. We could try cap and regulate, but someone would buy the $50 a barrel subsidised oil and sell it for $100 on the global market. I'm not real sure we could stop this in the US--our borders leak and the market's pretty creative.
    Last edited: May 22, 2008
  16. tlarkin

    tlarkin Guest


    I hate to say this, but that is pretty short sighted. We should drill as a last resort but if gas hits $10.00 a gallon then our government is failing us completely with their debt based economy system.

    Drilling here won't necessarily bring down costs, especially if our dollar is worthless.
  17. No but drilling here ten years ago would bring down the cost now. Have you ever noticed just the announcement of a new oil field causes a ripple in the price of oil. If you ever get a chance to watch two TV's at once do this put one on the business channel with real-time stock prices and the other on the president when he is making a speech about drilling and alternative energy. My buddy chuck and I have done this for years. You can actually watch the price drop when he mentions drilling. It is hilarious.
  18. TXplt

    TXplt Gun Toting Boeing Driver Forum Contributor

    ^^^Some of Opec was cheatin' today I suspect.

    If the senate said we're going to allow drilling in ANWR, I'll BET you'd see $100/bbl oil next week.

    If someone took a drill up there, $80/bbl.

    If someone started drilling maybe 70/bbl.

    The OPEC nations would realize they've got competition, and sell, sell, sell !!! -- THIS is how ya bust trusts.

    This is what we need.

    Kindly note this doesn't solve our problem, but does buy us time to say "boy that was close" and build the power plants we need. Maybe a couple of years if we start today.
    Last edited: May 22, 2008
  19. Agreed TXplt... these ******* (expletive deleted) need to realize that they are not the only countries with oil. Sadly, our own politicians are allowing this to happen with their party politics and stubbornness.
  20. Bigdaveaz

    Bigdaveaz Guest

    There is NO shortage of oil! That's not what is driving the price!