It is interesting how both sides have fears the other will manipulate the market. OPEC by cutting supply, Europe by capping prices.

The question is, what is the stable price, which the market is supposed to determine. But when the world is in economic upheaval due to pandemic and war, the market has extreme influences and neither side trusts it to determine price, without making their own inputs.

Well even in normal times market forces only marginally drive the price of oil, it's always manipulated.

SEAorPWM wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Saudis and Russians are gonna fix low prices

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/10/05 ... ion-stocks

But... OPEC said its mission is to balance the market

In all honesty, the west needs to really start re-evaluating its relationship with the KSA. It should have begun in the US in the 70s, but money talks.

A lot has happened since....we even help them cover up overseas assassinations now.

If I was in charge, the US would slap a $1 a gallon tax on all imported oil and oil products not produced in North America.

Sell it as a matter of national security - no more beholden to OPEC or the Russians. Then use that tariff revenue to provide each individual tax payer with a $1,000 tax credit for energy conservation costs. US and Canadian production would rise. And taxpayers would be incentivized to use less oil and oil products.

Better we keep the money here then feathering the nests of OPEC and Russia.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

If I was in charge, the US would slap a $1 a gallon tax on all imported oil and oil products not produced in North America.

Sell it as a matter of national security - no more beholden to OPEC or the Russians. Then use that tariff revenue to provide each individual tax payer with a $1,000 tax credit for energy conservation costs. US and Canadian production would rise. And taxpayers would be incentivized to use less oil and oil products.

Better we keep the money here then feathering the nests of OPEC and Russia.

Very difficult to implement overnight, but on the whole, this proposal would spark an incredible paradigm shift.

The USA needs to focus on independence on oil. The is enough oil in the USA and off the coast of California we can supply the USA for 200 years. We should need NO foreign oil. So if OPEC said they were cutting production, we could say, "well bless your heart, isn't that nice". The USA should not care about foreign oil. Trump had us oil independent.

Yes, I tend to be "Drill baby!" and combine it with "In 15 years electric cars only... etc." I also think California should absolutely encourage more oil in the state and offshore because there is no where it will be done with more environmental oversight (or could be, I have heard the oversight is lax for some reason).

Tugg

We set another North American record last week with gas going up to 241.9 CAD per litre or about $6.74 US per gallon.

Took a good 6 months go go down from our previous record of 239.9 to about 181.9 and it shot up 60 cents per litre in about 3 days - funny how that is.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Saudis and Russians are gonna fix low prices

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/10/05 ... ion-stocks

Actually, the issue that OPEC is reducing the production quota, not reducing the actual rate of production.

There has been about a 3 million barrel a day difference between what was the quota and what is the actual production rate of OPEC countries. Now, the difference is about 1 million barrels a day. It is unlikely that total oil output will be affected as a result of this decision by OPEC, which might be grounded in a basis of reality.

It's meant to send a signal to the markets, but that signal can also be for countries like the US to step up its own production, which has been about 400-600K barrels per day higher than it was pre-invasion. Some of that will probably be down because of the hurricane, but the long term direction is a risk to OPEC+ because oil is stabilizing at these higher prices that make it profitable for alternative suppliers to reenter the market.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The USA needs to focus on independence on oil. The is enough oil in the USA and off the coast of California we can supply the USA for 200 years. We should need NO foreign oil. So if OPEC said they were cutting production, we could say, "well bless your heart, isn't that nice". The USA should not care about foreign oil. Trump had us oil independent.

The US is energy independent. But oil is a commodity traded worldwide. If north american oil can be sold abroad for a higher price, there's nothing keeping it in the country. High energy costs are not a national problem, they affect everyone on this planet including key suppliers of US manufacturing.

casinterest wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It is a mission. To drive profits. But it will also help drive innovation, and drilling elsewhere.

Yeah, if Wall Street and politics allow it.

The US's message regarding democracy vs. autocracy seems to always take a back seat when your pickup-driving beer gut crowd starts complaining about gas prices.

One side wants to subsidize inefficient driving habits, while the other only blames environmental regulations fir lack of domestic drilling. Meanwhile, we continue to beg a cartel of autocratic dictatorships for energy supplies, while our European NATO members face a cold winter next year.

Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Always has been and always will be. As is evidenced elsewhere, the real story here is that OPEC sees the writing on the wall. Electric vehicles are coming, and they want their squeeze of profits from everyone.
But the other side of the story is that Electric vehicles are already here, and demand is already tepid due to the economy. Prices are not spiking much yet on this news.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/06/oil-us- ... n-cut.html

To be honest, if these ministers could just tell the truth (EV's/renewables) and stop with the ridiculous sychophantic spiel about "stability" and "security", I wouldn't be complaining.

mxaxai wrote:

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The USA needs to focus on independence on oil. The is enough oil in the USA and off the coast of California we can supply the USA for 200 years. We should need NO foreign oil. So if OPEC said they were cutting production, we could say, "well bless your heart, isn't that nice". The USA should not care about foreign oil. Trump had us oil independent.

The US is energy independent. But oil is a commodity traded worldwide. If north american oil can be sold abroad for a higher price, there's nothing keeping it in the country. High energy costs are not a national problem, they affect everyone on this planet including key suppliers of US manufacturing.

This needed to be said - thank you. The US and Canada are actually well supplied even after all the unnecessary BS that has happened this year.

Much of this talk is from politicians and media bobbleheads who either don't understand or pretend to not understand the commodity markets. Whenever I hear these "pain at the pump" sob stories I just shut the damn TV off, especially from liberal-learning infotainment channels like MSNBC that really blow this out of proportion.

Back in 2011, the then president of General Motors Dan Akerson called for a $1 a gallon increase in fuel taxes.

I'd rather tax imports - screw OPEC. It would also screw oil traders who are arbitraging US and Canadian oil exports for their profits. I actually think Americans would accept the increase cause it would be taking it to OPEC.

You might even see oil prices fall if the US announced that tariff.

SEAorPWM wrote:

casinterest wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

Yeah, if Wall Street and politics allow it.

The US's message regarding democracy vs. autocracy seems to always take a back seat when your pickup-driving beer gut crowd starts complaining about gas prices.

One side wants to subsidize inefficient driving habits, while the other only blames environmental regulations fir lack of domestic drilling. Meanwhile, we continue to beg a cartel of autocratic dictatorships for energy supplies, while our European NATO members face a cold winter next year.

Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Always has been and always will be. As is evidenced elsewhere, the real story here is that OPEC sees the writing on the wall. Electric vehicles are coming, and they want their squeeze of profits from everyone.
But the other side of the story is that Electric vehicles are already here, and demand is already tepid due to the economy. Prices are not spiking much yet on this news.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/06/oil-us- ... n-cut.html

To be honest, if these ministers could just tell the truth (EV's/renewables) and stop with the ridiculous sychophantic spiel about "stability" and "security", I wouldn't be complaining.

We will see what happens should the US implement NOPEC, or just start taxing the hell out of oil while it lasts.

It’ll last for decades. There’s about 400 million fossil fueled vehicles in the US, they’ll be around for a long time. Then, the 30% of a barrel of crude left over from refining fuels, we produce asphalt for roads, plastics for everything from wiring insulation to medical devices. Petroleum won’t go away in anyone here’s lifetime.

In 2018, we celebrated our release from OPEC, now four years later, they’re back because we let them.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 ... 803fd248ef

In fairness, America is now the gas station for South America and Central America. Plus now we are exporting oil and alot of natural gas to our allies in Europe.
"According to data from Kpler, total clean products exports (including diesel, gasoline, jet fuel and other products) averaged 2.5 million b/d in the first half of July,"
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/us-ex ... ven-higher

However the US and Canada could be producing more oil but the threat has always been the Saudi's flooding the market and crushing US and Canadian producers. Wall Street doesn't like that. That's why the idea of a $42 a barrel tax IMO has merit.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’ll last for decades. There’s about 400 million fossil fueled vehicles in the US, they’ll be around for a long time. Then, the 30% of a barrel of crude left over from refining fuels, we produce asphalt for roads, plastics for everything from wiring insulation to medical devices. Petroleum won’t go away in anyone here’s lifetime.

In 2018, we celebrated our release from OPEC, now four years later, they’re back because we let them.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 ... 803fd248ef

Fracking is one end, Saudi buddying up
much more with Russia since 2018 is another. A response to domestic US policy, most likely. The most cynical politicos are suggesting Trump already talked to MBS about this latest price fixing to help GOP in the midterms.

Who says the Right has a monopoly on conspiracy theories? Sure, MBS and Putin listen to Trump like puppets.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The USA needs to focus on independence on oil. The is enough oil in the USA and off the coast of California we can supply the USA for 200 years. We should need NO foreign oil. So if OPEC said they were cutting production, we could say, "well bless your heart, isn't that nice". The USA should not care about foreign oil. Trump had us oil independent.

what is the definition being used for "oil independent" under Trump? is "oil independent" being used to refer to being a net exporter of product?

for crude oil only? https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH ... RNTUS2&f=M
the US continued to import crude oil under Trump.

for crude oil and petroleum products? https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH ... tntus2&f=m
under trump this number turned to a net exporter, but the majority of month under biden have also been net export

No such thing as oil independence, it’s a fungible commodity. A nation can only influence price and availability by production. The US has lots of potential production that’s going undeveloped. We have not encouraged refinery building, either. It’s a huge investment that has to have a business case.

I'm not advocating for this but the US could fix oil prices just like the others are doing. For local consumption I mean.

Determine the cost of production for US oil on average with a margin to account for the less productive wells that still make sense to exploit, add 10% of margin or something, and decree this is the price US oil companies can sell at, nothing more. Ban exports of course, or regulate them so that the domestic market has priority.

With NOPEC they're trying to do the opposite, free the market, but that won't work.

Wouldn't need to ban exports as a large tariff on imported oil would eliminate the advantage of exporting. Plus we should continue to send gas to Europe to support them. Maybe stop sending LNG and oil to countries supporting Russia (here's looking at you China,India and Brazil).

It would be a bureaucratic disaster to set prices based on production costs as there are almost 1 million active wells in America. But remember oil companies pay a income taxes (Exxon paid $5.2 billion in 2019 while Amazon paid around $1 billion) plus royalties on US production. The more oil companies drill (and employ workers) the more taxes the US govt will get. And the recent Inflation Reduction Act closes alot of loop holes so I'd expect more revenue.

Just where I live there is a ton of oil and gas left in Ohio, Pennsylvania and WVA. And yes even in the State of New York.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Who says the Right has a monopoly on conspiracy theories? Sure, MBS and Putin listen to Trump like puppets.

Putin definitely not, but MBS is deep in bed with the son in law, and last WH almost certainly helped him cover up transnational assassination. Not conspiracy theory - DOJ is looking into all that as we speak, with some rocks as yet unturned.

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Who says the Right has a monopoly on conspiracy theories? Sure, MBS and Putin listen to Trump like puppets.

Putin definitely not, but MBS is deep in bed with the son in law, and last WH almost certainly helped him cover up transnational assassination. Not conspiracy theory - DOJ is looking into all that as we speak, with some rocks as yet unturned.

Putin and MBS are stong arm authoritarians that Trump longs to be. He wants the worship that they demand. So yes, I can see Trump cozying up to both of them. Not much of a conspiracy theory, More like common sense based on Trump's behaviors around them.

The Saudi's are pushing oil higher because even they see the issue coming in the next 5-10 years. You think that electric is not going to be that popular? Then why are all the major car companies throwing so much money at it?

Remember Gas ins't 100 % of oil's usage, but it is between 45-50% of it. A decline in usage will have reverbrations throughout the oil industry.

https://alternativeenergy.procon.org/ho ... -uses-oil/

From 2006


Product Million Gallons of Oil Used Per Day Percent of Total US Oil Consumption
Finished motor gasoline 9.274 45.32%
Distillate fuel oil (diesel fuel and heating oil) 4.082 19.95%
Hydrocarbon gas liquids (HGLs) 3.130 15.30%
Kerosene-type jet fuel 1.740 8.50%
Still gas 0.669 3.27%
Asphalt and road oil 0.350 1.71%
Petrochemical feedstocks 0.317 1.55%
Petroleum coke 0.310 1.51%
Residual fuel oil 0.273 1.33%
Miscellaneous products and other liquids 0.135 0.66%
Lubricants 0.111 0.54%
Special napthas 0.049 0.24%
Aviation gasoline 0.013 0.06%
Kerosene 0.007 0.03%
Waxes 0.005 0.02%
Total Petroleum Products 20.464
========================================================================================================
EIA breakdown in 2022

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil ... of-oil.php

The barrel of crude has to refined to get the 30% of the crude that we need for non-fuel products. The 70% as fuel distillates will always be a by-product, then probably very cheap, if the electrification of ground transport comes true.

98% of construction, agricultural mechanization and cargo transport runs on diesel, not easily converted to electrics. Electric cars, due to mining, steel, plastics have large amounts of embedded oil in them, greater than ICE cars

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Who says the Right has a monopoly on conspiracy theories? Sure, MBS and Putin listen to Trump like puppets.

Putin definitely not, but MBS is deep in bed with the son in law, and last WH almost certainly helped him cover up transnational assassination. Not conspiracy theory - DOJ is looking into all that as we speak, with some rocks as yet unturned.

Any links?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The barrel of crude has to refined to get the 30% of the crude that we need for non-fuel products. The 70% as fuel distillates will always be a by-product, then probably very cheap, if the electrification of ground transport comes true.

98% of construction, agricultural mechanization and cargo transport runs on diesel, not easily converted to electrics. Electric cars, due to mining, steel, plastics have large amounts of embedded oil in them, greater than ICE cars

They can change how they crack the oil. There are reasons we have refineries, but then that will require more innovation. Some refineries will continue to pump gasoline, but it may become very cost ineffective.

COVID lockdowns and the resulting drop in demand let oil prices crash in early 2020. It took nearly a year for prices to return to 2019 levels. I suspect even US drillers and refiners are weary of the market volatility. Holding back on capacity and waiting for the right time to invest can really boost your profits. We saw the same in aviation when the US3 stopped dumping capacity following the 2000's bankruptcies and mergers.

On the other hand, high fuel costs will encourage consumers to burn less oil. That should limit the price increase. It's been more expensive previously and people managed.
The downside is that certain energy-intensive products like concrete, steel and glass might become more expensive; I guess this could worsen the housing crisis int the short-term.

mxaxai wrote:

COVID lockdowns and the resulting drop in demand let oil prices crash in early 2020. It took nearly a year for prices to return to 2019 levels. I suspect even US drillers and refiners are weary of the market volatility. Holding back on capacity and waiting for the right time to invest can really boost your profits. We saw the same in aviation when the US3 stopped dumping capacity following the 2000's bankruptcies and mergers.

On the other hand, high fuel costs will encourage consumers to burn less oil. That should limit the price increase. It's been more expensive previously and people managed.
The downside is that certain energy-intensive products like concrete, steel and glass might become more expensive; I guess this could worsen the housing crisis int the short-term.

I think this is what politicians don't understand about non-OPEC production, especially domestic US supply.

You can complain all you want about inflation, environmentalists, or windfall profits; at the end of the day it's a small group of powerful investors/speculators that make these decisions, and they could care less about inflation or the rest of the overall economy. Also, what happens in one corner of the world affects the price everywhere.

This is just how things work with shareholder capilitalism and globally-traded commodities markets. Throw in a cartel of autocratic regimes to manipulate supply on top of all this, and here we are. We've been here many times before, so I don't get all the shocked reactions from the west.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Who says the Right has a monopoly on conspiracy theories? Sure, MBS and Putin listen to Trump like puppets.

Putin definitely not, but MBS is deep in bed with the son in law, and last WH almost certainly helped him cover up transnational assassination. Not conspiracy theory - DOJ is looking into all that as we speak, with some rocks as yet unturned.

Any links?

With pleasure (more like sour taste in the mouth)

https://www.justsecurity.org/82860/need ... en-system/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/jared-kush ... 1659003014

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/21/jar ... in-salman/

https://www.salon.com/2022/05/18/doj-to ... s_partner/

https://www.americanoversight.org/ameri ... clear-deal

https://www.timesofisrael.com/saved-his ... urder/amp/

https://www.propublica.org/article/atto ... ictims/amp

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 1.html?amp

The fuel prices are so bad I bought an EV to replace our small car, my wife will use this for her daily run to work and home. This should save us close to 2000NOK per month.

Kiwirob wrote:

The fuel prices are so bad I bought an EV to replace our small car, my wife will use this for her daily run to work and home. This should save us close to 2000NOK per month.

Reading stuff like that makes me feel very fortunate to live in the middle of the world's greatest urban rail network. I made three trips today totalling 28 km and spent $6.

I don't pay for most of my gas (company car) but right now radical unions (and I'm not against unions, but the French CGT was created by the USSR basically) are in a strike, blocking refineries and fuel deliveries. All the stations around me I can access with my gas card are empty. People are sitting in queues for hours.

I'm sure orders for electric cars are increasing every day this goes on. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot !

Aesma wrote:

I don't pay for most of my gas (company car) but right now radical unions (and I'm not against unions, but the French CGT was created by the USSR basically) are in a strike, blocking refineries and fuel deliveries. All the stations around me I can access with my gas card are empty. People are sitting in queues for hours.

I'm sure orders for electric cars are increasing every day this goes on. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot !

Oer Car and Driver. The uptake is getting higher very quiclky.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a3999 ... sales-usa/

American car shoppers appear to have discovered electric vehicles. After a decade of slow but steady sales growth, electric vehicle registrations in the U.S. shot up 60 percent in the first quarter of 2022, even as overall new car registrations dropped 18 percent, per a report by Automotive News that used data collected by financial data firm Experian. It’s the latest indication that domestic EV acceptance may have turned some important but invisible corner recently.

https://www.anl.gov/esia/light-duty-ele ... es-updates

The electric cars are starting to overtake the hybrids.

Topped up my car last night after work at 241.9/L - $61 for 25L - yeesh lol.

Glad I only go through a full tank a month, have no idea how those who have to fill weekly are managing this.

Aaron747 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

The fuel prices are so bad I bought an EV to replace our small car, my wife will use this for her daily run to work and home. This should save us close to 2000NOK per month.

Reading stuff like that makes me feel very fortunate to live in the middle of the world's greatest urban rail network. I made three trips today totalling 28 km and spent $6.

Small towns with less than 30k people don’t need urban rail, the closest train station to me is a ferry ride and 60km drive. The airport is 19km from home.

Kiwirob wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

The fuel prices are so bad I bought an EV to replace our small car, my wife will use this for her daily run to work and home. This should save us close to 2000NOK per month.

Reading stuff like that makes me feel very fortunate to live in the middle of the world's greatest urban rail network. I made three trips today totalling 28 km and spent $6.

Small towns with less than 30k people don’t need urban rail, the closest train station to me is a ferry ride and 60km drive. The airport is 19km from home.

Oh that definitely has plusses too. I grew up in a town of 30k people.

From the center of Tokyo, 60 km west will put you into 1800m mountains and 60 km east will put you in the Pacific. In between is 35 million people and about 10 gagillion rail lines and stations.

SEAorPWM wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

COVID lockdowns and the resulting drop in demand let oil prices crash in early 2020. It took nearly a year for prices to return to 2019 levels. I suspect even US drillers and refiners are weary of the market volatility. Holding back on capacity and waiting for the right time to invest can really boost your profits. We saw the same in aviation when the US3 stopped dumping capacity following the 2000's bankruptcies and mergers.

On the other hand, high fuel costs will encourage consumers to burn less oil. That should limit the price increase. It's been more expensive previously and people managed.
The downside is that certain energy-intensive products like concrete, steel and glass might become more expensive; I guess this could worsen the housing crisis int the short-term.

I think this is what politicians don't understand about non-OPEC production, especially domestic US supply.

You can complain all you want about inflation, environmentalists, or windfall profits; at the end of the day it's a small group of powerful investors/speculators that make these decisions, and they could care less about inflation or the rest of the overall economy. Also, what happens in one corner of the world affects the price everywhere.

This is just how things work with shareholder capilitalism and globally-traded commodities markets. Throw in a cartel of autocratic regimes to manipulate supply on top of all this, and here we are. We've been here many times before, so I don't get all the shocked reactions from the west.

How is "trying not to lost money due to having high risk of volatile market" a "problem" of "shareholder capitalism". It is literally a feature of it and it is working in promoting less petroleum usage.
If you design a economic system that people don't need to care about the risk of putting in resources for investment then that would actually be scary.

Kiwirob wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

The fuel prices are so bad I bought an EV to replace our small car, my wife will use this for her daily run to work and home. This should save us close to 2000NOK per month.

Reading stuff like that makes me feel very fortunate to live in the middle of the world's greatest urban rail network. I made three trips today totalling 28 km and spent $6.

Small towns with less than 30k people don’t need urban rail, the closest train station to me is a ferry ride and 60km drive. The airport is 19km from home.

A lot of small towns with urban rail are starting to understand the benefit. Even more towns without any transit network are probably wishing they had it. From my own experience, Amtrak Cascades service is perfect for people who need to get to a major city but don't want to or can't drive. Multiple trips per day, easy access to other networks, and all for less than the cost of a car. But, as Americans, we are conditioned to hate transit and love only gas powered cars. Where I live, we have a small bus network (three routes Monday to Friday only) and one bus, four times per week that connects with another bus that connects with Eugene, the largest city near us. Rail is not an option, but how convenient would it be to have increased service?

c933103 wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

COVID lockdowns and the resulting drop in demand let oil prices crash in early 2020. It took nearly a year for prices to return to 2019 levels. I suspect even US drillers and refiners are weary of the market volatility. Holding back on capacity and waiting for the right time to invest can really boost your profits. We saw the same in aviation when the US3 stopped dumping capacity following the 2000's bankruptcies and mergers.

On the other hand, high fuel costs will encourage consumers to burn less oil. That should limit the price increase. It's been more expensive previously and people managed.
The downside is that certain energy-intensive products like concrete, steel and glass might become more expensive; I guess this could worsen the housing crisis int the short-term.

I think this is what politicians don't understand about non-OPEC production, especially domestic US supply.

You can complain all you want about inflation, environmentalists, or windfall profits; at the end of the day it's a small group of powerful investors/speculators that make these decisions, and they could care less about inflation or the rest of the overall economy. Also, what happens in one corner of the world affects the price everywhere.

This is just how things work with shareholder capilitalism and globally-traded commodities markets. Throw in a cartel of autocratic regimes to manipulate supply on top of all this, and here we are. We've been here many times before, so I don't get all the shocked reactions from the west.

How is "trying not to lost money due to having high risk of volatile market" a "problem" of "shareholder capitalism". It is literally a feature of it and it is working in promoting less petroleum usage.
If you design a economic system that people don't need to care about the risk of putting in resources for investment then that would actually be scary.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post, but I am in agreement that this is a feature of shareholder capitalism.

I'm just referring to the crowd who makes such a big deal about energy prices, and the stream of complaints from my fellow Americans about there not being enough domestic production.

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Reading stuff like that makes me feel very fortunate to live in the middle of the world's greatest urban rail network. I made three trips today totalling 28 km and spent $6.

Small towns with less than 30k people don’t need urban rail, the closest train station to me is a ferry ride and 60km drive. The airport is 19km from home.

A lot of small towns with urban rail are starting to understand the benefit. Even more towns without any transit network are probably wishing they had it. From my own experience, Amtrak Cascades service is perfect for people who need to get to a major city but don't want to or can't drive. Multiple trips per day, easy access to other networks, and all for less than the cost of a car. But, as Americans, we are conditioned to hate transit and love only gas powered cars. Where I live, we have a small bus network (three routes Monday to Friday only) and one bus, four times per week that connects with another bus that connects with Eugene, the largest city near us. Rail is not an option, but how convenient would it be to have increased service?

The Germans had plans to link up a lot of smaller Norwegian towns to the rail network, they just didn’t stay in charge long enough to do it. The Norwegian govt hasn't extended the network much since WW2 ended, they decided air made more sense.

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Small towns with less than 30k people don’t need urban rail, the closest train station to me is a ferry ride and 60km drive. The airport is 19km from home.

A lot of small towns with urban rail are starting to understand the benefit. Even more towns without any transit network are probably wishing they had it. From my own experience, Amtrak Cascades service is perfect for people who need to get to a major city but don't want to or can't drive. Multiple trips per day, easy access to other networks, and all for less than the cost of a car. But, as Americans, we are conditioned to hate transit and love only gas powered cars. Where I live, we have a small bus network (three routes Monday to Friday only) and one bus, four times per week that connects with another bus that connects with Eugene, the largest city near us. Rail is not an option, but how convenient would it be to have increased service?

The Germans had plans to link up a lot of smaller Norwegian towns to the rail network, they just didn’t stay in charge long enough to do it. The Norwegian govt hasn't extended the network much since WW2 ended, they decided air made more sense.

Maybe because of geography and science? Finland has a rail network, from what I have read, but they don't have the fjords and terrain like Norway. Greenland has zero miles of railroads but they have an international airline. I wonder why?

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

A lot of small towns with urban rail are starting to understand the benefit. Even more towns without any transit network are probably wishing they had it. From my own experience, Amtrak Cascades service is perfect for people who need to get to a major city but don't want to or can't drive. Multiple trips per day, easy access to other networks, and all for less than the cost of a car. But, as Americans, we are conditioned to hate transit and love only gas powered cars. Where I live, we have a small bus network (three routes Monday to Friday only) and one bus, four times per week that connects with another bus that connects with Eugene, the largest city near us. Rail is not an option, but how convenient would it be to have increased service?

The Germans had plans to link up a lot of smaller Norwegian towns to the rail network, they just didn’t stay in charge long enough to do it. The Norwegian govt hasn't extended the network much since WW2 ended, they decided air made more sense.

Maybe because of geography and science? Finland has a rail network, from what I have read, but they don't have the fjords and terrain like Norway. Greenland has zero miles of railroads but they have an international airline. I wonder why?

The Geography wasn't a hurdle for the Germans back in the 1940's they believed it could be done, it also not a hurdle for Norwegian transport engineers today, the country is full of tunnels and bridges. Finland is a long way away from Norway, Greenland s a long way away from anywhere, if you look at a map you can easily see why they need an airline.

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Small towns with less than 30k people don’t need urban rail, the closest train station to me is a ferry ride and 60km drive. The airport is 19km from home.

The Germans had plans to link up a lot of smaller Norwegian towns to the rail network, they just didn’t stay in charge long enough to do it. The Norwegian govt hasn't extended the network much since WW2 ended, they decided air made more sense.

Sounds exactly where we live in Norge also. It’d be great to have light rail here from the city to the west, and out to the airport. Just last week we looked over the id Buzz as our second EV. Gas prices are through the roof…

hh65man wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

The Germans had plans to link up a lot of smaller Norwegian towns to the rail network, they just didn’t stay in charge long enough to do it. The Norwegian govt hasn't extended the network much since WW2 ended, they decided air made more sense.

Sounds exactly where we live in Norge also. It’d be great to have light rail here from the city to the west, and out to the airport. Just last week we looked over the id Buzz as our second EV. Gas prices are through the roof…

The ID Buzz would make a great family car if it had a bigger battery, the 77kw battery is far too small and it needs faster charging.

Lucky if you own a diesel the tax will be reduced next year.

I live outside Molde, where are you?

Kiwirob wrote:

hh65man wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Sounds exactly where we live in Norge also. It’d be great to have light rail here from the city to the west, and out to the airport. Just last week we looked over the id Buzz as our second EV. Gas prices are through the roof…

The ID Buzz would make a great family car if it had a bigger battery, the 77kw battery is far too small and it needs faster charging.

Lucky if you own a diesel the tax will be reduced next year.

I live outside Molde, where are you?

Down the road, Alesund, or more accurately Godoya. And yes, 77kw is to small for me too. I’ll wait until the all wheel drive with a larger battery will be introduced. Still have to pit stop in Dombås for a charge up for any trips to Oslo which is fine as it’s our lunch stop. But then another charge before Oslo to have juice for the city. In the meantime we are looking at preowned diesel family vans, VW, Peugeot, with space to haul the occasional visiting family or friends. The Peugeots EV Traveller doesn’t have a great battery either at the moment. We both in the city, so hardly drive our petrol car.

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Small towns with less than 30k people don’t need urban rail, the closest train station to me is a ferry ride and 60km drive. The airport is 19km from home.

A lot of small towns with urban rail are starting to understand the benefit. Even more towns without any transit network are probably wishing they had it. From my own experience, Amtrak Cascades service is perfect for people who need to get to a major city but don't want to or can't drive. Multiple trips per day, easy access to other networks, and all for less than the cost of a car. But, as Americans, we are conditioned to hate transit and love only gas powered cars. Where I live, we have a small bus network (three routes Monday to Friday only) and one bus, four times per week that connects with another bus that connects with Eugene, the largest city near us. Rail is not an option, but how convenient would it be to have increased service?

The Germans had plans to link up a lot of smaller Norwegian towns to the rail network, they just didn’t stay in charge long enough to do it. The Norwegian govt hasn't extended the network much since WW2 ended, they decided air made more sense.

1940s is not now, the hurdle to use private transport was much higher hence demand for any shared mode of transit be it trains or otherwise would have been higher than now.
Nowadays many lines in Japan are suffering from possible fate of closure despite still operating and serving towns now and that Japanese government recognize the benefit of railways and local population want to keep them, but most of those places are already highly motorized and car already become default that it doesn't make sense nor would anyone be willing to keep paying to run empty trains. And there are also buses that cost less to run than railway when ridership isn't high.

BBC has discouraging story of the impact high fuel costs are having world wide and the social unrest.

"Fuel protests gripping more than 90 countries" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-63185186

The strong US dollar and supply constraints are really hammering the ability of many nations to afford fuel.

Probably the main reason Biden should not stop the exports of US refined fuels so our prices in the States go down.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

BBC has discouraging story of the impact high fuel costs are having world wide and the social unrest.

"Fuel protests gripping more than 90 countries" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-63185186

The strong US dollar and supply constraints are really hammering the ability of many nations to afford fuel.

I can't see how any of this was avoidable given the past policies of the last 10-15 years.

Time to start conserving if we care about the climate... or start sharpening the pencils on new reactors

Our prices are back to about 190.9 CAD/litre from an all time high of 241.9 CAD/litre two weeks ago. I can't remember the last time I saw a drop of 20% or more in such a short period of time.