As a WA local, FuelWatch is

As a WA local, FuelWatch is at least useful - I don't care if it doesn't affect prices per se, but at least it stops:
a) stations moving their prices around during the day, and
b) me filling up then finding a price 10c cheaper 5km down the road.

There's no reason NOT to have a FuelWatch system across the country, but by the same token it shouldn't be hailed as a solution to high prices.

[...] "1149",

[...] "1149", "http://theburgess.net/green"); ABARE: Fuel crisis? What fuel crisis? While the battle of petrol price populism between the old parties drags on, Christine plugged away [...]

It is quite clear that there

It is quite clear that there is no oil shortage or other primary energy shortage at the moment. Some supply difficulties may arise from time to time as been reasonably argued. The peak oil scenario never did say there was a current shortage only that a point of inflection has been reach and decline in supplies is not too far away.

What is putting up the cost of energy is the cost to the environment or should be. Currently one perhaps should ask “in whose interest” is the current price spiral and vested interests seems to be a good place to start.

However, it seems to be a common mistake by economists and the like in that they fail to distinguish between abstract theories of the man made monetary market place, which is classed as a dubious technology by science and physical reality.

In history of life on earth, the industrial revolution, which is an energy revolution, has caused a human lifestyle inversion. Before the beginning of the revolution most people were independent for their basic needs ie, food. Being able, by technology to convert external energy supplies into useful work, human life has gained energy, initially from coal then oil and other sources and now the majority of the populations are dependent on a few people for their basic needs.

What seems to have been missed is the mathematics of gain are a frightening. On the upside everything is easy, as society expands, ready supplies of energy are available and it is a multiplier, the more you expand, (expansion essentially meaning population), the more you are able expand. Parkinson’s laws applied to energy, population will expand to use the energy available. The problem is the new population increases the energy available and so the cycle goes on generation after generation.

The down side of such a structure is not so pleasant and the multipliers work in reverse in much the same way as borrowing money for the stock market and getting a margin call. Going from a high to a low is extremely quick and almost instantaneous if you are highly geared. It is no different with the physical reality of energy supplies and with current energy technology we are very highly geared.

Oil has been the most recent accelerator of the energy revolution, in other words it has provided the peak of the exponential curve of energy consumption and has enabled the mobile society. The effects of the beginnings of true oil shortage are going to be felt very practically.

For one who has used price watch in WA, I can say it does calm things down a bit and gives the consumer time to react. Fuel suppliers have the advantage of almost instantaneous data and data manipulation which is impossible to be deal with by the consumer. It is the 24 hr freeze that is the most beneficial part as it stops the price changing whilst in transit or even waiting on the forecourt.

KT Jones suggests that; "It

KT Jones suggests that;
"It is quite clear that there is no oil shortage or other primary energy shortage at the moment".

I would have to disagree; the recent trends are proof in contradiction.
Many immanent and well respected experts in the area of global energy trends express a similar set of opinions, all agree that the Global Industry reached peak oil around about 1996, that given current trends we will reach peak Natural Gas and black coal reserves by about 2030 (yes, it’s a consensus based on strong verified research) and even Uranium will peak out in the next 20 to 40 years.

For leads on papers and speaches by these individuals just Google the term "peak oil' and/or 'Peak coal'

The increasing time lag and fiscal costs involved in establishing all of the associated infrastructure, collect the resource, refine it and in the case of the Nuclear industry develop and construct very expensive new reactors based on the risky premise that more Uranium will be available when they are finished make the ecenomics prohibitive.

That is why Nations like Germany, Spain, Japan, Korea, and Ireland amongst many others have decided on a National Green I/P Tariff system to encourage investment in Solar & Wind Energy developments. That is why these Nations are not attempting to fool their people with the invisible clothing stitched from business as usual cloth in a style which suggests that anything less than unfettered consumer narcissism will undermine the economy.

When the Priminister of a country can imply on National Television that it’s more important to discourage a culture of energy and consumer frugality because to implement policy discouraging consumer driven excesses is the antithesis of good economic management, one must wonder if he is living on the same planet as the rest of us.

The Rudd vision seems to include more packaging and less food.
More bigger TV's and V8's with less to make them go.

Even now the point has been reached where further exploration for suspected natural reserves and exploitation of known reserves has become economically dubious.

The mining and energy industry is chasing its own tail in a frightening ever tightening economic spiral.

You will note that amongst the most influencual protagonists lobbying for fossil fuel protectionism are the mining and energy industry pundits, now isn’t that just the epitome of irony?

When you have the luxury of observing the big race from the comfort of your veggie patch and realise that the core of the architecture which enforces unfettered Global free trade to the detriment and prejudice of those who can least afford but most need to compete on the uneven playing field also demands protection from rising energy costs, you have to wonder when human kind will actually catch up to its own run away machine?

Mandating for effective passive energy efficiencies for all new developments and constructions, community based market garden initiatives, alternative 'clean' non fossil fuel based methods for commuter transportation, a minimum 4:1 National green energy I/P tariff amongst other methodologies is not only an imperative its mandatory if we are to control our course through the beginnings of this new millennium.

Without policy which will sometimes offend the conservatives, which allows us to create and sustain business involved with the correct responses’ to our environmental parameters we risk a future of constant panic and reactionary knee jerk temporary fixes as the new dawn every day constantly reminds us of the mess denial gets us into.

Like great big four wheel drives rusting on the medium strip while mum waits at the bus stop for the kids with her box of groceries, wondering how to pay it off.

K.T.Jones at 8 wrote;- "Just

K.T.Jones at 8 wrote;-
"Just to clarify, I believe there is no shortage of crude oil or other energy commodity currently only difficulty in the supply, some of the restriction being by monetary manipulation enabled by rapidly increasing demand."

That statement does not square with say the British North Sea's failing production, as just one example at random. More broadly the case of "sweet light crude" which is so short that folks are reluctantly taking the stinky sulfur stuff instead also seems rather odd to square against your assertion.

W. Shawn Gray

"ABARE’s recently adjusted

"ABARE’s recently adjusted projections of long-term oil price. ............they now project the price in the coming year at $82, falling back to $67 in the medium term, 2013 and beyond."

It occurred to me last-night there could be something else going on in ABARE's projections. Is it just coincidence that their medium term estimate at $67 (is that Auzy or US dollars?) is so close to to the US$65 a barrel break-point where coal-to-liquid becomes a viable business option?? So are ABARE actually thinking coal-to-liquid for Australia's medium term oil supplies rather than raw-mineral-oil from off-shore? While coal-to-liquid has a nastier greenhouse gas signature than raw-oil (as some 40% of coal energy is consumed in the conversion process), such a move would keep a lid on transport fuel cost for countries (such as the USA & Australia) that are rich in coal reserves.

Just a thought. W.Shawn Gray

WSG: What you say makes

WSG: What you say makes sense. They would cap the long term oil price at the CTL break-point. Its horrifying from a greenhouse perspective but perfectly logical from an economic perspective where:

a) They foresee no peak coal event
b) They do not price the externality of CO2 pollution.

Given their history of projections we could guess they price CTL feedstock coal at $100/tonne at the most and probably quite a bit less.

If the steady state CO2 price is $40/tonne and we get 3 tonne CO2 per tonne coal burnt then the externality adds $120/tonne to the feedstock price, more than doubling it.

That won't double the CTL break point since not all the CO2 will be consumed in the conversion, some will only be consumed when the oil is burnt. But it might push it up to $100. This immediately undermines the $67 price if predicated on CTL breakpoint.

However it gets worse.

China is expected to domestically hit peak coal in under 20 years and most of its remaining coal (even now) is very deep (1000m) underground (most of the surface stuff is gone).

Their demand is going through the roof and will only get more extreme so we can assume coal is going to get a lot more expensive. This suggests a steady state CTL break point well over $100. With a bit of handwaving around peak coal you could sustain an argument that it would double the break point.

Finally if their $67 does not include any emission abatement cost then $67 is misleading. The real cost of oil to any economic user of oil will in future include its abatement cost. So in order to make a proper comparison of todays oil costs with future coil costs we need to consider the expected cost of using the coal which is in a greenhouse world is more than the purchase price, it is also the pollution clean up cost.

So this begs the Senate estimate questions to ABARE:

a) Does ABARE base in part the $67 long term oil price on the CTL breakpoint?

b) If so what is the feedstock price of coal estimate at for the CTL breakpoint.

c) Has ABARE priced the inclusion of CO2 externalities into the feedstock cost of coal?

d) Has ABARE considered the possibility of approaching peak coal in coming decades and what

e) Does the $67 include the expected cost of abatement of the emissions arising from using that oil?

f) If not $67 is misleading and so what is their expected effective end user cost inclusive of emissions abatement for the use of the oil?

Its significant that ABARE

Its significant that ABARE can be wrong, wildly wrong, year after year after year, and still its economic rationalists think they have a clue and the politicians and media pretend they do (Alan Kohler perhaps only honourable if recent exception).

Dislodging the religious Economic Rationalist point of view (it sure ain't evidence based) will be required before any comprehensively useful adaptations are made, but there is no sign of that happening this decade.

In other words, ABAREs stupidity and mainstream media's & pollies spinelessness will see us enter energy descent arsebackwards and burning. Maybe Rudd and Nelson have a secret plan to give Oz back to the Abo's by 2050, in which case, Full Steam Ahead!

Good thinking John, the

Good thinking John, the inflation proofing angle should find favour with the current govt. Perhaps this should be pushed harder before the cash influx from carbon trading. Mind you the Rudd govts vision for Australia seems to extend no further than the next election. My crystal ball sees all the carbon monies being pork barrelled prior to Kevin '11. But perhaps some of that cash can be channelled into renewables.

I like the shorter CST technology innovation cycle angle too. Although this is a hard one to push to conventional economists who like to bank (literally) on long term certainty. The fewer variables for them the better. So to add to the uncertainty of nukes long term economic viability, due to a rapidly progressing technology, is a good strategy worth expanding and promoting. "You can bank on the CST shorter technology cycle delivering greater efficiencies and returns", vs. "you can bank on a nuke cost structure blow out".

mcfarm (comm 12) - I believe

mcfarm (comm 12) - I believe that you are correct, except that the Government is probably turning a blind eye to the problem. Effectively keeping the farm gate price down is slowing the rate of produce increases (artifically). I would suggest that if the true increased cost of transport / fuel / freight was added to all the prices of goods in supermarkets / shops, there would be major demonstrations in the streets, when people could not afford to buy their basic requirements.

Although retired, I work part time driving a large delivery van (metro and country deliveries) for a few extra dollars. The company has implemented a $10 delivery fee (probably to rise to $15 as diesel prices increase), to partially cover the cost of diesel. This cost needs naturally to be passed to consumers. Now if you extend this further, a small to medium retailer may receive 5-10 assorted deliveries a week from different suppliers, the delivery costs of which need to be passed to consumers. So all the costs rise to meet the retailers expenses. Unfortunately there is a medium / long term effect top this, and that may be the demise of the small retailers (and suburban shopping strips), and the further expansion of the mega shopping centres, where one delivery may cover many retailers. The effect will be that the average person will not just be able to jump on their push bike and ride to the local shop for milk / bread etc. they will need to drive to the major major shopping centre.

Unfortunately there is no easy fix, but I suggest that through voter pressure, the Federal Government will eventually have to subsidise at least diesel costs (as I believe the Chinese, and Indian governments do) or face demonstrations like currently being experienced in Europe and some Asian counties.

An interesting delivery method was proposed some time ago, and that was to use the suburban rail network, with retailers, then required to go to the stations to collect their goods / produce. I think this was put in the too hard basket due to a couple of major problems -
1. Probable need to reduce the number of passenger services to allow extra freight trains (most suburban rail networks do not have room for additional freight lines)
2. No room at stations for storage of goods when delivered
Anyway the idea was an example of creative thinking.

I suspect that in the next few years we are going to face some interesting and painful times, with even getting our basic requirements.

Concerned - your points are

Concerned - your points are taken, although the idea of home delivery has also been looked at and found to have a huge carbon footprint for the following reasons :
1. Deliveries to large supermarkets are undertaken by large vans / semi trailers, but to homes would need to be undertaken by smaller vans (you would still need the semis to deliver larger loads to supermarkets which would still be required for many years). It must be remembered that larger vans are either restricted from many suburban areas, or the roads are not navigable by larger vans.
2. As a van would be able to deliver to around 20-25 homes per day (maybe slightly higher if all in same area, but governed by size of van), you would need to put thousands of additional diesel vans on the road (Australia wide tens of thousands of additional vans on the road). All vans except the very small need to run on diesel, although development is being undertaken to run a diesel / injected gas mixture (15% gas).
3. Distribution warehouses would need to be on city fringes needing large traveling times (diesel usage to get to the delivery areas) unless existing supermarkets are converted to these warehouses, but then you still need large trucks to deliver to the warehouses.
4. To deliver refrigerated items, you would require refrigerated vans. Because a refrigerated van has lower carrying capacity, then you have to increase again the number of vans (smaller refrigerated or both refrigerated, and non refrigerated).
5. By law, meat cannot be transported with any other food stuffs, unless individually packaged (in non environment friendly packaging), so you would also need a fleet of trucks to probably deliver meat

With the above we are only discussing food stuffs, and not discussing the myriad of other items delivered by truck, and which are required.

In short, unless the price of diesel is somehow pegged by the government, just about everything will keep increasing in cost, pushing up inflation, and in turn pushing up interest rates (mortgage and rent increases will automatically follow the rate increases). People will get very upset at not being able afford to make their rent or mortgage payments, then being evicted, and I suspect the government knows this. So subsiding the cost of diesel may not be the prudent thing to do, I believe that the government will have no choice (a matter of survival).

The next election should be interesting as I bet each party will be working hard to lose it, and not be in the firing line.

ABARE is a total waste of

ABARE is a total waste of space...... you can read what is REALLY going on with Australia's oil outlook at http://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/