Will Gas Ever Go Back to $2.00-$2.50?

Discussion in 'Economics' started by CollegeTrader33, Aug 4, 2008.

  1. This weekend I was down at school, and had to put gas in the car for the drive back. Gas at home is $3.88, at school, $3.75. I put in $25 (I am a college kid, after all), and my girlfriend asks, "Why don't you just fill it up?" I responded, "I will not until gas goes back under $3."

    So that started a long debate on whether gas would ever get back below $3. I believe it will, when available supply increases as demand continues to decrease with newer technologies (maybe a couple years out yet), the demand decrease when The War in Iraq begins to end (with Obama), and if the value of the dollar (hopefully) begins to appreciate.

    Thoughts? Comments? What do the good people of ET think about gas going back to $2.50?
  2. I'm a believer in "peak oil" and that Chindia will sop up any available supply created by "demand destruction" in the US.

    Better fill 'er up NOW... before gas goes to $5.
  3. Corey


    Unless you are claiming that the weight of extra fuel is hurting your gas mileage, you realize that at the end of the day you are paying the same amount?

    You either pay more now and fill later, or pay less now and fill sooner.

    Whether you fill it up or cap it off at $25 ... by the end of the year, you've spent the same amount...

  4. it will eventually but don't count on it to do so anytime within the next 10 years. there are sufficient reserves it is just a matter of producing them.
  5. empee


    oil is leading a commodities bubble, gas will be below $2.50 sooner than most ppl think. I agree longer-term there may be peak oil etc etc but that doesn't justify the price run up, look at the monthly chart its totally ridiculous. Plus, look at the inflow of funds to commodities funds. In fact, when it breaks GAS will be way cheaper than it should be for a long time as trapped longs try to get out. Plus, when it tops its going to fall faster than anything you have every seen. Its possible its in that process, since we're coming off a initial top, need to see how the bounces are.

    In any case, Gas will undoubted be below $2.50 way before anyone realizes it. Its going to $3.40 now since every $35 in OIL is $1 at the pump (there is a lag effect on it getting to the pump price but you will see gas dropping .60 from the peak you saw in the coming weeks).

    It will therefore undoubtedly go below $2.50 since that woudl require about another $35 drop in price == sub $90 a barrell.

    Realistically, if its a bubble usually you lose 70% from the top and if $147 was the top then = $44/barrell.. which fits about right was thinking $50 longer-term and maybe ratcheting up to $80 over time.

    Just watch when the commodities top, its the fast money trying to monetize their cash as the FED destroys USD, however assets are all going to fall faster than USD longer-term IMHO (real estate, stocks, commodities, etc.).

    Other than trading I'm long USD and have liquidated virtually all my assets. Just sitting in cash waiting for the panic/bargains.

    (Plus to short commodities if can get a decent bounce and it looks like a good top). I was expecting a thrust from 120 area but I dunno if that last bounce was it.
  6. Yes, gasoline prices will once again be lower, only after this country FINALLY gets serious about developing complete suites of alternatives that allows for the efficient conversions of our own plentiful resources into transportational fuels, that we transition from other current uses.

    I personally feel that we must accomplish this transformation WITHOUT furthering our commitments to ANY NEW NUCLEAR developments, and even begin to scale out of existing nuclear.

    A challenge to achieve to be sure, the price we collectively pay for our failure to transition when the going was easy, and cheap.

    On the positive side of the ledger, setting about to accomplish the above will provide many jobs for an indefinte and extended period.

    I estimate, conservatively, (no pun intended), that it may take 20-30 years to undue the damage caused by the current administration.

    In short, there is much to do.

    Unfortunately, while we as a nation are closer to the realization that we as a antion must adopt comprehensive energy policies that addresses our past failures and sets a new course and directive, we are not there yet in the implementation of same.

    A distinct advantage and aspect of the above, rests upon the demonstration of resolve, and announcements of same. In my opinion, that alone will help steer a downward direction in the energy markets, but only if the seriousness of intent in achieving an definitive end result is evident from the outset. With the crude markets having currently 'broken their fever', there is at this moment the additional advantage of a current downward bias, that if helped along, can get a head of steam down.

    In short, we gotta put some 'do' in the 'can do'.

  7. Problem with that is we will eventually need nuclear power. Solar and wind (at current efficiency) can only produce so much. As a nation we keep growing, I don't see a solution where nuclear energy ISN'T part of the equation.
  8. Not anytime soon.
    Maybe in 10 years, as commodities are cyclical, but this is too far off.

    Because I want to fill YOU up!.

  9. My outlook here is, and what you may wish to consider, is that as a nation, we have relied on the development of nuclear, to the exclision of other plentiful options. As a result, not only have we opened a pandora's box of nuclear waste, as importantly, the use of nuclear has in actuality left us still as committed, if not more so, to the use and importation of fossil fuels, and the lack of developments of alternatives.

    An additional problem, that I find more troubling, is the tone, or mindset, that develops and is promoted surrounding the continued use of nuclear, which you may note your are also 'buying into'. That is, the outlook that 'we can't do without it', ie, 'we are so behind the eight-ball, we gotta have it'.

    Unfortunately, what that does in actuality, is sets, once again, the wrong tone and direction, and commits this nation to further dependance on nuclear. These commitments extend in timecycles that measure 'in generations', ie, 30 + years, or longer.

    As I see it, the past round of nuclear has done far too great damage, leading us to a great extent to where we are today. I see every reason to 'turn this around', and begin to do the right thing, by doing less of the wrong thing.

    Unfortunately, most people are being blinded by the current conditions, and are not focusing on the bigger and more harmful set of conditions, and are happy to go along with the hoopla of developing another generational mistake, and commit to nuclear.

    I see it as a point in time when we can begin to actually right some 30-40 year wrongs, and begin moving in a direction that endures as 'the right thing', for many decades to come.

    As I noted, not easy accomplished. It's called biting the bullet.
  10. The answer is yes. And it will be there sooner than most think.
    #10     Aug 4, 2008