In large part the oil price is a result of constraints on low oil refinery capacity, plus historic low investment in oil exploration. New oil discoveries take a while to come on stream.

The Middle East is way down the list of 'culprits'.

http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/

Australia as an independent soverign nation is free to have its federal government spend huge budget surpluses on R & D researching alternate fuels and other sources of power. Bio-deisel, bio-fuels, ethanol and many other fuels which do not contain oil can and are being developed in other countries.

Brazil has a choice of ethanol 100%, ethanol/petrol blend, lpg,the motorist simply chooses their preference or the cheapest on the day, and with the flick of a switch away they go. Many more countries are progressing in this and other ways, but not Australia.

Howard Government conservatism is all that's holding this country back, conservative people can only work with conventional thought patterns. Hopefully at the next federal election we elect a progressive government, and begin to make up some of the lost ground, which we have lost over the past decade.

Week after week we have people writing columns on OLO making silly statements.
No wonder we all write in to correct things.
John Mathews writes:
"Prime Minister John Howard has called for an all-out debate on energy in Australia. But what he doesn’t want is an all-out debate on petrol prices - because that’s a debate that he can’t win."
That is the silliest statement I have heard. John has already won.
He walks every day. He has more energy than all of us and has won the debate on energy in a walk. Petrol has risen to about $1.45 a litre and Beazley does nothing.
It should read:
"John Howard has called on all his scientific mates to blast Kim Beazley on the uranium energy question"
The next sentence also needs rearranging
"To avoid that nuclear blast the Labor Party has given Howard an easy run on petrol prices and uranium."
As Humphrey would say "Now that is the beginnings of a beautiful friendship"
A debate is won by Howard if the two combatants are on the same side.

Who says ethanol will be cheaper? Ethanol, which could bring prosperity to the inefficient sugar industry and would supposedly be better for the environment has never, until now, been touted as a cheaper buy than petrol - although it is said to be cheaper to produce than petrol. It has always been a saviour for an inefficient industry favoured by the National Party and as a sop to the greenies.

Fuel prices have not gone down in states where ethanol is blended with petrol. Anyone who thinks that alternative fuels have anything to do with saving the motorist money is in for a big shock.

Get used to petrol prices, get used to inflation.

What a revolting article.

The US invaded Iraq because it had to. US policy for 60 years had been to prop up squalid little dictatorships. We saw what the final result of that evil policy was on September 11, 2001. The USA has no choice but to spread democracy and overthrow fascist governments, we will see more 9/11s.

The chart of Iraqi oil production shown in the article does not match up with the claims that the author makes for it. The author claims a loss of 'one to two million barrels a day' in oil production. In fact, the chart shows that in May this year, Iraqi oil production was back to pre-war levels, and that by January 2004 (less than a year after the invastion), production was already at 80% of pre-war levels. Did the author hope no-one would look closely at the chart?

Since Iraqi oil production is now at pre-war levels, does the author predict that the oil price will drop sharply over the next few months?

And even if the author's conclusions were true (and the facts show they are not), what a small-minded, selfish, cruel thing to say!

"The Iraqi people now have a fighting chance to live in a democratic society. But I'm not happy, because I am paying more for petrol!"

Maybe I will enrol in one of the author's courses at Macquarie University. Since he doesn't feel the need to use accurate facts, passing should be a breeze.

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudo-left?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191

Ethanol a cheaper source of energy than gasoline? I don't think so. Latest quote for NYMEX unleaded gasoline was USD 2.2516/lb, whereas CBOT ethanol is at USD 2.535/lb (both for Spetember delivery). Of course there is more energy in a pound of petrol than in a pound of ethanol.

Nice graphic from the Peak Oil Portal. Nice unbiassed source too.

--d.

Ethanol is a whole lot dearer than gasoline, about 80c litre.
Ehanool is mythylated spirit and in the supermarket on the shelf metho is $3.12 a litre.
Here is definition of Mythylated spirit:
Methylated spirit (or Meths, also denatured alcohol) is ethanol which has been rendered toxic or otherwise undrinkable, and in some cases dyed. It is used for purposes such as fuel for spirit burners and camping stoves, and as a solvent. Traditionally, the main additive was 10% methanol, which gave rise to its name, but this is not always the case now. There are diverse industrial uses for ethanol, and therefore literally hundreds of recipes for denaturing ethanol. Typical additives are methanol, isopropanol, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, denatonium, and even (uncommonly) aviation gasoline.

Now if Australa switched to making Methylated Spirit from wood to making it from sugar cane to make it cheaper we will cause inflation on all food goods in supermarkets.
In supermarkers all manufactured food has a percentage of sugar.
Will people buy manufactured food wityhout sugar in it? NO.
Therefore all foods must rise in price.

If you don't beieve it . . . bananas wee about $1.99 kg. Then a cyclone came aloing and they went to $16 kg and have settled about $12kg. The same thing would happen when we make ethaqnol from sugar cane. It would force inflation on food through the roof.

Though what I'd really like to do is make some comments regarding the 'had to' comment in Jackmanson's post, I'll try and stick to the article -

There are two very basic things that aren't being considered here - the monopolies present within the oil industry, and the inescapable fact that crude oil is not a renewable resource. Sooner or later supply will not meet demand, unless an alternative is developed.

(And these alternatives really aren't that hard to achieve - for many years in New Zealand my family drove a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) car, and while it was about 20 per cent less powerful than a comparable unleaded car, it did the job).

But what irks me about the article is that it doesn't even mention the fact that there are only a few key players in the oil industry - it makes no reference to the fact that in recent years, price has not been pegged to supply - governments talk about investigations into oil pricing, but lets say that the Federal Government did make a finding that an international oil company was guilty of price fixing.

What exactly are they going to do?

There is nothing that the government can do - these corporations are now international entities, and exactly who is to bring them to heel?

Any grandstanding on oil prices is ludicrous - all the federal government can do is abolish oil taxes - once that is done, the only option is to subsidize fuel, but that would be at a ridiculous cost with very little impact.

petrol is getting dear, what an opportunity!!

Why dont instead of whinging we do something about it.

hear is one example of a concept that works, and will be implemented in our lifetime.

there are unlimited opportunities and here is one such one. whilst i am sceptical of this the end of the day things like this get snapped up and archived and when there is dire need, we will change over.

http://netmar.com/~maat/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm

The USA is soley intent on spreading democracy throughout the Middle East?

I believe that Lebanon and Palestine both have democratically elected governnments for all the good it has done them.

The price of oil isn't set by OPEC, it's set by oil barons in New York and is primarily interested in satisfying America's insatiable thirst.

Oil politics has been directly or indirectly responsible for almost all conflicts -major and minor- throughout the 20th Century and looks like continuing well into the 21st.

It's interesting that every President for the last 38 years has a background in the Oil industry or comes from an Oil state. (Except Carter whose contribution was to stop the growth of the domestic nuclear power industry).

The results of the recent pipeline failure in Alaska shows how vulnerable they are to supply interruptions.

All Australia can do is hang on for the ride. We won't be permitted to diversify too much from the traditional sources via ethanol and other substitutes because that's the main way we are kept under control.

The writer is correct insofar as the Iraq debacle has resulted in a temporal loss, rather than a gain, in world oil production.

But why is the writer joining the queue of people trying to aportion blame for increasing petrol prices?

The Iraq invasion, even if successful, could have offset dwindling oil supplies by a matter of 15 years. The Iraq failure perhaps did us all a favour (albeit at horrendous humanitarian cost) in that it may have helped to bring on the oil crisis sooner rather than later.

The faster we create a less energy intensive socity, the less trauma in the long run.

In every other respect the Iraq invasion was a foreign policy debacle of monstrous proportions.

I can't help laughing at most of the posts so far. Why can't you idiots realise that our petrol is nearly the cheapest in the world? I am about to go to Europe for a few months, and petrol there is about $2.70 per litre! Wake up! The only sane person I have read on this subject recently was one who said that in a few years time we will all look back nostalgically to the days when petrol was only $2 per litre!

What should happen is that the government should INCREASE taxes on petrol to the european level, to discourage use. The idiots who use 150 or more litres a week are simply going to have to change their lifestyles, or go broke. It is obvious, (but no politician will tell you) that there needs to be a substantial cut in the standard of living.

Back to public transport, kids walking to school, etc., just as we did in the 1940's. We seemed to be quite happy then, and had more exercise.

Does it really matter who is to blame for rising fuel prices?

The important thing is that the supply / demand ratio is the bottom-line driving factor, with ever-rising demand and currently +/-stable but soon to fall supply rates.

That’s all we really need to know.

So let’s take up Howard’s call for “an all-out energy debate in Australia”.

And let’s make sure that we the people get him and this conservative government to take an energetic pro-active stance on it, as if the very coherence of our society depended on it….. because it does.

My partner and I own pushbikes and have saved thousands of dollars as a result of using these fuel-free vehicles wherever practical. Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. Good luck with your fuel debate. Shonga - when are you going to be back on msn?

Mr Jackmanson: 'The US invaded Iraq because it had to'? I challenge you to reconsider. The concept of 'democracy' is not mutually exclusive to the ideals of freedom. We claim to own this so-called freedom simply because we're democratically governed. But tell me one democratic society that hasn't seen intolerable corruption, the hypocrites that we are.

The price of freedom is responsibility and a responsible nation is an intelligent and ethical one that uses diplomacy, not war, to maintain or restore peace. Brains and integrity over military might is the only long term solution.

Even if this particular war can be justified on some level, have you not informed yourself about the accounts of how the US military has conducted itself over the duration of the war? Direct, malapologetic violations of the Geneva convention and appalling all-round conduct from people who care more about 'killing the enemy' than they do about restoring peace.

Thousands died in the 911 attacks, yes we 'get that' by now. But how many people from Westernised, supposedly civilised nations, have died in their own country through insufficient law enforcement, lack of medical attention and token education systems that produce ignorance and stupidity instead of informed, active citizens? How many people are rotting away in our prisons because society doesn't know what else to do with them? How many people are blowing each other's brains out each day in developed nations? How many people are being bashed and raped? We, as a 'coalition of the willing' inflict more terrorism on ourselves than we do off 'others'.

Please tell me how one is supposed to achieve peace through killing women and children like gutless cowards - oh no, this is the part where you put it back on 'the enemy' - but 'they' did this and 'they did that'. Sounds a lot like the schoolyard bully trying to account for his own behaviours through focusing on the wrong-doings of others. Remember the US has been involved in just about every war in the history of their nation - they even waged war on themselves. Think about that.

What a revolting comment.

"The US invaded Iraq because it had to. "
David Jackmanson

Hang on, the more I think about it, the more you are right.

ameriKKKa had to invade Iraq for these reasons:

* ameriKKKa is a war mongering nation that believes it is above international law.

* ameriKKKa has a multi-billion dollar investment in war-mongering it needs to protect through usage

* ameriKKKa is running out of previously plundered natural resources to feed it's unsustainable thirst for oil

I'm old enough to remember the first time Iraq got beaten up by ameriKKKa, I also remember the jump in petrol prices to pay for that particular armed conflict.

Figure it out, ameriKKKa is evil, racist and plain crappy.

Wobbles,

I noted your suggestion that fuel politics were directly or indirectly involved in almost all conflicts in the 20th century. I would ask you to prove this in relation to:

1/ The Boer War
2/ The First World War
3/ The Second World War
4/ Korea
5/ Vietnam
6/ Confrontasi (Malaysia (Cth v Indonesia))
7/ Pakistan v India wars
8/ Falklands
9/ 1982 Lebanon
10/ Japan v Russia
11/ Japan v China
12/ Japan v Korea (Manchuria)
13/ Russia v Afghanistan
14/ US v Afghanistan

Face it, more wars are and have been fought over the availability of metal ores and steel than oil. Likewise the premise of this article is fallacious insofar as it neglects to point out that the prices of many commodities have risen steadily during the same period due to an exponential increase in demand from China (especially), whose growth exceeds 10%/annum.

This same demand has forced oil higher, especially as China and the resurgent Russia have cornered the Iranian supply of Oil in return for arms and a nuclear reactor. Please feel free to suggest that the price of oil is solely reliant upon the actions of the US/Australia/Israel, but do try to base your argument in fact not fiction.

Inshallah

2bob

2bob,
The price is in lives lost. Wars continue because not enough people die.
What we need is more killing and slaughter in wars and war will stop.
You mention metals and fossil fuels but not people.
You do not mention the number of people who died in the wars.
That is the trouble with you theory.
What we need is for 16 billion people to die not a few thousand, then war will stop.
People are not 2bob, they can't even have good 'shoot'em up' war without going on to the next one.
What we need is for all the world popul;ation to die.
Then we would learn something.

Oh dear, blame John for everything. Oh well he is the prime minister so I suppose he is fair game.
Ethanol is a dead end if ever there was one.
A bits of info which I believe are accurate;
Brazil produces only 40% of it fuel as ethanol.
It is made from sugar cane.
Ethanol has a EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) around 1: 0.7
This figure depends largely on how it is produced.
If the ENTIRE Australian wheat harvest was turned over to ethanol production it would provide for only 10% of our cars.
I would prefer to have my breakfast Weetbix than drive the car.
To produce ethanol commercially you have to plant the same crop every year over and over again. To do this large amounts of fertiliser have to be used, which are themselves oil derived.
Diesal is used to plow the land, diesal is used to plant the crop, diesal is used to cultivate the crop, diesal is used to harvest the crop, diesal is used to transport the crop to the manufacturing plant.
Diesal is used to transport the ethanol all over the country.
It can't be put through pipelines because of corrosion problems.
Is it any wonder that the EROEI is so poor.

The upshot is there is no alternative for liquid fuels in the next 20 years at the earliest or maybe forever.

BTW, our oil price is not set by the NYMEX but by TAPIS in Singapore.
Yesterday Tapis was US$82.20.

'get used to petrol prices, get used to inflation'

Realist could you elaborate,do you think as I do that this shift is here for the long term? If you do why do you believe that? also I believe Howard could use some of that surplus hes wrung out of us for relief in these areas.Ideas?

I find it hard to disagree with anything Generic Hippy has said about Americas real intention for starting conflict.Even being relatively niave about these issues,even I see that America fabricates 'reasons' to invade oil rich countries and its obvious why.America is a warmongering nation and will plunder the wealth of a nation,destroy its economy and be deaf to the misery of its people.

10 yrs back, when the slaughter of millions of Rawandans was ignored and America and others turned a blind eye. Noone came to help out this nation in crisis.
No wealth to be plundered there.No economic gain for America.

2bob,

A case can be made for both the first and second world wars being fought over oil (most of the others you list can't though).

Do some research on the Berlin-Baghdad railway project and consider the implications of Germany dominating access to middle eastern oil. Then look at when the British seized southern iraq from the Turks - and then ponder how long it took the British to move their troops from India to Iraq - and decide how long they had to leave before war broke out in Europe. Sometimes history ignores a lot of inconvenient facts.

As for WWII, have a think about the crucial battles the Nazis lost - El Alamein and Stalingrad - both stopping the German drive to middle eastern and central asian oil fields (for that matter the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour because they'd been denied access to south east asian oil).

A lot of wars are fought over ideology - but just as many are fought over resources...

Wobbles,

Possibly El Alemain, however, Stalingrad was not fought for the purpose of oil politics, Hitler had access to all the Russian oil he had any desire for prior to his shortsighted invasion of Russia, et al. The Iraqi revolt was less due to oil than it would appear, it was mainly driven by the fact that the mufti of Jerusalem, the infamous Al-Husayni, had fomented a revolt, which threatened more than the oil from Iraq, which was decidedly insignificant at that time, as the British held Saudi Arabia, thereby preventing any benefit to the Axis powers, but more because of the threat posed to the Suez canal.

If you research the history behind the Japanese entry, it was far more likely to have been over the restrictions imposed by the Americans (particularly) on their ability to access sufficient steel, iron, coal, etc (thus giving ‘Pig Iron’ Bob (Menzies) his name). Access to oil was relatively insignificant in providing the Japanese with cassus belli.

I am not simply nitpicking, the fact remains that access to sufficient mineral ores to sustain economies, particularly war economies, is a major cause of conflict from the last century particularly (but also throughout time). This is particularly important, as it is the major reason that Australia needs STRONG allies, as we have an embarrassment of riches, insofar as our resources sector, but we have not the population with which to protect it if push comes to shove, particularly in the North where the majority of the resource riches are situated, and where population is sparse to non-existant.

These resources include oil, natural gas, iron, manganese (for armour), copper, zinc, gold, aluminium, coal and last, but certainly not least, uranium. All of these are essential to a ‘war economy’, and make Australia a far more tempting target than most in our region, or on the planet, coupled with which is our miniscule population and almost non-existent armed forces, makes us an incredibly tempting strategic target.

Thus the overwhelming importance of strong alliances with America/UK, but of course, it couldn’t happen, I’m imagining things.

Inshallah

2bob

Something for the professor to think about...these are the latest statistics for China's oil related imports:

On the imports side, China imported 10.64 mln tons of crude oil in July. In the first seven months of the year, crude oil imports rose 12.9 pct year-on-year to 83.98 mln tons.

Imports of oil products in July were 3.74 mln tons, with 21.97 mln tons in the first seven months, up 21.2 pct year-on-year.

Imports of automobiles and chassis from January to July surged 75.8 pct year-on-year to 126,676 units.

Source: XFN- Asia

2bob,

WW1 – The British held oil reserves in Basra but needed more oil for its navy. Turkey had significant holdings that it wanted to protect from the British – hence their alliance with Germany. American needed to enter the war so they could participate in the carve-up of the spoils – hence the Lusitania.

Standard Oil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell then controlled most of the world’s oilfields (the first cartel) but they wanted to take Russia’s share as well as Russia had secured the largest supply.

WW2 – The Japanese were provoked into war with the US because of the US naval blockade that cut off their oil supplies – hence Pearl Harbour.

The Japanese plan was originally to invade Russia from their north and take land in China but instead had to push south to sieze the oilfields in the Pacific.

Germany’s need to secure oilfields was no secret – the plan was to capture the oilfields in Romania and Persia and thus cut off supplies to the Allies. The Persia even changed its name to Iran (Aryan) to win favour from the Germans who were expected to “liberate” them from BP.

Russia has actually been selling their oil to the West since 1954, via pipelines running through Iran, under the control of the corrupt Shah regime.

It has been known since the 1920s that Vietnam held vast off-shore reserves but that was before off-shore drilling was feasible. A mapping technique using explosives was undertaken during the Vietnam war by dropping “surplus” bombs into the sea.
This was a 10 year programme undertaken by Standard Oil while the war was in progress.

Ho Chi Minh was earlier given weapons leftover from WW2 by the US to help them drive out the French, in return for future drilling rights but the victorious General Giap later reneged on the deal.

Years later, Vietnam sold off-shore leases to 12 oil companies but the only ones who hit gushers were those who had the mapping results obtained earlier.

(Cont)

(Cont)

Later, huge reserves were tapped in Chechnya but required an overland pipeline across a volatile province called Kosovo but this province needed to be secured from terrorist attack Albania however, had close ties with China who did not want to see the West have unfettered access to these reserves and the subsequent regional unrest was the result. (Remember when the Chinese Embassy was “accidentally” bombed in Belgrade?)

Since then Middle Eastern politics has revolved around the construction and reopening of various pipelines across Afghanistan, Iraq and Turkey to get to the new vast reserves around the Caspian.

The last new one was opened between Turkey and Israel on the same day the attacks on Lebanon started.

This isn’t even scratching the surface of oil politics. Even a cursory look at all the pipeline maps in the public domain are enough to make you consider the possibilities.

The rise and fall of dictators in this area has usually been under direct US control and influence. The CIA paid the Ayatolla's rent while he was living in exile in France for years. Likewise, Saddamm Hussein was one of their boys brought in to restore BP's oil leases when they were threatened by the previous Iraqi administration.

I remember Colin Powell on a visit to Australia saying how he expected to have US troops in Afghanistan "by October" and that was months before 911.

Then again, maybe history really is just a combination of unrelated random events with no purpose and we are all just individually stumbling along in the dark between elections.

There is a lot of interesting (if not confronting)information here

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/black_gold_1.htm

but I only pass on opinions from facts I have been able to verify from several independent sources.

Lemme see if I've got this right.

The cost of petrol is high because John Howard sent troops to Iraq?

Is this the basis of the argument?

So I pose this question.

If John Howard did not send troops to Iraq then we would still have cheap petrol?

I dunnno if I get that.

Is it about cause or is it about blame?

Plerdsus, sorry to break the news to you but Europe has DECENT public transport...subways and trains that come every couple of minutes. I lived in Japan for many years and the subway there comes every two minutes. Until our public transport is as good as this, I don't want to hear about it as an option. It is pathetic now, and I just don't think Australians really get it. Public transport only becomes a viable alternative when you don't have to plan your day around the timetable. Like in Japan's cities or London or Paris.

Until our hopeless public transport runs at least every five minutes to all corners of our major cities, like in those countries where petrol is expensive, we need cheap petrol. It's a trade-off. Typical of Australia to use all the sticks of tolls, high parking fees and expensive petrol but offer no carrots of proper public transport.

We live a vast land and have huge sprawling cities (but whenever we try to increase density Greenies still complain). Moreoever, poorer people tend to live on the edge of our cities and they're the ones with huge petrol bills. Those lucky enough to live in the inner 5km radius of CBDs have access to what I'd describe as barely adequate public transport, and they tend to be high income earners with valuable properties.

Just go and live in Europe or Japan for a year or two if you want to see how a REAL public transport system should run, and then you'll realise that there isn't a hope in hell that shortsighted, greedy Australia will ever get it right. The point is it's a public service, it's not meant to make a huge profit, a point that profit-hungry Australians just don't seem to get.

In the last decade Shanghai has been building eleven new subway lines, whereas Brisbane has waffled about a foot and bus-bridge over the river since 1992. Just pathetic. Subways cost billions of dollars to build, but it has to be done. A few extra buses just won't do it.

Kvsar seems to think we should run almost empty trains just to suit him.
He is comparing say Sydney against cities with populations many times ours. Its ridiculous. The line I live on during the day has a 30 minute service. When I use the train during the day there might be five or six people in the carriage.
Is Kvsar suggesting it be run say every five minutes with one person in the carriage ?

In peak hour it runs about half full until it gets further down the line.
It does get to the extent that there are people standing further into the journey, but there is room for more.
What is the point of running it more often ?
When the passengers turn up they will try and fit more trains into the timetable.
I suggest that you go to Strathfield at peak hour and watch the trains go by. AS it is now they hold back the freight north of Newcastle until the peak hour is over and then let them go.
It would be virtually impossible to get a 2 minute service here.
It would not be surprising to see a two minute service at Central as there could be more than a train every two minutes.
However what Kvsar is I think suggesting is a two minute service on every line. He must be unaware of what he is saying.
It would take that long to get passengers off and then on in two minutes, let alone a safety gap between trains.

Bazz, what I'm saying is there's no chance of having a real public transport system in any of our big cities...so people need to give up the fantasy of public transport in this country. We either need millions more people in much closer proximity to service a subway or proper train system, OR we need cheap petrol. If you read carefully, THIS is what I meant.

I was making the point that the small-scale countries with expensive petrol have proper public transport - so people aren't left without a transport option. Australia seems to be heading down the road of expensive petrol and hopeless public transport - typical. Just like the water "crisis", or hospital beds "crisis". It's all just lack of investment and planning. And sorry, I believe that demand for public transport will only come when people feel it is a suitable replacement for their needs. NOT the other way around.

Oh, and I'm completely aware of what I'm saying regarding a two minute service on lines...I used to catch it every day in Japan. It just takes planning, attention to detail, good organisation, hard work and proper investment in public infrastructure - all in short supply in Australia. Bazz I suggest you go to Tokyo and have a look a look at how transport works there, maybe then you'll realise that little parochial Sydney, 10 times smaller than Tokyo, is just not the greatest city on the face of the Earth.

Why is the price of petrol so high?

Hmmmmm?

Maybe it has something to do with the high price of oil.

If you thing its high now, you aint seen nothing yet.

Buy oil stocks and use the rising value of those to compensate for the rising impact of fuel costs. Otherwise keep whinning about a problem you can easily mitigate.

Kvasir

As has been said by many, our profligate lifestyle, high employment, freedom of independant car travel, etc are all a product of finite, cheap energy sources. Many billions of other 3rd world countries now want to tap in to that energy too and enjoy the same standards of living. And while we as a nation are blowing our dough, some of those countries - China especially, are developing huge reserves and buying up oil fields.

The point you seem to miss seems also to not be apparent to most people. When petrol is $10 a litre or higher, and progressively more scarce, you will be pleased to wait 15 minutes for the next train, which will be energised by coal powered electricity. However the Tokyo system will grind to a crawl as they will have no oil to drive their electricity turbines.

To Kvsar & Greenlight
We are getting very close to the point where very large numbers will abandon the car and switch to public transport.

I recently added up the cost for someone working somewhere west of the end of the M2 and working in the Mascot area.
I added up the motorway charges and then added petrol at $1-50 a litre for a car using 1 litre per 10 km for five days
a week and the cost was well over $100.
If the motorway is not used the petrol consumption is higher.
This was not taking into account other car costs such as service tires and depreciation.
It will only take another jump in petrol prices to make it impossible for those people to drive to work.

Already, I am told, that the bus service on the M2 leaves people standing at the bus stops.
The government is going to buy more busses for the company that runs the service.

The state government is putting the busses now being taken out of service into the sheds for future use as
they will not be able to get quick delivery of new busses as all
cities will be trying to place orders for busses.