How will $4--$5--$6.50? gasoline affect theme parks?

[Thrill_Biscuit]

EDIT - Deleted. It IS easy to get political when discussing this.

[kingsrattler]

I don't think you can talk about oil and not get political.

If you can't talk about oil without getting political, then maybe its better we just don't talk about oil. Or talk about the economics of it. Despite what politicians would have you believe.. there are economical truths that no political policy can change.

[Beast1979]

On the subject of how it will affect parks, I agree with Terpy's point. Most amusement park visitors are families with an allocated budget they can spend on vacations or staycations. When gas prices rise to a certain point, enough is taken from the vacation budget to gas budget to make amusement parks more feisable than long distance trips. However, if prices rise too much, neither will become feisable anymore. The question is, where is that point, and when will we reach it? It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the future, and how parks will react.

[kingsrattler]

Very good post beast. I agree mostly with you have said. I follow financial and commodity markets very closely (my future depends on it, as there will be no such thing as social security when I retire in 40 years.) Oil and gas futures change on a daily basis on many many different cause and effects.. from economic outlook, to supply pileups/draw downs, to wars and political threats.

But I also agree, that the more expensive that oil gets, the more resources that we are able to find that we can extract or create a carbon based oil product. From sand shales, to algae that can produce an oil equivalent as their excrement, we have the technology to extract and produce oil. As the price grows, so does the opportunities to extract equivalents.

And also as the price rises, so does the opportunities for resources that seem too expensive to use now.. become more affordable. And as more resources become available and affordable, there will be an equilibrium in oil prices as more energy is moved to different resources. It just may not be a price point that we all become accustomed to for many years. But at one point in time, our only transportation cost was the feed for our horse. Think about what they would think if generations ago heard we paid 10 bucks to get from work and back in one day.

[HTCO]

Wow get out from under a rock. Oil is a limited resource. Countries such as China are growing.very rapidly right now and putting pressurr on the oil supply and not to mention poltical unease in middle east. The united states has been depended on oil since the birth of the country but now it drives our economy. I drive a truck that gets 9.5 mpg if I am lucky and I wouldn't want to drive in a smaller car but 4-5 a gallon doesn't put pressure on my budget either. If there was an alternate fuel source that could put out.the power my engine does I'm all for.it.

Solutions to high gas - legalize weed and online gambling. Tax them.and use the revenue to invest in a usable public transportion or subizide gas. The higher gas goes less money people have on other things by legalize weed you will generate billions in tax dollars and save billions wasted prosicuting for weed.

Insults are not necessary in this topic, thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands

We have plenty of oil. It's just not as easy to get and not as pure as it use to be. Everyone needs to chill out. If you don't want to talk politics, don't make a topic and or contribute to a thread about oil prices.

[The Interpreter]

Gasoline now at record prices for this time of year. Some analysts are predicting $4.50 by Memorial Day. Much higher if something unexpected occurs in the Mideast.

[Gordon Bombay]

^It was also just announced today that Iran is cutting off oil exports to France and Brittan where gas is already much higher than the U.S. Not to get political, but that's a situation that needs to cool down diplomatically because the alternative will just raise prices even more.

[The Interpreter]

In a world where many must pick between a soda at a theme park and gas to get to work, parks have been and will be even more challenged. For some time, I have strongly felt that in park pricing may not be optimal to encourage maximum visitation, spending and profit over time.

[flightoffear1996]

Why not have online specials to help out. You could buy a voucher say for $10 and get $12 worth of food at the park.

[74Gibson]

Oil is our most precious resource (especially since Fort Knox is probably near empty- why did those Canadians make a Million dollar gold coin anyway?). It is therefore a source of considerable power and will therefore always be tied to politics.

The key here is to give respect to those with different opinions and search for as much of the whole truth as possible.

The problem is much more complicated than... "Is it price fixing, collusion and political influence or supply and demand."

By the way, we are all have more to gain from working together than yelling at each other

[Beast1979]

Amazing how the actions of a middle east dictator on the other side of the planet can affect Kings Island's attendance and earnings. Talk about a global economy. It seems like the worst time for all this to happen - if Iran continues to restrict oil exports during a time when gas prices already go up due to the change in seasons, also happening right around when parks start to open back up in March and April. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and we can all only hope that the issues over there are solved peacefully and we don't see the high prices they have been predicting. We do want KI to afford that 500 foot tall looping inverted launched hyper Son of Beast overhaul, after all.

[The Interpreter]

$4.25 by late April, nobody knows how high it may go:

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20120225/BUSINESS/202250312/Gas-prices-expected-hit-4-25-gallon?odyssey=nav%7Chead

[bkroz]

Funny how "Middle East tension" peaks annually just as American summer draws near, with people planning to drive and fly to vacation destinations, family visits, beaches, etc. Like any political decision, I'd say there's way more than politics affecting gasoline prices here. I'll break it down to the three things I find at fault here, in my limited and layman view of the world.

1. Short memory. I brought this up last year to mixed reaction, but I still make the case that many (maybe most) Americans have a short memory. In summer of 2009, 2010, and 2011, gas prices reached $4.00 / gallon and there was immediate outcry. People wanted subsidies and innovation and tried desperately to sell off gas-guzzling trucks. By autumn, prices had receded to around $3.00 (briefly falling toward $2.90) as they had annually, and so many people just... forgot. Their worries were over, after all! The push for reform and innovation subsided because gas prices had, and now that they're back, the panic will ensue all over again as if it had never been gone to begin with. (Next fall, it will wane again).

2. The government. Again, I have very, very limited understanding of these matters, but if the government can subsidize milk, the entire agriculture industry, and transportation, why can't something be done about gasoline? I think it's been made clear that American cannot survive on $4.00 / gallon gas. It just can't. Every year that the milestone is reached, the economy absolutely tanks and psychologically, I think it takes a toll on people. Filling a ten gallon tank, the difference between $3.70 / gallon and $4.00 / gallon is really only an additional $3.00 per tank, but it's a tremendously apocalyptic feeling. It's already been shown how expensive gas was a major contributor to 2009's recession / economic depression. Why should we allow ourselves to experience it again if government subsidy could be available? I don't know much about government, but I think there's an overwhelming feeling of 'there must be something the government can do.'

3. Innovation. The push for innovation needs to happen, because eventually, some alternative source will need to be as widely available as gasoline is today. That said, we also need to drill. Electric cars are fantastic, and certainly something we'll see more of, but today, this year, this decade, they're not reasonable for most of the planet. So we really need to divide time and resources between innovation and drilling, because we need to sustain what we have while we can as we press toward the future. I'm sure that as the recurring summer reality of this sets in, we'll again see a push for drilling like we haven't seen since last summer, but it needs to be done. I'll say again: America can't survive this year after year after year. We just can't.

I'm not sure if this map is still accurate:

By the way, I literally posted almost this exact same post this time last year, and many argued that Americans don't have a "short memory" concerning these things. Faced with $4.50 a gallon gas, I have to ask... Did you "forget" during the winter? Do you think American citizens did?

[WHODEY2007]

I am not a financial professional by any means but I hope everyone remembers what happened the last time the dow was this high and gas prices were on their steady path up like this 4 years ago... and now with the robo signing of mortgages being ironed out and forclosures on the rise.. it's going to be a heck of an interesting summer. I will be packing my lunch in a cooler and leaving it in the car when I visit KI to save my nickels.

[bkroz]

And I forgot to quote this:

The rise will weigh on the economy, pushing leisure and business travel costs higher. Every one-cent increase in the price of gasoline costs the economy $1.4 billon, analysts say.

If there's any inkling of truth to this, than gas increasing from (let's round) $3.50 to $4.25 will cost the American economy $105 billion. And there's not a single subsidy or assistance the government can offer to combat that? We'll just lose that $105 billion? Why not offer something to at least combat it? We'll still loose money (on top of trillions of dollars of debt, mind you) but at least the economy will remain stimulated so we will not lose jobs, exports, etc. along with it. I'd rather increase the already-laughable national debt than lose individual, American jobs that won't come back.

By the way, in our strangely-similar-to-this posts from a year ago, gas was expected to reach $5.00 / gallon by memorial day 2011. It never happened. Last year's high was $3.98. I'm not saying prices won't increase in the future, just that every single year since 2008, it's been like an annual panic attack as all these estimates come rushing in promising $5 or $6.50 a gallon gas that - so far - have never come to be. This very thread was made in response to an article with expectations that gas prices would start that sky-rocking process in summer 2010. Again, they didn't.

[WHODEY2007]

And I forgot to quote this:

The rise will weigh on the economy, pushing leisure and business travel costs higher. Every one-cent increase in the price of gasoline costs the economy $1.4 billon, analysts say.

If there's any inkling of truth to this, than gas increasing from (let's round) $3.50 to $4.25 will cost the American economy $105 billion. And there's not a single subsidy or assistance the government can offer to combat that? We'll just lose that $105 billion? Why not offer something to at least combat it? We'll still loose money (on top of trillions of dollars of debt, mind you) but at least the economy will remain stimulated so we will not lose jobs, exports, etc. along with it. I'd rather increase the already-laughable national debt than loose individual, American jobs that won't come back.

Just in my humble opinion... the government subsidizing anything sounds like a moral hazard to me and also... we are more than flat broke and can't afford it. The money must come from somewhere, and I don't think our friends in the Far East are going to keep coughing up the dough for our benefit.

[Diamondback96]

We do want KI to afford that 500 foot tall looping inverted launched hyper Son of Beast overhaul, after all.

We do? I thought most people just wanted it torn down!

[bkroz]

And I forgot to quote this:

The rise will weigh on the economy, pushing leisure and business travel costs higher. Every one-cent increase in the price of gasoline costs the economy $1.4 billon, analysts say.

If there's any inkling of truth to this, than gas increasing from (let's round) $3.50 to $4.25 will cost the American economy $105 billion. And there's not a single subsidy or assistance the government can offer to combat that? We'll just lose that $105 billion? Why not offer something to at least combat it? We'll still loose money (on top of trillions of dollars of debt, mind you) but at least the economy will remain stimulated so we will not lose jobs, exports, etc. along with it. I'd rather increase the already-laughable national debt than loose individual, American jobs that won't come back.

Just in my humble opinion... the government subsidizing anything sounds like a moral hazard to me and also... we are more than flat broke and can't afford it. The money must come from somewhere, and I don't think our friends in the Far East are going to keep coughing up the dough for our benefit.

But the government does subsidize agriculture and transportation. In other words, the money a farmer makes from farming is not enough to support him in continuing to farm, so the government lowers certain prices by paying the difference and offers deals and loopholes for farmers in land ownership, etc. so that they can continue to farm. The truth is, our agriculture industry is not exactly a national treasure, nor a great export. We import much of our fruits and vegetables, not grow them here. While agriculture is an important aspect of our economy, we subsidize it as though it were the only thing keeping us afloat.

Gasoline actually does keep our economy afloat, but the message I hear is: "When you can't afford the gasoline to get you to your minimum wage job that you managed to get twenty minutes away and the cycle of poverty begins once again for you and your family, that's just too bad. We'll continue to make white bread for you for cheap, though." For an increasing number of Americans, the cycle of poverty occurs when their car breaks down and they've spent so much on fixing it that they can't afford to gas to run it, which means they miss a day at a minimum-wage job where they're highly replaceable, so they're replaced. Without a job, they don't have money to buy gasoline to get to a job interview, etc. How do you get out of that hole with $4.50 a gallon gas?

That's what I've picked up from my limited exposure to the situation and my limited understanding of government.

[Beast1979]

If we got our energy from solar panels in Arizona or wind farms in Indiana, we would never have to worry about gas prices, or probably the inconsistencies of any energy price, ever again. Just sayin'.

[WHODEY2007]

And I forgot to quote this:

The rise will weigh on the economy, pushing leisure and business travel costs higher. Every one-cent increase in the price of gasoline costs the economy $1.4 billon, analysts say.

If there's any inkling of truth to this, than gas increasing from (let's round) $3.50 to $4.25 will cost the American economy $105 billion. And there's not a single subsidy or assistance the government can offer to combat that? We'll just lose that $105 billion? Why not offer something to at least combat it? We'll still loose money (on top of trillions of dollars of debt, mind you) but at least the economy will remain stimulated so we will not lose jobs, exports, etc. along with it. I'd rather increase the already-laughable national debt than loose individual, American jobs that won't come back.

Just in my humble opinion... the government subsidizing anything sounds like a moral hazard to me and also... we are more than flat broke and can't afford it. The money must come from somewhere, and I don't think our friends in the Far East are going to keep coughing up the dough for our benefit.

But the government does subsidize agriculture and transportation. In other words, the money a farmer makes from farming is not enough to support him in continuing to farm, so the government lowers certain prices by paying the difference and offers deals and loopholes for farmers in land ownership, etc. so that they can continue to farm. The truth is, our agriculture industry is not exactly a national treasure, nor a great export. We import much of our fruits and vegetables, not grow them here. While agriculture is an important aspect of our economy, we subsidize it as though it were the only thing keeping us afloat.

Gasoline actually does keep our economy afloat, but the message I hear is: "When you can't afford the gasoline to get you to your minimum wage job that you managed to get twenty minutes away and the cycle of poverty begins once again for you and your family, that's just too bad. We'll continue to make white bread for you for cheap, though." For an increasing number of Americans, the cycle of poverty occurs when their car breaks down and they've spent so much on fixing it that they can't afford to gas to run it, which means they miss a day at a minimum-wage job where they're highly replaceable, so they're replaced. Without a job, they don't have money to buy gasoline to get to a job interview, etc. How do you get out of that hole with $4.50 a gallon gas?

That's what I've picked up from my limited exposure to the situation and my limited understanding of government.

Maybe the way we go about our normal day has something to do with it. With our consumer based economy and society, everyone must have the newest and greatest thing, even if it is a severe strain on their finances. I think if people took more responsibility over their finances many years ago, that would have been a major deterant to a recession/depression. I do also blame certain companies for this issue too though. It was too easy for people to borrow huge amounts of money for houses they never could realistically afford, but there was this myth being put out there that housing will always be on a steady trend upward. Instead of the normal 15 or 30 year fixed rate mortgage, people got into those adjustable rate mortgages, a serious gamble IMHO. Numerous shows on tv caused people to think they could get rich quick by flipping houses and I have friends who lost homes because of this type of gamble.

I just think personal responsibility has gone by the wayside tremendously. From my personal peer group, I do not know many people who recieved a tax return and said they were going to put it into their IRA, CD, savings account, ect. It seems they always have some purchase in mind. These returns, if saved even in a savings account with the next to 0% interest they have right now, could help those afford car repairs, buying of groceries, gas purchases, over priced food at Kings Island, etc.

[KIfan1980]

If we got our energy from solar panels in Arizona or wind farms in Indiana, we would never have to worry about gas prices, or probably the inconsistencies of any energy price, ever again. Just sayin'.

We'd only have to worry about things like - how to pay for those Solar energy plants and wind farms, the inconsistencies of energy supply on cloudy and non windy days, the disruptive noise of the wind turbines, and the space required. While I agree with the premise that we need to develop alternate approaches to energy, to be helpful and feasible today, it needs to be an integrated look with current energy options - coal, oil, gas, nuclear, etc...

Maybe the way we go about our normal day has something to do with it. With our consumer based economy and society, everyone must have the newest and greatest thing, even if it is a severe strain on their finances. I think if people took more responsibility over their finances many years ago, that would have been a major deterant to a recession/depression.

This is an interesting point as I'd note that there are several expensive items considered "necessities" today that were luxuries in the past - just think of high speed internet, smart phones, cable/satellite. The basic bills I paid coming out of college were: Debt, Rent, Car, Groceries, Utilities. Didn't get the computer, cell phone, cable, etc... until after I was on my feet.

[Beast1979]

We'd only have to worry about things like - how to pay for those Solar energy plants and wind farms,

Compared to the cost of continuing to search for, pump, develop, refine and purchase oil, it pays for itself in a matter of a few decades, if that.

the inconsistencies of energy supply on cloudy and non windy days,

Not only would we have solar panels and wind farms in several locations across the country (So there's always some place with wind or sun), but also technology is close enough to the point where they will be able to capture enough energy during sunlight or wind to store it for when there isn't. And, if that fails, we can always just use it in addition to things like geothermal or hydroelectric, which run constantly.

the disruptive noise of the wind turbines,

Oil is not only is incredibly harmful to the environment to pump, refine, and burn in cars; but also poses much more of an environmental risk if an accident were to occur (ala, the BP Oil Spill from two years ago). Compared to that, I think I'll take my chances with wind turbines, which are noisy and just stop spinning if they break.

and the space required.

Not only could you simply convert the hundreds of square miles of oil grasshoppers and refineries to panel fields, but also panels are relatively easy put on things like the roofs of cars and buildings. They're even developing right now photovaultaic cells that could be incorporated into paint, so you could 'paint on' solar panels.

Not to mention that all of these resources will always be available here in the United States, unlike coal and oil and natural gas.

[Vortex]

The USA has oil just with some laws we will never use the oil in my life time.

[KIfan73]

If we got our energy from solar panels in Arizona or wind farms in Indiana, we would never have to worry about gas prices, or probably the inconsistencies of any energy price, ever again. Just sayin'.

You know, as I sit here typing this on my iPad, I know that things that, at one time, sound impossible, are indeed possible. I found some interesting solar energy figures on a quick Internet search. According to this site http://solar.smps.us/solar-energy.html, the average amount of solar energy available on Earth is 15 watts/square foot (more of course in very sunny areas, and less in very non sunny areas). According to Motor Trend, it takes 70,000 watts to move a Chevy Volt 100 miles. 70,000/15=4,666 square feet, or about 70 by 70 feet.

[Beast1979]

Thanks for the figures, KIfan. If you take 100 by 100 miles of solar energy (A conservative number if you figure there will be many large fields across the country), you get 52800 feet by 528000 feet, or 2.78 x 10^11 square feet. Divided by 4,666 square feet required to power a Chevy Volt, and you get enough to power 59,747,964 (Or nearly 60 million) Chevy Volts for 100 miles. According to this site I found: http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klemen/Perfect_Turbine.htm, good turbines can produce about 14 watts per square foot in 20 mph winds, which I'll admit is a bit more optimistic. If we take 2.78 x 10^11 square feet of wind turbines, that produces 3.89 x 10^12 watts, divided by 70,000 watts necessary, you get 55,600,000 (About 55 million) Volts for 100 miles. So with 200 square miles of solar and wind energy, or 4 square miles per state, we can power nearly 115 million Chevy Volts for 100 miles, which according to http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html is a little under one half of all the cars in America.

Given future advances in solar, wind and battery technology and other sources of energy for electricity, I'd say that right now it looks pretty good and in the near future it could look very good. Now all we need to do is get people to start buying electric cars.

[The Interpreter]

MARTA. It's SMARTA.

Seriously, a well developed, well run mass transit system would do a world of good. See: Toronto. For just one example.

[Beast1979]

Mass transit and renewable energy are both two things that would make everything so much better. The problem is, both require sizable initial investments, which no one seems to be willing to make.

[TombRaiderFTW]

^^ and ^: I know nothing about economics and politics, but I can say that I love the New York City and Washington DC subway systems. Incredibly convenient (even if the NYC cleanliness leaves something to be desired) and pretty great value. I'm sure they present plenty of their own issues (security and maintenance come to mind), but if some sort of equivalent could appear nationwide, I'd be very excited and apt to use it.

[TheSnapper]

That will be complete crap if it would reach over $4 a gallon... this is starting to get ridiculous! Hopefully the parks won't get affected by this...

[KIfan1980]

We'd only have to worry about things like - how to pay for those Solar energy plants and wind farms,

Compared to the cost of continuing to search for, pump, develop, refine and purchase oil, it pays for itself in a matter of a few decades, if that.

The table in the following link from the US Energy Information Administration (Congressionally funded - intended to provide independent and impartial data) shows the predicted costs for plants expected to enter service in 2016.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

Solar is some of the highest total cost generation available.

but also technology is close enough to the point where they will be able to capture enough energy during sunlight or wind to store it for when there isn't. And, if that fails, we can always just use it in addition to things like geothermal or hydroelectric, which run constantly.

The technology doesn't exist today to store, but I agree hopefully is coming. You also almost make it to the point I was making (that you left out of all your quoting) that While I agree with the premise that we need to develop alternate approaches to energy, to be helpful and feasible today, it needs to be an integrated look with current energy options - coal, oil, gas, nuclear, etc... Today, there are many solar projects in process or that recently came online - much of it is driven from government requirements for % of renewable energy usage by utiliies, and government incentives for alternate energy. Even with that though, there is also a need to build new conventional power plants and nuclear power plants to keep up with the demand. For reference, a couple of recent major Solar PV projects are expected to produce: 17MW in Gila Road AZ, 30MW in Webberville TX. The Gila Road project is now supplying 4,000 customers with power. Considering there are about 115,000,000 households in the US, we'd need 15 to 30 thousand of these projects to meet the residential need.

but also panels are relatively easy put on things like the roofs of cars and buildings. They're even developing right now photovaultaic cells that could be incorporated into paint, so you could 'paint on' solar panels.

Looking forward to seeing it get to the point where it is economically feasible to put on my roof or paint on my walls. Unfortunately, today the technology and cost isn't where it needs to be - and it has been forecast to get there "soon" for a LONG time. The first time I heard these predictions was twenty+ years ago when I spent significant hours working on a Solar Car to race in the North American Sunrayce and World Solar Challenge.

Mass transit and renewable energy are both two things that would make everything so much better. The problem is, both require sizable initial investments, which no one seems to be willing to make.

We can debate Mass transit in the United States another time (I'll just say it is one thing that I enjoy when I travel to Europe) On the renewable energy front, I go back to agreeing with you that we, as a country, need to move forward in this area, but we can't do it in renewable energy alone as the initial investment is cost prohibitive at this point in time - especially when there is a significant amount of conventional options available.