[AirlinePilot]

All Im driving at here is be cautious about this kind of data. I doubt frankly that it is accurate. According to Dantes,who I trust more than some credit card agency, we are still growing the demand year over year for gasoline consumption. While growth may have slowed, it is still growth. I believe its in the neighborhood of 1-1.4% this year.

I really dont think that this piece of data can apply to the big picture.

[Concerned]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Gasoline demand has fallen for the first time in years as drivers appear to recoil from near-record prices, throwing doubt on America's seemingly insatiable thirst for fuel.

This is, of course, patently absurd. The collective consciousness here at PO.com determined quite some time ago that basic economic theory, like increased prices affecting demand, simply don't work when faced with the awesome consequences of how our post peak world functions. ( you know, traffic jams, continued highway construction, 16+ million new ICE powered cars being sold every year, record corn production, rapidly increasing renewable electrical production to power the upcoming electric transport wave of the future, etc etc )

Past examples of such behavior, basic and complex economic theory stating otherwise, experts with some "nobody ever heard of it organization" like CNN saying different, all of this means nothing when faced with the collective certitude of our PO righteousness.

Ummm.... hello *knock knock* Here at PO.com we have been talking about the economic consequences of PO for a long time. One of those is reduction in oil (and associated product) use as a result of high prices. Demand destruction being a quite common term if you search this site for it.

In fact it has taken NOT $50, $60, $70 or $80 but $90 BBL oil to finally see a marginal reduction in gasoline use in the USA. It's more complex than that with the US and global financial system currently in minor meltdown over subprime.

So stay tuned grasshopper oil could well fall to $30 BBL and you might be able to buy gas at $1 per gallon if you have a job.

Come back here and gloat when there is a robust growing economy, when people have good work prospects, who can pay their mortgages and credit card bills and oil prices are in the $30 range.

[gn0s1s]

Besides, I think we, and this article, are forgetting that these figures may be USA only, or, those of major countries and not from places like India and China.

In other words, it may be possible that gas sales have declined in the USA, but certainly that is not the case elsewhere.

[jbeckton]

All Im driving at here is be cautious about this kind of data. I doubt frankly that it is accurate. According to Dantes,who I trust more than some credit card agency, we are still growing the demand year over year for gasoline consumption. While growth may have slowed, it is still growth. I believe its in the neighborhood of 1-1.4% this year.

I really don’t think that this piece of data can apply to the big picture.

I understand your skepticism because the press does like to play games with the way it words things.

We also don't have a very good idea of the scope of this data collection and computation.

I am just saying, that this is an important measurement that we need to follow, and for once, albeit small scope, there may have been a drop.

Pissing in the ocean?

Yup, but we need to start somewhere and it's important to compare oil consumption to economic activity. If nothing else, it will give us a better estimate of the severity and scale of the decline.

[Pixie]

The data for all crude oil and petroleum products, at the EIA, shows a decline over 2006 for all months from June to September. The previous months of the year, apart from March, showed an increase over the figures for the same months in 2006. Some of the 2004 months show greater consumption than 2007, so there is probably some noise in there, but it sure looks like consumption is down. That must reflect in economic growth, if it hasn't already.

Looking at this data from the EIA (not the credit card agencies), demand fell in 2006 compared to 2005, but is slightly up for the first 9 months of 2007, compared to 2006. Also, demand fell in 2001, and it fell three years in a row between 1989 and 1991. And it fell in 1985, 83, and 82. So if demand falls in 2007, compared to 2006, that will be interesting, because it will be the first time demand fell two years in a row since 1991. But it doesn't get REAL interesting until it happens four years in a row. That will be unprecedented.

[Pixie]

US Consumption of petroproducts per person, 1990-2006.

year__Thousand Barrels__population__________per capita
  1990 6,200,800________249,622,814________24.840
  1991 6,100,550________252,980,941________24.114
  1992 6,234,024________256,514,224________24.302
  1993 6,291,407________259,918,588________24.205
  1994 6,467,129________263,125,821________24.578
  1995 6,469,476________266,278,393________24.295
  1996 6,701,059________269,394,284________24.874
  1997 6,796,410________272,646,925________24.927
  1998 6,904,756________2758,54,104________25.030
  1999 7,124,557________279,040,168________25.532
  2000 7,210,593________282,216,952________25.549
  2001 7,171,778________285,226,284________25.144
  2002 7,212,876________288,125,973________25.033
  2003 7,312,230________290,796,023________25.145
  2004 7,587,601________293,638,158________25.839
  2005 7,592,789________296,507,061________25.607
  2006 7,550,907________299,398,484________25.220


Sources: EIA data for petroleum product usage; US Census Bureau for resident population figures, July 1 of each year.

Talk about inelastic demand! It's almost flat.

[UncoveringTruths]

US Consumption of petroproducts per person, 1990-2006.

year__Thousand Barrels__population__________per capita
  1990 6,200,800________249,622,814________24.840
  1991 6,100,550________252,980,941________24.114
  1992 6,234,024________256,514,224________24.302
  1993 6,291,407________259,918,588________24.205
  1994 6,467,129________263,125,821________24.578
  1995 6,469,476________266,278,393________24.295
  1996 6,701,059________269,394,284________24.874
  1997 6,796,410________272,646,925________24.927
  1998 6,904,756________2758,54,104________25.030
  1999 7,124,557________279,040,168________25.532
  2000 7,210,593________282,216,952________25.549
  2001 7,171,778________285,226,284________25.144
  2002 7,212,876________288,125,973________25.033
  2003 7,312,230________290,796,023________25.145
  2004 7,587,601________293,638,158________25.839
  2005 7,592,789________296,507,061________25.607
  2006 7,550,907________299,398,484________25.220


Sources: EIA data for petroleum product usage; US Census Bureau for resident population figures, July 1 of each year.

Talk about inelastic demand! It's almost flat.

[Pixie]

[quote="UncoveringTruthsTalk about inelastic demand! It's almost flat.[/quote]

[/quote]

My point exactly. Most all the demand growth of petroproducts is due to population growth, not an increase in the amount people use. Cars get about the same mileage as in 1990, people drive about the same amount per year, and it takes about the same amount to heat a cubic foot of home. That having been said, there has been a slight increase in the per capita use between the 1990's and 2000's, which has begun to reverse since 2005.

[aahala]

Actually, the trend of total energy used per capita in the US over
the last 10 years or so is "flat". It has changed every year by small
amounts, but little discernable trend up or down.

[AirlinePilot]

Figures lie and liars figure.

I think the overall message here is that the only numbers which matter are how much do we produce as a planet each year, and how much do we consume?

I do believe by most official numbers the amount consumed is going up each year and is projected to do so. I believe its going to happen even with higher prices. We have proven that factoid over the last 5-6 years already.

Citing one country's numbers really doesn't matter if world consumption continues to climb. I do believe price is having an impact, right now its not a big enough one.

[TonyPrep]

Actually, any use of a finite resource spells problems down the line. Even if the total consumption remained flat for the next decade (if that was possible), we'd still run into scarcity. Even if total consumption trended down, we'd hit problems.

When talking about a finite resource, the only truly sustainable level of consumption is zero.

[Pixie]

Figures lie and liars figure.

I think the overall message here is that the only numbers which matter are how much do we produce as a planet each year, and how much do we consume?

I do believe by most official numbers the amount consumed is going up each year and is projected to do so...

According to the EIA, total use in the USA went down from 2005 to 2006, and appears to be doing it again in 2007. So, stop beating your dead horse and admit that you are incorrect.

Citing one country's numbers really doesn't matter if world consumption continues to climb.

On one level, I agree with you. On the other hand, the US uses more per capita than any other country in the world, so we have the most fat to trim. In the end, I believe it will be a better world if the USA cuts usage first, rather than hogging the remains while the poorer countries of the world go into oil starvation. I believe the future lies somewhere in between.

[Pixie]

Actually, the trend of total energy used per capita in the US over
the last 10 years or so is "flat". It has changed every year by small
amounts, but little discernable trend up or down.

Pretty close, but if you look at the graph made by the figures I showed, it was pretty obviously lower in the 1990's than in the period from 2000 to 2005. In fact, there is not even any overlap between those two periods. None!

[Armageddon]

500,000 people are born worldwide per day, I don't see demand for oil dropping too much anytime soon, unless an economic collapse occurs.

[marko]

Effective demand has to equal effective supply. If supply is limited, then the price will rise until effective demand falls to the amount that can be supplied. There is a difference between effective demand (at a given price point) and the demand curve (reflecting demand in general, price-independent terms). Saying that "gasoline demand has fallen" suggests that people want less gasoline. That isn't true. The truth is that, because the supply is not growing, and because consumers in Asia are able to bid up the price, US consumers can no longer afford as much as they might want.

[Pixie]

Effective demand has to equal effective supply. If supply is limited, then the price will rise until effective demand falls to the amount that can be supplied. There is a difference between effective demand (at a given price point) and the demand curve (reflecting demand in general, price-independent terms). Saying that "gasoline demand has fallen" suggests that people want less gasoline. That isn't true. The truth is that, because the supply is not growing, and because consumers in Asia are able to bid up the price, US consumers can no longer afford as much as they might want.

True. Eventually, however, reduced use turns into demand destruction as people replace gas guzzlers and move closer to their places of work and shopping. In a high-gas-price world, apartments downtown start to look like hip places to live. Suburbs with long commutes start to look less and less attractive. The effect on demand of high gas prices in the 1980's lasted longer than the prices themselves did.

[AirlinePilot]

Gasoline demand has not fallen.

Gasoline consumption

Finished motor gasoline is the number you need to use. I do believe thats the generally accepted demand measure.

Its not a huge increase over last year, but an increase is an increase.

[aahala]

Actually, the trend of total energy used per capita in the US over
the last 10 years or so is "flat". It has changed every year by small
amounts, but little discernable trend up or down.

Pretty close, but if you look at the graph made by the figures I showed, it was pretty obviously lower in the 1990's than in the period from 2000 to 2005. In fact, there is not even any overlap between those two periods. None!

I don't believe we're talking about the same thing. You seem
to be talking about total oil consumption, but my post was
about total energy, which would include oil, coal, yada
yada yada.

If your interested in what I was referring to, then click:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html

then click what I think is the third link on the left,
"Annual Energy Review". The front part is overview and
the specific page and graph is "xix" titled "Figure 2 Consumption
per person".

Caution: I am not linking directly to the pdf, because it's
VERY large!

[AirlinePilot]

Demand rises as pump price falls......1 CENT!

Im posting this to show how these knuckleheads are grasping at straws to explain what we all know. Demand is driven by price of course, but the reality is that as time goes on, with no real changes, even small amounts of growth result in demand continuing to grow, even at these prices.

[Tyler_JC]

Demand rises as pump price falls......1 CENT!

Im posting this to show how these knuckleheads are grasping at straws to explain what we all know. Demand is driven by price of course, but the reality is that as time goes on, with no real changes, even small amounts of growth result in demand continuing to grow, even at these prices.

1. Gasoline prices are not particularly high. You know that.

2. Demand growth in gasoline of 1.2% against the backdrop of .9% population growth means a demand/capita increase of only three tenths of one percent (.3%)

3. National output, national income, GDP, whatever you want to call it grew by about 4% in 2007. Sub out population growth and GDP/citizen grew by about 3%.

So gasoline input grew by .3% but economic output increased by 3%?

I'd call that an impressive example of moderately higher prices leading to dramatically reduced energy intensity. No?

I'm just saying...