by frog
Deutsche Bank thinks that supply constraints could push the price of oil to $150 a barrel by 2010. The Reserve Bank’s latest Monetary Policy Statement thinks that oil prices are going to drop from their current $104 a barrel to $70 in two years; less than half that Deutsche Bank’s prediction. Deutsche Bank’s prediction is based on increasing demand and decreasing production. If the Reserve Bank is wrong then all its calculations for our official cash rate, inflation and monetary policy are wrong. Surely it wouldn’t have got it wrong?
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by frog on Thu, March 6th, 2008
Tags: blog, Deutsche Bank, interest, Monetary Policy Statement, oil, Reserve Bank
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Deutsche Bank may be more wrong than the Reserve Bank if we are talking constant US $ but the conflict between inflation and recession can drive demand into the toilet and pricing into Euros and what does it cost in NZ $ then? The question is far more complicated than the two variables mentioned and while I expect the price of petrol to go up in the long term and possibly in the short term the recession that could turn into the worst economic disaster in the past century could solve a lot of problems.
For one thing the maroons who keep obstructing reductions in Greenhouse Gases because it “hurts Growth” would no longer be able to obstruct reductions in Greenhouse Gases.
I am betting on $90 in current dollars and about $150 in what the US currency is debased to in 2 years… but I the tricky prediction of what will happen to our price of oil is best answered by starting out using our $ to measure prices and trying to calculate it from there. The US currency is under too much pressure to be trustworthy as a measure.
Check the M3 here… the one the US doesn’t report anymore.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think maybe we could get away with stalling the increase for a while given favourable points like no further snags on refining costs and a non-inflationary US dollar, but yeah, predicting a 30% drop over two years is just insulting when demand continues to increase like this and our benchmark currency is being devalued. Grow up, Reserve Bank.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If we can use peak whale oil as a guide of what we can expect from oil prices then we can look forward to prices with some wild fluctuations as well. It is possible that what we have seen over the last 9 months is smart money ditching the housing market in search of something safer and settling on oil futures. This makes sense only in light of the abrupt change from the behaviour evident over the previous 15 years. The average price for each half year had shown a pattern of rising or falling progressively by $10 over 3 periods. In the last three cycles – begin03 to mid04, mid04 to end05 and begin06 to mid07 the overall price increases were $20, $15 & $0 respectively. In the second half 07 the average price jumped $20 and has leaped a further $10 to average $95 for the first two months of this year. That is suggestive of either a speculative bubble or a catchup for the previous period which had no increase. A reasonable assumption from the 15 years ended 9 months ago is that the oil price should currently be in the range $75-$85. Thus we shouldn’t be too surprised if the bubble bursts and we have a quarter or a half year at $65 followed by a rebound to $90 or more.
On the other hand if the jump last year was a $15 catchup then that means the $0 increase from begin06 to mid07 was the anomaly and we should expect the price to increase $5 each half year, starting from $65 in second half 05. That takes to a second half average price of $115, with a highest month possibly averaging $150, and a highest daily or weekly spot price almost certainly above $150.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Must be getting late. Last sentence refers to 2010.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn said: If we can use peak whale oil as a guide…
I actually thought that was pretty good for 3.25am, Kevyn.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ok, so you’re an oil supplier and your customers happily pay over 90 bucks a barrel for the stuff. What motivation have you got to help the price drop? If supply and demand causes the demand to drop, the supplies will tighten to maintain price.
To have any impact by 2010 there would have to have been a really really big find in the last few years. Even if we find another Ghawar by lunchtime, it’ll not affect supply and demand substantially in just two years.
The alternative is that demand collapses and the USD strengthens, and I think that is really likely to happen… yeah, right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
unlikely, for a start the sort of people who invest in the housing market are not the sort who invest in oil futures. if they withdrew their money from housing most of them would go to shares, bonds, or just maybe their own new sewing & knitting supplies shop.
then the declining house prices have come on the back of declining sales, this isn’t a mass withdrawal of funds invested in housing, most of that investment is still locked up.
there is some speculation involved in oil prices (by the normal sort of financial sharks who make that kind of investment), but it is likely to be well founded speculation – a shrewd bet that the price of oil will stay high & even rise, which it probably will.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Heres a blast from the past, 30 Mar 2005, Goldman Sachs: Oil Could Spike to $105… Well say what.
I’m going to go all conspiratorial here; the civil servants know exactly whats happening, as they aren’t stupid, nor do they have their heads in the sand. But, the possibility of continued oil price rising causing serious social problems in NZ is just too scary a concept for anyone to be seen saying. So they go all coy, and fall back on that old stalwart, the IEA, and their long since disbelieved figures… After all, every government globally believes the IEA, right…?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Following the fate of bold predictions is good honest fun.
I think dbuckley is right. If I were in Cabinet I would refrain from ‘energy talk’. Cullen, Mallard, Parker et al have all trotted out the tired old IEA 2037 line… I hope the lynch mobs find them.
I had a geophysics lecturer (US, retired exploration geo) who made a number of bold statements, one of which was his firm belief back in 1993 that there would be oil supply constraint issues by the end of this 2000-2010 decade, and that there would be good money to be made in petroleum geology/extraction leading up to this period.
Emails from friends in various parts of the industry back in late 2004 claimed “the dollar will be stuffed by 2009, oil by 2010″
Any analyst or punter can make bold predictions based on research, readings, googleing, or even wikipedia heresay. What those in the field getting their hands dirty say is more interesting… likewise the thoughts of some of those TOD chaps with boats and large sums of money on the line.
I’ve noticed a few roading/maintenance projects put on hold around here lately, including a half completed major council upgrade/landscaping of the centre of town due to ‘insufficient funds’. I hope they’re not holding out for the reserve banks promised $70 oil economy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah, what dbuckley said, without a doubt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Which TOD folks have boats and large sums of money ?
As far as I’m aware, only a few of the editors have any investments at all in related fields (OK – Jerome is an investment banker and invests professionally in wind farms, but that is the exception – most TOD editors are academics of one sort or another).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kane9, The factors driving the oil price are also driving prices of construction materials. Up 40% since 1999s aritificial low which was mainly caused by the asian financial hiccup. Actually that’s 40% in NZ dollars, 60% in US dollars. So do wanna pay more rates or get less road works or make motorists pay a bigger share of road maintenance? OOps, your not the government and its them that decides these things. And rates increases are always the fault of local councils aren’t they. Whereas petrol tax increases are the government’s fault. So nothing will change for the better because its a political no brainer.
A prediction isn’t a prediction if it’s a probability forecast. It’ll still be wrong when its wrong but it wont really be wrong in reality because it was only ever right at the 95% confidence interval. Are you still following me? Perhaps I need to clarify the nuances of probability mathematics until your eyes glaze over and you are feeling sleepy, so very sleeeepy. How do you think they get people to believe this sort of stuff? By teaching them? Nah, its all narco-hypnoses.
I’ll end by admitting my genuine ignorance. I presume you didn’t mean Transit Oriented Development, so what is a TOD?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Very interesting thread.
Can someone clarify this for me: “IEA 2037″
Does that mean government are talking about a peak supply point in 2037, as opposed to 2008-10?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ooops. TOD is the acronym peak oilers use to refer to a web site called “The Oil Drum”, which makes a lot of bold predictions about future oil production.
Sorry for the confusion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – IEA is the International Energy Agency, see their web site http://www.iea.org. NZ has been an IEA member since the 70s.
For yonkets the IEA have been saying, in short, no oil supply issues until 2030+. As they are the recognised authority in the field in the eyes of governments worldwide, the IEA data was parroted by most governments worldwide. This is why saying that our government got it wrong is not quite the whole story; they are just repeating the information which they apparently have a good faith belief is correct, or if not, it is at least the same story every other government is using.
With the exception of the member governments, just about everyone else thinks the IEA have been living in cloud cuckoo land. Their predictions have to be way off, because they are based on assumptions that are clearly crazy. But still they said the outrageously optimistic things, and thus governments continued with the all systems normal messages, and could do so with a straight face as they were advised by the “experts”.
Then recently the IEA started to backpeddle…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks dbuckley. Crystal….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
God I am loving my free fueled company car every day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nice for some, huh? Bet your company is feeling the squeeze a little, though. It’s not so much free fuel as company fuel
Dbuckley- I’d hesitate to accuse them of conspiracy simply because obliviousness is a much better base assumption in this kind of case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big Gav:
A while back the bets between I think Stuart, Euan and Jeff started to show the various levels of conviction. I cannot remember whom wagered the boat (was of a modest size), and by ‘large’ sums of money I was referring to the US$1000… relative to my income, we try to deal in h.a.n.d.s currency/barter here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87991822
Some amount of the 106 is speculation…. and inflationary recession is driving a lot of the money that is going into it. Nobody wants to be caught with US Dollars when the Fed whacks another 0.75 cut on their already inflationary rates. They’re exporting that inflation as a result. The money comes here.
This is all very VERY bad, The only government control I can think of is to restrict foreign investment by rapidly inflating currencies. A “Tobin Tax” on junk paper. It’d be better if the folks accepting the US $ for NZ assets learned to be a bit more picky about what they’re paid in, but that lesson is a slow one and always learned too late.
There IS speculation in this commodity, as in others. There is no way to understand it else, because the shortage of oil hasn’t really bitten yet. The production and consumption haven’t quite hit the limit of the supply…. they WILL but they haven’t yet. Which makes it clear that some portion of this price is speculative… and defensive against the abuse the US $ is being subjected to.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn -
I knew you would have a good grasp of the roading/infrastructure funding difficulties presently faced especially by remote rural areas, being the resident roading stats omniscient.
The cbd landscaping is stalled at the final surfacing stage, meanwhile all around the district the potholes and slumps multiply. Yet there seems to be ample cash sloshing around for such things as helicopter time for DOC heli-dropping 1080 in my water supply and police illicit crop detection/recovery… they did several very low passes over my 80m long tunnel house yesterday, low enough to worry about downdraft damage, and spent the entire day noise polluting the vicinity.
“So do you wanna pay more rates or get less road works or make motorists pay a bigger share of road maintenance?”
Actually I’d be happy to see complete pothole convergence, dirt roads are easier on hooves, especially if you eshew the shoe in favour of regular clipping.
BJ- I’ve heard of a few of your countrymen selling up their bolthole slices of paradise around here lately. Cashflow problems. There could be some very nicely setup properties at good prices soon, 1metre+ granodioritic parent top soil, avocado climate, panels/micro, mil-spec concrete construction, what more could you want?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kane9:
Oh – those bets – I remember those (the US$1000 bet is between Stuart and Robert I think).
When I saw the original comment I had visions of yachts and millions being wagered on the futures markets (thats what comes of living in Sydney I guess).
What does “h.a.n.d.s” mean ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, SA at 10.7mbpd by 2010.
hands…
http://le.org.nz/tiki-index.php?page=HandsVision
In northern NSW also.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kane9, There a few problems with horse transport in cities, described in this article:
http://www.all-creatures.org/nyca/ch-hist-19711000.html
Increasing the petrol tax to relieve the burden on ratepayers is consistent with the Green’s taxation policy. It would take less than 10 cents a litre to increase the road user’s share to 95% of roading costs. Local councils are worried that 100% would be a defacto nationalisation of the local roads.
I would add another 20 cents to get the road toll down to less than 200 within ten years instead of the 30 years Labour condiders acceptable. The reduction hospital spending is equivalent to a tax cut.
I would also add 10 cents to bring our lifeline highways up to modern siesmic standards. In the long term it’s cheaper than gambling that we wont have a great earthquake within our lifetimes, especially when paleosiesmologists estimate the probability of a great quake at 50% within 50 years, more likely on the Alpine fault than the Wellington fault.
A 40 cent petrol tax increase would hurt businesses more than it would hurt poor people. This is because annual kilometres travelled decreases with vehicle age. Company cars are mostly amongst the newest cars on our roads. According to household travel surveys cars less than two years old average more than 15,000 km a year, 5 year old cars about 10,000 km and over 15 year old cars average only 5,000 km a year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thing is, a 40c/L fuel tax is an outrageous humongous amount, but given the price of fuel is what it is, and what its going to be, then in the scheme of things its a lot less of a deal than it would have been even a couple of years back.
I’d like just about all road costs to be paid through fuel and road user charges, and for council rates to be adjusted downwards accordingly. I cant see much “user pays” in the current council tax approach to road funding.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The social cost of crashes is an outrageous humongous amount, 40c/L fuel tax is cheap. Unless you’re a news editor looking for ratings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The reason that there are lots of crashes is than NZ drivers are simply awful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dbuckley
You are 100% correct, I have driven in many countries yet Kiwi’s are by far the worst drivers on the planet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dbuckley & bb, that’s simpy bullsh!t. Easily refuted by comparing ambulance attendance per billion vkt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
NZ drivers are truly awful. No courtesy, and too aggressive.
Our roads suck as well. About time we built a few decent ones. Let’s start with Transmission Gully….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn
Why are you so defensive about that statement?, kiwi drivers (both male and female) are shockingly aggressive.
Drive anywhere in the world and people let you in, they show courtesy to other drivers that does not happen in NZ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter
Have enough people died yet on the stretch of road starting from Pukerua bay to Paraparaumu?
We might have to wait until somebody connected to a member or Parliament is tragically killed before the idiotic opposition to Transmission gully stops.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Opps…that should read “stretching from” Pukerua bay to Paraparaumu
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
On my way into work this morning, the driver of one vehicle:
* Pulled out in front of me on a 100KM/Hr road requiring me to apply brakes, all the more galling as there wasn’t anything behind me for miles
* Didn’t bother to give way at a give way sign, and just scooted up the shoulder and then barged into traffic flow, this on a 100KM/Hr road junction
* Tailgated the vehicle he was then behind, still at 100KM/Hr
The truly appalling thing was that he was just the idiot on the top of the podium; three other drivers managed the pulling out in front of traffic feature.
Kiwi drivers are terrible. I think the reason is that in this country people are not taught to drive, but learn to drive from other terrible drivers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB
I don’t think they give a toss about how many people die on that road. They appear to care more about religion (road=evil).
I prefer driving in the UK. And Australia. And the US. In fact, just about anywhere but here. There are certainly worse drivers in France and Italy, but they dress better.
I swear, if one more idiot insists on driving at 90kmph, then accelerates to 115kmph when he gets into a left passing lane, I’m going to arm my car with missiles….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m sick of this I’m giving one of my cars to the Mayor
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
of course Greens care about the number of deaths and injuries on the roads, it’s just that we don’t have a simplistic attitude that building a new mega-road will lower the toll. Who’s to say that building a new road will not cause more accidents because:
* with less congestion, more traffic will be generated, and
* a faster, straighter road allows people to go faster and not have to concentrate so much.
Meanwhile, in the battle of the straw men … Hey BluePeter, a reduction in speed limits will lower the accident rate and the severity of accidents. Are you in favour of dropping speed limits? Oh, you’re not? Oh well obviously you don’t give a toss about how many people die on our roads, it’s just a religious thing with you, (must worship at the church of the fast car).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Speed doesn’t kill, bad roads and careless driving kills. I’m all for building safer roads and increasing the level of driver education.
“The overall safety record of autobahns is generally better than other European motorways, and motorways are considered safer than other road types and, despite the high traffic density, comparably low. A 2005 study by the German Federal Interior Ministry indicated that motorway sections with unrestricted speed have the same accident record as sections with speed limits.”
But your point is a fair one. I retract my comment.
What I really meant to say was that road safety doesn’t appear to be a major consideration with greenies . The main focus appears to be preventing new roads being built at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
stuey, You ask a reasonable question. KiwiRAP provides a straightforward answer. Here are the number of crashes in which people were killed or seriously injured per highway km where SH1 goes from divided to undivided. In brackets are KSI per vehicle km travelled. In square brackets are speed limits needed to match KSI per VKT at Pokeno-Meremere, calculated using the formula that results in the claim that you twice as likely to be killed at 120kmh than at 100kmh..
CMJ-Albany 0.14 (0.7) [155]
SH17 Albany-Silverdale (formerly SH1) 0.2 (5.5) [70]
Albany-Orewa (ALPURT stage 1) 0.02 (0.4) [190]
CMJ-Takanini 0.27 (1.2) [125]
Takanini-Pokeno 0.1 (1.1) [130]
Pokeno-Meremere 0.08 (2.1) [100]
Meremere-Rangiriri 0.25 (4.5) [75]
Rangiriri-Huntly 0.07 (1.9) [105]
Huntly-Hamilton 0.22 (3.1) [85]
Pokeno-Mangatarata (SH2) 0.31 (7.4) [60]
Paraparaumu-McKay’s Crossing 0.25 (3.8) [80]
McKay’s Crossing-Pukerua Bay 0.23 (3.4) [85]
Paramata-Wellington 0.16 (1.7) [110]
Porirua-Upper Hutt (SH58) 0.3 (6.8) [60]
Wellington-Upper Hutt (SH2) 0.22 (2.8) [90]
Waipara-Kaiapoi 0.14 (4.6) [75]
Woodend-Belfast (Northern M’way) 0.05 (1.1) [130]
Christchurch Bypass 0.2 (2.9) [90] – actual speed limit 80.
Regarding your question to BP “a reduction in speed limits will lower the accident rate and the severity of accidents. Are you in favour of dropping speed limits?” To answer that question it is a good idea to know what the speed limits would have to be. Again using the formula, I have calculated the the speed limits required in each land transport region to achieve the same KSI per VKT rate as Wellington-Wairarapa.
Northland 85
Auckland 135
Waikato 90
Rotorua-BOP 85
Taranaki 85
Wanganui-Manawatu 80
Gisborne 70
Hawkes Bay 75
Wellington-Wairarapa 100
Nelson-Marlborough 75
West Coast 80
Canterbury 100
Otago 70
Southland 70
There is one important proviso. Using regression to the mean it is clear that regional differences in front seatbelt wearing rates have double the significance of the physical state of the highways. The most relevant maintenance stat is pavement rehabilitation interval, the most relevant construction stat is km per million dollars capital investment, ie how far Transit has to stretch each improvement dollar.
The state of highways are ten times more significant than differences in mean or 85th %ile speeds.
The latter statement is also true for crashes blamed on sober speeding drivers. But the significance of seatbelt differences is only half as strong as the significance of the physical state of the highways. Thus the conclusion that can be drawn is that improving highways will make speeding less common even if people are able to drive faster. This is because speed related crash uses the definition of speeding originally described in the offence of reckless driving rather than the definition currently used in in the offence of speeding, which consists solely of exceeding a speed limit. Reckless driving was originally defined as “…dangerous speed for the nature, use and condition of the highway…” The condition of the road base cannot be determined by looking at the surface because that is resealed several times over the life of the road base. Thus a tired 50 year old highway can look brand new. Thus it is not surprising that the districts with the highest percentages of serious crashes blamed on speed contain our most popular holiday destinations. Too many drivers who lack the local knowledge of which curves have dangerous bumps or undulations.
As regards construction funding, the phrase Transit uses to describe most rural accident blackspots is “curve not consistent with the overall speed environment. Ie, most of the curves on the segment of highway have been engineered to a similar standard except for the blackspot curve. The standard of all the other curves may be less than 100kmh but it is a consistent and predictable amount less than 100kmh or consistent with the nature of the terrain. It is generally when you have a curve that is completely out of character with the rest of the highway that drivers get into trouble. That is why a faster, straighter road allows people to go faster and not have to concentrate so much. Sweden’s multidisciplinary crash investigations have found that momentary distractions and lapses in concentration are the most common driver faults that lead to serious crashes. Roads have to be designed on that understanding, providing as few surprises as possible and room to recover without inducing panic. “go faster” doesn’t actually mean drive at higher speeds. It means curves can be safely taken at higher speeds which means lower speeds are needed on the straights to maintain a reasonable point to point average speed, hence there is a role for speed enforcement and propoganda.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bb, I agree with your assessment of Kiwi driving standards. But there is no evidence that it is more than a minor part of why we developed one of the worst serious crash rates in the OECD during the ’70s & ’80s. This is the period when spending on highway improvements collapsed from over $300 million a year to under $100 million. That’s almost three times the OECD average rate of reduced capital spending.
The best challenge to your argument is whether it is a valid reason for Auckland and Wellington having death rates of their neighbouring regions. Is it because they have the best drivers or because they are predominantly urban regions. Clue – the same regional differences exist in every EU country, even the ones that are much safer than New Zealand.
In fact half of the differences disappear when motorways are excluded from each country or regions road toll. The remaining differences show an incredibly strong correlation with population density and employment in forestry and farming. Ergo we are behind the eight ball simply because of our unusual population density and our unusual population distribution meams we have too many intercity highways to be able to make them all motorways. That means we have to make twice the effort to make our two lane highways as safe as possible. Getting rid of our one-size-fits-all open road speed limit would be a good starting point. If you lookat my response to Stuey you will see that the speed limits required would be a good way to convince the public to support bigger spending on better roads outside of the main centres.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ooops, that should read “Auckland and Wellington having half the death rates of their neighbouring regions.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB , BP
I have to disagree about the courtesy factor… at least in the Wellington region.
My observation is that it is more a matter of utter ignorance than bad attitude. Courtesy is present in ample quantities.
Defensive Drivers? Nope… but Kiwis aren’t in the same class as belligerently hostile New Yorkers. It’s just lack of experience and training, and some really odd laws. The variability of the driving is the clue.
The “give way to right” fetish leads to some of the absurdities. I’ve memorized the locations where I drive. Then there is the right turn rule with opposing traffic that goes counter to every other country on the planet.
OTOH Stuey… the stats from places that HAVE decent roads are quite clear. The limited access divided highway provides most of the vehicle miles but only supplies 5% or less of the death toll no matter what speed limit is placed on them. Drunks manage be less than 10% of the drivers and provide 50% of the crashes. Speed DIFFERENCES kill and the difference in speed of two vehicles at 100 kph in opposite directions is 200 kph. On roads such as we have here in NZ the US rule would be less than 85 kph… and similarly in Italy or Germany. We haven’t got the Autobahns, Autostrada or Freeways to even notice, and the safest roads are where the speed cameras are set because that’s where people go faster… where its safest… and damned few Kiwis seem to understand how much greater the risks are on the roads here than on real roads.
SH2 is an optimistically named goat track over the hills to the North of Wellington and SH1 should be marked as a tertiary road besides being within a couple of meters of the water for a good portion of the run between Wellington and Paraparaumu. Yet the Green Party opposed Transmission Gully..
Our party doesn’t do well in this. The fetish of opposing roads, including necessary roads and improvements to roads that are dangerous as hell, doesn’t give me any comfort.
Taxing petrol, requiring insurance and reducing people’s need and incentives to drive is fine. Reasonable green policy. Building Mass-Transit alternatives where there are masses to transport makes a great deal of sense.
Opposing the completion of roads as a knee-jerk reaction to the proposal to build them, even when there is opportunity to build a new ROUTE… that’s not “Green”. Not sure what it is, but it isn’t related to my need or desire to save as much of civilization as possible for my kids and their kids.
Roads may be used for hydrogen powered, or methane powered, or electric vehicles. They work nicely for bicycles when such is planned in advance. Horses with carriages used roads before there were internal combustion engines.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)