Kanai
Newly Enlightened
$2.05 for 87 octane
$2.15 for 89 octane
$2.15 for 92 octane
$2.15 for 89 octane
$2.15 for 92 octane
Unleaded Gasoline Survey
- Thread starter Marty Weiner
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
Marty Weiner
Flashlight Enthusiast
The range of prices is unbelievable but here in So. Calif. everything is going up. Believe it or not, I just bought a plain-jane car wash and didn't notice the prices 'til I got to the head of the line (yes, there was a line).
How about $13.99 for a no-frills car wash !
Marty
How about $13.99 for a no-frills car wash !
Marty
metalhed
Enlightened
Ok...How about $2.08 for regular at Arco AM-PM, the cheapest stuff available.
It's great to pump overpriced gasoline while watching crude being pumped from the ground nearby. We have the nation's largest reserves (after Alaska) and still get gouged.
Damn, I love this country (still suspicious about capitalism though!).
It's great to pump overpriced gasoline while watching crude being pumped from the ground nearby. We have the nation's largest reserves (after Alaska) and still get gouged.
Damn, I love this country (still suspicious about capitalism though!).
EMPOWERTORCH
Enlightened
Just think of us poor Brits who have to shell out the equivalent of $5 a gallon! My bike does about 60mpg if you treat it gently... It goes down rapidly if you are fond of twisting the throttle a lot!
Here's a good thing to think about. I could motorcycle from the Midlands to Scotland and the trip would cost me £45 to £50.
If I went by aeroplane from East Midlands to Glasgow, the flight would cost me about £15! Therefore, it pays to take the aeroplane than it does my 250cc bike. Which is the greater polluter? There seems to be no tax incentives to encourage green energy use. I will certainly consider taking the aeroplane to Scotland for a holiday, even though I lose the freedom of my own transport when I get there!
Here's a good thing to think about. I could motorcycle from the Midlands to Scotland and the trip would cost me £45 to £50.
If I went by aeroplane from East Midlands to Glasgow, the flight would cost me about £15! Therefore, it pays to take the aeroplane than it does my 250cc bike. Which is the greater polluter? There seems to be no tax incentives to encourage green energy use. I will certainly consider taking the aeroplane to Scotland for a holiday, even though I lose the freedom of my own transport when I get there!
6pOriginal
Enlightened
[ QUOTE ]
EMPOWERTORCH said:
Just think of us poor Brits who have to shell out the equivalent of $5 a gallon!
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, now I understand why diesel is so popular in Europe...
EMPOWERTORCH said:
Just think of us poor Brits who have to shell out the equivalent of $5 a gallon!
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, now I understand why diesel is so popular in Europe...
Darell
Flashaholic
Oooh! I just get all giddy when I see gas prices spike (as I drive by the stations, mind you /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif). No, not because I wish for financial hardship for those who use gasoline in their cars. I get excited because higher prices seem to be the only way to wake up American drivers to their driving habits. The average gas mileage of our cars today is quite a bit lower than it was in the 80's. Why bother using technology and alternative fuels when the one we already have is so cheap?
Nobody thinks twice about buying a gas-guzzler or driving 90mph when gas is 99c/gallon. But let it hit $2, and suddenly high-mileage vehicles and speed limits seem like a GREAT concept. I know that I don't make lots of friends when I say gas should be $5, but expensive gas is still what I wish for. At some high price like that, something will actually be done about our lack of a viable energy policy. As long as we have cheap gas, we'll continue to use this valuable resource to pollute our environment, and be beholden to unstable foreign governments with little regard to what we're leaving for our kids.
Empowertorch has made a great point. We need to incentivize the RIGHT thing, and penalize the wrong thing. Unfortunately, most Americans see it just the oposite. And we already HAVE the opposite. We have subsidized gasoline, and we have subsidized 8,000-pound SUVs for businesses. Something ain't right, but it sure makes people happy. For now.
Yeah... just having a little tree-hugging moment here, since I just got back in from checking how much EV fuel my roof generated on this fine, sunny day (approximately 323 miles worth today, thankyouverymuch)
Umph. Getting harder and harder to get off my box as I age.
Standing by with Nomex suit locked and loaded.
Nobody thinks twice about buying a gas-guzzler or driving 90mph when gas is 99c/gallon. But let it hit $2, and suddenly high-mileage vehicles and speed limits seem like a GREAT concept. I know that I don't make lots of friends when I say gas should be $5, but expensive gas is still what I wish for. At some high price like that, something will actually be done about our lack of a viable energy policy. As long as we have cheap gas, we'll continue to use this valuable resource to pollute our environment, and be beholden to unstable foreign governments with little regard to what we're leaving for our kids.
Empowertorch has made a great point. We need to incentivize the RIGHT thing, and penalize the wrong thing. Unfortunately, most Americans see it just the oposite. And we already HAVE the opposite. We have subsidized gasoline, and we have subsidized 8,000-pound SUVs for businesses. Something ain't right, but it sure makes people happy. For now.
Yeah... just having a little tree-hugging moment here, since I just got back in from checking how much EV fuel my roof generated on this fine, sunny day (approximately 323 miles worth today, thankyouverymuch)
Umph. Getting harder and harder to get off my box as I age.
Standing by with Nomex suit locked and loaded.
turbodog
Flashaholic
Ok you hijacked a little, so get ready for some blowback.
Right? behavior... who gives a crap. If I can afford something, let me have it.
When you're pissing and moaning about right and wrong behavior, you'd better hope you don't get on the "wrong" side of the fence.
This is capitalism, not some oppressive foreign government.
Air quality? Move out of CA to a state that doesn't have to import fresh air. No one is forcing anyone to live anywhere.
$2/gallon or even $3/gallon I don't really care. I like what I drive (13.5 mpg on the highway) and how I drive (really fast and quick acceleration). If prices keep going up, that just means that less people will be on the road to get in my way!
Right? behavior... who gives a crap. If I can afford something, let me have it.
When you're pissing and moaning about right and wrong behavior, you'd better hope you don't get on the "wrong" side of the fence.
This is capitalism, not some oppressive foreign government.
Air quality? Move out of CA to a state that doesn't have to import fresh air. No one is forcing anyone to live anywhere.
$2/gallon or even $3/gallon I don't really care. I like what I drive (13.5 mpg on the highway) and how I drive (really fast and quick acceleration). If prices keep going up, that just means that less people will be on the road to get in my way!
Bravo25
Flashlight Enthusiast
[ QUOTE ]
turbodog said:
$2/gallon or even $3/gallon I don't really care. I like what I drive (13.5 mpg on the highway) and how I drive (really fast and quick acceleration). If prices keep going up, that just means that less people will be on the road to get in my way!
[/ QUOTE ]
Yup that's why the oil barons will continue to rake in trillions of dollars a year, and will suck every drop of fossil fuel from the earth before they allow the release of new energy. That might be fine with you, but this is stealing from my children, and that, even you can't afford.
In the interim we will only suffer things like people freezing to death in winter because they can't afford the heat. The continued destruction of the environment worldwide. Pesky little things like earth quakes that kill inocent people. Polluted drinking water because our new energy bill says the gasoline companies don't have to clean up after themselves.
That "I can afford it, so I don't care" way of life sure is making things better huh?
We don't inherit the earth from our anncesetors. We borrow it from our children!
turbodog said:
$2/gallon or even $3/gallon I don't really care. I like what I drive (13.5 mpg on the highway) and how I drive (really fast and quick acceleration). If prices keep going up, that just means that less people will be on the road to get in my way!
[/ QUOTE ]
Yup that's why the oil barons will continue to rake in trillions of dollars a year, and will suck every drop of fossil fuel from the earth before they allow the release of new energy. That might be fine with you, but this is stealing from my children, and that, even you can't afford.
In the interim we will only suffer things like people freezing to death in winter because they can't afford the heat. The continued destruction of the environment worldwide. Pesky little things like earth quakes that kill inocent people. Polluted drinking water because our new energy bill says the gasoline companies don't have to clean up after themselves.
That "I can afford it, so I don't care" way of life sure is making things better huh?
We don't inherit the earth from our anncesetors. We borrow it from our children!
Darell
Flashaholic
[ QUOTE ]
turbodog said:
Ok you hijacked a little, so get ready for some blowback.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, my bad for the hijack. No self control. I expected some comments, but not quite like this.
[ QUOTE ]
Right? behavior... who gives a crap. If I can afford something, let me have it.
[/ QUOTE ] I've read this several times, and for my own sanity I'm trying to convince myself that you're kidding. You are, aren't you? If we all go through life feeling no responsibility for our actions, what sort of world will we end up with? Maybe it doesn't matter as long as you can afford to float to the top of the muck? If I own a sewer treatment plant, and can afford the penalties imposed upon me for dumping raw sewage into the nearest river... everything is good? Maybe you live on, or swim in that river. Maybe you unknowingly eat food from that river? Because I can afford it, it is still OK, right? Pure capitalism, no oppression.
[ QUOTE ]
When you're pissing and moaning about right and wrong behavior, you'd better hope you don't get on the "wrong" side of the fence.
[/ QUOTE ]I'm pretty happy with my side of the fence, thanks. Actually I'm trying to figure out what you mean here.
[ QUOTE ]
Air quality? Move out of CA to a state that doesn't have to import fresh air. No one is forcing anyone to live anywhere.
[/ QUOTE ] The only reason that some other states don't have crappy air is because nobody lives there yet. Most other states pollute more per capita. So what's the point? Should all CA residents move to your area so we can crap up your air and water?
turbodog said:
Ok you hijacked a little, so get ready for some blowback.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, my bad for the hijack. No self control. I expected some comments, but not quite like this.
[ QUOTE ]
Right? behavior... who gives a crap. If I can afford something, let me have it.
[/ QUOTE ] I've read this several times, and for my own sanity I'm trying to convince myself that you're kidding. You are, aren't you? If we all go through life feeling no responsibility for our actions, what sort of world will we end up with? Maybe it doesn't matter as long as you can afford to float to the top of the muck? If I own a sewer treatment plant, and can afford the penalties imposed upon me for dumping raw sewage into the nearest river... everything is good? Maybe you live on, or swim in that river. Maybe you unknowingly eat food from that river? Because I can afford it, it is still OK, right? Pure capitalism, no oppression.
[ QUOTE ]
When you're pissing and moaning about right and wrong behavior, you'd better hope you don't get on the "wrong" side of the fence.
[/ QUOTE ]I'm pretty happy with my side of the fence, thanks. Actually I'm trying to figure out what you mean here.
[ QUOTE ]
Air quality? Move out of CA to a state that doesn't have to import fresh air. No one is forcing anyone to live anywhere.
[/ QUOTE ] The only reason that some other states don't have crappy air is because nobody lives there yet. Most other states pollute more per capita. So what's the point? Should all CA residents move to your area so we can crap up your air and water?
metalhed
Enlightened
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif Darell
I feel guilty every time I put gas in my Sammy (my wife has a Saturn--28 mpg). And try to do it as little as possible.
I would much rather live in a world of clean air and long walks than one of crappy air and short 'rides'.
I feel guilty every time I put gas in my Sammy (my wife has a Saturn--28 mpg). And try to do it as little as possible.
I would much rather live in a world of clean air and long walks than one of crappy air and short 'rides'.
BB
Flashlight Enthusiast
[ QUOTE ]
chamenos said:
in singapore we pay about US$3.70/gallon. why not look around at others before we start complaining? as it is the US gets some of the cheapest gasoline prices in the world...
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, it is cheaper in other countries in the Middle East. For example Iran: The 2004-2005 draft budget contains only a modest rise in gasoline prices from 650 rials ($0.08) a litre to some 800 rials, but a much sharper hike to 1,800 rials is planned under the next five-year development plan starting in March 2005. "For three years now we have discussed whether this (rise in gasoline prices) should be done gradually or suddenly," Sattarifar said.
And from another CPF thread where I posted some typical production prices:
[ QUOTE ]
BB said:
To put the true cost of gasoline in perspective:
As of January 13, 2004, a barrel of higher grade oil costs, per CNN, ~USD $30-34 (42 US gallons or 159 liters).
Current cost of home heating fuel (wholesale--CNN) ~USD $1.00 per gallon).
From well to car (based on $28/barrel in Maine--because it was handy ) is roughly $1.27 per gallon. This is a nice web page that lists the costs for various steps in the product's life cycle.
Here is a March 2001 chart from Exxon-Mobil that shows--surprise/surprise that the costs for them to supply gasoline is almost the same in various world wide markets (about ~$1.00 per gallon) and the major differences are TAXES. Interestingly, the UK cost to make gasoline was slightly cheaper than the US--but the UK had the highest consumer prices: $1.50- vs $4.00+ per US gallon.
[/ QUOTE ]
I still say that it is the price of government that is high, not the price of gasoline. Anytime the government (or even private businesses) tries to regulate (or adjust taxes on) a commodity, you will get market distortions and other unintended consequences.
For example, the use of an Oxidizer in Gasoline (adding something that contains an oxygen atom to, in theory, reduce unburned hydrocarbons) and adjusting the fuel mix for different regions of the country... This was done for the corn lobby. Well we ended up with several unintended consequences:
1. In California, we have temporary shortages as they change from Summer to Winter mix--and we can not share gasoline with other nearby regions, because their mix is different. So we get higher prices and occasional shortages.
2. There is more energy used in making ethanol than it supplies as a fuel. The only reason it is cheap is because it is subsidized with tax funds/lower taxes than gasoline.
3. There is no evidence (that I have seen) that shows originated gasoline is any cleaner than non-oxygenated fuel. But in California, they decided to ad MTBE to our fuel as an oxidizer. Our prices went up, our air pollution went up (especially around service stations--there were reports from a couple of years ago about high percentage mixes of MTBE fuel was causing breathing difficulties for people in and around service stations--especially in the winter--some areas wanted to discontinued the high % MTBE mixes because of this--against federal law).
4. In California, ground water pollution by MTBE, a carcinogen, (both direct MTBE in ground water, and how MTBE apparently acts as a solvent causing gasoline plumes, from leaks, to spread much faster and farther than non-MTBE fuels) has now been found in 10,000 wells...
5. And, by the way, In California, we had laws requiring a percentage on new cars would have to be electric. But, we did not allow power plants to be profitably built (NIMBE, taxes, regulations, weird power regulation requirement for 1 day price--spot market--contracts, etc.). Well, after the blackouts and huge price increases and billions of dollars in deficit power spending (almost bankrupted our two major power companies) of 2000, we ended up with the electric vehicle laws repealed (no capacity for charging eclectic cars).
Windmills for electricity are killing birds right across the San Francisco Bay from where I live...
And we probably don't want to go into Nuclear power--do we?
In any case, there are many pluses and minuses to anything we do. In my opinion, having the government TAX us into changes of behavior is going to just distort the market (and people's behaviors) and create more unintended problems (smuggling, black markets, use of other energy sources that don't have high road taxes--agricultural diesel, propane, even eclectic cars--thereby shorting road maintenance funds).
I for one, don't believe handing my government billions and trillions of dollars of our hard earned cash is really going to solve anything. Don't kid yourself, the people who are making obscene profits from oil--it is our government. The oil companies are only making a comparatively small amount of monies.
-Bill
chamenos said:
in singapore we pay about US$3.70/gallon. why not look around at others before we start complaining? as it is the US gets some of the cheapest gasoline prices in the world...
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, it is cheaper in other countries in the Middle East. For example Iran: The 2004-2005 draft budget contains only a modest rise in gasoline prices from 650 rials ($0.08) a litre to some 800 rials, but a much sharper hike to 1,800 rials is planned under the next five-year development plan starting in March 2005. "For three years now we have discussed whether this (rise in gasoline prices) should be done gradually or suddenly," Sattarifar said.
And from another CPF thread where I posted some typical production prices:
[ QUOTE ]
BB said:
To put the true cost of gasoline in perspective:
As of January 13, 2004, a barrel of higher grade oil costs, per CNN, ~USD $30-34 (42 US gallons or 159 liters).
Current cost of home heating fuel (wholesale--CNN) ~USD $1.00 per gallon).
From well to car (based on $28/barrel in Maine--because it was handy ) is roughly $1.27 per gallon. This is a nice web page that lists the costs for various steps in the product's life cycle.
Here is a March 2001 chart from Exxon-Mobil that shows--surprise/surprise that the costs for them to supply gasoline is almost the same in various world wide markets (about ~$1.00 per gallon) and the major differences are TAXES. Interestingly, the UK cost to make gasoline was slightly cheaper than the US--but the UK had the highest consumer prices: $1.50- vs $4.00+ per US gallon.
[/ QUOTE ]
I still say that it is the price of government that is high, not the price of gasoline. Anytime the government (or even private businesses) tries to regulate (or adjust taxes on) a commodity, you will get market distortions and other unintended consequences.
For example, the use of an Oxidizer in Gasoline (adding something that contains an oxygen atom to, in theory, reduce unburned hydrocarbons) and adjusting the fuel mix for different regions of the country... This was done for the corn lobby. Well we ended up with several unintended consequences:
1. In California, we have temporary shortages as they change from Summer to Winter mix--and we can not share gasoline with other nearby regions, because their mix is different. So we get higher prices and occasional shortages.
2. There is more energy used in making ethanol than it supplies as a fuel. The only reason it is cheap is because it is subsidized with tax funds/lower taxes than gasoline.
3. There is no evidence (that I have seen) that shows originated gasoline is any cleaner than non-oxygenated fuel. But in California, they decided to ad MTBE to our fuel as an oxidizer. Our prices went up, our air pollution went up (especially around service stations--there were reports from a couple of years ago about high percentage mixes of MTBE fuel was causing breathing difficulties for people in and around service stations--especially in the winter--some areas wanted to discontinued the high % MTBE mixes because of this--against federal law).
4. In California, ground water pollution by MTBE, a carcinogen, (both direct MTBE in ground water, and how MTBE apparently acts as a solvent causing gasoline plumes, from leaks, to spread much faster and farther than non-MTBE fuels) has now been found in 10,000 wells...
5. And, by the way, In California, we had laws requiring a percentage on new cars would have to be electric. But, we did not allow power plants to be profitably built (NIMBE, taxes, regulations, weird power regulation requirement for 1 day price--spot market--contracts, etc.). Well, after the blackouts and huge price increases and billions of dollars in deficit power spending (almost bankrupted our two major power companies) of 2000, we ended up with the electric vehicle laws repealed (no capacity for charging eclectic cars).
Windmills for electricity are killing birds right across the San Francisco Bay from where I live...
And we probably don't want to go into Nuclear power--do we?
In any case, there are many pluses and minuses to anything we do. In my opinion, having the government TAX us into changes of behavior is going to just distort the market (and people's behaviors) and create more unintended problems (smuggling, black markets, use of other energy sources that don't have high road taxes--agricultural diesel, propane, even eclectic cars--thereby shorting road maintenance funds).
I for one, don't believe handing my government billions and trillions of dollars of our hard earned cash is really going to solve anything. Don't kid yourself, the people who are making obscene profits from oil--it is our government. The oil companies are only making a comparatively small amount of monies.
-Bill
[ QUOTE ]
turbodog said:
Right? behavior... who gives a crap. If I can afford something, let me have it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Drigs, nuclear weapons, Abrams main battle tank,... I can see some things which might not benefit from this rule /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
The point in raising the fuel price is exactly that you can have it if you are willing to pay that much for it, but you are allso more likely to look at cheaper alternatives depending on how much importance to you the item in fact has. You aren't forbidden to buy it, it just gets more expensive.
[ QUOTE ]
turbodog said:
This is capitalism, not some oppressive foreign government.
[/ QUOTE ]
A considerable black/white statement. How oppressive a government is depends on how your cultural upbringing has been. Pure capitalism would make things like slavery possible again. Certain mechanisms must be implemented to prevent this from happening which depending on the point of view create liberties or restrict them.
[ QUOTE ]
turbodog said:
Air quality? Move out of CA to a state that doesn't have to import fresh air. No one is forcing anyone to live anywhere.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is a finite amount of locations you can move to in order to do this. Besides, what is going to prevent it from happening again?
Fuel prices here are the same as in Holland. And yes, at this level they are a serious incentive to buy cars with better fuel efficiency. Which is noticeable in the commercials too, most car makers here show how efficient their cars are and with how small an engine they can power it. There are no real alternatives on the market here yet, but I know that my next car will be a BMW Mini-one D. (Diesel) with a fuel eficiency of about 50mpg.
But there is a distinctly different car culture, just take a look at the websites of car manufacturers. The US sites show power, speed, handling and if possible a reference to racing. the EU sites show fuel efficiency, environmental impact, in-city handling and that the car is bigger on the inside than on the outside /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
turbodog said:
Right? behavior... who gives a crap. If I can afford something, let me have it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Drigs, nuclear weapons, Abrams main battle tank,... I can see some things which might not benefit from this rule /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
The point in raising the fuel price is exactly that you can have it if you are willing to pay that much for it, but you are allso more likely to look at cheaper alternatives depending on how much importance to you the item in fact has. You aren't forbidden to buy it, it just gets more expensive.
[ QUOTE ]
turbodog said:
This is capitalism, not some oppressive foreign government.
[/ QUOTE ]
A considerable black/white statement. How oppressive a government is depends on how your cultural upbringing has been. Pure capitalism would make things like slavery possible again. Certain mechanisms must be implemented to prevent this from happening which depending on the point of view create liberties or restrict them.
[ QUOTE ]
turbodog said:
Air quality? Move out of CA to a state that doesn't have to import fresh air. No one is forcing anyone to live anywhere.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is a finite amount of locations you can move to in order to do this. Besides, what is going to prevent it from happening again?
Fuel prices here are the same as in Holland. And yes, at this level they are a serious incentive to buy cars with better fuel efficiency. Which is noticeable in the commercials too, most car makers here show how efficient their cars are and with how small an engine they can power it. There are no real alternatives on the market here yet, but I know that my next car will be a BMW Mini-one D. (Diesel) with a fuel eficiency of about 50mpg.
But there is a distinctly different car culture, just take a look at the websites of car manufacturers. The US sites show power, speed, handling and if possible a reference to racing. the EU sites show fuel efficiency, environmental impact, in-city handling and that the car is bigger on the inside than on the outside /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
turbodog
Flashaholic
Tell ya what, the rest of the country will wait until the CA people get all the bugs worked out of the master perfect power/environental/etc plan, then we'll consider taking a look at it.
As a business owner, you can tell a LOT about someone by how they pay their bills. CA is one of the richest states and it also can't pay its own bills. I don't trust anything it has to offer if it can't manage its own house.
Remove the log from your own eye before you talk about the twig in mine.
As a business owner, you can tell a LOT about someone by how they pay their bills. CA is one of the richest states and it also can't pay its own bills. I don't trust anything it has to offer if it can't manage its own house.
Remove the log from your own eye before you talk about the twig in mine.
turbodog
Flashaholic
... before they allow the release of new energy ...
This is a dead issue, the market adapts. It has before and will again, given a real need.
"If enacting laws, and restricting freedom will make us secure, why aren't we safe yet? How many liberties will we sacrifice until we are safe?"
Right now I am finding this to be particuarly applicable.
This is a dead issue, the market adapts. It has before and will again, given a real need.
"If enacting laws, and restricting freedom will make us secure, why aren't we safe yet? How many liberties will we sacrifice until we are safe?"
Right now I am finding this to be particuarly applicable.
Bravo25
Flashlight Enthusiast
[ QUOTE ]
BB said:
I for one, don't believe handing my government billions and trillions of dollars of our hard earned cash is really going to solve anything. Don't kid yourself, the people who are making obscene profits from oil--it is our government. The oil companies are only making a comparatively small amount of monies.
-Bill
[/ QUOTE ]
Bill you can't honestly believe this. I would agree that our government makes an obscene amount from the tax of fuel. I believe somewhere around 57%, but with companies like Enron, and others that have avoided having their "cooked books" discovered we will always get raked over the coal. (pun intended). How else do these people live the life style they do, and contribute billions for campaign funds, and special interest groups. You don't really think that the government just lets them get away with things like environmental destruction, and unregulated price increases because it is good for the economy? Who do you think OPEC answers to? It sure isn't those of us pumping the gas.
BB said:
I for one, don't believe handing my government billions and trillions of dollars of our hard earned cash is really going to solve anything. Don't kid yourself, the people who are making obscene profits from oil--it is our government. The oil companies are only making a comparatively small amount of monies.
-Bill
[/ QUOTE ]
Bill you can't honestly believe this. I would agree that our government makes an obscene amount from the tax of fuel. I believe somewhere around 57%, but with companies like Enron, and others that have avoided having their "cooked books" discovered we will always get raked over the coal. (pun intended). How else do these people live the life style they do, and contribute billions for campaign funds, and special interest groups. You don't really think that the government just lets them get away with things like environmental destruction, and unregulated price increases because it is good for the economy? Who do you think OPEC answers to? It sure isn't those of us pumping the gas.
BB
Flashlight Enthusiast
Sure, I believe that government is the one making most of the money on fuel... Who do I think OPEC answers too? Well, since the name is Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, I would assume that OPEC (www.opec.org) responds to the 11 governments (Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela) who are a members of this organization. Certainly not Oil Companies. Certainly, not private enterprise. Not even really the people of their nations.
We are approaching a $1 a gallon (was ~$0.50/gallon when $21/barrel) on crude oil--much of the this current price is paid to directly to governments (like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Mexico, UK, Alaska, off-shore leases, government owned lands, etc.).
Total processing/transportation costs for gasoline, based on the links I supplied above, are only in the $0.50 a gallon range. Road Taxes in the US, are something like $0.25-$0.45/gal. In Britain, it is something like $3.00 per gallon.
Like I said, government is making much more than Big Oil on the high prices of gasoline today.
Regarding Enron, remember, they went bankrupt and had to cook the books because they did not make any profits. Sure, there were obscene amounts of salaries and a temporary stock price bubble. But, the market, and changing government regulations (and prosecutions) corrected that short term excursion.
In California, Eron was a big player precisely because of California Public Utilities Commission (and the "non-profit" www.caiso.com). Our "electricity deregulation" of ~6-7 years ago was no deregulation. It was a crazy change in regulation that prevented electricity companies like PG&E from writing any long term contracts for electricity supply--by law, PG&E had to sell their electrical generators and could only buy electricity 1 day in advance on the spot market. Was good for PG&E when prices were falling (not much for the customers as little of the lower prices were passed to us), but nobody would build a power plant because (among other reasons) nobody could get a long term pricing agreement on power generation--long story short, we ran out of excess capacity, spot market prices shot up (where Enron played), PG&E and State of Kalifornia (in our name) paid extortionary prices for electricity, and we were all screwed.
Bravo, I am not really sure what your argument is? Even you say that 57% of the costs(?) are government taxes.
In the UK (based on production cost links I supplied), it appears to be approaching 90% of the costs of a tank of gasoline goes directly to the UK government (through taxes, and State Owned North Sea Oil--crude--costs--approximately $0.80/gal for crude, $3.00/gal taxes, $0.50/gal to big oil). Of the 10% that is left, this is not all big oil profits--a large amount goes to the costs of business, such as real property, equipment, labor, paperwork, and even more taxes (on salaries, property, profits, "donations" to politicians, etc.).
The few people "living the life style" are just that, a few people. And those either got paid that because share holders and directors decided to pay them that much--or in some cases, like Tyco (big electronics manufacturing company) got theirs through illegal means and are now being prosecuted. And they were perfectly happy to let the government raise taxes on everyone--The companies still get their cuts, the politicians get their cuts, and the government gets a whole bunch of money to spend on bribery of their voters (or in OPEC's case, to military, princes, government officials/family, etc.)--so they can stay in power.
I am not saying that all is well in the world--we will have to change our ways. But, so far, many of the changes proposed and in place seem to be worst than the current problems and don't really try to reduce the amount of oil used or create new technologies. In California, our road taxes are constantly being taken and placed into the state's general fund--not being spent where they were supposed to be. And yet, they ask for more road taxes because our roads are falling apart--thus the game of big government.
Even if a few people in big oil are getting $100,000,000 payouts, those are few and far between, and really the results of stockholder decisions (when corruption is not part of the picture). My premise that the major entities profiting (and creating the high costs) from high oil prices are Big Government and not Big Oil is still true, as I have shown, with links to source information.
You can fire every person making over $250,000 in a large oil company and I would doubt that would make a pennies' ($0.01/gal) worth of difference in the price of gasoline. Fire government and their taxes--and you can reduce pump prices by 50% (US) to 90% (UK/Netherlands). I am not being realistic here--but you get the idea.
Enron went bankrupt--that is the nature of free enterprise and capitalism. The State of California is close to going bankrupt--but the fools out here instead gave the state government of $15,000,000,000 in bonds to pay for their excesses of the last 6 years (and for next year). And guess what, the state is still spending $3,000,000,000 a year (for 2005 budget) more than they are taking in. That is the nature of government.
-Bill
We are approaching a $1 a gallon (was ~$0.50/gallon when $21/barrel) on crude oil--much of the this current price is paid to directly to governments (like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Mexico, UK, Alaska, off-shore leases, government owned lands, etc.).
Total processing/transportation costs for gasoline, based on the links I supplied above, are only in the $0.50 a gallon range. Road Taxes in the US, are something like $0.25-$0.45/gal. In Britain, it is something like $3.00 per gallon.
Like I said, government is making much more than Big Oil on the high prices of gasoline today.
Regarding Enron, remember, they went bankrupt and had to cook the books because they did not make any profits. Sure, there were obscene amounts of salaries and a temporary stock price bubble. But, the market, and changing government regulations (and prosecutions) corrected that short term excursion.
In California, Eron was a big player precisely because of California Public Utilities Commission (and the "non-profit" www.caiso.com). Our "electricity deregulation" of ~6-7 years ago was no deregulation. It was a crazy change in regulation that prevented electricity companies like PG&E from writing any long term contracts for electricity supply--by law, PG&E had to sell their electrical generators and could only buy electricity 1 day in advance on the spot market. Was good for PG&E when prices were falling (not much for the customers as little of the lower prices were passed to us), but nobody would build a power plant because (among other reasons) nobody could get a long term pricing agreement on power generation--long story short, we ran out of excess capacity, spot market prices shot up (where Enron played), PG&E and State of Kalifornia (in our name) paid extortionary prices for electricity, and we were all screwed.
Bravo, I am not really sure what your argument is? Even you say that 57% of the costs(?) are government taxes.
In the UK (based on production cost links I supplied), it appears to be approaching 90% of the costs of a tank of gasoline goes directly to the UK government (through taxes, and State Owned North Sea Oil--crude--costs--approximately $0.80/gal for crude, $3.00/gal taxes, $0.50/gal to big oil). Of the 10% that is left, this is not all big oil profits--a large amount goes to the costs of business, such as real property, equipment, labor, paperwork, and even more taxes (on salaries, property, profits, "donations" to politicians, etc.).
The few people "living the life style" are just that, a few people. And those either got paid that because share holders and directors decided to pay them that much--or in some cases, like Tyco (big electronics manufacturing company) got theirs through illegal means and are now being prosecuted. And they were perfectly happy to let the government raise taxes on everyone--The companies still get their cuts, the politicians get their cuts, and the government gets a whole bunch of money to spend on bribery of their voters (or in OPEC's case, to military, princes, government officials/family, etc.)--so they can stay in power.
I am not saying that all is well in the world--we will have to change our ways. But, so far, many of the changes proposed and in place seem to be worst than the current problems and don't really try to reduce the amount of oil used or create new technologies. In California, our road taxes are constantly being taken and placed into the state's general fund--not being spent where they were supposed to be. And yet, they ask for more road taxes because our roads are falling apart--thus the game of big government.
Even if a few people in big oil are getting $100,000,000 payouts, those are few and far between, and really the results of stockholder decisions (when corruption is not part of the picture). My premise that the major entities profiting (and creating the high costs) from high oil prices are Big Government and not Big Oil is still true, as I have shown, with links to source information.
You can fire every person making over $250,000 in a large oil company and I would doubt that would make a pennies' ($0.01/gal) worth of difference in the price of gasoline. Fire government and their taxes--and you can reduce pump prices by 50% (US) to 90% (UK/Netherlands). I am not being realistic here--but you get the idea.
Enron went bankrupt--that is the nature of free enterprise and capitalism. The State of California is close to going bankrupt--but the fools out here instead gave the state government of $15,000,000,000 in bonds to pay for their excesses of the last 6 years (and for next year). And guess what, the state is still spending $3,000,000,000 a year (for 2005 budget) more than they are taking in. That is the nature of government.
-Bill
Darell
Flashaholic
[ QUOTE ]
BB said:
Hi Bill. You have some good points here. I'd like to expand on a couple of these though.
[ QUOTE ]
5. And, by the way, In California, we had laws requiring a percentage on new cars would have to be electric. But, we did not allow power plants to be profitably built (NIMBE, taxes, regulations, weird power regulation requirement for 1 day price--spot market--contracts, etc.). Well, after the blackouts and huge price increases and billions of dollars in deficit power spending (almost bankrupted our two major power companies) of 2000, we ended up with the electric vehicle laws repealed (no capacity for charging eclectic cars).
[/ QUOTE ]
Quite an interesting take on the subject of EVs, yet not accurate. EVs didn't go away because we didn't have the electricity or chargers for them. I can guess where you heard this, but it just ain't true. I've given many reasons for WHY this is not true in other threads, so I'll attempt to be brief. The EVs on the road today use "wasted" power in the off-peak times. We are not adding a burden to the grid. My neighbors ALL use more electricity than I do (yes, even before I put my solar panels up). Why? Because of constant AC use and pool pumps, etc. Now they're buying their power from me. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif And gasoline (are you sitting down for this?) likely uses just as much electricity per mile than does an electric car. Switching from gas to electric would have zero effect on the net electricity that we need for transportation.
[ QUOTE ]
In any case, there are many pluses and minuses to anything we do. In my opinion, having the government TAX us into changes of behavior is going to just distort the market (and people's behaviors) and create more unintended problems (smuggling, black markets, use of other energy sources that don't have high road taxes--agricultural diesel, propane, even eclectic cars--thereby shorting road maintenance funds).
[/ QUOTE ]
OK. I definitely see your point. I think you're saying that if we tax the fuel we don't want to use to "disincentivize" it, we're screwing with the free market. Well, surprise. We are UN-taxing it right now. Yes, gasoline is subsidized by our federal taxes. What you pay at the pump is but a fraction of what you are paying for gasoline... if if you aren't buying any! So we're already screwing with the market through the use of NEGATIVE taxes on gasoline. Crazy, eh? Oil companies get federal tax incentives to find new oil for us thirst folks.
BB said:
Hi Bill. You have some good points here. I'd like to expand on a couple of these though.
[ QUOTE ]
5. And, by the way, In California, we had laws requiring a percentage on new cars would have to be electric. But, we did not allow power plants to be profitably built (NIMBE, taxes, regulations, weird power regulation requirement for 1 day price--spot market--contracts, etc.). Well, after the blackouts and huge price increases and billions of dollars in deficit power spending (almost bankrupted our two major power companies) of 2000, we ended up with the electric vehicle laws repealed (no capacity for charging eclectic cars).
[/ QUOTE ]
Quite an interesting take on the subject of EVs, yet not accurate. EVs didn't go away because we didn't have the electricity or chargers for them. I can guess where you heard this, but it just ain't true. I've given many reasons for WHY this is not true in other threads, so I'll attempt to be brief. The EVs on the road today use "wasted" power in the off-peak times. We are not adding a burden to the grid. My neighbors ALL use more electricity than I do (yes, even before I put my solar panels up). Why? Because of constant AC use and pool pumps, etc. Now they're buying their power from me. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif And gasoline (are you sitting down for this?) likely uses just as much electricity per mile than does an electric car. Switching from gas to electric would have zero effect on the net electricity that we need for transportation.
[ QUOTE ]
In any case, there are many pluses and minuses to anything we do. In my opinion, having the government TAX us into changes of behavior is going to just distort the market (and people's behaviors) and create more unintended problems (smuggling, black markets, use of other energy sources that don't have high road taxes--agricultural diesel, propane, even eclectic cars--thereby shorting road maintenance funds).
[/ QUOTE ]
OK. I definitely see your point. I think you're saying that if we tax the fuel we don't want to use to "disincentivize" it, we're screwing with the free market. Well, surprise. We are UN-taxing it right now. Yes, gasoline is subsidized by our federal taxes. What you pay at the pump is but a fraction of what you are paying for gasoline... if if you aren't buying any! So we're already screwing with the market through the use of NEGATIVE taxes on gasoline. Crazy, eh? Oil companies get federal tax incentives to find new oil for us thirst folks.
dlee96
Newly Enlightened
Paid 2.79/gal yesterday. They could at least keep the windshield washing water a little sudsy for that price.
-dlee
-dlee
