# Whats going on w/ the price of gas...



## twinplanx (Apr 18, 2008)

:evil:Seriously the go go juice was inchin up  all week. I think it went up 15cnts around luch time? 3.59 a gallon the cheapest 'round here


----------



## severine (Apr 18, 2008)

I was wondering the same.  It was around $3.31 the other day... then overnight it jumped to $3.64. :angry:  This is absolutely ridiculous.  I don't care what they say about it not being the most expensive ever when adjusting for inflation.  It's still risen at an exorbitant rate over the last year.


----------



## mondeo (Apr 18, 2008)

China, India, and the weak dollar. It'll happen.


----------



## snoseek (Apr 18, 2008)

Is it silly that I'm rooting for 5-6$ per gallon gas?


----------



## severine (Apr 18, 2008)

snoseek said:


> Is it silly that I'm rooting for 5-6$ per gallon gas?


Bite your tongue!  

Seriously, I am all for better alternatives, conservation, etc.  But as a member of a single-income home with 2 small children, my car=freedom.  Sometimes sanity.  I'm not in a position to be buying a more fuel-efficient vehicle (the car payment negates the savings on gas).  But paying more and more for gas also means I'm stuck home more with the kids.  How many of you have been home with 2 little ones day in and day out?  How long would you survive before you lost your mind?  :-o


----------



## snoseek (Apr 19, 2008)

severine said:


> Bite your tongue!
> 
> Seriously, I am all for better alternatives, conservation, etc.  But as a member of a single-income home with 2 small children, my car=freedom.  Sometimes sanity.  I'm not in a position to be buying a more fuel-efficient vehicle (the car payment negates the savings on gas).  But paying more and more for gas also means I'm stuck home more with the kids.  How many of you have been home with 2 little ones day in and day out?  How long would you survive before you lost your mind?  :-o



I'm only saying this because I feel like this country (myself included) really needs to reprogram the way we think about cars, houses, waste ect... not just from an environmental standpoint, but to be able to steer away from fossil fuel and extreme waste. The only to get through is $$$$ in this country. I don't like how other countries view us and in the end we will need to make some fast changes. The amount of oil left in the world is open for debate but its not going to last forever. 


Oh and there is the whole global warming thing....


----------



## twinplanx (Apr 19, 2008)

snoseek said:


> I'm only saying this because I feel like this country (myself included) really needs to reprogram the way we think about cars, houses, waste ect... not just from an environmental standpoint, but to be able to steer away from fossil fuel and extreme waste. The only to get through is $$$$ in this country. I don't like how other countries view us and in the end we will need to make some fast changes. The amount of oil left in the world is open for debate but its not going to last forever.
> 
> 
> Oh and there is the whole global warming thing....




True... but the price of fuel is running away in the race against change.  I read in the Long Island Press(I think) that theres enough oil to last 50yrs.  There should be a way to handicap fuel prices.  Given that time frame.


global warming sux:evil:


----------



## snoseek (Apr 19, 2008)

twinplanx said:


> True... but the price of fuel is running away in the race against change.  I read in the Long Island Press(I think) that theres enough oil to last 50yrs.  There should be a way to handicap fuel prices.  Given that time frame.
> 
> 
> global warming sux:evil:



Yeah but change is only going to be driven by market demand, lots of big suv's on the road still. I bet it would take many years for a sustainable solution like hydrogen fuel cells or whatever to be perfected and put into place. I would rather that be put into place now than later, especially with a rapidly warming earth. In the end I think folks will rethink what they are driving @ 6$ per gallon. Maybe car manufacturers would get real and come up with some more efficient solutions than a hybrid suv that now gets 26 mpg....b.s. People will demand better efficiency, and god forbid good public transportation. It's sad but this is what we need for a change, I bet it gets a whole lot worse in the next 5-10 years. This is something that needs to happen now and as quickly as possible truly beleive.


----------



## mondeo (Apr 19, 2008)

Hydrogen fuel cells or electric cars don't do anything until the electric production system has excessive, non-fossil fuel sources of energy. At this point, all you're doing is burning coal/gas/oil somewhere, turning that into electricity, then storing it directly or turning it into hydrogen for storage. Yes, the power plants are more efficient by themselves, but it's only a small gain once you start adding up all the additional losses. Algae holds some promise, but it will probably be 3-5 years before it starts showing any significant results.

So. Cal, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas should all be powered by solar or other means within 10 years. No. Cal, Oregon, Washington, and the East Coast by wave, tidal, or current sources within 20. Midwest you would think would be prime for wind. Until the last coal plant is shut down, the focus needs to be on efficiency, not changing the means of energy storage. Which means California needs to make up their mind, and stop cramming more and more stupid safety requirements down our throats.

The cost to produce energy from solar, wind, etc. is going to continue to drop as the cost to produce from oil and gas continues to rise. I suspect the energy companies will stop using oil and natural gas a lot quicker than most people expect, just because of economics.


----------



## snoseek (Apr 19, 2008)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Yeah I really don't know what will replace oil, just that its inevitable. I think your right about solar, wind and tidal, it's there for the taking and just makes sense. I think I read something in national geographic about the explosion of old-school dirty coal fired plants in China right now, kinda scary. I suppose all we can do as consumers is vote with our dollars and the market will respond.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 19, 2008)

snoseek said:


> Is it silly that I'm rooting for 5-6$ per gallon gas?


Nope, same here. Bring it. Just bring it slow enough that innovation and change can take place. I am all for changing things up but don't want to bring down the whole economy in the process.


----------



## ckofer (Apr 19, 2008)

How about a bus that picks us up and brings 40 of us at a time to the ski areas?


----------



## mondeo (Apr 19, 2008)

ckofer said:


> How about a bus that picks us up and brings 40 of us at a time to the ski areas?



Hell, I'd take a friend with a Civic. Ran the numbers, and it's nowhere near viable for me to get an old Civic/Corolla/etc. just to go skiing with (probably obvious, but figured I'd check.) The plan is to start riding my bike to work and get a motorcycle for when a bike won't do but I don't need a car (fun factor takes some of the place of pure economics there.) That'll at least help as far as gas goes in the summer, but I figure I spent $800-1000 on gas this year just for skiing - 22-24mpg highway with premium fuel has a lot of room for improvement. A Civic alone would cut that in half, then splitting the bill on top would be another half; even counting for travel to meet someone, I'd probably cut the gas bill by 60-65%.


----------



## snoseek (Apr 19, 2008)

mondeo said:


> Hell, I'd take a friend with a Civic. Ran the numbers, and it's nowhere near viable for me to get an old Civic/Corolla/etc. just to go skiing with (probably obvious, but figured I'd check.) The plan is to start riding my bike to work and get a motorcycle for when a bike won't do but I don't need a car (fun factor takes some of the place of pure economics there.) That'll at least help as far as gas goes in the summer, but I figure I spent $800-1000 on gas this year just for skiing - 22-24mpg highway with premium fuel has a lot of room for improvement. A Civic alone would cut that in half, then splitting the bill on top would be another half; even counting for travel to meet someone, I'd probably cut the gas bill by 60-65%.



There you go. Sell your car and get a civic/corrolla...whatever used. these cars are dirt cheap to buy, drive and they last for 250,000 minimum. Sure they're not fancy but they get the job done and I'm sure you can find use with all that extra money. I would rather take the winter off and ski 100 days than drive a new car that I don't have cash for the payment or the fuel bill. Really think about it-the idea of expensive fuel is relatively new to many of us and its probably going to get much higher in the coming years.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 19, 2008)

snoseek said:


> There you go. Sell your car and get a civic/corrolla...whatever used. these cars are dirt cheap to buy, drive and they last for 250,000 minimum. Sure they're not fancy but they get the job done and I'm sure you can find use with all that extra money. I would rather take the winter off and ski 100 days than drive a new car that I don't have cash for the payment or the fuel bill. Really think about it-the idea of expensive fuel is relatively new to many of us and its probably going to get much higher in the coming years.


Word. I got thinking recently not about the cost of fuel now (whatev, I can deal, though people without much money are going to get pinched a bit more) but rather the cost of fuel in 5-10 years, especially as nations such as China continue to drive up demand. 

Heck, our own vehicle choices are driving up demand... is it just me or are economy cars getting worse MPG now than a few years ago? For example, my 99 Saturn Coupe averages 35 highway (respectable). Saturn's best fuel economy now is 32 MPG which is a tie between the economy car and the family sedan hybrid. The freaking sedan hybrid does not get as good gas miles as my 9 year old non-hybrid economy.. This is a step forward? Honda's non-hybrid Accord gets freaking 31 MPG!!! The Civic gets 36 but I swear it used to be higher. And of course, the old CRX used to get like 50 MPG.

After cranking out a ridiculous 44.88 MPG today on a 201.7 mile round trip backroad drive to Stowe, I got to thinking the downgrade to a Subaru just might not be a good value the way gas is going. It certainly is only going to increase. I am really bummed that consumer demand has not driven more innovation in MPG. And F hybrids until they can get economy car MRG at a minimum. 30 really is my minimum expectation and hybrids getting 32 MPG highway are really not impressive.

*sigh*

So that is why I agree with let's go $5-6/gallon of gas. The finances still have not tipped in favor of fuel efficient vehicles so we see limited innovation and hybrid models that really are only slightly increasing MPG in a very narrow model range.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 19, 2008)

riverc0il said:


> Nope, same here. Bring it. Just bring it slow enough that innovation and change can take place. I am all for changing things up but don't want to bring down the whole economy in the process.



It needs to be slower than it's current rate by far.  I'm cool with prices outgaining inflation by 5% a year.  This has not been the case over the past 5 years. The reality is that 70% of our economy is driven my consumer spending.  Yes, viable renewable energy sources need to happen and quick, but there needs to be balance.  Rising fuel costs are a big part of our current economic slowdown in addition to rising food costs, which brings me to my next point.

The one thing that needs to STOP immediately is the use of crops to create fuel.  I personaly think there should be an immediate ban on ethanol, boideisel etc except that which is produced from the recycled bi-product of the crops original purpose. If you want to turn spent vegetable oil from a fryer at a restaurant into bio-diesel to fuel your car, knock yourself out.  Crops shouldn't however go straight from the ground to the processing plant.

I don't care if these fuels are renewable, burn cleaner etc, you DO NOT eff with the food supply to put vehicles in motion.  This practice is just about the dumbest idea for renewable energy I have ever heard of. You can thank bio-fuels for your $5 a gallon milk price and any product grain related that has gone up over 20% in the past year with no ceiling in sight.  The only people who benefit from this practice are some farmers.  At the same time any farmers who raise livestock are going broke because of the rising feed cost.

As someone who works in the food supply business, rising food costs are scaring me more right now than rising fuel costs.  Raising the price of fuel to $5-6 a gallon will only compound what is already a VERY bad situation.


----------



## ckofer (Apr 19, 2008)

I think we need to look beyond our personal affordability threasholds. Aggregate demand for energy must be reduced. 







=






In addition, I think the value of  hybrids is realized in cities more than highways. They also pollute less.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 19, 2008)

deadhead, I disagree. Increasing crop prices is a good thing if we can get the government to stop having to subsidize our farms. Farmers should be able to support their families with their crops and if my grocery bill goes up $10-20 a week to support both farmers and new fuels, I am cool with that. Food prices are on the rise but gas prices shooting up 50 cents per gallon over the course of four months still has more impact on most consumers. Now, if you want to argue the merits of whether bio-fuels are actually accomplishing (or can accomplish on a large scale) the objective of lowering fuel costs, bring it on. In the meantime, any innovation pushes the envelope a bit more and I like that.

While consumer spending does help drive the economy, I really don't see the slow down being directly correlated with gas prices going up. The housing situation seems far more drastic and continues to put on some big hurts behind the scenes. The housing situation is going to effect consumer spending more than paying $10 more bucks a week in gas or $10 more a week on food. People are having to face some really nasty situations and that only scratches the surface as the with the entire lending industry in a rut (more student lenders just withdrew from the market just yesterday I believe), it is going to cut across the entire marketplace and hit consumers much harder than a few more bucks a week to fill the pump.


----------



## o3jeff (Apr 19, 2008)

Looks like the checks that we will be getting from the government next month are mostly going to be used to put gas in our cars and not much else. I am just thankful that work supplies me with a company car cause if I had to foot the bill for fuel from Southington to Glastonbury everyday I don't know were I would find the money for gas in my budget.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 19, 2008)

riverc0il said:


> deadhead, I disagree. Increasing crop prices is a good thing if we can get the government to stop having to subsidize our farms. Farmers should be able to support their families with their crops and if my grocery bill goes up $10-20 a week to support both farmers and new fuels, I am cool with that.



Tell that to the farmers who make a living raising livestock.  Every single one of them that I've talked to is PISSED about what biofuel has down to the overall market.  Having your feed cost triple in two years is not a good thing.  Greated exporting grain and the week dollar is having a huge effect on the industry too, but every farmer I talk to, which is many due to my work, is 100% against the biofuel and feel it is a big part of the problem.

I'm not against grain farmers that make more money, but I stand by my position that is a horrible way to rob Peter to pay Paul and not good for the overall health of our economy.


----------



## ckofer (Apr 19, 2008)

riverc0il said:


> deadhead, I disagree. Increasing crop prices is a good thing if we can get the government to stop having to subsidize our farms. Farmers should be able to support their families with their crops and if my grocery bill goes up $10-20 a week to support both farmers and new fuels, I am cool with that. Food prices are on the rise but gas prices shooting up 50 cents per gallon over the course of four months still has more impact on most consumers. Now, if you want to argue the merits of whether bio-fuels are actually accomplishing (or can accomplish on a large scale) the objective of lowering fuel costs, bring it on. In the meantime, any innovation pushes the envelope a bit more and I like that.
> 
> While consumer spending does help drive the economy, I really don't see the slow down being directly correlated with gas prices going up. The housing situation seems far more drastic and continues to put on some big hurts behind the scenes. The housing situation is going to effect consumer spending more than paying $10 more bucks a week in gas or $10 more a week on food. People are having to face some really nasty situations and that only scratches the surface as the with the entire lending industry in a rut (more student lenders just withdrew from the market just yesterday I believe), it is going to cut across the entire marketplace and hit consumers much harder than a few more bucks a week to fill the pump.



It's not just the auto fuel bill though. With diesel at $4 a gallon (and home heating oil following closely) there are many hits on the consumer markets. I have a small service business with work vans that get about 10 mpg. I need to charge more for field services taking money out of my client's budgets, it is harder to give raises and the cost of the goods that I sell are going up. The cost of heating my home is going up. My business needs to make a greater profit for  us to keep up with expenses and my employees need more money for the same reason. 

Somehow we, as a nation, like to think that we can overcome the cost increases of energy just by keeping a positive attitude but we need to consider our consumptive habits. In addition, consumer demands from other nations are increasing.


----------



## mondeo (Apr 19, 2008)

snoseek said:


> I would rather take the winter off and ski 100 days than drive a new car that I don't have cash for the payment or the fuel bill.



And that's where you (and most others) and I differ. I view the extra gas cost as an entertainment expenditure; my other main hobby-type interest (other than skiing) is cars/driving/racing/motorcycles/etc. If you cared to check, you'll see that I've discussed increased fuel costs, and mentioned thoughts about how I would reduce my own costs, but I have not complained about them. I just don't think I have the right to complain given my choices being what they are, independent on my thoughts on what the price of gas should be (which is a policy statement (in my case) -> politics -> not on this board.)


----------



## snoseek (Apr 19, 2008)

All I really know is that gas needs to increase at an alarming rate for consumers to make different decisions in this country. Up until now any fuel increases have not at all affected the market. I agree with riv about vehicles getting better milage 10 years ago. This is about much more than us and our own personal finaces. This is about the possiblity (yeah who knows) of drastic warming and the liklihood that oil will be very scarce in our lifetime and maybe non-existant in the next generations.


Also I would be thrilled more use of a better mass transit system. You would need a pretty drastic spike in prices for any kind of real action.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 19, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> Tell that to the farmers who make a living raising livestock.  Every single one of them that I've talked to is PISSED about what biofuel has down to the overall market.  Having your feed cost triple in two years is not a good thing.  Greated exporting grain and the week dollar is having a huge effect on the industry too, but every farmer I talk to, which is many due to my work, is 100% against the biofuel and feel it is a big part of the problem.


Interesting. Point conceded as you are getting the information and opinions directly from the source. My point, which admittedly got lost in too complex a thought, is trying to see this as a possible economic opportunity for many farmers rather than an actual threat. Demand goes up so theoretically, will not some farmers change their crop if the land allows? Clearly there is not enough supply yet as prices are going up with no end in sight.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 19, 2008)

riverc0il said:


> Interesting. Point conceded as you are getting the information and opinions directly from the source. My point, which admittedly got lost in too complex a thought, is trying to see this as a possible economic opportunity for many farmers rather than an actual threat. Demand goes up so theoretically, will not some farmers change their crop if the land allows? Clearly there is not enough supply yet as prices are going up with no end in sight.



Oh it's definitely an economic opportunity for non-meat producing farmers.  In addition to changing gears for production of ethanol, farmers are becoming much more savy in changing gears based upon commodity futures.  For most livestock farmers changing gears isn't an option due to lack of acreage.  A chicken farmer can't just switch gears and become a wheat farmer because they're not going to have the land.

And while I'm all for farmers making more money, those that have the means anyways, it does come at the expense of other workers.  Granted economies are cyclical, for the point I'm about to illustrate, the same could be said for technology taking away jobs that were once done by hand and people do need to re-consider training themselves and adapt.  I get that.  However in this instance, the example I am specifically thinking about is restaurant workers.  In the past six months five full service chain restaurants closed up shop at the Maine Mall.  These were restaurants that were thriving a year and a half ago.  Part of the equation is that business is down from lack of consumer spending, but the biggest reason is the rise in expenses.  The Applebees of the world operate on tremendously small margins, 7-8% is doing well.  For every dollar a price on ingredients goes up, your menu price needs to go up $3-$4.  So now, that steak selling for $16 and perceived as a good value by the middle class worker is $20.  People that were already feeling a pinch and would second guess buying the $16 steak due to their own rising fuel and grocery costs are even less likely to splurge now that it's $20.  

So, five restaurants closed with an average of 40 jobs a piece, that's 200 jobs.  The math isn't even.  There are not 200 farmers benefitting to counteract the 200 restaurant jobs lost.  Now those 200 people are probably costing the government even more in welfare subsidies than what the farmers were getting subsidized prior to this mess.

LIke I said, there's more to the rising costs than simply crops going towards fuel production.  Commodity futures, exporting, the week dollar, fuel etc, all drive up the cost.   This all said, I'm of the opinion that bio-fuels is an easy area to restrict and help mitigate the overal damage their production is having on the economy.  I just don't think that using the food bank is a good solution for alternative energies.  An even greater concern is that the world grain stock has been running at a deficit compared to demand in I believe 9 out of the last 10 years.  There are more and more hungry poeple in this world and the problem will only get worse as the population in developing nations continues to expand. 

So at even the most basic level, considering we are not producing enough food as it is to feed the world's population and now we're taking some of that food away to power vehicles?  DUMB IDEA

It's a much bigger picture than the $10-$20 increase in the weekly grocery bill.


----------



## snoseek (Apr 19, 2008)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  answer me this-hasn't beef remained fairly steady in the last 12 months? I know about a year ago it spiked pretty good but it seems pretty steady now. It's been many months since I placed an order so I haven't followed too closely. I also know other things (dairy, eggs, bread, flour) are crazy but I thought that was more about actual fuel cost.


----------



## ckofer (Apr 20, 2008)

snoseek said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  answer me this-hasn't beef remained fairly steady in the last 12 months? I know about a year ago it spiked pretty good but it seems pretty steady now. It's been many months since I placed an order so I haven't followed too closely. I also know other things (dairy, eggs, bread, flour) are crazy but I thought that was more about actual fuel cost.



Not all markets can raise their prices at the same pace. This includes wages.

Operative term: stagflation


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 20, 2008)

Deadhead... thanks for the analysis. That was insightful.



snoseek said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  answer me this-hasn't beef remained fairly steady in the last 12 months? I know about a year ago it spiked pretty good but it seems pretty steady now. It's been many months since I placed an order so I haven't followed too closely. I also know other things (dairy, eggs, bread, flour) are crazy but I thought that was more about actual fuel cost.


I am curious about the same. I notice my chicken breast packages are up about a buck compared to usual but I have not really noticed meat prices go up.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 20, 2008)

snoseek said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  answer me this-hasn't beef remained fairly steady in the last 12 months? I know about a year ago it spiked pretty good but it seems pretty steady now. It's been many months since I placed an order so I haven't followed too closely. I also know other things (dairy, eggs, bread, flour) are crazy but I thought that was more about actual fuel cost.



Yes and no.  I deal in strictly all natural grass fed beef that is grain finished.  What did happen this past fall is the typical 'holiday bump' in prices came about a month earlier than previous years.  It also lasted a bit longer after new years than normal.  That said, beef is essentially the same price this spring as it was last year on primal cuts.  The difference has been made up in secondary cuts.  Things like cheak meat, hangar steak etc are much more expensive than they used to be.  Veal bones have gone up 30% in the past year.  As recently as 20 years ago Veal bones were free. 

The fact that there is a lot more grass fed beef out there these days makes it less vulnerable to price hikes in grain.  I imagine that many farmers are cutting corners and reducing the grain finishing time, instead of going 120 days, maybe they go 100.  This combined with rising prices on secondary cuts have kept prices reasonable on the primary cuts.  Also to consider is that beef demand domestically has been flat due to peoples perception that it is 'unhealthy'.  At the same time the demand for beef in places like China and India is through the roof.  You take that with a weak dollar and exported beef earnings is way up over years past.  That also has contributed to keeping the cost down.

Unfortunately, you can't only grass feed a chicken.  They are omnivores.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 20, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> So at even the most basic level, considering we are not producing enough food as it is to feed the world's population and now we're taking some of that food away to power vehicles?  DUMB IDEA



Apperently the Internatinal Monetary Fund has similar views in this article on the front page of yahoo right now.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080420/ts_afp/foodbiofuelsclimatewarming


----------



## ccskier (Apr 20, 2008)

It is all driven on speculation.  The economists feel reserves will run out and it is driving prices.  I am going to take a bullet by saying this, but how about they start opening up some of the access to fuel in this country and off of the coast.  Yes, I do have an suv that gets about 17mpg that we drive on trips (I will take the safety of my wife and child over a few dollars), a boat that holds 85 gallons of gas and lasts about a week when used.  Sorry to say that I am a good example of fuel usage.  I did however just get rid of our other suv and got a new vw passat, can't believe the difference in gas.  I have not had a car in years and the 30+mpg is very nice.  With the boating season starting I will be watching fuel consumption, 3-400 bones to fill that tank won't be feasible.  If you want to see fuel consumption discussions you should see some of the boat forums, yipes.  Once you get a boat over about 25 feet, the fuel capacity is about 150gallons+ and you are most likely not trailering it every trip to take advantage of the gas pump prices, marinas are generally about a buck more.  At the same time, I can almost guarantee it won't stop people from using them.

These fuel costs are killing everything.  Anyone been to the grocery store lately? Holy crap, I won't even step foot in there, I can't believe the price of food these days.  I had not had a donut in a long time, the other morning, I got one at d/d w/ my coffee, after I paid I looked at the receipt, .99, you have to be kidding me, I thought they were like .50-.75.  The cost of fuel is behind everything these days.  As ckofer said, small business owners can be driven out of business by these costs, there are so many surcharges you can put on your service before you start losing your customers.  I live on Cape Cod where everyone is a landscaper or contractor, my buddy's small landscaping company of 4 diesel trucks now has a montly fuel bill of about $2500 and the season has barely started.  I have another buddy with a new diesel pick up, $150to fill it up, he had bought diesel because the consumption is better, now he wishes he had gas, the difference does not balance out at a buck more per gallon.


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 21, 2008)

If Chinese and Indian dedmand for cars continues to grow as it has, the US could be forceably weaned off petroleum by 2025. Forecasts are for something like 600 million cars in India within 10 years, and 750 million in China.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Apr 22, 2008)

twinplanx said:


> :evil:Seriously the go go juice was inchin up  all week. I think it went up 15cnts around luch time? 3.59 a gallon the cheapest 'round here



Our dollar is declining in value and the price of oil is going up..so it will keep getting higher..enjoy paying $3.49 or $3.69 or whatever it is now because this may be the cheapest it will ever be.  Adjusted for inflation..the price of gas is about what it should be..


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Apr 22, 2008)

snoseek said:


> Is it silly that I'm rooting for 5-6$ per gallon gas?



Yeah yeah..I'm sick of eco-disaster SUVs..


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 22, 2008)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> Our dollar is declining in value and the price of oil is going up..so it will keep getting higher..enjoy paying $3.49 or $3.69 or whatever it is now because this may be the cheapest it will ever be.  Adjusted for inflation..the price of gas is about what it should be..


I believe oil is traded in dollars so is not much effected by the value of the dollar. What we are seeing is an increase in global demand. I think if value of the dollar was also an issue, we would have seen a much bigger increase than we have already. All countries have had increases in oil prices.


----------



## ckofer (Apr 22, 2008)

riverc0il said:


> I believe oil is traded in dollars so is not much effected by the value of the dollar. What we are seeing is an increase in global demand. I think if value of the dollar was also an issue, we would have seen a much bigger increase than we have already. All countries have had increases in oil prices.



If we're buying oil from someone outside of the US economy in dollars, and those dollars now have a lower value than previously, wouldn't they want _more_ of those dollars to buy the same stuff with the profit?

Hopefully, the weakened dollar results in more exports out of the US.

*found this:

source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/eia1_2005primerM.html

* 




 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Glossary[/FONT] Home > EIA Brochures > A Primer On Gasoline Prices 
[SIZE=+1]Energy Information Administration Brochures [/SIZE]​ A Primer on Gasoline Prices           ​ 







Click on image to down-load  a printer-friendly version.                                   



           Gasoline, one of the main products refined from crude oil, accounts for just about 17 percent of the energy consumed in the United States. The primary use for gasoline is in automobiles and light trucks. Gasoline also fuels boats, recreational vehicles, and various farm and other equipment. While gasoline is produced year-round, extra volumes are made in time for the summer driving season. Gasoline is delivered from oil refineries mainly through pipelines to a massive distribution chain serving 168,987 retail gasoline stations throughout the United States.1 There are three main grades of gasoline: regular, mid-grade, and premium. Each grade has a different octane level. Price levels vary by grade, but the price differential between grades is generally constant. 



Figure 1. What Do We Pay For in a Gallon of Regular Grade?​






           What are the components of the retail price of gasoline?
The cost to produce and deliver gasoline to consumers includes the cost of crude oil to refiners, refinery processing costs, marketing and distribution costs, and finally the retail station costs and taxes. The prices paid by consumers at the pump reflect these costs, as well as the profits (and sometimes losses) of refiners, marketers, distributors, and retail station owners.

In 2005 the price of crude oil averaged $50.23 per barrel, and crude oil accounted for about 53 percent of the cost of a gallon of regular grade gasoline (Figure 1). In comparison, the average price for crude oil in 2004 was $36.98 per barrel, and it composed 47 percent of the cost of a gallon of regular gasoline. The share of the retail price of regular grade gasoline that crude oil costs represent varies somewhat over time and among regions.

Federal, State, and local taxes are a large component of the retail price of gasoline. Taxes (not including county and local taxes) account for approximately 19 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. Within this national average, Federal excise taxes are 18.4 cents per gallon and State excise taxes average about 21 cents per gallon.2 Also, eleven States levy additional State sales and other taxes, some of which are applied to the Federal and State excise taxes. Additional local county and city taxes can have a significant impact on the price of gasoline. Refining costs and profits comprise about 19 percent of the retail price of gasoline. This component varies from region to region due to the different formulations required in different parts of the country.

 Distribution, marketing and retail dealer costs and profits combined make up 9 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. From the refinery, most gasoline is shipped first by pipeline to terminals near consuming areas, then loaded into trucks for delivery to individual stations. Some retail outlets are owned and operated by refiners, while others are independent businesses that purchase gasoline for resale to the public. The price on the pump reflects both the retailer’s purchase cost for the product and the other costs of operating the service station. It also reflects local market conditions and factors, such as the desirability of the location and the marketing strategy of the owner.
                        1National Petroleum News, May 2005.
                  2Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Marketing Monthly April 2006,
              Table EN1 at: http://www.iea.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications
              petroleum_marketing_monthly/current/pdf/enote.pdf 



                                         			  Factors Behind the Increase in Gasoline Prices in 2005 
                                         Since the beginning of 2005, U.S. retail gasoline prices have been generaly increasing, with the average price of regular gasoline rising from $1.78 per gallon on January 3 to as high as $3.07 per gallon on September 5, as Hurricane Katrina further tightened gasoline supplies. But the hurricane is only one factor, albeit a dramatic one, which has caused gasoline prices to rise in 2005.

A major factor influencing gasoline prices in 2005 was the increase in crude oil prices. The price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil, which started the year at about $42 per barrel, reached $70 per barrel in early September. Crude oil prices rose throughout 2004 and 2005, as global oil demand increased dramatically, stretching capacity along the entire oil market system, from crude oil production to transportation (tankers and pipelines) to refinery capacity, nearly to its limits. With minimal spare capacity in the face of the potential for significant supply disruptions from numerous sources, oil prices were high throughout 2005.

In addition, Hurricane Katrina had a devastating impact on U.S. gasoline markets, initially taking out more than 25 percent of U.S. crude oil production and 10-15 percent of U.S. refinery capacity. On top of that, major oil pipelines that feed the Midwest and the East Coast from the Gulf of Mexico area were shut down or forced to operate at reduced rates for a significant period. With such a large drop in supply, prices spiked dramatically. Because two pipelines that carry gasoline were down initially, some stations actually ran out of gasoline temporarily. However, once the pipelines were restored to full capacity and some of the refineries were restarted, retail prices began to fall. Increased gasoline imports in the fall of 2005, in part stemming from the International Energy Agency’s emergency release, also added downward pressure to gasoline prices. However, retail prices are likely to remain elevated as long as some refineries remain shut down and the U.S. gasoline market continues to stretch supplies to their limit.
Why do gasoline prices fluctuate?
Even when crude oil prices are stable, gasoline prices normally fluctuate due to factors such as seasonality and local retail station competition. Additionally, gasoline prices can change rapidly due to crude oil supply disruptions stemming from world events, or domestic problems such as refinery or pipeline outages. 

            Seasonality in the demand for gasoline - When crude oil prices are stable, retail gasoline prices tend to gradually rise before and during the summer, when people drive more, and fall in the winter. Good weather and vacations cause U.S. summer gasoline demand to average about 5 percent higher than during the rest of the year. If crude oil prices remain unchanged, gasoline prices would typically increase by 10-20 cents from January to the summer. 

            Changes in the cost of crude oil - Events in crude oil markets were a major factor in all but one of the five run-ups in gasoline prices between 1992 and 1997, according to the National Petroleum Council’s study, _U.S. Petroleum Supply - Inventory Dynamics_. About 47 barrels of gasoline are produced from every 100 barrels of crude oil processed at U. S. refineries, with other refined products making up the remainder.​             Crude oil prices are determined by worldwide supply and demand, with significant influence by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Since it was organized in 1960, OPEC has tried to keep world oil prices at its target level by setting an upper production limit on its members. OPEC has the potential to influence oil prices worldwide because its members possess such a great portion of the world’s oil supply, accounting for about 40 percent of the world’s production of crude oil and holding more than two-thirds of the world’s estimated crude oil reserves. Additionally, increased demand for gasoline and other refined products in the United States and the rest of the world is also exerting upward pressure on crude oil prices.

Rapid gasoline price increases have occurred in response to crude oil shortages caused by, for example, the Arab oil embargo in 1973, the Iranian revolution in 1978, the Iran/Iraq war in 1980, and the Persian Gulf conflict in 1990. Gasoline price increases in recent years have been due in part to OPEC crude oil production cuts, turmoil in key oil producing countries, and problems with petroleum infrastructure (e.g., refineries and pipelines) within the United States. Additionally, increased demand for gasoline and other petroleum products in the United States and the rest of the world is also exerting upward pressure on prices.

            Product supply/demand imbalances - If demand rises quickly or supply declines unexpectedly due to refinery production problems or lagging imports, gasoline inventories (stocks) may decline rapidly. When stocks are low and falling, some wholesalers become concerned that supplies may not be adequate over the short term and bid higher for available product. Such imbalances have occurred when a region has changed from one fuel type to another (e.g., to cleaner-burning gasoline) as refiners and marketers adjust to the new product. Gasoline may be less expensive in one summer when supplies are plentiful vs. another summer when they are not. These are normal price fluctuations, experienced in all commodity markets. However, prices of basic energy (gasoline, electricity, natural gas, heating oil) are generally more volatile than prices of other commodities. One reason is that consumers are limited in their ability to substitute between fuels when the price for gasoline, for example, fluctuates. So, while consumers can substitute readily between food products when relative prices shift, most do not have that option in fueling their vehicles.


              Figure 2. Motor Gasoline Prices at Retail Outlets, 2005 Average Regular Grade,
                               by Region
                 (dollars per gallon, including taxes) 






             Why do gasoline prices differ according to region?
Although price levels vary over time, Energy Information Administration (EIA) data indicate that average retail gasoline prices tend to typically be higher in certain States or regions than in others (Figure 2). Aside from taxes, there are other factors that contribute to regional and even local differences in gasoline prices:

              Proximity of supply - Areas farthest from the Gulf Coast (the source of nearly half of the gasoline produced in the United States and, thus, a major supplier to the rest of the country), tend to have higher prices. The proximity of refineries to crude oil supplies can even be a factor, as well as shipping costs (pipeline or waterborne) from refinery to market.

              Supply disruptions - Any event which slows or stops production of gasoline for a short time, such as planned or unplanned refinery maintenance, can prompt bidding for available supplies. If the transportation system cannot support the flow of surplus supplies from one region to another, prices will remain comparatively high.

              Competition in the local market - Competitive differences can be substantial between a locality with only one or a few gasoline suppliers versus one with a large number of competitors in close proximity. Con-sumers in remote locations may face a trade-off between higher local prices and the inconvenience of driving some distance to a lower- priced alternative.

              Environmental programs - Some areas of the country are required to use special gasolines. Environmental programs, aimed at reducing carbon monoxide, smog, and air toxics, include the Federal and/or State-required oxygenated, reformulated, and low-volatility (evaporates more slowly) gasolines. Other environmental programs put restrictions on transportation and storage. The reformulated gasolines required in some urban areas and in California cost more to produce than conventional gasoline served elsewhere, increasing the price paid at the pump.

                                             Why are California gasoline prices higher and more variable than others?                                               The State of California operates its own reformulated gasoline program with more stringent requirements than Federally-mandated clean gasolines. In addition to the higher cost of cleaner fuel, there is a combined State and local sales and use tax of 7.25 percent on top of an 18.4 cent-per-gallon Federal excise tax and an 18.0 cent-per-gallon State excise tax. Refinery margins have also been higher due in large part to price volatility in the region. 
                   California prices are more variable than others because there are relatively few supply sources of its unique blend of gasoline outside the State. California refineries need to be running near their fullest capabilities in order to meet the State’s fuel demands. If more than one of its refineries experiences operating difficulties at the same time, California’s gasoline supply may become very tight and the prices soar. Supplies could be obtained from some Gulf Coast and foreign refineries; however, California’s substantial distance from those refineries is such that any unusual increase in demand or reduction in supply results in a large price response in the market before relief supplies can be delivered. The farther away the necessary relief supplies are, the higher and longer the price spike will be.

California was one of the first States to ban the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) after it was detected in ground water. Ethanol, a non-petroleum product usually made from corn, is being used in place of MTBE. Gasoline without MTBE is more expensive to produce and requires refineries to change the way they produce and distribute gasoline. Some supply dislocations and price surges occurred in the summer of 2003 as the State moved away from MTBE. Similar problems have also occurred in past fuel transitions.
                                         Due to the threat of groundwater contamination, the use of the gasoline additive MTBE has been in the process of being phased-out for several years. More than half of the States have already banned the use of MTBE; the heaviest use of MTBE is currently in Texas and the Northeast, exclusive of New York and Connecticut. In 2005, a number of petroleum companies announced their intent to stop using MTBE in their gasoline in 2006. This was due to perceived potential for increased liability exposure due to the elimination of the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline (RFG) included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Most of these companies will instead blend in ethanol to help replace the octane and clean-burning properties of MTBE. The rapid switch from MTBE to ethanol could have several impacts on the market that serve to increase the potential for supply disruptions and subsequent price volatility on a local basis. California faced temporary supply dislocations and price volatility during the summer of 2003 as MTBE was removed from gasoline in the State. Nevertheless, New York and Connecticut had a relatively smooth transition phasing out MTBE in 2004 as a result of better preparation from the gasoline suppliers and distributors. The supply and distribution system must undergo a number of changes to switch from MTBE-blended RFG to ethanol blended RFG, including developing supply chains to move more ethanol into undersupplied areas, converting terminal tanks from petroleum to ethanol, and adding blending equipment at terminals. It is expected that reformulated gasoline areas on the East Coast, especially in the Mid-Atlantic, will experience the most trouble obtaining ethanol supplies in a timely fashion due to logistical challenges of getting ethanol to and from terminals further inland by rail car. The Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston areas may also experience some trouble getting ethanol to major terminals due to limited rail access.

              Operating costs - Even stations located adjacent to each other have different traffic patterns, rents, and sources of supply that influence retail price.

This brochure is available at:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/reports/reportsD.asp?type=other 
For links to current gasoline prices and analyses, see:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp​ 





The Energy Information Administration(EIA) is an independent statistical agency, within the U.S. Department of Energy. whose sole purpose is to provide reliable and unbiased energy information. ​ For further information, contact:
                  National Energy Information Center, NEIC 
                  Energy Information Administration 
                  1000 Independence Ave., SW 
                  Washington, DC 20585​ Telephone: 202.586.8800, 9:00am-5:00pm Eastern time. 
                  E-mail: infoctr@eia.doe.gov---normal response is 3 business days.​ Other consumer-oriented brochures can be accessed on the Web at: *http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/reports/reportsA.asp?type=other*​ EIA’s Web Site:
*www.eia.doe.gov*​ 
​ Contact Us • Feedback • Privacy/Security • Careers • About EIA Fedstats • USA.gov • Dept. of Energy


----------



## drjeff (Apr 22, 2008)

ccskier said:


> It is all driven on speculation.  The economists feel reserves will run out and it is driving prices. * I am going to take a bullet by saying this, but how about they start opening up some of the access to fuel in this country and off of the coast. *



Exactly, while coming up with viable, affordable alternative energy sources is key, hey it's not like those hyddrocarbon reserves off the U.S. East Coast and in places like the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge AREN"T going to be tapped eventually.  Why not do it sooner??  Hey, major suppliers that "love" the U.S. like some Central American and Middle Eastern countries and purposely hold supplies down to the world commodities market, why not increase our own supplies??

#2  This NIMBY (Not in my back yard) mentality about alternative energy/fuel projects just needs to stop

Sorry if I just got close to that political line



> These fuel costs are killing everything.  Anyone been to the grocery store lately? Holy crap, I won't even step foot in there, I can't believe the price of food these days.  I had not had a donut in a long time, the other morning, I got one at d/d w/ my coffee, after I paid I looked at the receipt, .99, you have to be kidding me, I thought they were like .50-.75.  The cost of fuel is behind everything these days.  As ckofer said, small business owners can be driven out of business by these costs, there are so many surcharges you can put on your service before you start losing your customers.  I live on Cape Cod where everyone is a landscaper or contractor, my buddy's small landscaping company of 4 diesel trucks now has a montly fuel bill of about $2500 and the season has barely started.  I have another buddy with a new diesel pick up, $150to fill it up, he had bought diesel because the consumption is better, now he wishes he had gas, the difference does not balance out at a buck more per gallon.



One of my assistant's husband is an independently owned long haul trucker, and with Diesel prices where they are,  she's shown me regularly the past few months the VISA bills for fuel heading on $10,000 a month


----------



## snoseek (Apr 22, 2008)

drjeff said:


> Exactly, while coming up with viable, affordable alternative energy sources is key, hey it's not like those hyddrocarbon reserves off the U.S. East Coast and in places like the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge AREN"T going to be tapped eventually.  Why not do it sooner??  Hey, major suppliers that "love" the U.S. like some Central American and Middle Eastern countries and purposely hold supplies down to the world commodities market, why not increase our own supplies??
> 
> #2  This NIMBY (Not in my back yard) mentality about alternative energy/fuel projects just needs to stop
> 
> ...





I think if you attempt to lower the price of crude by going after domestic oil there will be no motivation in the progression of an alternative. Eventually we will need some sort of alternative as our consumption will just rise with cheaper prices. 

As far as the truckers go I truly feel for them and as a consumer it has potential to be devastating. Maybe the fed could come up with some kind of tax releif to keep truckers in business and curb inflation.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 22, 2008)

mondeo said:


> China, India, and the weak dollar. It'll happen.



In addition to the above the past week or so the kicker has been supply/refinery problems. Nigeria is the supply problem and 81% refinery production is the other problem.


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 22, 2008)

drjeff said:


> Exactly, while coming up with viable, affordable alternative energy sources is key, hey it's not like those hyddrocarbon reserves off the U.S. East Coast and in places like the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge AREN"T going to be tapped eventually.  Why not do it sooner??  Hey, major suppliers that "love" the U.S. like some Central American and Middle Eastern countries and purposely hold supplies down to the world commodities market, why not increase our own supplies??
> 
> #2  This NIMBY (Not in my back yard) mentality about alternative energy/fuel projects just needs to stop




Totally agree on the NIMBY issue. However, wind (or solar) is not the end-all answer. It has some serious problems, too (http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2008/02/28/loss-of-wind-causes-texas-power-grid-emergency/). It's going to take an integrated system of new generation to do the trick.

Have to disagree on the opening ANWR or offshore, though. at worst, it's a nightmare, at best, a bandaid. ANWR would take ~10 years to bring online, and the offshore stuff is really tough to get to, and has a 5-7 year curve before it's online, too. 

I don't think many producers are holding anything back, either. There is a physical limit to the amount of oil that can be pumped with existing infrastructure, adn there is a capital limit to the amount of infrastructure that can be built. Pipelines take time to build, and resources to defend in some of the more hostile areas.

We desperately need new sources of energy and fuels. World food problems are growing daily, and with it grows our need to be much more energy (and food) independent.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Apr 22, 2008)

I always thought there was an overabundance in food..

What about Hemp as a fuel source


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 22, 2008)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> I always thought there was an overabundance in food..
> 
> What about Hemp as a fuel source



Hemp's a pretty good oil crop.
Good for rope and textiles, too.

Hemp-wearing biodiesel-hybrid driving hippy longshoremen would be pretty annoyingly smug, though.


----------



## jack97 (Apr 22, 2008)

ctenidae said:


> Hemp's a pretty good oil crop.
> Good for rope and textiles, too.
> 
> Hemp-wearing biodiesel-hybrid driving hippy longshoremen would be pretty annoyingly smug, though.



As well as existing bio fuel, they have to solve the distribution issue, existing pipelines can not distribute this. Even if they did, imagine all the hippies tapping off the supply line.


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 22, 2008)

jack97 said:


> As well as existing bio fuel, they have to solve the distribution issue, existing pipelines can not distribute this. Even if they did, imagine all the hippies tapping off the supply line.



Thieving hippies. Fortunately, patchouli detectors are relatively cheap, and very effective.

Biodiesel actually can be shipped via existing pipelines. Scheduling is a big problem, though, since the quantities produced don't often constitute a full "order," and it has to be sandwiched between bolts of regular diesel. Fortunately, and I think this will become more and more important, biodiesel can be locally produced, eliminating much of the need for long-distance transport. Algal biodiesel, for instance, can be produced in viable quantities on relatively small parcels of land, making it possible to have plants sattered around, very close to distribution. Plant-based biodiesel, though, runs into some of the same problems as ethanol, since it requires the conversion of cropland to fuel production, and that's a problem.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 22, 2008)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> I always thought there was an overabundance in food..




Have you missed the Sally Struthers commercials that have aired for the past twenty years?


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Apr 22, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> Have you missed the Sally Struthers commercials that have aired for the past twenty years?



Yeah but there's plenty of food in the world..it's just that those areas are too arid for good farming, too poor to buy food, and their governments are so corrupt that even food donations usually don't make it to the people.  BTW Sally Struthers was way hotter in All in the Family...she and Meathead Rob Reiner ate enough food for an African village..


----------



## twinplanx (Apr 23, 2008)

WOW... Some good information there.  ckofer post was especially informative. (if some what dated)
And to think I really just started this thread because the current situation has become a major factor in deciding to head to Tux's this weekend.


----------



## ckofer (Apr 26, 2008)

*Where's the price of oil headed?  By JOHN PORRETTO*

* The Associated Press 	*

 	                 		     		 HOUSTON – Oil's meteoric rise to near $120 a barrel looks like more than just another economic bubble – growing demand and tighter supplies are likely to keep prices high. Some analysts say even $200 a barrel would not be out of the question.

The latest price surge – pushing crude to record heights in recent weeks, and to nearly double its level a year ago – has some key components of a classic bubble, when market prices climb far above their intrinsic value. The burst comes when investors realize the assets are overvalued.

But growing worldwide thirst for crude, in large part from the rapidly developing economies of China and India, means frustrated consumers probably won't get any relief.

"We can do our homework, but prices are going to go where they want to go at this point," said Jeff Spittel, an analyst at investment bank Natixis Bleichroeder Inc.

Americans who hoped to ride out temporarily high prices by carpooling or driving less may have to make those habits permanent. And because of the premium prices, oil companies may be willing to search out more oil in places they previously couldn't afford to explore.

Oil came close to $120 a barrel Friday on news that a ship under contract to the U.S. Defense Department fired warning shots at two Iranian boats in the Persian Gulf. The markets were also weighing the effects of a pipeline attack in Nigeria and a looming refinery strike in Scotland.

Retail gas prices, which at times rise in tandem with crude oil, moved further into record territory near $3.60 a gallon.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries – which supplies about 40 percent of the world's crude – insists it's supplying more than enough oil.

Instead, many observers blame speculative traders for bidding up the price as a hedge against inflation and as protection from the sinking U.S. dollar. Some see that as evidence of a bubble.

It's also becoming harder and more expensive for oil companies to find and tap new petroleum reserves – a troublesome scenario given forecasts that the world's energy needs will escalate by more than 50 percent in the next two decades.

Toss in the weak dollar and political instability in some oil-producing countries, and it seems unlikely that oil will fall below $100 a barrel anytime soon, if ever.

Widely watched oil price prognosticator Goldman Sachs has said oil could average $110 a barrel by 2010, up from a previous forecast of $80, and that a spike as high as $200 a barrel is possible in a case of major supply disruption.

Supply is at the heart of soaring prices, said John Moroney, a Texas A&M economics professor who just finished a book on energy production and consumption. He cites production declines in Mexico, an unstable oil industry in Venezuela and possible shrinking production capacity in the Middle East.

"I don't buy the bubble theory," he said.

Many analysts believe the weakness of the dollar is a bigger factor than supply and demand because the soft dollar draws investors worried about inflation into commodities such as oil and gold.

It also makes commodities less expensive for buyers operating in other currencies. Many investors see the dollar only heading lower if the Federal Reserve keeps cutting interest rates, which most analysts expect it to do.

Some market-watchers say oil will probably keep rising until demand falls off, which they describe as the market's way of finding fair value for the commodity. For oil, some estimate that price as low as $60 or $70 a barrel.

"The fundamentals don't justify anywhere near these prices, even when you factor in geopolitical problems," said Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research Inc. in Cambridge, Mass.

He expects prices to fall as low as $80 this year and perhaps as low as $50 in the next three or four years as more global supply comes on line.

Demand already has begun to wane in the U.S., where fuel prices are causing turmoil in an economy already saddled with recession fears, a housing and credit crisis, and dismal retail sales.

Drivers have begun to cut back on gasoline consumption. Some people have taken to riding bikes to work or organizing car pools. The sale of gas-electric hybrid vehicles is up. Larger trucks and SUVs are selling slowly.

It's unclear how much a drop in oil prices could reduce gas prices. The prices don't always move together because they are subject to separate supply and demand forces. While oil prices have risen 80 percent in a year, gas prices climbed only 24 percent.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Apr 26, 2008)

Two days ago I filled up for $3.55 and it was $47 for a full tank in my Impreza..pretty soon only the very wealthy will drive SUVs..today I think I'd have to drive to Jersey to find gas under $3.60..I can definitely see high gas prices hurting the ski areas..especially when it hits $5+ in the next few years..


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 26, 2008)

OldsnowboarderME said:


> I paid over $4 per gallon for the first time at the pump in Kittery, Maine ... I am expecting before the summer is out to pay over $5 per gallon ...



I'm assuming that's Super Pemium correct?  I just filled up in Durham, NH for $3.41.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 26, 2008)

OldsnowboarderME said:


> Yeah .. I will have to start getting my in NH.. regular was over $4 too. Kittery runs higher because there is only one place to gas up in town.



Are you serious??   That's total gouging.  This most expensive place to fill up in Southern Maine is almost always at the Kennebunk Travel Plaza where I think today it was $3.60 something for regular and that's full service.

If I was a Kittery resident, I'd give the owner of that station hell.  I thought $4 + was reserved for deisel and California right now


----------



## ckofer (Apr 27, 2008)

OldsnowboarderME said:


> I agree with you on this one but the place tends to be be about 2 to 3 weeks ahead of everyone else when it comes to price increases. My tank was down and it was cheaper to buy the gas than take a chance on the fuel pump.



Was it at least full serve?


----------



## ALLSKIING (Apr 28, 2008)

The best price for reg I can find on LI is 3.79...Most of the stations are 3.89.:-x


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Apr 28, 2008)

Something to add fuel to the fire (aa a haahhh ah ahaha....yes, pun intended):

"Overcharged: Pumps Cheat Drivers"

:angry:


----------



## twinplanx (Apr 28, 2008)

ckofer said:


> *Where's the price of oil headed?  By JOHN PORRETTO*
> 
> * The Associated Press 	*
> 
> ...



Oh looks like I have to take back what I said about that information being dated:blink:


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Apr 29, 2008)

we got rid of our truck before xmas, would be over $100 to fill now....the Volvo XC70 is good on gas, not great, but better than the truck...my Audi takes Prem gas which is $3.99/gal now....been riding my bike more to work and being more careful on useless trips...


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Apr 29, 2008)

For people who ride their bikes to work to save gas...what are you saving..like a buck or two a day???


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 29, 2008)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> For people who ride their bikes to work to save gas...what are you saving..like a buck or two a day???



Depending on the car and driving, could be $100 a week, really.
Plus, they're in better shape, saving the cost of a gym membership, doctors visits, and such.
Except for the occasional emergency room visit for a vehicle smackdown event.


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Apr 29, 2008)

Riding more because:
-I enjoy it
-I am training for a Half Ironman and need to get my training rides in anyway
-I care about this earth and want to do my share to make sure my kids have a great life
-I rode when gas was $.99/gallon
-why not ride?? Keeps the legs in shape for ski season.


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Apr 29, 2008)

even if it was $1.00 a day savings:

$1.00 x 5 work days =  $5.00/wk savings...$20.00/mo.... over 9 months when there is no snow, thats a $180.00 savings...thats a few ski days if you ask me....


----------



## David Metsky (Apr 29, 2008)

Plus parking, insurance, wear and tear on the car, etc.  Last year I rode to work including most winter days.  Now that I'm closer to the office I walk to work, and only use the car one or two days a week.  It's very liberating.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 29, 2008)

I take the train. I do drive to the train station that's only 5 mins from the house. Train car is an old vw golf. I last put gas in sometime in March. Getting to the train station by bike is too sketchy! And I used to ride my bike into Boston when I lived closer.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Apr 29, 2008)

I'm lucky that my work is only 1-2 miles from where I live but I couldn't see riding a bike to work because I'd be all sweaty when I arrived and there's no shower..


----------



## tjf67 (Apr 29, 2008)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> I'm lucky that my work is only 1-2 miles from where I live but I couldn't see riding a bike to work because I'd be all sweaty when I arrived and there's no shower..



I could not agree with you more cause your customers are really going to notice the differance.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Apr 29, 2008)

tjf67 said:


> I could not agree with you more cause your customers are really going to notice the differance.




There are some hot GILFs that come into my office..and I want to smell good for them..lol..


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 29, 2008)

My office is my car.  As much as I'd save a ton of dough, its hard enough as it is to head down the road in a car at 75mph firing off emails, couldn't imagine doing that on a bike



kidding


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Apr 29, 2008)

i dont think riding a mile or 2 will work up much of a sweat.....its done all over europe every day.... you are correct Metsky...very liberating being without the wheels...


----------



## drjeff (Apr 29, 2008)

Saw and add in the paper today for a lease of a new Toyota Corolla getting an advertised 41mpg for $149/mo.  My wife actually started crunching the numbers of the fuel savings per month over her Audi Q7 based on the average number of miles she drives and her Audi's fuel mileage (17 to 18mpg ave.)  I'm thinking that very soon it will be cheaper for my family to get a third car for my wife to use for the vast majority of her commute/errands then to keep the Audi on the road for the 1700 or so miles a month she drives it on average.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Apr 29, 2008)

Filled up my van today...$140.00 then filled up my suv....$95.00 Looks like its time to go to work:roll:


----------



## mondeo (Apr 29, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> My office is my car.  As much as I'd save a ton of dough, its hard enough as it is to head down the road in a car at 75mph firing off emails, couldn't imagine doing that on a bike
> 
> 
> 
> kidding


The emails are the easy part on a bike...

There were a couple times last year that I rode my bike to work on Saturdays, 16 miles one way for me. I was planning on parking my second car at work for backup, either in case of unexpected rain or if I needed to stay late, but then my second car got broken into the day I was going to start (I had the bike at the car at the point of discovery,) then when I finally replaced the window 3 weeks later, it died on the way to the shop as I was going to get the shocks replaced. This year, I'm planning on just saying the hell with it, and try to ride in a couple times a week. At 22mpg, my driving route to work being 11 miles one way, that's a gallon per day. Going further, the IRS rate is 50.5 cents/mile; that's $11/day. Not only that, but if I want to exercise 2 hours a day anyways, I'm essentially knocking the daily commute out of my day. Luckily, there are showers at work.


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (May 1, 2008)

2 of our friends are looking to unload their SUV's...finally realized that it was more of a "want" than a "need"


----------



## trtaylor (May 1, 2008)

riverc0il said:


> Deadhead... thanks for the analysis. That was insightful.
> 
> 
> I am curious about the same. I notice my chicken breast packages are up about a buck compared to usual but I have not really noticed meat prices go up.



The (typical grain-fed) cattle feeding industry is rather inefficent at responding to market signals. There are several parties involved; the rancher who runs the cows and sells the calves, the backgrounder who buys the calves and keeps them for a year and the feedyard who finishes the yearlings on a ration of grain (typically corn).

When finished cattle are sold to slaugher, an accounting called a close-out is done. Closeouts for cattle sold the week ending 4/25/08 showed a LOSS of $151 per head at a $92/cwt market price.

Projected closeouts for cattle going into the yard 4/25/08 and being fed for 135 days are showing a $6 per head loss at a futures price of $104/cwt.

It takes a while before these market signals make it all the way back to the cow man. If the cow herd ends up being reduced, then the supply of calves is reduced. But cattle feeding is a huge business. It's the same as any manufacturing facility, it needs to run full at almost any cost. So, the price of calves and yearlings gets bid up to keep all the feedyards full.

Probably more info than anyone wants to know. But this is why you don't see an immediate response in the meat case.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 1, 2008)

trtaylor said:


> The (typical grain-fed) cattle feeding industry is rather inefficent at responding to market signals. There are several parties involved; the rancher who runs the cows and sells the calves, the backgrounder who buys the calves and keeps them for a year and the feedyard who finishes the yearlings on a ration of grain (typically corn).
> 
> When finished cattle are sold to slaugher, an accounting called a close-out is done. Closeouts for cattle sold the week ending 4/25/08 showed a LOSS of $151 per head at a $92/cwt market price.
> 
> ...



That's interesting information regarding commodity beef.


----------



## ckofer (May 4, 2008)

ouch


----------



## drjeff (May 5, 2008)

ckofer said:


> ouch



Almost hit my 1st 3 digit fill up for my wife's car yesterday   $98.50 was the grand total for just under 25 gallons.

I think I'll just start filling up when the gas guage gets to 1/2 tank levels,  even though I'll be stopping twice as often, atleast the number on the gas pump will "seem" smaller(I just wont look at how few gallons I'm putting in the tank)


----------



## ctenidae (May 5, 2008)




----------



## davidhowland14 (May 5, 2008)

> Exxon Mobil Profit Sets Record Again
> 
> By JAD MOUAWAD
> Published: February 1, 2008
> ...



so in the time it took me to write this sentence, exxon mobile made almost $10,000


----------



## ctenidae (May 6, 2008)

davidhowland14 said:


> so in the time it took me to write this sentence, exxon mobile made almost $10,000



On a 10% profit margin.

For comparison: 
Microsoft: 30.36%
Google: 25.20%
Apache Oil (a producer): 32.05%
Royal Dutch Shell: 8.05%
Unilever: 7.91%
Kroger Stores: 1.87%
Safeway: 1.97%
Kraft Foods: 5.86%


----------



## drjeff (May 6, 2008)

That's the thing, when you look at their profit margins, they're not out of whack by any means, it's just that it's on such a massive economy of scale that a 10% profit margin is a HUGE # of dollars.  I'm sure that ALOT of business owners would find a 10% profit margin to be reasonable and for many, that's a LOW profit margin.

The other thing that I find commical is that many folks just think that say Exxon-Mobil, or Shell, or whoever could just sell the oil overnight for way less money.  The reality is that oil is a globally traded commodity and folks need to realize that the same pre-refined oil that enters our domestic refineries is open and available to folks in just about any country of the world.  Plus, the huge volatility of the world markets when factored into tight supply chain, and that's why events like a refinery fire in Scotland or refinery issues in Somolia will have a direct effect on what we see at our pumps.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 6, 2008)

I don't have issues with Exxon/Mobiles 10% profit margin.  I do have issues with the $400 million retirement package Lee Raymond received.  Sure free market society blah, blah, blah, but I think a much greater issue than $3.60 gasoline is the widening gap between the rich and poor in this nation.  Things would be a lot more tolerable during downturns if the playing field was a bit more level and no a $600 tax rebate doesn't cut it.  That's just smoke and mirrors if you ask me.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (May 6, 2008)

My last two fill ups were $47 @ $3.65...If I'm on the road alot for work I fill my tank up at least once a week..if I'm mainly in the office..I can go almost two weeks on a fill-up..and that's when it's not ski season.  People only making 20-30K a year must be having a really tough time since they don't have a spare $50 a week for gas.  I can see alot more lower middle class people not being able to afford cars in the future and relying on public transportation which will be tough unless they live in a large metro area.  Where I live it takes an hour by bus to go somewhere that takes 15 minutes by car.


----------



## ctenidae (May 6, 2008)

That 10% margin includes compensation expenses. Raymond's $400 million is also taxable, at close to 50%, probably. Pretty sure the government needs that$200 million+/- to cover the retarded rebate.

If Raymond didn't get the payout, it would end up going to investors as either a dividend or capital gains, neither of which is taxed at 50%, so really, it's better for Raymond to get it than anyone else.

If the playing field were forceably level, then what incentive would there be to do anything at all? Maybe that's a bit Ayn Rand-ish, but she was a nut for her extent, not her intent.


----------



## wa-loaf (May 6, 2008)

ctenidae said:


> That 10% margin includes compensation expenses. Raymond's $400 million is also taxable, at close to 50%, probably. Pretty sure the government needs that$200 million+/- to cover the retarded rebate.
> 
> If Raymond didn't get the payout, it would end up going to investors as either a dividend or capital gains, neither of which is taxed at 50%, so really, it's better for Raymond to get it than anyone else.
> 
> If the playing field were forceably level, then what incentive would there be to do anything at all? Maybe that's a bit Ayn Rand-ish, but she was a nut for her extent, not her intent.



I don't have a problem when someone is running a successful company and they are rewarded for it. It's all these a-holes that run their companies into the ground (ahem, Countrywide...) and then bail with huge bonuses. I don't think Ayn Rand would approve either.


----------



## snoseek (May 6, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> I don't have issues with Exxon/Mobiles 10% profit margin.  I do have issues with the $400 million retirement package Lee Raymond received.  Sure free market society blah, blah, blah, but I think a much greater issue than $3.60 gasoline is the widening gap between the rich and poor in this nation.  Things would be a lot more tolerable during downturns if the playing field was a bit more level and no a $600 tax rebate doesn't cut it.  That's just smoke and mirrors if you ask me.



I agree 100%


I personally think modern capatalism is some pretty scary $hit.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm

next time you have an hour or so to kill check this out. I'm not behind it 100% but there is some fascinating stuff in there.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 6, 2008)

ctenidae said:


> If the playing field were forceably level, then what incentive would there be to do anything at all? Maybe that's a bit Ayn Rand-ish, but she was a nut for her extent, not her intent.



slippery slope her, verging on politics, so I'll be brief

I think there's some major flaws when 5% of the populus owns 95% of the wealth nationally and at the same time 1 in 4 kids live in poverty and 40 million plus people don't have health benefits. Would that top 5% not strive for economic prosperity if say they only owned 50% of the nations wealth?  Seemed to work out okay in the 50's.


----------



## ctenidae (May 6, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> slippery slope her, verging on politics, so I'll be brief
> 
> I think there's some major flaws when 5% of the populus owns 95% of the wealth nationally and at the same time 1 in 4 kids live in poverty and 40 million plus people don't have health benefits. Would that top 5% not strive for economic prosperity if say they only owned 50% of the nations wealth?  Seemed to work out okay in the 50's.



Leaving the question of the 50's aside (there may be some merit there), the rest is, truly, a poilitical issue, and not a GOP vs Democrats type issue. More one of political will overall, and the population's excersising of it, or, more accurately, lack of it. 1 in 4 kids living in poverty has nothing to do with CEO paychecks. Exxon is in the business of refining and delivering oil, not providing healthcare for kids. Nor should they be. Paying the CEO less would not enable them to hire more people, particularly not more people who have none of the skills or experience they need.  Not to mention the issues surrounding the definition of "poverty," or the underlying causes of health care costs, or the causes of any other social ill you care to mention. 

Remember, too, that Exxon's profits benefit a huge number of people- mainly all the people whose retirement savings are invested in the market (many of whom are the same people grousing about the profits). You can't have it both ways- profits=increased stock price=increased retirement account balances.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 6, 2008)

All good points cetinedea and due to your occupation, facts and figures that I'm sure you know far more about than I.

Yes, those profits do benefit a lot of people.  However, fat paychecks to often corrupt execs lead to glutinous behavior.  The glutinous behavior drives up the cost of goods for the common man.  In no way am I suggesting that the top income bracket be taxed at 90% like they were earlier last century. I do think policy can be put in place to curb this behavior and bring overall costs of goods, in this case fuel, down for everyone.  

You want to drive a Hummer?  Go for it, but were going to hit you with an anual five thousand dollar excess fuel charge and part of that money will go towards the federaly highway budget as your vehicle creates more damage to roads than a passenger car, part will go towards the epa for waste clean up projects and another portion will go towards offsetting the federal gas tax. 

You want to live in a 3000+ square foot McMansion?  Go for it, but you're also going to pay an excessive energy use tax with the proceeds going towards heating fuel assistance for the needy because your excess consumption is driving up demand and hence driving up price.  We're also going to hit you with a one time excess lumber charge with the proceeds going towards reforestation projects. Can you imagine the amount less heating oil, gas or electricity this country would need if our homes were of similar average size as back in the 50's??  Homes have needlessly doubled in size.

I know I'm getting off target here for my arguement, but in a way not really.  The glutonous behavior of the wealthy, the Al Gore's with their 31K annual electric bills, drive up the costs of these goods for everyone and its the low income sector that gets hit the hardest.


----------



## drjeff (May 6, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> All good points cetinedea and due to your occupation, facts and figures that I'm sure you know far more about than I.
> 
> Yes, those profits do benefit a lot of people.  However, fat paychecks to often corrupt execs lead to glutinous behavior.  The glutinous behavior drives up the cost of goods for the common man.  In no way am I suggesting that the top income bracket be taxed at 90% like they were earlier last century. I do think policy can be put in place to curb this behavior and bring overall costs of goods, in this case fuel, down for everyone.
> 
> ...



On the flipside, with respect to alot of those new 3000 sq. ft. McMansions from a heating cost, many of them if designed incorporating modern materials, high efficiency furances/water heaters and simple things such as some basic passive solar concepts cost less per sq. foot to heat(and sometimes even on an outright dollar basis) then many much smaller homes built 50 years ago.  It's what's gets plugged into many of those extra outlets in all that extra sq. footage that's often the culprit.


----------



## ctenidae (May 6, 2008)

Hummers already pay more highway use tax- it's incorporated in their gas costs. McMansions (aside from being more efficient, as the good doctor pointed out), also pay more for energy adn property taxes, so it's fair.

Now, if the money being generated is actually being used for what it was intended is another question entirely, and one which gets very close to the political edge. Still, it all comes back to the excersise of political will. Or, the lack thereof.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 6, 2008)

drjeff said:


> On the flipside, with respect to alot of those new 3000 sq. ft. McMansions from a heating cost, many of them if designed incorporating modern materials, high efficiency furances/water heaters and simple things such as some basic passive solar concepts cost less per sq. foot to heat(and sometimes even on an outright dollar basis) then many much smaller homes built 50 years ago.  It's what's gets plugged into many of those extra outlets in all that extra sq. footage that's often the culprit.



Very true conscerning the efficiency of a modern home compared to yesteryear.  Perhaps the tax is levied based upon use.  I guess my whole point is to do more to discourage glutinous behavior that results in higher prices for all.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 6, 2008)

ctenidae said:


> Hummers already pay more highway use tax- it's incorporated in their gas costs. McMansions (aside from being more efficient, as the good doctor pointed out), also pay more for energy adn property taxes, so it's fair.



We'll have to disagree that it's 'fair'.  What would be 'fair' would be measures put in place to reduce the demand for such luxories.  Perhaps you are right and it's how the taxes are spent, but I don't feel that the additional gas tax and property tax revenues that these types of things generate offset the increased burden they generate on our resources.

The property tax issue is highly variable to.  A friend of mine owns a 2200sqft home in S.Carolina and pays $1600 annually in property taxes.  So, I'd imagine the taxes on a 3000sqft home are certainly not high enough there to discourage people from building them.


----------



## wa-loaf (May 6, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> We'll have to disagree that it's 'fair'.  What would be 'fair' would be measures put in place to reduce the demand for such luxories.



In fact there's a tax loophole that encourages people to drive hummers and other large SUVs. Small business owners can deduct most of the cost of the vehicle from their taxes. The deduction was meant for contractors and landscapers who need to drive trucks for a living, but it applies to all small businesses so you have doctors and lawyers and what not driving these vehicles around virtually free.


----------



## Warp Daddy (May 6, 2008)

wa-loaf said:


> In fact there's a tax loophole that encourages people to drive hummers and other large SUVs
> 
> Time for  a Change in this and Other parts of the tax code.  Several loopholes need to be examined
> 
> Better yet in stead of putting a bandaid on teh process --CHUCK IT !! Draft legislation that is FAIR to ALL--just sayin !


----------



## ctenidae (May 6, 2008)

Warp Daddy said:


> Better yet in stead of putting a bandaid on teh process --CHUCK IT !! Draft legislation that is FAIR to ALL--just sayin !



Again, that pesky political will problem.


----------



## Warp Daddy (May 6, 2008)

H'mm  member 1776  those ole boyz didn't wait for the elite class to move on the problem.

 We seem to have lost our way , our will and our souls along the way 

But hey that's just an ole guys opinion, but  over time one can readily see the decline


----------



## deadheadskier (May 6, 2008)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24481436/?GT1=43001

great time to buy a jeep apparently


----------



## snoseek (May 6, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24481436/?GT1=43001
> 
> great time to buy a jeep apparently



Sounds like a pretty desperate move to me. I truly hope they suffer dearly for this.


edit-Chrysler’s U.S. vehicle sales fell 23 percent in April, with car sales down 19 percent and truck and SUV sales down 25 percent. The Jeep Commander SUV saw sales plummet 49 percent

Yep that's desperation.


----------



## wa-loaf (May 6, 2008)

Warp Daddy said:


> H'mm  member 1776  those ole boyz didn't wait for the elite class to move on the problem.
> 
> We seem to have lost our way , our will and our souls along the way
> 
> But hey that's just an ole guys opinion, but  over time one can readily see the decline



Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, John Adams, Ben Franklin, George Washington were the elite back then. Plantation owners, lawyers, etc . . .


----------



## Warp Daddy (May 6, 2008)

wa-loaf said:


> Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, John Adams, Ben Franklin, George Washington were the elite back then. Plantation owners, lawyers, etc . . .



 i stand corrected Absolutely they were colonial "elite" but not not of the "Ruling Monarchy" or of that class at the time-- thus in a power vacuum prior to the revolution  . They saw the need and mustered the drive  to upset the apple cart


----------



## twinplanx (Nov 1, 2008)

It's been a while but as I watch the bottom fall out on the pump these days I can't help to think of this thread and wonder if its all a consperisoy to draw us to the dark side of our consumstious ways.   When I first read the speculation of even more outrageous fuel prices and attempted to point out the silver linning I was not convinced.  Nock on wood but, now I may have to agree to an extent.  Speaking of consperisoy theroys did anyone else notice the timming of the recent offshore-oil drilling vote.  It is my thinking that we gota kick the oil habit anyway and should look into other alternitives.


----------



## drjeff (Nov 1, 2008)

Saw a spot on the news this AM where there are a couple of stations in the middle of Missouri where gas was $1.85 and $1.87 right now.  My local Mobil just fell to $2.33 (cash) and $2.37 (credit) today


----------



## severine (Nov 2, 2008)

drjeff said:


> Saw a spot on the news this AM where there are a couple of stations in the middle of Missouri where gas was $1.85 and $1.87 right now.  My local Mobil just fell to $2.33 (cash) and $2.37 (credit) today


I saw $2.27 credit yesterday.  Didn't think we'd ever see those numbers again.  Of course, after the election this week it's going to creep up again.  Always does.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Nov 3, 2008)

OldsnowboarderME said:


> Paid $2.09 for the fill up this weekend...


Thats great!! The best I have seen in my area is 2.55 :roll: the norm is 2.65. Yesterday in the hamptons I was forced to pay 2.89 but I only put in 10.00.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Nov 3, 2008)

ALLSKIING said:


> Thats great!! The best I have seen in my area is 2.55 :roll: the norm is 2.65. Yesterday in the hamptons I was forced to pay 2.89 but I only put in 10.00.



I paid $2.99 in NY on the thruway but just 2 gallons of gas to be sure I could make it home without coasting..here it's about $2.40something everywhere.  $30 fillups instead of $50 fillups are sweet..I'm probably saving $100 a month on gas compared to when it was $4


----------



## Glenn (Nov 3, 2008)

Hopefully, these prices will last through the season. What a great incentive for people to head up to some semi local areas this winter. It'll be a lot easier when your travel expenses are less than your lift ticket!


----------



## severine (Nov 3, 2008)

Interesting article from this time 2 years ago:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/11/gas_prices112.html


----------



## twinplanx (Jan 7, 2009)

I can hear the cogs clicking on the way up this rollercoaster ride again.  Hopefully this latest spike is just a bump in the road


----------



## andyzee (Jan 7, 2009)

twinplanx said:


> I can hear the cogs clicking on the way up this rollercoaster ride again.  Hopefully this latest spike is just a bump in the road



It'll go down again tomorrow.


----------



## mondeo (Jan 7, 2009)

twinplanx said:


> I can hear the cogs clicking on the way up this rollercoaster ride again.  Hopefully this latest spike is just a bump in the road



You mean the "spike" above 2 year lows on a commodity with increasing worldwide demand with relatively constant supply, ignoring impacts of inflation and exchange rates? It's a recovery at this point. $70-80/barrel mid-summer.


----------



## twinplanx (Jan 7, 2009)

mondeo said:


> You mean the "spike" above 2 year lows on a commodity with increasing worldwide demand with relatively constant supply, ignoring impacts of inflation and exchange rates? It's a recovery at this point. $70-80/barrel mid-summer.



Really smartypants?  Silly me, I had thought the "upswing"(if u prefer) might be do to the situation in Gaza:idea:


----------



## ctenidae (Jan 8, 2009)

twinplanx said:


> Really smartypants?  Silly me, I had thought the "upswing"(if u prefer) might be do to the situation in Gaza:idea:



I'm with mondeo on this one. Gaza might have something to do with it, adding a bit of a fear premium, but the fact is the market overshot to the upside at $147, and overshot to the downside at $35. 

Increasing demand + steady supply = higher prices. It has to.


----------

