# Gas Price



## gmcunni (Apr 23, 2011)

How do you pay for gas?


$0.05 more per gallon for using a credit card always pissed me off. then it was $0.07 and today at the pump it was $0.10.

Filled up the SUV today for $81.50 :blink:


----------



## EOS (Apr 23, 2011)

Ouch!

I thought my fill-up total (low $60's) was high...


----------



## o3jeff (Apr 23, 2011)

Credit card, I refuse to go to those places where they get a premium to use a credit card, especially when the place up the street is usually the same price and takes them.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 23, 2011)

Typically CC, but only at stations that don't charge more for using it.

I can definitely say that the run up in price is having an affect on my driving decisions.  I might have rolled the dice and gone to Killington today if prices were lower.  But at $50 round trip in gas, it wasn't worth it to me to ski most likely marginal conditions.


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 23, 2011)

Cash


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 23, 2011)

Points, baby, points!

That is interesting about the charging for credit. Used to be illegal but I think recent legislation changed that. The credit card industry is pretty screwed up. Businesses pay a pretty big premium to be able to offer credit services so that credit card companies can then charge and fee their customers up the ying yang. And deadbeats like me take advantage of the system to the tune of a pair of Benjamins a year cash back via points and never having a balance. This is why gas station pumps (just like other businesses) ask you if your card is debit when you slide... they pay lower rates on debit but collect the same revenue. 

This is one reason that I carry cash and try to (as much as possible, at least for small amounts) pay local business in cash. But then you get jammed up the butt in ATM fees so I am favoring credit even for that now.

It is all spectacularly screwed up. But I think charging extra to use certain credit cards will likely back fire on businesses.


----------



## gmcunni (Apr 23, 2011)

i need to get back to paying attention who charges more for credit, i never have cash on me.  Most of the gas stations in town charge extra for credit so i'll be shopping around more diligently.

mind you i'm not going to go out of my way to drive 10 miles just for a fill up but rather get gas when the opportunity arises rather than the need.  going to have to time my next trip to Costco so i pull in on EMPTY.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 23, 2011)

I use my debit card these days. Costing me just over $50 for a fill-up on the Subi and do it about once a week.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 23, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Points, baby, points!
> 
> .



yup

99% of my purchases are done via CC for this reason.


----------



## RootDKJ (Apr 23, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> yup
> 
> 99% of my purchases are done via CC for this reason.



REI Visa...use those points towards new ski gear.


----------



## Geoff (Apr 23, 2011)

I rarely encounter gas stations that charge more for credit than cash.   I always use a credit card.   

I never use my ATM card as a debit card because of the hassle if the card gets cloned.   I can deal with a credit card being shut down but I don't want anybody screwing with my bank account.


----------



## RootDKJ (Apr 23, 2011)

Geoff said:


> I rarely encounter gas stations that charge more for credit than cash.   I always use a credit card.
> 
> I never use my ATM card as a debit card because of the hassle if the card gets cloned.   I can deal with a credit card being shut down but I don't want anybody screwing with my bank account.



It's about 50/50 here now.  A few of my favorite cheap spots recently started charging more for credit and I didn't realize it at first.


----------



## drjeff (Apr 23, 2011)

Definitely the credit card for the same reason others have said! Its all about the points! Capital one travel plus (or whatever the heck the call it!). $20 a year gets me 2 points per dollar spent instead of just 1 point per dollar - well worth that $20 in my book!

Back to the gas prices - my wife just filled her audi Q7 up this morning and had her 1st $100+ tank since the last spike in prices in '08


----------



## gmcunni (Apr 23, 2011)

paid (credit card) $4.25 for regular unleaded today.  i used to put in the mid-grade gas but $0.20 today seemed offensive.


----------



## hammer (Apr 23, 2011)

Just paid $4.03/gallon for 91 octane (always pay with CC for convenience).  Nice to be able to go to NH where the taxes are lower.

I just don't like that the prices are shooting up even though there isn't a supply problem.  Makes me wonder how high the prices would be if supplies really were short.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 23, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> I use my debit card these days. Costing me just over $50 for a fill-up on the Subi and do it about once a week.



At least twice a week here at about $55 a fill up now.  

Transportation stipend for work doesn't come close to covering my out of pocket expense.

At current prices, I'll spend about 5K per year on gas.


----------



## Edd (Apr 23, 2011)

drjeff said:


> Definitely the credit card for the same reason others have said! Its all about the points! Capital one travel plus (or whatever the heck the call it!). $20 a year gets me 2 points per dollar spent instead of just 1 point per dollar - well worth that $20 in my book!



Wow!  Good deal.  I pay for all gas and nearly all of my bills with a CC as well without carrying a balance for the points.


----------



## darent (Apr 23, 2011)

$4.56 for regular here. heard it was going up .12 cents in a few days at this rate we will be at $5.00 this summer have a exxonmobile credit card so avoid the CC charge. It is the only provider on island


----------



## mlctvt (Apr 23, 2011)

CC.
My wife and I have beeen putting everything we buy on our CC for years. We pay the balance in fulll every month. Never paid an interest charge. 
We even pay any monthly bills this way if there is no penalty to do so. Verison, At&t, Directv etc. We've got a Points cash back Mastercard where we get 1.25% of ALL purchases back in cash, plus there no annual fee. 

We also avoid those nasty gas stations that charge extra for credit card use. I noticed more and more are doing this now so this could be a problem in the future.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 23, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> At current prices, I'll spend about 5K per year on gas.


Time to upgrade your Hyundai to the newest models getting 40 MPG!


----------



## pro2860 (Apr 23, 2011)

Normally pay with cash...$4.23 for 93 today...about $17/day to drive to work:-(


----------



## Warp Daddy (Apr 23, 2011)

Cash only


----------



## legalskier (Apr 23, 2011)

hammer said:


> I just don't like that the prices are shooting up even though there isn't a supply problem.  Makes me wonder how high the prices would be if supplies really were short.



_*Why gas is so expensive, when oil isn't*
...Thanks to increasing supplies from the Rocky Mountain states and Canada's oil sands, plus a lack of pipelines to move that oil out, there's currently a big glut of oil in Cushing. That's pushing the price of West Texas crude down. Prices for most other types of oil, which make up the vast majority of oil that refiners use in U.S. gasoline, are much higher than West Texas Intermediate. London's Brent crude, for example, was closer to $124 a barrel on Wednesday. "It's really a broken benchmark," Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, said of the West Texas price. Also, it's important to remember that oil and gasoline prices don't move in lockstep with one another. Gas prices lag behind oil prices by a couple of weeks...._
Link: http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/21/markets/oil_gas_prices/?iref=NS1 (which has a video called "*How to find cheap ga*s")


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 23, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Time to upgrade your Hyundai to the newest models getting 40 MPG!



while it would be nice to have the savings at the pump, my Sonata isn't too bad at 29 Highway MPG.  It's also nearly paid of.  I intend on keeping it and staying payment free for a long time if the stellar maintenance free operation continues.


----------



## andyzee (Apr 23, 2011)

Since you didn't have ignition key, I chose other..


----------



## ski stef (Apr 24, 2011)

Always debit. I had no idea they charged you if you use cc. VW runs me about $55 to fill up and lasts me a full five days if I'm just making the commute to work.


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Apr 25, 2011)

Credit as it goes thru the company and get skymiles

$120.00 for the 'burban yesterday
$75 for the Audi


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 25, 2011)

Wife's comany CC for her car, thanks be to Jeebus- that thing must have a 50 gallon tank, usually $80 to $90, but only once a week or so. Mine, I use the debit card. $65 a fill up, lasts a solid week. My wife uses mid-grade, I use high test.


----------



## RootDKJ (Apr 25, 2011)

I've started to use Poynt on my BB when traveling to find a cheap fill.  Works pretty good, prices are sometimes outdated.


----------



## roark (Apr 25, 2011)

RootDKJ said:


> I've started to use Poynt on my BB when traveling to find a cheap fill. Works pretty good, prices are sometimes outdated.


Gasbuddy on android is pretty good, the map feature is especially nice.


----------



## dmc (Apr 25, 2011)

I had to pay cash in Jerzey yesterday... 

10 cent difference between cash and charge.. 

*W*hiskey *T*ango *F*oxtrot?


----------



## RootDKJ (Apr 25, 2011)

dmc said:


> I had to pay cash in Jerzey yesterday...
> 
> 10 cent difference between cash and charge..
> 
> *W*hiskey *T*ango *F*oxtrot?


I live it every day :angry:


----------



## St. Bear (Apr 25, 2011)

RootDKJ said:


> It's about 50/50 here now.  A few of my favorite cheap spots recently started charging more for credit and I didn't realize it at first.



This happened to me last week.

There are still a few places that are cheap and don't charge extra for a CC, but not as many as there used to be.  It sucks because I almost never carry cash.


----------



## dmc (Apr 25, 2011)

I do the Route 17 gas shopping thing when I drive home from NYC...

Seemed like at first only stations on the NYC side of 17 were charging extra..  then I started to see it more towards the thruway side....  Now it's all in the middle...  damn...


----------



## SkiFanE (Apr 25, 2011)

95% cash, 5% debit.  

I know every full serve place in my area, and some have discounts for cash.  These places are cheaper than the self-serve's, can't figure that out.  I don't like to pump gas.

Oh..heard Exxon, et. al. will be reporting record profits again, I think Exxon's is up over 60% (whatever that means, exactly lol).  Funny...people keep buying gas, they have great incentive to lower prices, eh?  But not sure Obama should get involved by nagging the oil companies, isn't supply/demand important for capitalism?

Actually...we're not killed so much at the gas pump, but heating 2 homes in oil this winter - yowza.


----------



## dmc (Apr 25, 2011)

SkiFanE said:


> Actually...we're not killed so much at the gas pump, but heating 2 homes in oil this winter - yowza.



yeah... My "pre pay" ended and i had to fill the tank at todays cost.... damn...


----------



## SkiFanE (Apr 25, 2011)

dmc said:


> yeah... My "pre pay" ended and i had to fill the tank at todays cost.... damn...


We got lax the last couple of years and haven't had prebuy or anything in place. Worked out well..until this year lol.  Beginning of winter prices weren't bad, but they've closed to doubled by now (or so it seems).  Need to work on that this summer.


----------



## skijay (Apr 25, 2011)

I use credit card with rewards points.  Now with gas prices up - I will replenish the points I used to get the iPhone.


----------



## andyzee (Apr 25, 2011)

dmc said:


> I had to pay cash in Jerzey yesterday...
> 
> 10 cent difference between cash and charge..
> 
> *W*hiskey *T*ango *F*oxtrot?



Funny thing is, even with the 10 cent difference, it's still cheaper than NY. 

WTF is right. :beer:


----------



## snowmonster (Apr 25, 2011)

Debit. Gets me cheaper rates around the neighborhood in Boston. I only drive on weekends to ski so I make it a point to fill up in NH because of the lower prices. Gotta love Live Free or Die!


----------



## drjeff (Apr 26, 2011)

SkiFanE said:


> 95% cash, 5% debit.
> 
> I know every full serve place in my area, and some have discounts for cash.  These places are cheaper than the self-serve's, can't figure that out.  I don't like to pump gas.
> 
> ...



Any company that is involved in the extraction of oil from the ground is obviously going to show large revenues, and hence profits when the price of oil soars.  Heck, the reality is that what it costs them to get a barrel of oil out of the ground isn't that much different when oil is $50 a barrel as verses when it's $110 a barrel, but what they get paid for that barrel certainly is!

Plus, as much as people love to villify the oil companies, take what happened to Shell yesterday.  The government via the EPA pulled their new Alaskan oil drilling permits, after Shell had spent about 2 TRILLION in pre-drilling exploration/prep work, with one of the apparent main reasons being that one of the ice breakers that they had to use during the exploration process and would be using presumably to help with future supplying, and it's smoke stack emmissions weren't taken into account in the permit process!  WTF!

If so much of this price spike is being driven by futures speculation, and we seem to be doing our best in this country to make it as difficult as possible to access/extract the vast supplies of oil that we have, you'd think that maybe, just maybe if certain people that live a good chunk of the year in an area defined by Virgina and Maryland might just want to consider making access easier as opposed to more difficult, and I'd bet that you'd see the futures prices start to fall, and do so quickly!


----------



## dmc (Apr 26, 2011)

drjeff said:


> If so much of this price spike is being driven by futures speculation, and we seem to be doing our best in this country to make it as difficult as possible to access/extract the vast supplies of oil that we have, you'd think that maybe, just maybe if certain people that live a good chunk of the year in an area defined by Virgina and Maryland might just want to consider making access easier as opposed to more difficult, and I'd bet that you'd see the futures prices start to fall, and do so quickly!



Cool... just no hydrofracking..


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 26, 2011)

Jeff,

While I agree that increasing supply can do nothing but help with prices at the pump, the pain at the pump has nothing to do with supply right now.  2008 spike proves that.

Personally I think that commodities should never be traded.  The practice only helps investors, not consumers.


----------



## Glenn (Apr 26, 2011)

Some solid points Jeff.  It would be hard to speculate if you had more domestic supply coming online.  We're shooting ourselves in the foot with the NIMBYing. IMHO.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Apr 26, 2011)

I'm probably off the wall on this BUT  I think AMERICA  has OTHER potent bargaining chips with which to wheel and deal and squeeze the livin beejeepers out of the OPEC crowd and other wildcat speculator nations and international cartels .

 IMO The pass thru of the  TRUE DIRECT and INDIRECT costs to the end beneficiaries  of  the USA being both the World's Muscle and the Breadbasket could easily begin to offset some Middle Eastern, South American and other oil producing biggies shenanigans.


----------



## drjeff (Apr 26, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Jeff,
> 
> While I agree that increasing supply can do nothing but help with prices at the pump, the pain at the pump has nothing to do with supply right now.  2008 spike proves that.
> 
> Personally I think that commodities should never be traded.  The practice only helps investors, not consumers.



But yet back in '08, one of the things that helped break that rapid rise up in oil prices was when the folks that spend most of their year living in that area defined by Virginia and Maryland decided to open up vast areas to exploration and drilling. The futures market saw this (along with a few other things) as a sign that stability would be more reliable in the future, and hence stopped "betting" that prices would rise.

Lastly, since oil is a globally traded commodity, the more places in the world that we can be extracting oil from the ground that are generally speaking "politically stable" the better for the world markets.

Sure, we need to find greener energy sources, but the the reality is that this country is decades away from first finding the mass scale greener energy technology that it would require and then being able to manufacter enough of those technologies to meet the demand and then get them implemented into the hands of the consumer in a way that is feasible.  In the mean time, we've got a HUGE amount of oil that for various reasons we've decided that we should't be accessing, and yet we're still trying our best to say that the root of the problem is the speculators and the oil companies


----------



## Nick (Apr 26, 2011)

it's really painful right now and I have a Saab that gets pretty decent mileage (4-banger turbo). 

What's annoying is now it costs > $50 to fill my tank (premium) and many of the local gas stations cap purchases at $50 so I can't even fill up the whole way.


----------



## hammer (Apr 26, 2011)

drjeff said:


> But yet back in '08, one of the things that helped break that rapid rise up in oil prices was when the folks that spend most of their year living in that area defined by Virginia and Maryland decided to open up vast areas to exploration and drilling. The futures market saw this (along with a few other things) as a sign that stability would be more reliable in the future, and hence stopped "betting" that prices would rise.
> 
> Lastly, since oil is a globally traded commodity, the more places in the world that we can be extracting oil from the ground that are generally speaking "politically stable" the better for the world markets.
> 
> Sure, we need to find greener energy sources, but the the reality is that this country is decades away from first finding the mass scale greener energy technology that it would require and then being able to manufacter enough of those technologies to meet the demand and then get them implemented into the hands of the consumer in a way that is feasible.  In the mean time, we've got a HUGE amount of oil that for various reasons we've decided that we should't be accessing, and yet we're still trying our best to say that the root of the problem is the speculators and the oil companies


Guess I thought that the reason behind the decline in oil/gas prices (and I remember seeing prices under $2 at the pump) was a combination of the tanking of the economy and that the crisis in financial markets meant that there wasn't as much cash around to speculate with.

Maybe I'm completely off base but if we don't have a supply vs. demand problem then the prices should not be shooting up...

That all said I have no problem with increasing domestic supply as long as it's done responsibly.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 26, 2011)

hammer said:


> That all said I have no problem with increasing domestic supply as long as it's done responsibly.



If all the potential US oil supply came into operation today it would only be a drop in the bucket and doesn't really have much of an impact on supply overall. A lot of it is also very expensive to extract and isn't really worth pulling up unless the price of oil is high. Either way I'd really like to see the tax subsidies for the Oil companies taken away.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 26, 2011)

drjeff said:


> But yet back in '08, one of the things that helped break that rapid rise up in oil prices was when the folks that spend most of their year living in that area defined by Virginia and Maryland decided to open up vast areas to exploration and drilling. The futures market saw this (along with a few other things) as a sign that stability would be more reliable in the future, and hence stopped "betting" that prices would rise.



You actually believe that?

I don't one bit.  The 'manipulators' (not speculators, let's call them what they truly are) knew the bubble would pop and backed out.  

Trading of commodities most of the time has nothing to do with speculated future supply and demand.  It's market manipulation to create cash for investors.  Just another exotic shaddy investment practice like the banking industry swapping credit defaults.  I see the same crap in the food wholesale business.  

So, while changing policy to increase supply would be a good thing, I don't think that's the primary problem.  Adding or eliminating 5% supply shouldn't cause such massive swings in market costs in such short periods of time.  That's not true market supply and demand.


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 26, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> You actually believe that?
> 
> I don't one bit.  The 'manipulators' (not speculators, let's call them what they truly are) knew the bubble would pop and backed out.
> 
> ...



Of course, if fighting in Libya and protests/violence elsewhere calm down a bit, you'll see all those speculative trades getting unwound, with a subsequent massive drop in prices (a la 2009). But, no one praises the effect of financial speculators when gas falls below $2.

Regardless of hand wringing, NIMBYism, eco-angst, or anything else that fits in a headline, the marginal cost of another barrel of oil is around $80. Prices may go up and down, and will, sometimes wildly. But in the end, getting the next barrel out of the ground to replace the one you just put in your car is going to cost about $80, all in.


----------



## bigbog (Apr 26, 2011)

The sick joke is in having Washington leave Big Oil in command(financially-wise), to a large part, towards developing alternative forms of energy...imo.


----------



## SkiFanE (Apr 26, 2011)

bigbog said:


> The sick joke is in having Washington leave Big Oil in command, to a large part, of developing alternative forms of energy..



Lol!

I think if prices are high, through supply/demand, that is incentive for creating alternative energy.  Who wants to invest $ in finding something new when gas is $2/gallon?  And if people do invest when gas prices are high, and then they drop...their business plan is shot to hell b/c noone will buy alternatives unless it's cheaper than gas.  So the gov't is just effing up everything by being in bed with big oil.


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 26, 2011)

bigbog said:


> The sick joke is in having Washington leave Big Oil in command(financially-wise), to a large part, towards developing alternative forms of energy...imo.



There is, actually, a perverse incentive for oil companies to embrace alternative energy. Reducing demand can help moderate prices, which actually supports demand. At $3.50 gas, we grumble but drive. At $4.50, we stop driving. 

But, oil companies are not solar companies, or wind companies, or bio fuel companies. They know how to drill holes in the ground, lay pipe, and operate refineries. They don't know how to grow polysilicone crystals, tune a blade on a windmill, or grow more corn. Nor should they, any more than Microsoft should know how to build a helicopter. It's not the oil companies' job to develop alternative energy sources. They should do what they can to be ready to capitalize on it if they want, but to paraphrase Exxon, they're oil and gas companies, not windmill manufacturers. 

Car companies should be, and to a large extent are, driving efficiency and new technologies. Builders should be, and are, developing and utilizing more efficient structures. Lightbulb manufacturers should be, and are, creating more efficient lightbulbs. Consumers should be, and only barely are, demanding, utilizing, and _paying for_ new, efficient, renewable devices.

Should government be funding research and development of new energy sources? Absolutely (along with all kinds of other new R&D). Of course, I think those agencies that fund R&D should be able to monetize those developments adn generate a return on onvestment for tax apyers, however modest, but that's a whole other theory.


----------



## SkiFanE (Apr 26, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Lightbulb manufacturers should be, and are, creating more efficient lightbulbs. Consumers should be, and only barely are, demanding, utilizing, and _paying for_ new, efficient, renewable devices.



I admit I hate the new CFL lightbulbs.  Stopped buying them.  The ones outside and in the garage take too long to warm up.  The light is too stark for inside.  I think I'll be hoarding the incandescent when they become illegal lol.

And...to be all conspiracy-like, I swear incandescents are blowing out faster then ever, so manufacturers can say CFLs last so much longer.  I have one thats a major pain to replace and we are doing it so much more often now it seems..


----------



## bigbog (Apr 26, 2011)

So you both are saying that Washington _IS_ doing its part?   It's part in furnishing the environment(financially to work with other companies) where companies other than big oil are getting _Whatever it Takes_....  That's what it took to get NASA's Project Apollo to fruition...to some degree. 
Mega-$$$ a month to Karzei and Iraq's head honcho to maintain civil societies..what a laugh.   Add to that our puppet dictators in the mid-east we're now trembling over losing as weapons buyers....to the populations wanting more of a future....with our great mass-media saying they all are wanna-be Al Quaida recruits...LOL.
Apologize for the rambling but there are many players playing ball with Big Oil.....to keep the status quo.
It's just that gasoline doesn't have to be used in so many places........


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 26, 2011)

bigbog said:


> So you both are saying that Washington _IS_ doing its part?   It's part in furnishing the environment(financially to work with other companies) where companies other than big oil are getting _Whatever it Takes_....  That's what it took to get NASA's Project Apollo to fruition...to some degree.
> Mega-$$$ a month to Karzei and Iraq's head honcho to maintain a civil societies...LOL.



I didn't say Washington is doing its part- certainly not in its entirety. But, I don't think Washington's "part" involves hammering oil and gas companies for not investing in renewable energy. At least, not until paper companies are hammered for not subsidizing iPads, municipal water companies are hammered for not supplying Evian at the tap, fast food companies are hammered for not serving 5-star quisine, and Crocs is hammered for not making shoes that don't look stupid.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 26, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Crocs is hammered for not making shoes that don't look stupid.



:beer:


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 26, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> . But, no one praises the effect of financial speculators when gas falls below $2.



no, I won't praise them because I disagree with the manipulating/speculating.  As said prior, I would rather commodity futures not be a tradeable financial instrument.  The only people who benefit from that are the traders and investors.  

Consumers would be best served by true market values on commodities, not what some guy in a suit in a corner office predicts to make a buck for himself and an investor.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 26, 2011)

Who says we're holding anyone back ... ?



> Halliburton's consolidated revenue in the first quarter of 2011 was $5.3 billion, compared to $3.8 billion in the first quarter of 2010. Consolidated operating income was $814 million in the first quarter of 2011, compared to $449 million in the first quarter of 2010. *These increases were attributable to increased activity in United States land, as the unabated shift to unconventional oil and liquids-rich basins more than offset geopolitical issues in North Africa and the ongoing effects of the suspension of deepwater activity in the Gulf of Mexico. *



http://ir.halliburton.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=67605&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1551221


----------



## hammer (Apr 26, 2011)

SkiFanE said:


> I admit I hate the new CFL lightbulbs.  Stopped buying them.  The ones outside and in the garage take too long to warm up.  The light is too stark for inside.  I think I'll be hoarding the incandescent when they become illegal lol.
> 
> And...to be all conspiracy-like, I swear incandescents are blowing out faster then ever, so manufacturers can say CFLs last so much longer.  I have one thats a major pain to replace and we are doing it so much more often now it seems..


Aren't CFLs also hazardous waste because of mercury content?  So when  they do go you need to keep them around and try to find a way to dispose  of them...



deadheadskier said:


> no, I won't praise them because I disagree with the manipulating/speculating.  As said prior, I would rather commodity futures not be a tradeable financial instrument.  The only people who benefit from that are the traders and investors.
> 
> Consumers would be best served by true market values on commodities, not what some guy in a suit in a corner office predicts to make a buck for himself and an investor.


+1

If true supply/demand puts the price of a barrel of oil at $80 or so, then that's what it should be.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 26, 2011)

hammer said:


> If true supply/demand puts the price of a barrel of oil at $80 or so, then that's what it should be.



That's the cost to extract, not the market price (via speculation or otherwise).


----------



## hammer (Apr 26, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> That's the cost to extract, not the market price (via speculation or otherwise).


Fair enough...make it $85-90 per barrel then...


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 26, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Who says we're holding anyone back ... ?



Last time I took a finance course, 15% operating margins weren't exactly shooting the lights out, especially with sub-10% net margins.

Really and truly raping the consumer, there. Dollar Tree has a better net margin. As do Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Volkswagen, Union Pacific, CSX, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs, and a whole bunch of others. 

Just because the numbers are large doesn't mean they're overcharging. Delta Airlines did $7.8 billion in revenue Q1. With a 0.24% net margin.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 26, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> That's the cost to extract, not the market price (via speculation or otherwise).



If that is the case, then how did Exxon/Mobile make $30B in profit in 2010 when the average price for a barrel of oil was $71???

Just a question.  I'm not suggesting you're wrong, it's just something doesn't add up.  If it costs $80 to extract a barel, one would think that Exxon would have had massive losses last year.


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 26, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> If that is the case, then how did Exxon/Mobile make $30B in profit in 2010 when the average price for a barrel of oil was $71???
> 
> Just a question.  I'm not suggesting you're wrong, it's just something doesn't add up.  If it costs $80 to extract a barel, one would think that Exxon would have had massive losses last year.



$80 is an estimate of the all-on marginal cost for an additional barrel of oil, since as conventional resources run out, more expensive non-conventional sources are needed to provide that marginal barrel.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 26, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Last time I took a finance course, 15% operating margins weren't exactly shooting the lights out, especially with sub-10% net margins.
> 
> Really and truly raping the consumer, there. Dollar Tree has a better net margin. As do Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Volkswagen, Union Pacific, CSX, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs, and a whole bunch of others.
> 
> Just because the numbers are large doesn't mean they're overcharging. Delta Airlines did $7.8 billion in revenue Q1. With a 0.24% net margin.



Wasn't saying that. I'm saying they are not complaining about having a hard time finding oil in the US and in fact did well because their oil production is doing great here.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 26, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> $80 is an estimate of the all-on marginal cost for an additional barrel of oil, since as conventional resources run out, more expensive non-conventional sources are needed to provide that marginal barrel.



So it's a speculation, not the actual current price to extract. 

So, when prices plummeted to $2 gallon at the pumps, did Exxon change their mind and say, nah, it won't cost us $80 it'll cost us $40 in the future?


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 26, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> So it's a speculation, not the actual current price to extract.
> 
> So, when prices plummeted to $2 gallon at the pumps, did Exxon change their mind and say, nah, it won't cost us $80 it'll cost us $40 in the future?



Nope- they base their drilling programs and capex budgets on steady state oil price estimates. Programs are usually set up 5-10 years out, and can run for over 10 years. The oil companies don't earn their margins by speculating on the price of oil. Instead, their central question is, "By the time we get this production on line, will demand be high enough to justify the cost?"


----------



## tjf67 (Apr 26, 2011)

From my understanding our weak currency is causing most of the price increase that we are experiencing.  How the EURO is worth 1.48 when a couple of there countries are about to defualt is beyond me.  We we start pulling dollars out of the system we will see the price drop by 15 to 30 %.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 26, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Nope- they base their drilling programs and capex budgets on steady state oil price estimates. Programs are usually set up 5-10 years out, and can run for over 10 years. The oil companies don't earn their margins by speculating on the price of oil. Instead, their central question is, "By the time we get this production on line, will demand be high enough to justify the cost?"



wonder if the same holds true for Milk and that's why not so long ago the price shot up to $6 a gallon.  Did they say, "Man, I think it's gonna be much harder to grab onto Bessie's teet in a couple years.  Better prepare by charging more now."


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 26, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> wonder if the same holds true for Milk and that's why not so long ago the price shot up to $6 a gallon.  Did they say, "Man, I think it's gonna be much harder to grab onto Bessie's teet in a couple years.  Better prepare by charging more now."



Could be, actually. If new regulations are coming down the pike, they could very well start charging a little more now to be able to cover the expenditures in the future. More likely price spikes are caused by increases in food (corn) costs, transportation costs, adn other energy increases.

Of course, producers don't really directly set prices.


----------



## roark (Apr 26, 2011)

The problem with speculation is that it tends to lead to wider swings than would naturally be occuring. This increased variance neccessitates an additional risk premium be charged to compensate for the additional risk of an unexpected price swing, so the average price is higher than would otherwise be present in a non-speculative environment. As the variance increases, so does the average cost.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 26, 2011)

I love how this thread went from from " how do you pay for gas " to the usual rants about the price at the pump. One thing not mentioned yet, depending on your location a large part of the price at the pump are local and state taxes. As mentioned by a few with a clue, gas stations operate these days with a very small profit margin. 

Back to the thread, I pay with my debit card. I live about 3 miles from work so I try to get by on about $15/week for gas. The price around here is currently $3.87.


----------



## darent (Apr 26, 2011)

today gas went up 14 cents on a gallon, we are now at $ 4.50


----------



## Nick (Apr 27, 2011)

What?? 

I just came across this this morning: 

http://flowingdata.com/2011/04/27/how-much-more-we-pay-for-stuff-now-than-we-did-last-year/


----------



## o3jeff (Apr 27, 2011)

I have noticed there isn't as much traffic on my commute to work with the gas prices where they are.


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 27, 2011)

Recommended reading:

http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/

Or, for those starting at a more basic level:

http://www.eia.gov/kids/


----------



## gmcunni (Apr 27, 2011)

o3jeff said:


> I have noticed there isn't as much traffic on my commute to work with the gas prices where they are.



same here


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 27, 2011)

o3jeff said:


> I have noticed there isn't as much traffic on my commute to work with the gas prices where they are.



I've had just as much. Moves slower, though. Probably more due to rain and fog, but hey, correlation looks like causation, right?


----------



## HD333 (Apr 27, 2011)

Credit Card Piad off montly  REI or LLBean for redeemable points.

Anyone carry around a lot of cash anymore?  I couldn't fill my tank with what I normally have in my pocket.


----------



## legalskier (Apr 27, 2011)

Have you noticed how gas prices rise much faster than they fall? 

_*Why gas prices go up much faster than they come down*
By Bob Sullivan
*** The quick rise/slow fall phenomenon will feel familiar to most consumers, who often explain it with this conventional wisdom -- greedy retailers take advantage of temporarily high prices as long as they can to sock away a little extra profit.   Economists tend to scoff at conventional consumer wisdom, but basic economic theory holds no explanation for the sharp rise/slow fall price pattern. Twelve years ago, economist Sam Peltzman -- a free market advocate not known for consumer-friendly research -- conducted a vast study of price "shocks," which could have dispelled these complaints as yet another whiny consumer myth. Instead, it fueled the fire. His review of 77 consumer goods that had been subject to abrupt price increases – including gas -- led Peltzman to write a paper called simply "Prices rise faster than they fall." "The title summarizes the main result:* the person in the street is right and we are wrong*," Peltzman wrote.(PDF) In fact, the results were so vexing he called it “a serious gap in a fundamental area of economic theory."
Consumers might call it price gouging; economists like Peltzman have settled on a more neutral term: *"asymmetric price adjustment."* And while economists have conceded this time that whiny consumers happened to be right, they aren't yet ready to sign up for their conspiracy theories.***_
Link: http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/...-prices-go-up-much-faster-than-they-come-down

It goes on to discuss concepts like framing prices, imperfect competition, local oligopolies, search costs, and gasbuddy.com. An interesting read.


----------



## SkiFanE (Apr 27, 2011)

HD333 said:


> Credit Card Piad off montly  REI or LLBean for redeemable points.
> 
> Anyone carry around a lot of cash anymore?  I couldn't fill my tank with what I normally have in my pocket.



Me.  I love cash.  Security.  ATMs I go to are free, so I stock up.  Will never be one of those folks that uses a debit to buy a $1.15 bag of chips.  Always have backup cards, but don't use them except on the 'net, grocery store or not enough cash.  Rarely use a credit card, always a debit, Points aren't worth it to me.  Plus noone knows where I was or what I bought, I like to keep the marketers in the dark.


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 27, 2011)

legalskier said:


>



Interesting, especiallyif you look at the gap between wholesale and retail prices- with every price spike, the gap, which is the retailer's margin, compresses. Just eyeballing it, you could make an argument that the slower drop helps the retailer recover the profits lost at the runup. It'd be interesting to see, if the numbers behind the graph are available. 

If the "gouge" is pretty small, then it could certainly be excused as a risk premium to cover the volatility danger. If it's larger (and it may well be), then it does look a lot more like gouging.


----------



## tjf67 (Apr 27, 2011)

http://m.theatlantic.com/business/a...mines-the-price-of-gas-a-visual-guide/237968/

Yo C is this pretty accurate?


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 27, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> http://m.theatlantic.com/business/a...mines-the-price-of-gas-a-visual-guide/237968/
> 
> Yo C is this pretty accurate?



Yup- not bad. Simplistic, but good as far as it goes.


----------



## dmc (Apr 27, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Interesting, especiallyif you look at the gap between wholesale and retail prices- with every price spike, the gap, which is the retailer's margin, compresses. Just eyeballing it, you could make an argument that the slower drop helps the retailer recover the profits lost at the runup. It'd be interesting to see, if the numbers behind the graph are available.



Sometimes they keep pace sometimes they don't...


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 27, 2011)

Interesting that EIA research shows now, or little, evidence of asymmetry, at least through 2003.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2003/gasolinepass/gasolinepass.htm


_Aside from the accuracy of the model, what do these results indicate about retail gasoline pricing? Perhaps one of the most revealing aspects of this analysis is what the results do not show: there is so little difference between actual retail gasoline prices and the forecast created from spot prices and observed lag patterns that there is no evidence of significant influence on aggregate retail prices beyond the spot price level. *In other words, despite allegations of competitive irregularities in retail markets, it appears that most of the movement in retail prices (on a national and regional basis) is predetermined by previous movements in spot prices.*_

Of course, one has to wonder if the word has changed since the run-up in 2008. I pulled the EIA's weekly spot and retail gasoline prices adn looked at the average margins. The data's not the cleanest in the world, perhaps (couple months missing, and one report starts the week 4 days after the other for some reason) but it's interesting- average margin is $0.62, with a standard deviation of 9 cents, so fairly stable. Biggest margins were in 2006-2008 at $0.70 to $0.74.

Margins increased from 0.415 in 1990 to 0.671 in 2011 (to date), with the steepest increases from 1990 to 1994 (20 cents total). 
My analysis indicates that retailers are not gouging their customers. So, they've got that going for them.


----------



## tjf67 (Apr 27, 2011)

the first report shows that retailers margins are going down. Your report states differantly.  In any event it seems we have more price increases @ the pumps for a while to come. Joy joy


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 27, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> .........3300
> Margins incareased from 0.415 in 1990 to 0.671 in 2011 (to date), with the steepest increases from 1990 to 1994 (20 cents total).
> My analysis indicates that retailers are not gouging their customers. So, they've got that going for them.


Also, compare this to pretty much any other point of sale margin in the country and even at the highest margin, gasoline is still far below almost any other point of sale margin in the industry. 1/3 margin is pretty standard for a lot of merchandise. Clothing and tchotchkes? 50-60%. Coffee.... 90%. No one complains about gouging on coffee but even the lowest price cup of joe is amongst the highest margins available. Gas to make your body go? High margin. Gas to make your car go? Lowest margin possible without being a total loss leader. Folks complain about the gas prices but then walk into the store (where the real margin happens) and by $2 bottles of soda and a pack of ciggs.

I don't think anything gets me going like a discussion on public perception of gas prices, bring it. And goodness forbid any company should make profits at the top end of things, even if you can excuse the poor gas station owner. It is not like our entire economy (read: our jobs and all of our modern "stuff") isn't based on for profit companies making money.  

I personally can't wait until we hit $5 a gallon. We'll be able to buy non-hybrid 50 MPG small sedans before you know it.


----------



## tjf67 (Apr 27, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Also, compare this to pretty much any other point of sale margin in the country and even at the highest margin, gasoline is still far below almost any other point of sale margin in the industry. 1/3 margin is pretty standard for a lot of merchandise. Clothing and tchotchkes? 50-60%. Coffee.... 90%. No one complains about gouging on coffee but even the lowest price cup of joe is amongst the highest margins available. Gas to make your body go? High margin. Gas to make your car go? Lowest margin possible without being a total loss leader. Folks complain about the gas prices but then walk into the store (where the real margin happens) and by $2 bottles of soda and a pack of ciggs.
> 
> I don't think anything gets me going like a discussion on public perception of gas prices, bring it. And goodness forbid any company should make profits at the top end of things, even if you can excuse the poor gas station owner. It is not like our entire economy (read: our jobs and all of our modern "stuff") isn't based on for profit companies making money.
> 
> I personally can't wait until we hit $5 a gallon. We'll be able to buy non-hybrid 50 MPG small sedans before you know it.



You can't compare coffee margins it is discresionary.  Margins in power producing and coal mining sector r similar.  Its something we need and much more scrutinized. 

You hoping for 5 dollar per gallon gas is just strange.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 27, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> You hoping for 5 dollar per gallon gas is just strange.


The point is that increasing gas prices past public comfort (even if it is an easily managed bump for most people) drives innovation. 40 MPG is the new standard on compact cars (non-hybrid). It is theoretically possible that gas could reach $5 and it will be cheaper to drive than it is today if innovation (and public perception/outrage at high gas prices) keeps pushing tech to improve.

Regarding discretionary vs non-discretionary, I call BS. That might apply to people on the edge or in poverty. They will drive any car they can and take any job they can and they feel the pinch. For the rest of us, MPG is discretionary just us much as coffee is discretionary. A bit of a stretch but take my point, not the literal wording. Most folks have some control over where they live, where they work, length of commute, and MPG of their vehicle. That all contributes and they are choices made. Heck, we could all bike to work. We make lifestyle decisions and many of those decisions are expensive. We need cars and make them non-discretionary by choice so ultimately I don't see the difference.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 27, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> The point is that increasing gas prices past public comfort (even if it is an easily managed bump for most people) drives innovation. 40 MPG is the new standard on compact cars (non-hybrid). It is theoretically possible that gas could reach $5 and it will be cheaper to drive than it is today if innovation (and public perception/outrage at high gas prices) keeps pushing tech to improve.



I think rooting for higher gas prices to push for better transportation fuel economy is a bit short sighted.  This is a MUCH larger issue than how much it costs someone to drive their car to work or a ski area.

Oil is a part of everything in our lives.  

Proctor & Gamble announced yesterday they are raising the price of Diapers by 7% in addition to many other items.  100% attributable to the cost of oil. Will $5 gas result in more efficient diaper design?  How about paper towels?

And if it does, will our short term sacrifice truly reap rewards?  I drove a 16mpg Ford Explorer ten years ago.  Gas was a buck a gallon then.  Driving a 48mpg Prius today at $3.85 isn't a better deal, both for my wallet and what the vehicle is capable of doing for me.  

Life is short.  I'm willing to accept my wallet getting punched in the balls only so much with the hope of things getting better in the future.  Getting crushed on every expense in life that $5 a gallon would bring so I can have more 50 MPG transportation options five years out in the future?  Sorry, not interested.  I'm rooting for $2 gas so I can save $2K in transportation costs alone next year and spend those savings on a vacation with my wife.


----------



## snoseek (Apr 27, 2011)

^^^ Yeah expensive gas would hurt in the short run but I have to agree with Riv on this one. It also creates an opportunity for a great and sustainable economic boost right here in the U.S., while have the potential to stop exporting so much wealth to unfriendly and unstable places.

Everyday cost will hurt-yes they will, especially for low income and fixed income.


I drove trucks for many years. Six years ago I bought an 03 HX Civic for this very reason. My question is why can't they make non-hybrid civics now that average 45 mpg (every time) like they could with that model? as consumers we need to demand better.


----------



## Glenn (Apr 28, 2011)

snoseek said:


> My question is why can't they make non-hybrid civics now that average 45 mpg (every time) like they could with that model? as consumers we need to demand better.



Part of it is safety, part of it is what consumers want. Safety = weight. Comfort = Weight. You could easily make a smallish car with a modern 4 cyl that gets great MPG. But you'd have to get it to conform to crash standards. Ever ride in a car that has no sound deadening? In a college, a buddy gave me a ride in a track prepped, probably 'sorta' street legal M3 Lightweight. Sweet car. Raw. Loud as hell and really cool if you're a gearhead. I couldn't drive it to VT and back every weekend though.


----------



## drjeff (Apr 28, 2011)

snoseek said:


> My question is why can't they make non-hybrid civics now that average 45 mpg (every time) like they could with that model? as consumers we need to demand better.



Because the people that spend most of their time living in the area defined by Virginia and Maryland over the years have felt it necessary for them to help regulate how a car manufacturer should design and build a product.

Chances are though, if the folks in Washington got out of the way, that market demand would take over and you'd get an equivalent product to the market from atleast one manufacturer.  And if the demand for that product was great enough, then you'd see other manufacturers working to build something better, that the public wants, thus giving the consumer more choice and keeping the pricing competitive.

Should a certain few folks that live in DC really be trying to exert as much influence over what they think that the consumer should want/buy?  Or should the consumer get to choose (via their purchase or lack of purchase) what they want to buy and as such influence businesses as such??

Heck, in a sense we see this in the ski industry.  The consumer via demand (or lack there of) has cuased some resorts to alter their closing dates, whereas other ski areas (predominately out West) have their opening/closing dates defined not by market demand, but by government issued permits


----------



## SkiFanE (Apr 28, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I think rooting for higher gas prices to push for better transportation fuel economy is a bit short sighted.  This is a MUCH larger issue than how much it costs someone to drive their car to work or a ski area.
> 
> Oil is a part of everything in our lives.
> 
> ...



I'm with rivercoil on this one (although can't say I'd be jumping for joy at $5 lol).  Our entire economy is based on cheap oil.  Sprawl depends on it.  The ONLY way to stop it is to make it painful.  Govt tax  $ should be spent on public transportation (besides stinky diesel buses) rather than wider/more highways.  I look at these huge Walmart trucks knowing they are sucking diesel in order to get cheap plastic crap from china to the stores, if that spring 2011 plastic garden gnome is now $4.50 instead of $3.99, I won't cry.

My hope for $5/gal gas is that $2-3 of it goes to taxes, not to oil companies.  I'd feel it like everyone else, I'm not immune.  But I'm willing to suck it up because I think it's what is needed long term.  Those in poverty that depend on a car, I do feel for them, they will probably be the most impacted.  I'm sure the gov't will create some efficient program to help them out :evil:


----------



## tjf67 (Apr 28, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I think rooting for higher gas prices to push for better transportation fuel economy is a bit short sighted.  This is a MUCH larger issue than how much it costs someone to drive their car to work or a ski area.
> 
> Oil is a part of everything in our lives.
> 
> ...



We call that junk punched around my parts.   you know like "I want to junk puch that dork".


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 28, 2011)

drjeff said:


> Heck, in a sense we see this in the ski industry.  The consumer via demand (or lack there of) has cuased some resorts to alter their closing dates, whereas other ski areas (predominately out West) have their opening/closing dates defined not by market demand, but by government issued permits



This is a myth propagated by misinformation in part I see on ski forums. I still see where people post that JH closes cause of the elk. The movement of elk are not near the ski resort, it's B/T NF lease can be changed or adjusted anytime.  This is especially true for the isolated destination resorts like Telluride, JH, Whitefish, Sun Valley where the majority of guests fly-in. Resorts along the I70 corridor in CO or in the Wasatch above SLC have a large ski market within easy driving distances so they can stay open without giving money back. 

Another factor is that most resorts out west do not have the snowmaking we have in the east. At JH the lower terrain has lost alot of it's snow this time of year so you might have snow on the upper mtn but the lower mountain is basically devoid of snow. 

Ski resorts close with snow on the trails due to lack of business, just like here in the east. During the 17 years I was working out west by the middle of March the business levels tanked. If your near a population center you might have some business but lack of lower terrain snow makes it hard to stay open.


----------



## Nick (Apr 28, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> I've had just as much. Moves slower, though. Probably more due to rain and fog, but hey, correlation looks like causation, right?



Yeah, i haven't seen any changes in my daily ride through Worcester.


----------



## drjeff (Apr 28, 2011)

ski_resort_observer said:


> This is a myth propagated by misinformation in part I see on ski forums. I still see where people post that JH closes cause of the elk. The movement of elk are not near the ski resort, it's B/T NF lease can be changed or adjusted anytime.  This is especially true for the isolated destination resorts like Telluride, JH, Whitefish, Sun Valley where the majority of guests fly-in. Resorts along the I70 corridor in CO or in the Wasatch above SLC have a large ski market within easy driving distances so they can stay open without giving money back.
> 
> Another factor is that most resorts out west do not have the snowmaking we have in the east. At JH the lower terrain has lost alot of it's snow this time of year so you might have snow on the upper mtn but the lower mountain is basically devoid of snow.
> 
> Ski resorts close with snow on the trails due to lack of business, just like here in the east. During the 17 years I was working out west by the middle of March the business levels tanked. If your near a population center you might have some business but lack of lower terrain snow makes it hard to stay open.



Some is business related for sure.  But others are permit related too.  Hence why Alta on forest service land has closed for the season now while immediately next door on private land, Snowbird is still spinning their lifts.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 28, 2011)

SkiFanE said:


> I'm with rivercoil on this one (although can't say I'd be jumping for joy at $5 lol).  Our entire economy is based on cheap oil.  Sprawl depends on it.  The ONLY way to stop it is to make it painful.  Govt tax  $ should be spent on public transportation (besides stinky diesel buses) rather than wider/more highways.  I look at these huge Walmart trucks knowing they are sucking diesel in order to get cheap plastic crap from china to the stores, if that spring 2011 plastic garden gnome is now $4.50 instead of $3.99, I won't cry.
> 
> My hope for $5/gal gas is that $2-3 of it goes to taxes, not to oil companies.  I'd feel it like everyone else, I'm not immune.  But I'm willing to suck it up because I think it's what is needed long term.  Those in poverty that depend on a car, I do feel for them, they will probably be the most impacted.  I'm sure the gov't will create some efficient program to help them out :evil:



Fair enough.  Though I don't really understand an anti-sprawl perspective coming from someone who has a vacation home.  Do you take the bus to your 2nd home?

I just think advancement in innovation should be a proactive development, not a reaction to high oil prices.  

Rooting for $5 gasoline is essentially rooting for a recession.  I don't think that's right given the millions of citizens who have and still are suffering in this crap economy over the past three years.   Things are barely starting to get back on track.  Any progress that's been made would grind to halt with $5 gas.


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 28, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Fair enough.  Though I don't really understand an anti-sprawl perspective coming from someone who has a vacation home.  Do you take the bus to your 2nd home?
> 
> I just think advancement in innovation should be a proactive development, not a reaction to high oil prices.
> 
> Rooting for $5 gasoline is essentially rooting for a recession.  I don't think that's right given the millions of citizens who have and still are suffering in this crap economy over the past three years.   Things are barely starting to get back on track.  Any progress that's been made would grind to halt with $5 gas.



Not really rooting for a recession so much as weighing the pros and cons, and finding the pros worth the cons. 

As for proactive innovation, there's no innovation that's ever been successful that couldn't make money. You could have a 4000 mpg car, but if it still cost you more per mile to drive than a gallon of gas, no one would buy it over a gas engine. If you want pure research without a commercial target, you have to go to government funded R&D, which I don't consider to be a bad thing.

Sprawl = living further waway from work than necessary. Vacation home = getting as far away from work as you can.


----------



## tjf67 (Apr 28, 2011)

SkiFanE said:


> I'm with rivercoil on this one (although can't say I'd be jumping for joy at $5 lol).  Our entire economy is based on cheap oil.  Sprawl depends on it.  The ONLY way to stop it is to make it painful.  Govt tax  $ should be spent on public transportation (besides stinky diesel buses) rather than wider/more highways.  I look at these huge Walmart trucks knowing they are sucking diesel in order to get cheap plastic crap from china to the stores, if that spring 2011 plastic garden gnome is now $4.50 instead of $3.99, I won't cry.
> 
> My hope for $5/gal gas is that $2-3 of it goes to taxes, not to oil companies.  I'd feel it like everyone else, I'm not immune.  But I'm willing to suck it up because I think it's what is needed long term.  Those in poverty that depend on a car, I do feel for them, they will probably be the most impacted.  I'm sure the gov't will create some efficient program to help them out :evil:




Letting the government take more in taxes is never the answer.  Sounds like a good idea but the money never goes where it is supposed to.  Look at SS, heck the tax i pay on smokes more than off sets the increase risk that I pose to the health care system.  Problem is they are using that money to build bridges.  The money realeased by OBAMA for the infrastructure projects,  have you looked at it?  Less that 40% was spent on rebuilding america.  The credits for windmills was taken by foreign companies, pulled back into there home offices and is now building windmills in countries other than the US.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 28, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Sprawl = living further waway from work than necessary.



I think the vast majority of people make that decision based upon housing costs.  I don't think people 'like' sitting in massive traffic jams to get into the city for work.

I'd love to have a home in Back Bay and walk everywhere.  It ain't happening.  On my salary, I could afford a modest home in Dorchester.  That ain't happening either. :lol:


----------



## hammer (Apr 28, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> Letting the government take more in taxes is never  the answer.  Sounds like a good idea but the money never goes where it  is supposed to.


I've seen similar problems at the local  level...trash fees meant to just pay for trash collection and to  encourage recycling end up in the general fund and get spent on items  that (deductible) property taxes are meant to be used for.



deadheadskier said:


> I think the vast majority of people make that decision based upon housing costs.  I don't think people 'like' sitting in massive traffic jams to get into the city for work.
> 
> I'd love to have a home in Back Bay and walk everywhere.  It ain't happening.  On my salary, I could afford a modest home in Dorchester.  That ain't happening either. :lol:


+1

I wouldn't move down to Burlington or Woburn just to be closer to work...and with a kid in college in the fall I sure don't have the $$ to move to Lexington or Bedford.


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 28, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I think the vast majority of people make that decision based upon housing costs.  I don't think people 'like' sitting in massive traffic jams to get into the city for work.



A home in Dorchester would cost more in gas- Sherman tanks aren't all that fuel efficient.

Housing costs and public transport are another set of questions entirely. $5 gas would probably lead to some sort of adjustment there, but it probably wouldn't be cheaper city living.


----------



## billski (Apr 28, 2011)

> I rarely encounter gas stations that charge more for credit than cash.   I always use a credit card.



I see it all the time in Eastern Mass.  between 5 and 10 cents a gallon differential some grades had a higher differential.  Stop and shop offers 2 cent gallon discount when you use their affinity card.  Select locations.

There used to be this gas station in Boston, corner of Charles and Cambridge that jacked up their prices by 20 cents a gallon after 11pm.  That's back when gas was $1.20/gallon.


----------



## Black Phantom (Apr 28, 2011)

billski said:


> I see it all the time in Eastern Mass.  between 5 and 10 cents a gallon differential some grades had a higher differential.  Stop and shop offers 2 cent gallon discount when you use their affinity card.  Select locations.
> 
> There used to be this gas station in Boston, corner of Charles and Cambridge that jacked up their prices by 20 cents a gallon after 11pm.  That's back when gas was $1.20/gallon.



That station was run by Whitey et al.


----------



## SkiFanE (Apr 28, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Fair enough.  Though I don't really understand an anti-sprawl perspective coming from someone who has a vacation home.  Do you take the bus to your 2nd home?
> 
> I just think advancement in innovation should be a proactive development, not a reaction to high oil prices.
> 
> Rooting for $5 gasoline is essentially rooting for a recession.  I don't think that's right given the millions of citizens who have and still are suffering in this crap economy over the past three years.   Things are barely starting to get back on track.  Any progress that's been made would grind to halt with $5 gas.



Well...with our 2 commutes to work and weekly commutes to ski house, we still may consume less gas than those that travel 50-100m/day to/from work, since we don't live far from our jobs (have a small/modest home in the high tech belt to afford to live here).  

But my main point was public transportation.  In my town there is a commuter rail that stopped in the late 70s/early 80s and was turned into a bike path.  If this train existed, I could be in downtown Boston in 30mins or so.  Now, with the other public option (bus to subway), it's well over an hour.  Driving it's a minimum of 40 mins on a good day.  If the train option was available, I'd take it, as it is I have to drive into Boston weekly and it's a big PITA trip, much rather take public.  Those are solutions we need, not necessarily cars that burn less gas.

Gas is up to $4/gallon right now, you really think $5 would send us to recession?  It seems this argument is always used, but each time gas goes up the $ to recession does too..I recall $3 was the recession point a few years back, as gas was going over $2.  

Seems like banks giving out bad loans does more damage to the economy than gas prices (LOL).


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 28, 2011)

SkiFanE said:


> Seems like banks giving out bad loans does more damage to the economy than gas prices (LOL).



More truth to this than you think. Seems to be pretty decent evidence popping up that home ownership isn't such a great thing- it may slow the velocity of money, it makes the workforce much, much less mobile, and it can lead to exagerated swings in consumer behavior.


----------



## Nick (Apr 28, 2011)

I'm 35 min from work (about 25 miles). it's great. I used to go to Boston which was 50 + miles, plus the crappy traffic, so normally at least an hour and more like an hour and a half. Life is so much better now.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 28, 2011)

SkiFanE said:


> Gas is up to $4/gallon right now, you really think $5 would send us to recession?  It seems this argument is always used, but each time gas goes up the $ to recession does too..I recall $3 was the recession point a few years back, as gas was going over $2.
> 
> Seems like banks giving out bad loans does more damage to the economy than gas prices (LOL).



you'll get no argument from me that bad loans is a much worse situation.  But to suggest that $4 gas doesn't have a major impact on people's spending simply isn't true.  I saw more restaurants close summer of 08 before the banking meltdown than at any point in the past 5 years.  Those aren't meaningful GDP type jobs, but it's real.  You take that up to $5, especially with the effect it will have on heating oil?  People are going to go out to eat way less, buy much fewer large ticket items, hold onto cars longer, etc.


----------



## St. Bear (Apr 28, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> you'll get no argument from me that bad loans is a much worse situation.  But to suggest that $4 gas doesn't have a major impact on people's spending simply isn't true.  I saw more restaurants close summer of 08 before the banking meltdown than at any point in the past 5 years.  Those aren't meaningful GDP type jobs, but it's real.  You take that up to $5, especially with the effect it will have on heating oil?  People are going to go out to eat way less, buy much fewer large ticket items, hold onto cars longer, etc.



I would argue that that's not necessarily a bad thing.  Too many people got accustomed to getting a new car every 3 years and eating out on a weekly basis, when that should be a luxury for the (moderately) wealthy, not middle America.


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 28, 2011)

SkiFanE said:


> Gas is up to $4/gallon right now, you really think $5 would send us to recession?  It seems this argument is always used, but each time gas goes up the $ to recession does too..I recall $3 was the recession point a few years back, as gas was going over $2.



I should point that theat the US uses about 15 billion gallons of gasoline a year. So, a $1 change in price can some impact. More importantly, though, is the psychological impact. Of course, that wears off- we got used to $1 gas, we got used to $2 and $3, $4 can be handled, we'll deal with $5, etc. It's the changes that have the effect, though.


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 28, 2011)

SkiFanE said:


> Seems like banks giving out bad loans does more damage to the economy than gas prices (LOL).



Ding, ding, ding.....we have a winner!!!

Could you imagine where our country would be if the banks 'forced' us to be financially responsible...what a thought.

Remember the days when you needed 20% down on a house??
Remember when you needed cash down to buy a car???

Why??? Cause it was a bank requirement. 

Now people owe 15g's on a car that's worth 8, and it's my fault...., no, the bank gave you the damn money...not me.

We're slowly getting back to that, or at least from what I see. It used to be banks would loan 150% LTV on an auto loan...that it crazy, just crazy!!! Now, depending on one's credit it could be as low as 80% or as high as 130%....IMO, it shouldn't be any higher than 100%. Never happen, would hurt (at first) if it did, but in the long run our economy would be better off because of it.


----------



## tjf67 (Apr 28, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> Ding, ding, ding.....we have a winner!!!
> 
> Could you imagine where our country would be if the banks 'forced' us to be financially responsible...what a thought.
> 
> ...




I have never even looked for a loan if it did not seem affordable.  I think you would have to also include the real estate agents, mortage brokers, attorneys and car salesman  as the culprits as well.  Shouldn't they have a professional responsabilty to inform their ustomers?  I say yea, but the buck stops at the stupid asses that signed on the dotted line.


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 28, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> I have never even looked for a loan if it did not seem affordable.  I think you would have to also include the real estate agents, mortage brokers, attorneys and car salesman  as the culprits as well.  Shouldn't they have a professional responsabilty to inform their ustomers?  I say yea, but the buck stops at the stupid asses that signed on the dotted line.



100% agree...not pointing fingers at all. 

My point being just imagine if "we" all did what you do, can't afford it, don't buy it.


----------



## tjf67 (Apr 28, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> 100% agree...not pointing fingers at all.
> 
> My point being just imagine if "we" all did what you do, can't afford it, don't buy it.



Like Donald Trump?


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 28, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I think the vast majority of people make that decision based upon housing costs.


If that were true, there would be no poor and middle class communities in metro areas, especially those near public transportation. But excepting certain neighborhoods, there are plenty of poor and middle class neighborhoods in metro areas, say within the I-95 belt all the way up to the doorstep of Boston. People sit in traffic by choice of where they live, often times defaulting to where they grew up. You might not get as big of a house or maybe no yard or maybe you have to buy into a condo or whatever versus a newish colonial on a  generically created "Tree Type" + "Geographic Feature" Road with suburban sized yard. But those are choices. And then there is always renting as well. There are options and choices and maybe folks exercise the choice to live close to work or use public transportation.

As far as rooting for high gas prices equating to rooting for a recession.... who knows, maybe domestic innovation caused by transportation cost influenced inflation could kick start the economy in new and exciting directions. I don't know. I think there are bigger issues at work in the recession than gas prices. And for the vast majority of folks, an extra buck in gas equates to not getting a coffee at DDs every morning. Inflation of consumer goods pricing due to increases in gasoline is not a great argument. Lots of consumer goods are cheaper now than they were a dozen years ago when gas was a buck a gallon. Some prices will go up, others will go down due to innovations and competition. Crazy world.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 28, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> More truth to this than you think. Seems to be pretty decent evidence popping up that home ownership isn't such a great thing- it may slow the velocity of money, it makes the workforce much, much less mobile, and it can lead to exagerated swings in consumer behavior.


Quoted for truth. My boss occasionally talks to me about my future with the company. My response is usually something like "only if I can get a $20,000 bonus to cover losses associated with the sale of my home." Essentially, we aren't moving anywhere for the next ten years whether we want to or not. That loss of mobility really has to hurt. Interesting point on the velocity of money. You bank a ton for a down payment and then make higher monthly payments than if you were renting and you have sales tax (and some of us, condo fees), etc. That is certainly a lot of money going into home ownership rather than other purchases.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 28, 2011)

St. Bear said:


> I would argue that that's not necessarily a bad thing.  Too many people got accustomed to getting a new car every 3 years and eating out on a weekly basis, when that should be a luxury for the (moderately) wealthy, not middle America.


It is interesting the dichotomy between the "ought" and what actually happens. But if we all lived frugally and didn't upgrade our "stuff" frequently and splurge on eating out and stuff, the economy wouldn't grow as fast nor would innovation provide so much cool stuff that we now have available.

I love Marketplace Money on NPR, great show. These days it seems like every week features topics on saving more money. Which is a good thing.... we all really should have several months worth of expenses in the bank, a savings account, and a few diversified retirement accounts. But if everyone did this, our economy would be very different. We would all have to make very different choices.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Apr 28, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> 100% agree...not pointing fingers at all.
> 
> 
> Can't afford it ,  don't buy it.



Living under ones means , paying cash , investing for the long run  and being DEBT free is the key to building NET WORTH  and being HNW is achievable  WITH discipline . 

Forget stuff -- go for the long run ,  learn the diff between a NEED and a WANT and to hell with the Jones--- cuz frankly they don't give a damn .


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 28, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> Could you imagine where our country would be if the banks 'forced' us to be financially responsible...what a thought.



They actually try and 'force' you into being less financially responsible.

My wife and I had to move for work in June of 2008.  The bank melt down in the upcoming fall and a massive upcoming recession was being predicted in the winter.  We had saved up a sizable down payment to buy a home.  When we saw impending doom, we decided to purchase a modest condo, less than half the value of the mortgage we were approved for.  We wanted to be extra cautious so that we could easily afford our place on the lesser of our two incomes. Figured we'd stay conservative and ride out the recession before buying the size home we truly can afford that is adequately sized to raise a family in.  Our condo will become an investment property when we upgrade to that.

Because we went with such a small mortgage, we were penalized with a half percent higher mortgage.  Bank told us if we wanted to go out and buy a bigger place, they'd give us a better rate. :blink:


----------



## snoseek (Apr 28, 2011)

Warp Daddy said:


> Living under ones means , paying cash , investing for the long run  and being DEBT free is the key to building NET WORTH  and being HNW is achievable  WITH discipline .
> 
> Forget stuff -- go for the long run ,  learn the diff between a NEED and a WANT and to hell with the Jones--- cuz frankly they don't give a damn .




Such great words of wisdom. I've tried so hard to live by this and for the most part done pretty good. The Jones are probably jealous of the stuff I've been able to do because of that. Cash is King!


----------



## snoseek (Apr 28, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> They actually try and 'force' you into being less financially responsible.
> 
> My wife and I had to move for work in June of 2008.  The bank melt down in the upcoming fall and a massive upcoming recession was being predicted in the winter.  We had saved up a sizable down payment to buy a home.  When we saw impending doom, we decided to purchase a modest condo, less than half the value of the mortgage we were approved for.  We wanted to be extra cautious so that we could easily afford our place on the lesser of our two incomes. Figured we'd stay conservative and ride out the recession before buying the size home we truly can afford that is adequately sized to raise a family in.  Our condo will become an investment property when we upgrade to that.
> 
> Because we went with such a small mortgage, we were penalized with a half percent higher mortgage.  Bank told us if we wanted to go out and buy a bigger place, they'd give us a better rate. :blink:



This also is words of wisdom. We would have a much more stable albeit gradual economy if more folks thought like you. Slow and steady is fine in my book. Crashes suck all around.


----------



## SkiFanE (Apr 28, 2011)

Warp Daddy said:


> Living under ones means , paying cash , investing for the long run  and being DEBT free is the key to building NET WORTH  and being HNW is achievable  WITH discipline .
> 
> Forget stuff -- go for the long run ,  learn the diff between a NEED and a WANT and to hell with the Jones--- cuz frankly they don't give a damn .



Yes.  And I have decided that skiing is a NEED.  Or I'm Jonesing when the snow flies.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 28, 2011)

Out of curiosity, those who want $5 gas to force the advancement of fuel efficiency and public transportation; what kinds of cars do you own in your household?  I know rivercoil and snoseek drive very fuel efficient vehicles.  Do you drive one of the numerous 35mpg + car models available today?  I certainly hope you walk the talk.  Otherwise it's a do as I say, not as I do argument.


----------



## tjf67 (Apr 29, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> They actually try and 'force' you into being less financially responsible.
> 
> My wife and I had to move for work in June of 2008.  The bank melt down in the upcoming fall and a massive upcoming recession was being predicted in the winter.  We had saved up a sizable down payment to buy a home.  When we saw impending doom, we decided to purchase a modest condo, less than half the value of the mortgage we were approved for.  We wanted to be extra cautious so that we could easily afford our place on the lesser of our two incomes. Figured we'd stay conservative and ride out the recession before buying the size home we truly can afford that is adequately sized to raise a family in.  Our condo will become an investment property when we upgrade to that.
> 
> Because we went with such a small mortgage, we were penalized with a half percent higher mortgage.  Bank told us if we wanted to go out and buy a bigger place, they'd give us a better rate. :blink:



Sombody stuck it in your ass.  You don't pay a higher percentage because the loan amount is low.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 29, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Out of curiosity, those who want $5 gas to force the advancement of fuel efficiency and public transportation; what kinds of cars do you own in your household?  I know rivercoil and snoseek drive very fuel efficient vehicles.  Do you drive one of the numerous 35mpg + car models available today?  I certainly hope you walk the talk.  Otherwise it's a do as I say, not as I do argument.


Actually, I think it would be a more convincing position if my car was NOT fuel efficient. I might be less likely to hold such a position if I was feeling the pinch, from a perception stand point. 

Both of the cars I have owned have gotten 35 MPG highway (or better). Purchase prices on those econo boxes were $5k and $8k. Probably will up to the new Impreza when it goes on sale which is at 36, though I am really disappointed I can't look at an Elantra (40 MPG) but we need something with a little more space. I always find it ironic that excepting hybrid/diesel, the most fuel efficient vehicles are the cheapest.


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 29, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> Like Donald Trump?



:smile:


----------



## Glenn (Apr 29, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> As far as rooting for high gas prices equating to rooting for a recession.... who knows, maybe domestic innovation caused by transportation cost influenced inflation could kick start the economy in new and exciting directions.



I think we're somewhat seeing that now. There's a pretty big influence on MPG's these days with new cars. I'm a bit of a vehicle nerd and I listen to a lot of car podcasts. All the makers are boasting MPGs on their new vehicles. I mean, even the Ram ads talk about the truck getting 20MPG highway. 

One thing to remember though...cars aren't smartphones. I think there are a lot of pundits, who live in a city and think automakers can magically make a car that gets 60mpg...or an electric car with a 400 mile range. And every yearly update (like the new iPhone that comes out each year) will be way better than the last. Vehicles are complex these days. And it takes a huge capital investment to make them. Just think of all the retooling that has to happen when new model comes out. It's staggering.


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 29, 2011)

Warp Daddy said:


> Living under ones means , paying cash , investing for the long run  and being DEBT free is the key to building NET WORTH  and being HNW is achievable  WITH discipline .
> 
> Forget stuff -- go for the long run ,  learn the diff between a NEED and a WANT and to hell with the Jones--- cuz frankly they don't give a damn .



Just look at this simple poll...how do you pay for gas. 55% w/ credit card, I hate credit cards...hate 'em. Just dumped 80 in cash in my big V8 Nissan Titan this a.m.....gotta get ready to go to the Chiefs game in Cuse after work today, comp tickets of course :wink:


----------



## hammer (Apr 29, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> Just look at this simple poll...how do you pay for gas. 55% w/ credit card, I hate credit cards...hate 'em. Just dumped 80 in cash in my big V8 Nissan Titan this a.m.....gotta get ready to go to the Chiefs game in Cuse after work today, comp tickets of course :wink:


I (like many others) do that out of convenience and for the cash back...credit card companies call me a deadbeat because I always pay my bill in full each month.  Aside from the convenience factor I'm not big on credit cards either.

I don't like the high gas prices but none of my vehicles get great (>30 MPG) gas mileage so I really can't complain...can I?

I don't know how people handle having all kinds of debt.  If I were in a less fortunate situation financially I'd just adjust my lifestyle...I could never imagine living beyond my means.


----------



## drjeff (Apr 29, 2011)

hammer said:


> I (like many others) do that out of convenience and for the cash back...credit card companies call me a deadbeat because I always pay my bill in full each month.  Aside from the convenience factor I'm not big on credit cards either.
> 
> I don't like the high gas prices but none of my vehicles get great (>30 MPG) gas mileage so I really can't complain...can I?
> 
> I don't know how people handle having all kinds of debt.  If I were in a less fortunate situation financially I'd just adjust my lifestyle...I could never imagine living beyond my means.



unfortunately that is seeming to be more and more of the minority opinion these days


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 29, 2011)

hammer said:


> I (like many others) do that out of convenience and for the cash back...credit card companies call me a deadbeat because I always pay my bill in full each month.  Aside from the convenience factor I'm not big on credit cards either.
> 
> I don't like the high gas prices but none of my vehicles get great (>30 MPG) gas mileage so I really can't complain...can I?
> 
> I don't know how people handle having all kinds of debt.  If I were in a less fortunate situation financially I'd just adjust my lifestyle...I could never imagine living beyond my means.



I know, and I get it.

My MAJOR dislike of CC is due to the FACT I got in trouble with them as a kid while living the High Life. Not proud of that, but it's the truth. I still have credit cards, and do use them, but only when on vacation instead of walking around with a pile of hundies.

My pops gave me a piece of advise...never buy anything on intended/potential income. Took me a while to figure out what he meant, but I get it now.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 29, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Actually, I think it would be a more convincing position if my car was NOT fuel efficient. I might be less likely to hold such a position if I was feeling the pinch, from a perception stand point.



You might feel the pinch more if you drove an SUV, but if someone thinks reducing our consumption of gasoline is so important that we need $5 gas to force innovation, they certainly should currently be doing their part by driving the most fuel efficient vehicle available to suit their needs.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 29, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> Sombody stuck it in your ass.  You don't pay a higher percentage because the loan amount is low.



We thought the same It's actually a common practice with small mortgages.  Many banks do it to cover their overhead costs (takes the bank the same amount of work to initiate a 100K loan as a 300K loan) as well as making the loan more profitable for them.

The sticking it in our ass part was that by the time we were informed of this .5% adjustment, we were way to far along in the process to stop and hunt for another loan.


----------



## SkiFanE (Apr 29, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Out of curiosity, those who want $5 gas to force the advancement of fuel efficiency and public transportation; what kinds of cars do you own in your household?  I know rivercoil and snoseek drive very fuel efficient vehicles.  Do you drive one of the numerous 35mpg + car models available today?  I certainly hope you walk the talk.  Otherwise it's a do as I say, not as I do argument.


Not me.  We have an AWD minivan - 3 kids and dog, most expensive vehicle I've ever had, and I hate it, pure necessity (drove north nearly every weekend from Nov-Apr).  Probably 18-22mpg, not sure.  And a small station wagon, 11 years old, around 25mpg.  Our work commutes are short, we don't consume much gas unless we head north.


----------



## mlctvt (Apr 29, 2011)

If you really think about it all of this talk about fuel efficiency is kind of ridiculous on a ski forum isn't it? Can you think of another business that uses such a large amount of energy? yes there are many but Downhill Skiing isn't and never will be a "green" sport.

I was riding on a lift this winter and the guy next to me said "talk about carbon footprint, this is all carbon"  I have to agree.  Fuel to get to the mountain, massive amounts of diesel or electricity made from burning fossil fuels and/or nuclear power to run the lifts and lodges. 

then there are the second homeowners like many of us that have to keep two homes warm all winter. It's it enough to make anyone feel guilty? The fact is we are using more energy than any other country in the world and many of us skiers are using more than the average American. We are the worst of the worst. 
I've even had friends that are living an extremely green life call me out on the second home.  I guess I justified it by saying that I purchased a used home and didn't use resources to build a new one :smile:

I'm not going to sell my car and get another one that gets 5mpg more.  Purchasing a brand new car would be far less "green" than keeping my old car going.  The resources needed to make a new car are also huge, nobody thinks about that.


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 29, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Out of curiosity, those who want $5 gas to force the advancement of fuel efficiency and public transportation; what kinds of cars do you own in your household?  I know rivercoil and snoseek drive very fuel efficient vehicles.  Do you drive one of the numerous 35mpg + car models available today?  I certainly hope you walk the talk.  Otherwise it's a do as I say, not as I do argument.



The cars we drive have, according to their computers, gotten about 22 mpg since we've started driving them, one for almost 3 years, the other for a little over 2. One is the only 6-speed of its type available, and the other is one of the few. 

I disagree with the "do as I say" characterization. Higher prices drives innovation, to be sure, but I don't think efficiency is a moral requirement. It should certianly be a viable option, though. No one (sane) drives a gas guzzler just because t's a gas guzzler. Given the opportunity to drive a more efficient vehicle that delivers the same things as a less efficient vehicle, no rational person would choose the less efficient version. Higher gas prices means the price differential between an efficient version and an innefficient version narrows, providing scale for the development and production of the efficient version. A rational consumer won't buy the gas Accord if the Hybrid gives the same features and is the same price.

If there were a more fuel efficient option for my wife's 6-speed Cayenne that delivers the driving enjoyment, luxury, looks, handling, seating, handling, reliability, handling, and handling that we get from the Porsche, and it were comparably priced, I'd be all over it like Greenpeace on a whaling vessel. Same for my C300- if there were a hybrid or EV available that delivered the same features as my car for the price, I'd take it. Sadly, looks like my options for doing that even in a gas engine are getting narrower and narrower (MB has dropped the 6-speed for 2012, the bastards).


----------



## SkiFanE (Apr 29, 2011)

mlctvt said:


> If you really think about it all of this talk about fuel efficiency is kind of ridiculous on a ski forum isn't it? Can you think of another business that uses such a large amount of energy? yes there are many but Downhill Skiing isn't and never will be a "green" sport.
> 
> I was riding on a lift this winter and the guy next to me said "talk about carbon footprint, this is all carbon"  I have to agree.  Fuel to get to the mountain, massive amounts of diesel or electricity made from burning fossil fuels and/or nuclear power to run the lifts and lodges.
> 
> ...



My two homes have about 3200 sq ft combined.  That's smaller than many people's one home.  So I have 0 guilt.  Heck...near me some people's foyers are 1500sq feet!


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 29, 2011)

We'll have to agree to disagree cten.  I don't think it's right for someone who's driving inefficient Porche's and Mercedez to be rooting for $5 gas for two reasons.

A. You're not walking the talk with you vehicle choices. You want a more fuel efficient American driving fleet?  Well go out and buy a 40mpg car, there are plenty of them.

B. Someone that has the disposable income to drive such cars really doesn't feel the impact of $5 gas much at all.  I would say the same is true of someone who owns two homes.  You say you're willing to sacrifice and accept $5 gas for future innovation.  Would that still be the case if you had to pay $20 a gallon to drive your car and heat your home?  Because effectively that's what the average working American or a senior citizen on a fixed income suffers by paying $5.


----------



## tjf67 (Apr 29, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> We thought the same It's actually a common practice with small mortgages.  Many banks do it to cover their overhead costs (takes the bank the same amount of work to initiate a 100K loan as a 300K loan) as well as making the loan more profitable for them.
> 
> The sticking it in our ass part was that by the time we were informed of this .5% adjustment, we were way to far along in the process to stop and hunt for another loan.




Not true.  somebody got you.  If you ever see the broker out in a bar you should smack them in the head.


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 29, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> We thought the same It's actually a common practice with small mortgages.  Many banks do it to cover their overhead costs (takes the bank the same amount of work to initiate a 100K loan as a 300K loan) as well as making the loan more profitable for them.
> 
> The sticking it in our ass part was that by the time we were informed of this .5% adjustment, we were way to far along in the process to stop and hunt for another loan.





tjf67 said:


> Not true.  somebody got you.  If you ever see the broker out in a bar you should smack them in the head.



I had similar situation happen to me @ a closing. Started to walk out....you'd be amazed how fast paperwork can be changed.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 29, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> Not true.  somebody got you.  If you ever see the broker out in a bar you should smack them in the head.



Well, my wife works for a Credit Union and they've done it.  My father worked for Bank of Boston for 35 years as a loan officer.  He said it was fairly common practice as well.  

Ultimately, my mortgage is very small, so I don't sweat the rate much.  I was more just driving home the point that others were making that banks don't encourage responsible borrowing.  They do just the opposite.

but, my broker indeed was a swarmy prick, so I may smack him if I see him out


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 29, 2011)

DHS, you and I see eye to eye quite often, so please do take all this with the respect with which it is intended.

I'm simply not willing to give up certain aspects of my driving enjoyment for what in the end would be a negligible impact. I think it makes a lot more sense for the average driver, which by definition is the majority, to have affordable efficient alternatives, as that is where the greatest impact can be had. As I said, if what I wanted were available in a more efficient model, I'd get it. IF the consumers who purchase the majority of the vehicles in this country could fulfill their needs through a more efficient vehicle, they would, too.

 To be perfectly honest, the place the innovation needs to occur more than anywhere else is in semi trailers. That would have the greatest across the board effect, both on petroleum useage and by reducing the cost of goods in the US, since transport costs would come down.

I also disagree with the moral imperitive you seem to attach to the discussion. Whether fuel efficiency, reducing reliance on foreign oil, improving energy security (whatever that means), or reducing CO2 emmisions is a good thing that should be pursued is a good thing is not the question here. If those things are your goal, I see 2 ways to accomplish it- either massive government funded R&D, or market forces to drive profitable innovation. Since no one seems to like the idea of government funding (for reasons I find to be quite silly), $5 gas is the only viable economic trigger. Of course, people don't like that either.

So, rather than moral edicts, perhaps a suggestion as to how more efficient vehicles can be developed is more useful. 

For the record, I agree that all of those things I listed are worthy goals. However, I completely disgree that the problem is that people _do_ drive Hummers. The problem is that people _can't_ drive more efficient vehicles. $5 gas is not a great thing for people's wallets- that's a given. But if gas costing $5 makes a vehicle that uses less gas cost competitive, then that, economically, is a good thing.


----------



## hammer (Apr 29, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> I had similar situation happen to me @ a closing. Started to walk out....you'd be amazed how fast paperwork can be changed.


Sounds like the same tactic that people should use if numbers change at a car dealership...:wink:


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 29, 2011)

hammer said:


> Sounds like the same tactic that people should use if numbers change at a car dealership...:wink:



Couldn't agree more wth you


----------



## hammer (Apr 29, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> Couldn't agree more wth you


As much as car salespeople are maligned I think that mortgage brokers and closing attorneys can be worse...and more expensive.


----------



## mondeo (Apr 29, 2011)

I, personally, hate the focus on auto efficiency. My car gets about 22 mpg. But my summer fuel consumption is much lower than most Prius owners, as I live 5 miles from work and ride my bike in about 20% of the time. Winter is another issue, one that I'm going to have to figure out for next year. I'd carpool, but hate giving up the independence once I'm at kton to do stuff with different groups of friends.


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 29, 2011)

hammer said:


> As much as car salespeople are maligned I think that mortgage brokers and closing attorneys can be worse...and more expensive.



And ultimately less useful.

/my brother is a closing attorney, and he agrees on all points


----------



## tjf67 (Apr 29, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> And ultimately less useful.
> 
> /my brother is a closing attorney, and he agrees on all points



Does he also underwrite title insurance?   That were the big bucks are made.


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 29, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> Does he also underwrite title insurance?   That were the big bucks are made.



Not directly, but he does manage to pull a broker's commission on occasion.


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 29, 2011)

hammer said:


> As much as car salespeople are maligned I think that mortgage brokers and closing attorneys can be worse...and more expensive.



Throw in doctors and you have all the makings of a good/bad joke.


----------



## gmcunni (May 3, 2011)

$4.30 or so local in my town, up to 4:35 for credit in a place or two. Costco - $4.02 for credit!


----------



## wa-loaf (May 3, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> $4.30 or so local in my town, up to 4:35 for credit in a place or two. Costco - $4.02 for credit!



Paid $3.93 two days ago. I'm sure it'll be over 4 by my next fill-up.


----------



## riverc0il (May 3, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> I disagree with the "do as I say" characterization. Higher prices drives innovation, to be sure, but I don't think efficiency is a moral requirement. It should certianly be a viable option, though.


Absolutely, well said. And as noted above, we are chatting about fuel on a forum for a very ungreen activity. Which doesn't mean those of us interested in minimizing our impacts shouldn't take some action to do so, even if it is short of not going at all.

But back to the point ctenidae eloquently made, we can see this in action regarding innovation vs lifestyle when you compare hybrids in the marketplace today. Hybrids are generally more about a lifestyle choice and an image thing than really being about MPG.

Why are cars hitting 40 MPG now but they weren't a few years ago? This is actually not innovation but rather demand. Economy cars have been able to hit 40+ MPG for almost 20 years now (Honda CR-X). But everyone wanted more HP and bigger cars, those were more in demand than MPG.

Now look at where we are. Subaru Impreza 2012 hits 36 MPG by dropping, what... 42 HP or something like that? Would have been a total bomb a few years ago. Even now the fanboys still cry in their beer about that loss of HP. 

I say that the real innovation is yet to come. Though mid-sized cars are starting to get up there, which is quite impressive (though, heck, some economy cars of today are about as big as mid-sized cars a dozen years ago). It is interesting to see CVT bumping MPG well above manual. There is more coming for sure.

But yea, totally no moral imperative. And today's MPG bumps really are not very innovated, IMO, yet but rather response to demand. Once the demand really starts ramping up, I think we'll start seeing some cool stuff... especially when cost of gas gets to the point that more expensive cars are worth the tread off for increased MPG. We are not quite there yet (see diesel and Prius pricing vs today's best economy cars).


----------



## deadheadskier (May 3, 2011)

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I do think if someone is asking for $5 gas to force innovation, but doesn't walk the talk, that their vote doesn't count.  It likes a Senator voting for war, but not wanting their kid to enlist.  

I especially have a problem with it when the person who's rooting for $5 gas isn't affected much by it at all.  Would that same individual root for $20/gallon gasoline?  Because that's the level they'd need to pay to feel the effects an average american feels.


----------



## mondeo (May 3, 2011)

riverc0il;625172
But back to the point ctenidae eloquently made said:
			
		

> I'm interested in the 2016ish time frame. With the 787 and A350 in production, carbon should start being cheaper, with ever improving methods of laying up and curing. Save 20% on the weight of the structure, you can cut power accordingly, the smaller engines giving even more weight savings.
> 
> Don't discount the 110 lbs or whatever shaved from the Impreza. That's worth a mpg on its own, and makes the driver never miss 5 hp at the same time. Power alone isn't the enemy of efficiency, it's primarily the weight that tends to come along with it.


----------



## ctenidae (May 4, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree.  I do think if someone is asking for $5 gas to force innovation, but doesn't walk the talk, that their vote doesn't count.  It likes a Senator voting for war, but not wanting their kid to enlist.
> 
> I especially have a problem with it when the person who's rooting for $5 gas isn't affected much by it at all.  Would that same individual root for $20/gallon gasoline?  Because that's the level they'd need to pay to feel the effects an average american feels.



I'm not rooting for $5 gas. Instead, I'm making the point that at $5, demand forces begin to incent innovation, and that, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.

But, to your point about it affecting the "average person," assuming a 20 gallon fillup once a week (what I do, anyway), a $1 increase in gas prices equates to an extra $20 a week, or $80 a month. While not an inconsequential amount, if $80 a month causes someone to be overextended, then I submit that that person may have been overextended to begin with. Gas prices are a convenient boogeyman. Like when you drink too much and blame it on that last beer, because the previous 9 had noting to do with it. Granted, the difference between $4 and $5 isn't all that much, but between $3 and $5 is another matter.


----------



## gmcunni (May 4, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> But, to your point about it affecting the "average person," assuming a 20 gallon fillup once a week (what I do, anyway), a $1 increase in gas prices equates to an extra $20 a week, or $80 a month. While not an inconsequential amount, if $80 a month causes someone to be overextended, then I submit that that person may have been overextended to begin with.


agree that it won't overextend most people but it has changed my purchasing habits. $80 a month pretty much eliminates my "oh, that is cool i want it" spending. so i wont' be picking up that off season ski stuff i didn't really need but really really wanted.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 4, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> I'm not rooting for $5 gas. Instead, I'm making the point that at $5, demand forces begin to incent innovation, and that, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.
> 
> But, to your point about it affecting the "average person," assuming a 20 gallon fillup once a week (what I do, anyway), a $1 increase in gas prices equates to an extra $20 a week, or $80 a month. While not an inconsequential amount, if $80 a month causes someone to be overextended, then I submit that that person may have been overextended to begin with.



48% of working Americans make less than 25K per year.  $80 a month is significant to them.  That's for $4. The strain they are currently feeling.  Take it up to $5 and you're at $160.  That's not even taking into account heating oil and all the other expenses in life that jump up with the rise in fuel costs.  

I'm not suggesting that $80 will cause someone to be overextended, but it certainly will impact quality of life in some ways.  $160 most certainly.

I don't disregard the need for innovation and you are right that it would appear that discomfort drives it the most, but I think $3/gallon is a more reasonable number for the majority of Americans.


----------



## mondeo (May 4, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> 48% of working Americans make less than 25K per year.  $80 a month is significant to them.  That's for $4. The strain they are currently feeling.  Take it up to $5 and you're at $160.  That's not even taking into account heating oil and all the other expenses in life that jump up with the rise in fuel costs.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that $80 will cause someone to be overextended, but it certainly will impact quality of life in some ways.  $160 most certainly.
> 
> I don't disregard the need for innovation and you are right that it would appear that discomfort drives it the most, but I think $3/gallon is a more reasonable number for the majority of Americans.



I submit that traveling 400 miles per week for someone earning less than $25k is a bit much. Most earning that level have sufficient access to public transportation and live much closer to work than most of us.

There are exceptions, of course, but gas prices aren't a significant direct cost to urban populations, the portion of the populace with the bulk of the low wages.


----------



## Nick (May 4, 2011)

Don't forget higher gas prices = higher everything else (food, fruit, milk, construction materials, whatever).


----------



## ctenidae (May 4, 2011)

Nick said:


> Don't forget higher gas prices = higher everything else (food, fruit, milk, construction materials, whatever).



There is that, too- a tax cut that would really help the working poor would be to reduce the taxes on diesel, thereby reducing the cost to transport goods.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 4, 2011)

mondeo said:


> I submit that traveling 400 miles per week for someone earning less than $25k is a bit much. Most earning that level have sufficient access to public transportation and live much closer to work than most of us.
> 
> There are exceptions, of course, but gas prices aren't a significant direct cost to urban populations, the portion of the populace with the bulk of the low wages.



20% of the country lives in rural areas.  From my experience living in those areas, incomes are considerably lower than Urban environments.

I just think people tend to view things with blinders on.  Just because you (general term, not you specifically) can get along fine at $5 gas, doesn't mean a large percentage of people aren't significantly impacted by it.


----------



## ctenidae (May 4, 2011)

http://ihea2011.abstractsubmit.org/presentations/916/

Interesting- suggests a link between higher gas prices and lower levels of obesity


----------



## deadheadskier (May 4, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> http://ihea2011.abstractsubmit.org/presentations/916/
> 
> Interesting- suggests a link between higher gas prices and lower levels of obesity



I'd rather we tax the hell out of fast food joints to fund alternative fuel research :lol:


----------



## wa-loaf (May 4, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> http://ihea2011.abstractsubmit.org/presentations/916/
> 
> Interesting- suggests a link between higher gas prices and lower levels of obesity



Can't afford gas? Gotta walk or ride a bike.


----------



## Glenn (May 4, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> http://ihea2011.abstractsubmit.org/presentations/916/
> 
> Interesting- suggests a link between higher gas prices and lower levels of obesity



That would be a great one for the guys at freakonomics to look into.


----------



## SkiFanE (May 4, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> 20% of the country lives in rural areas.  From my experience living in those areas, incomes are considerably lower than Urban environments.
> 
> I just think people tend to view things with blinders on.  Just because you (general term, not you specifically) can get along fine at $5 gas, doesn't mean a large percentage of people aren't significantly impacted by it.



Rural poor ruin the whole thing.  They can hardly afford a car on minimum wage, and then the gas to drive to work costs alot.  And then repairs to the car.  And without a car, they have no job, and depend on others (or gov't) to help out.  Bad cycle.

I think initially expensive gas would hurt, but need to look long term.  If Walmart has to pay more $ to workers to afford to travel to work, then they need to do that, even if goods cost more.  It's just the same argument over and over and over...that eventually you just have to suck it up, do it, live through the hardship and come out the other side in a better place.  Europe has been living with gas prices like this for a long time, they just didn't buy into sprawl, which caused many of our current problems (IMO).  I live in a place that requires a car, and I'm beginning to hate it.  Would love to own only 1 car and be able to commute on a train and walk to bank/stores/school.


----------



## mlctvt (May 4, 2011)

SkiFanE said:


> Europe has been living with gas prices like this for a long time, they just didn't buy into sprawl, which caused many of our current problems (IMO).




Exactly. Most countries in Europe people live in the city and or town. You can't even build housing outside of town limits in many countries, it's not allowed. This does several things. You don't need a car/ everything is in walking distance / transportation is easily taken care of, and it also makes sure that the countryside is kept for agricultural uses. Which in turn is why these countries are so beautiful even though they've been inhabited for hundreds or thousands of years longer than the USA. Here in the USA everyone has to have a mini estate with a lawn this causes massive sprawl and everything is car based. Too bad we didn't think about proper community planning before we screwed up the whole USA.


----------



## SkiFanE (May 4, 2011)

mlctvt said:


> Exactly. Most countries in Europe people live in the city and or town. You can't even build housing outside of town limits in many countries, it's not allowed. This does several things. You don't need a car/ everything is in walking distance / transportation is easily taken care of, and it also makes sure that the countryside is kept for agricultural uses. Which in turn is why these countries are so beautiful even though they've been inhabited for hundreds or thousands of years longer than the USA. Here in the USA everyone has to have a mini estate with a lawn this causes massive sprawl and everything is car based. Too bad we didn't think about proper community planning before we screwed up the whole USA.



It's the baby boomers fault lol!

Europe also charges a tax based on size of a car engine.  So if you choose to drive a Hummer, fine...just have to cough up lots of $ for the privilege.


----------



## mlctvt (May 4, 2011)

SkiFanE said:


> It's the baby boomers fault lol!
> 
> Europe also charges a tax based on size of a car engine.  So if you choose to drive a Hummer, fine...just have to cough up lots of $ for the privilege.



Yes, when I was in Italy I was speaking to our tour bus driver. He said the annual car taxes were based on the size of the engine that's why almost all cars had engines under 1.6 Cu liters. He said you had to be very well off to be able to afford a 2.0 liter or larger engine car.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 4, 2011)

SkiFanE said:


> Rural poor ruin the whole thing.  They can hardly afford a car on minimum wage, and then the gas to drive to work costs alot.  And then repairs to the car.  And without a car, they have no job, and depend on others (or gov't) to help out.  Bad cycle.



Well next time you buy some vegetables be sure to tell the person at the farm stand, thanks for ruining it for us.

For the sake of this ski forum:

Next time your at a ski resort, tell the cook preparing your food, thanks for ruining it for us.

Most of my friends who work in Stowe or other ski towns live 15-20 miles away from work because that's the closest place they can find affordable housing.   Why? All the second home owners drive local real estate prices through the roof.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 4, 2011)

mlctvt said:


> Yes, when I was in Italy I was speaking to our tour bus driver. He said the annual car taxes were based on the size of the engine that's why almost all cars had engines under 1.6 Cu liters. He said you had to be very well off to be able to afford a 2.0 liter or larger engine car.



This I think is a much better solution than simply higher gas prices.  The US is great at 'sin taxes'.  HUGE taxes should be levied on vehicles averaging under 20MPG to encourage greater fuel efficiency.


----------



## wa-loaf (May 4, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> This I think is a much better solution than simply higher gas prices.  The US is great at 'sin taxes'.  HUGE taxes should be levied on vehicles averaging under 20MPG to encourage greater fuel efficiency.



All these extra taxes are dumb, and the worst are the proposals to install gps devices in cars to track miles and tax those who drive more. The plain old basic gas tax works just fine, you burn more fuel, you pay more in taxes. Very simple, don't get caught up in complicated tax scheme's that exist only because people are afraid to raise the gas tax.


----------



## mondeo (May 4, 2011)

SkiFanE said:


> It's the baby boomers fault lol!
> 
> Europe also charges a tax based on size of a car engine. So if you choose to drive a Hummer, fine...just have to cough up lots of $ for the privilege.


Moronic. So if you choose to buy a Hummer but only drive 50 miles a week, you're worse than someone who drives a Prius 200 miles a week just because of the size of your engine?


----------



## ctenidae (May 4, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> All these extra taxes are dumb, and the worst are the proposals to install gps devices in cars to track miles and tax those who drive more. The plain old basic gas tax works just fine, you burn more fuel, you pay more in taxes. Very simple, don't get caught up in complicated tax scheme's that exist only because people are afraid to raise the gas tax.



And make sure the gas tax goes to highways and research, not pork.

Not that there's anything wrong with pork.


----------



## mondeo (May 4, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> All these extra taxes are dumb, and the worst are the proposals to install gps devices in cars to track miles and tax those who drive more. The plain old basic gas tax works just fine, you burn more fuel, you pay more in taxes. Very simple, don't get caught up in complicated tax scheme's that exist only because people are afraid to raise the gas tax.


This. I live less than 5 miles to work, about 3 to a major mall, grocery stores on my way either trip. Outside of skiing, I drive maybe 100 miles/week. Minus the times I bike to work. Obviously, skiing destroys my fuel consumption.

Efficiency doesn't matter on its own. Total consumption is the issue. Gas taxes are the answer. Or rather, energy taxes in general.


----------



## mlctvt (May 4, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Moronic. So if you choose to buy a Hummer but only drive 50 miles a week, you're worse than someone who drives a Prius 200 miles a week just because of the size of your engine?



I agree it is moronic. The plain old per gallon gas tax works best ,the more fuel you burn the more you pay. 
In Italy and some other countries they do both, high gas taxes plus a tax on the size of your engine. Probably why most households have just one car or no car at all just a scooter.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 4, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Moronic. So if you choose to buy a Hummer but only drive 50 miles a week, you're worse than someone who drives a Prius 200 miles a week just because of the size of your engine?





mondeo said:


> Efficiency doesn't matter on its own. Total consumption is the issue. Gas taxes are the answer. Or rather, energy taxes in general.



How is it moronic if it discourages people from purchasing inefficient vehicles and manufacturers from making them?

You say total consumption is the issue.  Wouldn't a 50 mpw driver use considerably less fuel driving a Prius instead of a Hummer?   

I think no matter how much a person drives in a week, the overall goal should be getting people in the most fuel efficient vehicles as possible.  It's transportation, not a toy.  I say this knowing you have a 'toy' car.


----------



## dmc (May 4, 2011)

I can't wait for the day when I can jump in some electric car - tell it where to go and let it drive me there while I read a book...


----------



## tjf67 (May 4, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> And make sure the gas tax goes to highways and research, not pork.
> 
> Not that there's anything wrong with pork.




Bingo, until the gov can show us they can be responsible with our tax dollars I don't agree with any tax increases.  Funny the solutions I c on here are all scewed to fit the lifestyle of the person presenting it.  

Paying more for products to rise the middle class standard of living will no longer work.  The horses r out of the barn,until the rest of the worlds middle class comes up we will just keep shifting production to the next underdeveloped country for our cheap products.  Most people don't like how the middle class is living, however they r the same people that ship their money over seas to save a buck


----------



## gmcunni (May 4, 2011)

saw $4.45 today in Stamford CT


----------



## Nick (May 5, 2011)

I read the freakonomics blog fairly regularly, good stuff

Sent from my Thunderbolt via Tapatalk


----------



## SkiFanE (May 5, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Well next time you buy some vegetables be sure to tell the person at the farm stand, thanks for ruining it for us.
> 
> For the sake of this ski forum:
> 
> ...



I should have put in a smilie, my comment came out wrong.  I meant that the rural poor always seem to be the achilles heal in the argument of raising gas prices.  Urban poor have better access to jobs and public transportation.  But there is no solution for the rural poor, that depend on "cheap" gas to live.


----------



## mondeo (May 5, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I think no matter how much a person drives in a week, the overall goal should be getting people in the most fuel efficient vehicles as possible. It's transportation, not a toy. I say this knowing you have a 'toy' car.


By that logic, we should also be encouraging people to stop skiing, stop taking vacations, stop doing anything fun if it consumes significant amounts of energy.

I don't see any difference between consuming more gas to have fun while driving and consuming more oil to have fun while skiing. And skiing far outweighs the additional energy consumption of driving a fun car.


----------



## hammer (May 5, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> saw $4.45 today in Stamford CT


Not surprised...

When I travel to NJ I do what I can to avoid getting gas in CT, it always seems that it is much more expensive there.  Are the taxes in CT that much higher than in neighboring states?


----------



## gmcunni (May 5, 2011)

hammer said:


> Are the taxes in CT that much higher than in neighboring states?



yes

according to this (jan 1, 2011) we (CT) rank 4th in highest taxes. direct neighbor NY is #2 but if you are coming from NJ (48) Ct will look pretty bad.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/26079.html


----------



## o3jeff (May 5, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> yes



And should be going up....


----------



## hammer (May 5, 2011)

hammer said:


> Are the taxes in CT that much higher than in neighboring states?





gmcunni said:


> yes





o3jeff said:


> And should be going up....



Guess I'll continue driving right past CT gas stations...:razz:


----------



## gmcunni (May 5, 2011)

hammer said:


> Guess I'll continue driving right past CT gas stations...:razz:



which will result in tollbooths making a comeback. which will result in people avoiding the state all together and clogging local streets. which will result in . . .


----------



## mondeo (May 5, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> which will result in tollbooths making a comeback. which will result in people avoiding the state all together and clogging local streets. which will result in . . .


The end of the world?


----------



## Glenn (May 5, 2011)

CT drives me insane. I could go on a political rant, but I'll hold back. 

Yep, our gas tax is going up again. Here are two annoying aspects of the CT Gasoline Tax:

1) It goes to the "General Fund". The next time you hear an elected official saying our roads are in crappy shape, remember that the gas tax goes to the black hole of unaccountability: The General Fund. Put it where it belongs: For fixing the roads. For the amount of gas tax we pay here, the roads should be in prestine condition. 

2) Gross receipts tax. Not only do we pay tax on each gallon of gasoline, we pay a a tax on the total sale of gasoline that each station sells. Our elected officials insist this tax is paid by the station owners; but anyone who even has the most basic understanding of how the world works knows the consumer foots the bill for this one.


----------



## o3jeff (May 5, 2011)

Glenn said:


> 1) It goes to the "General Fund". The next time you hear an elected official saying our roads are in crappy shape, remember that the gas tax goes to the black hole of unaccountability: The General Fund. Put it where it belongs: For fixing the roads. For the amount of gas tax we pay here, the roads should be in prestine condition.



Is that where all the casino monies goes to too?


----------



## Black Phantom (May 5, 2011)

dmc said:


> I can't wait for the day when I can jump in some electric car - tell it where to go and let it drive me there while I read a book...



You can do just that today. It is called Public Transportation. Not all fully electric (fueled by coal, wood, nuclear power). I guess you have to decide where you want to generate the energy. In an ICE or in a more remote area and have it delivered to you.


----------



## dmc (May 5, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> You can do just that today. It is called Public Transportation. Not all fully electric (fueled by coal, wood, nuclear power). I guess you have to decide where you want to generate the energy. In an ICE or in a more remote area and have it delivered to you.



I would love nothing more then to have a train near my house..


----------



## Riverskier (May 5, 2011)

All this talk about gas prices... I use an average of 10 gallons a week and the extra $10 or $20 sucks, but I don't tend to notice it that much. I don't make a ton of money, and I suppose it causes me to spend less on other things, but again, I don't really notice. What kills me is heating oil! To some degree it is poor planning on my part, but coming up with $900 to fill the tanks is hard as it is. When that suddenly becomes $1500 that really takes it's toll on my budget.


----------



## hammer (May 5, 2011)

Riverskier said:


> All this talk about gas prices... I use an average of 10 gallons a week and the extra $10 or $20 sucks, but I don't tend to notice it that much. I don't make a ton of money, and I suppose it causes me to spend less on other things, but again, I don't really notice. What kills me is heating oil! To some degree it is poor planning on my part, but coming up with $900 to fill the tanks is hard as it is. When that suddenly becomes $1500 that really takes it's toll on my budget.


Natural Gas isn't cheap either...I'm on balanced billing so I don't see the fluctuations, but when I do look at my detailed usage I usually cringe at what I see over the winter months.


----------



## Glenn (May 5, 2011)

o3jeff said:


> Is that where all the casino monies goes to too?



I'm not 100% sure. I think it does...but don't quote me on that.


----------



## gmcunni (May 5, 2011)

Glenn said:


> I'm not 100% sure. I think it does...but don't quote me on that.



i quoted you


----------



## drjeff (May 5, 2011)

Coming soon???  The per mile tax??    :smash: :smash:

http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and...eral-draft-bill-would-tax-drivers-by-the-mile

You figure that if the government is trying to do its best via taxes and purchase incentives to get us driving cars that they'd like us to drive, that are more fuel efficient, that ultimately their gax tax revenue will go down if they succeed with their plan.  So then they'll need to find a way to keep their coffers full of $$ to spend on the various pet projects that often come out of highway/transportation bills.  Insert you're GPS monitor which then could directly collect the tax for the miles you just drove when you goto the gas station for your next tank (or possibly when you go and plug your electric car into a charging station)    

How about we just let industry work on this problem by making a vehicle that the consumer wants/demands.  I'm quite sure that we've got the visionary capabilites and then the ability to go from the vision to engineering reality out there.  And it likely can be done in a far more efficient way than the government trying to tell us to do so via taxes


----------



## campgottagopee (May 5, 2011)

drjeff said:


> How about we just let industry work on this problem by making a vehicle that the consumer wants/demands.  I'm quite sure that we've got the visionary capabilites and then the ability to go from the vision to engineering reality out there.  And it likely can be done in a far more efficient way than the government trying to tell us to do so via taxes



Spot on. Trust me, after the Cash for Clunkers debacle the Gov is in no way, shape, or form good at playing car dealer.


----------



## hammer (May 5, 2011)

Dare I go so far as to say that all tax collections should be done for revenue purposes only and no taxes should be collected/credited as a way of shaping public policy?  Is that even possible?


----------



## mondeo (May 5, 2011)

drjeff said:


> Coming soon??? The per mile tax??   :smash: :smash:
> 
> http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and...eral-draft-bill-would-tax-drivers-by-the-mile
> 
> ...


Not that it will ever pass, if even just for the red herring privacy issues, but would bicycles fall under the tax as well? No reason not to if you're just taxing mileage.


----------



## ctenidae (May 5, 2011)

hammer said:


> Dare I go so far as to say that all tax collections should be done for revenue purposes only and no taxes should be collected/credited as a way of shaping public policy?  Is that even possible?



Heh- the only trouble is that the easiest way to pass a tax is to sell it as a way to punish the bad people.


----------



## mondeo (May 5, 2011)

hammer said:


> Dare I go so far as to say that all tax collections should be done for revenue purposes only and no taxes should be collected/credited as a way of shaping public policy? Is that even possible?


The problem is the only ways to shape public policy is to either create laws mandating certain action, or create incentives to get people to follow that policy. If you want people to use less energy, you can pass laws limiting mileage, mandating minimum mpg, having automated government controlled thermostats set to 60 degrees in the winter and 85 in the summer, etc.

Or you can introduce a tax of $0.10/131MJ (131MJ=1 gallon of gas) on all forms of energy produced or imported into the country, and specifically direct that revenue towards energy research. Incentivize conservation, give energy research a $80bn/year budget (compared to $5bn/year today,) and let the people who desire and can afford higher energy consumption subsidize the future lower energy costs for everyone else. Only issue is trying to figure out how to decide what techs the research budget gets spent on.


----------



## hammer (May 5, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Heh- the only trouble is that the easiest way to pass a tax is to sell it as a way to punish the bad people.


And the bad people are everyone else but me...

:wink:


----------



## Glenn (May 5, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> i quoted you



Damnit! :lol:


----------



## drjeff (May 5, 2011)

Glenn said:


> Damnit! :lol:



You can help start your therapy sessions this Saturday afternoon/evening on my back deck.  I think that multiple doses of PBR would be a appropriate way to start your therapy!  :lol: :beer:


----------



## mondeo (May 5, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> 20% of the country lives in rural areas.  From my experience living in those areas, incomes are considerably lower than Urban environments.
> 
> I just think people tend to view things with blinders on.  Just because you (general term, not you specifically) can get along fine at $5 gas, doesn't mean a large percentage of people aren't significantly impacted by it.



http://www.urban.org/publications/901284.html

Poverty rates are essentially equal, rural to urban.


----------



## o3jeff (May 6, 2011)

I noticed they went down a penny at my local station, $4.20.


----------



## drjeff (May 6, 2011)

o3jeff said:


> I noticed they went down a penny at my local station, $4.20.



Should be starting to come down in the next few weeks based on the massive drop in futures prices not just yesterday, but the past few days.

Of course now we'll get to hear station operators say that the price isn't coming down quite so fast since there's still "more expensive" gas in their storrage tanks and it will take a few days to get through it, whereas they're uber quick to raise the price when theirs still "cheap" gas in their storrage tanks


----------



## deadheadskier (May 6, 2011)

mondeo said:


> http://www.urban.org/publications/901284.html
> 
> Poverty rates are essentially equal, rural to urban.



sure, but as you mentioned, urban low income people have far better access to public transportation or the ability to walk to work, so high gas prices aren't as big of a problem for them.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 6, 2011)




----------



## mondeo (May 6, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> sure, but as you mentioned, urban low income people have far better access to public transportation or the ability to walk to work, so high gas prices aren't as big of a problem for them.


Right.

But there are a lot of things that need to have some tough choices made. 4% of the population is rural and impoverished. If there's something we can do to bring fusion power on line sooner than 2033, as is currently projected with DEMO, and make it commercially viable, then let's figure out how. ITER's projected cost is $13bn, DEMO's would probably be more, call it $20bn. In one year of a $0.10/gallon equivalent tax on all forms of energy, we buy 4 DEMO plants. More than enough to double the number of scientists and engineers working on the project, buy equipment at risk, etc. to pull up the date by a few years and mature the technology that much faster. We could even take the hit of losing the probably 5% of the energy tax revenue that might come from the 13% of people in poverty and send it back out as a tax credit in some form. An energy tax isn't as disppoportinate anyways, as the majority of rural poverty is in the South, where heating bills aren't as high, and urban populations have lower heating costs due to more efficient buildings (drastically lower surface area per person.) The bulk would be borne by suburban America and businesses, with 2000sq ft houses, 20-40 mile commutes to work, business and vacation travel, data centers, commercial transportation, etc.

Honestly, I want to see riots in the streets. Everbody needs to feel some pain, the sense of entitlement in this country needs to end. Europe's already pretty much crossed that line, we need to get there. If there aren't riots, we're being too nice and not looking enough at the long term.


----------



## mondeo (May 6, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


>


Way to bring it all together. :smile:


----------



## ski_resort_observer (May 6, 2011)

So, today is an interesting start of the day for the NYMEX. I mostly trade equities but dabble in the commotities arena. The price of crude has dropped to $99 but gasoline(RBOB) is higher. As mentioned in the other gas price threads in the past the price of crude does have a direct relationship to the price at the pump. If your that worried about the price at the pump you need to follow the price of gasoline not the price of crude. 

When a barrel of crude arrives at a refinery in the US it can be made into unleaded gas, heating oil, deisel or white gas. This changes seasonally. Right now refineries are doing their seasonal transistion away from heating oil. They all trade separetly on the NYMEX.

A large chunk of the rise in crude in the last few months is the fear factor regarding the Middle East. It's extimated by the experts I listen to be at around 40% of the price. Sometimes the future possibility of a severe problem in the supply chain overrides supply and demand as the main driver of the price.

Remember 2 years ago? When the price at the pump got into the $4 range you start getting demand destruction. When the price hit $4 two years ago many started talking about $5 at the pump. A few of you guys even posted predicting $8/gallon. That will never happen. Crude suppliers, like the Saudis will take steps to reduce the price. They know and you should know that most will reduce their consumption if the price at the pump is too high. In the end demand does have an effect but right now it's the political unrest in the middle east oil patch driving the price so high.


----------



## o3jeff (May 6, 2011)

So should I wait a few days before I fill my car up?


----------



## tjf67 (May 7, 2011)

ski_resort_observer said:


> So, today is an interesting start of the day for the NYMEX. I mostly trade equities but dabble in the commotities arena. The price of crude has dropped to $99 but gasoline(RBOB) is higher. As mentioned in the other gas price threads in the past the price of crude does have a direct relationship to the price at the pump. If your that worried about the price at the pump you need to follow the price of gasoline not the price of crude.
> 
> When a barrel of crude arrives at a refinery in the US it can be made into unleaded gas, heating oil, deisel or white gas. This changes seasonally. Right now refineries are doing their seasonal transistion away from heating oil. They all trade separetly on the NYMEX.
> 
> ...




Umm you may want to take a look at the dollar.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 8, 2011)

$3.79 today

Exit 23 off of 93 in NH.  Station has consistently been the cheapest I've seen in New England over the past three years. Caught it on the way back from Jay Peak today  

So 93 corridor skiers, be sure to fill up at the Irving at Exit 23.   Best deal in the state if not New England.


----------



## dmc (May 8, 2011)

Going to gas up in jerzy today.... mmmmmm.. sweet sweet jerzy gas..


----------



## Nick (May 9, 2011)

I paid $4.29 for premium this morning. Ouch.


----------



## RootDKJ (May 9, 2011)

dmc said:


> I would love nothing more then to have a train near my house..


I do.  10 minute walk.  I hardly have reason to travel by train though.  Best way to go to Yankee games through.


----------



## hammer (May 9, 2011)

Nick said:


> I paid $4.29 for premium this morning. Ouch.


Same here...:sad:

Are we on the summer fuel?  I've noticed slightly better gas mileage lately...


----------



## o3jeff (Jun 1, 2011)

Pretty shady if it's true.

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/05/31/are-chevy-dealers-gaming-the-system-to-keep-volts-7-500-consum/


----------



## Glenn (Jun 1, 2011)

Those rebates are a bad idea anyways. If the cars won't sell without a rebate, the demand isn't there. And they give those rebates out for the $100k+ Fiskars. How the hell does that makes sense?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 1, 2011)

$3.72 locally today


----------



## hammer (Jun 1, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> $3.72 locally today


Pretty bad when we are excited about that price...:roll:

(but at least it's in the right direction)


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 1, 2011)

yeah, definitely nothing to get too excited about, but when it was $3.94 locally and on the rise two weeks ago, it's a great thing to see it going in the opposite direction.  A buck more and I'll be happy.


----------



## bvibert (Jun 1, 2011)

It was up to $4.099 here, maybe higher.  It's down below $4 now at least...


----------



## o3jeff (Jun 1, 2011)

$3.94 this morning


----------



## RootDKJ (Jun 1, 2011)

$3.69 credit price (found a place that's only $0.04 higher).


----------



## mondeo (Jun 1, 2011)

Haven't been to a gas station in a few weeks.


----------



## bvibert (Jun 1, 2011)

Same for cash or credit around here.


----------



## bigbog (Jun 1, 2011)

The poll is only for one method only...HA,  Shell produces the best performance for my vehicles = cash, two gas cards for the other brands...one of which is in greater numbers around Maine(and everywhere), essentially for when I'm away from Shell stations.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 2, 2011)

o3jeff said:


> Pretty shady if it's true.
> 
> http://www.autoblog.com/2011/05/31/are-chevy-dealers-gaming-the-system-to-keep-volts-7-500-consum/


But 100% legal, right? If true, this is brilliant and genius... Chevy could make more in profits on the tax rebate than on the actual sales, wowzers. And buying the Volts as borrowing/rental vehicles A) gets more people into them for marketing purposes and B) fulfills their need for borrowing/rental cars short term with long term used sales opportunities, even if done in a "flipping" style.

What is shady is the entire tax rebate for "green" cars. I don't think diesel is included in that program and neither are unleaded gas cars getting 40 MPG. If the government took away the green car tax credit, part of the hybrid/electric market would likely falter, especially with the new econo cars coming out this year. I think gas price increases are a more important incentive for higher MPG cars than tax breaks. I guess I should stop there to keep it on topic and politics free.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 2, 2011)

www.eia.gov- tons of interesting stuff.


----------



## Trekchick (Jun 2, 2011)

For those of you who haven't heard, I moved to Tahoe this past year.  What I find really amazing is the difference in Gas prices where I live in Reno and just across the border in California.
Our gas is 3.79(ish) right now and its 4.30(ish) in Truckee.  Berzerk, eh?

We usually get our groceries at Safeway or Raleys.
Safeway give you 10cents/gallon discount if you spend 50.00 on groceries.
Raleys gives you 10 cents/gallon for spending 50.00 on groceries or 50cents/gallon if you spend 75.00 on groceries.
Its worthwhile to buy groceries at Raleys when its time to stock up, eh!


----------



## mondeo (Jun 2, 2011)

Trekchick said:


> For those of you who haven't heard, I moved to Tahoe this past year. What I find really amazing is the difference in Gas prices where I live in Reno and just across the border in California.
> Our gas is 3.79(ish) right now and its 4.30(ish) in Truckee. Berzerk, eh?
> 
> We usually get our groceries at Safeway or Raleys.
> ...


Wait, you're still alive? Is Marc with you? 

Picked a shitty year to move out there.


----------



## SkiFanE (Jun 2, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Haven't been to a gas station in a few weeks.



I haven't been since May 20th, still have 1/4 tank left.  Just commuting and tooling around town with kiddos.  Like it.  I get mid-upper 20s for MPG.


----------



## Trekchick (Jun 2, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Wait, you're still alive? Is Marc with you?
> 
> Picked a shitty year to move out there.


No, but I wondered about his Pan Mass thing.

And yeah, its been awful to have to ski waist deep powder for days on end........
But, I found a way to suffer through it and may even have to ski fresh powder a few more times before I put my skis away for the season.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jun 2, 2011)

I think we are over the peak and headed downhill, $3.50 by July 4th. The futures traders are bearish on oil right now, corn and coffee are the movers right now. I see Porchse just unveiled it's new electric car, looks pretty sweet although the 911 style in the 70's will always be my fav.


----------



## bvibert (Jun 3, 2011)

$3.909 here this morning.


----------



## o3jeff (Jun 3, 2011)

Filled up the company car at $3.919 reg unleaded this morning, will need to fill up my car this weekend with super, hopefully it drops some more before I do.


----------



## bvibert (Jun 3, 2011)

o3jeff said:


> Filled up the company car at $3.919 reg unleaded this morning, will need to fill up my car this weekend with super, hopefully it drops some more before I do.



I usually put mid grade in my car, even though it should really have super.  I noticed that the mid grade is significantly higher than regular now.  It used to be around 10 cents/gallon more, the last time I filled up my car (I have my wife's today, which takes regular) it was like 25 cents/gallon more for mid grade and another 15 or so cents/gallon more for super.


----------



## o3jeff (Jun 3, 2011)

bvibert said:


> I usually put mid grade in my car, even though it should really have super.  I noticed that the mid grade is significantly higher than regular now.  It used to be around 10 cents/gallon more, the last time I filled up my car (I have my wife's today, which takes regular) it was like 25 cents/gallon more for mid grade and another 15 or so cents/gallon more for super.



I usually fill it up at BJ's, the price of their super is around the same price of everyone's mid grade. Unfortunately I have a turbo on my car and the one time I didn't use super the computer couldn't seem to adjust and compensate for it enough. I figure since I don't put a ton of miles on it I will splurge for the super from now on.


----------



## bvibert (Jun 3, 2011)

o3jeff said:


> I usually fill it up at BJ's, the price of their super is around the same price of everyone's mid grade. Unfortunately I have a turbo on my car and the one time I didn't use super the computer couldn't seem to adjust and compensate for it enough. I figure since I don't put a ton of miles on it I will splurge for the super from now on.



My car also has a turbo, and there's nothing unfortunate about it.  89 octane seems to work well enough in it.


----------



## SkiFanE (Jun 3, 2011)

bvibert said:


> I usually put mid grade in my car, even though it should really have super.  I noticed that the mid grade is significantly higher than regular now.  It used to be around 10 cents/gallon more, the last time I filled up my car (I have my wife's today, which takes regular) it was like 25 cents/gallon more for mid grade and another 15 or so cents/gallon more for super.



I use Super.  Considered skimping.  Then I was forced to skimp b/c the station was out of Super so I got premium.  I usually fill up on Friday.  The car sat all weekend w/o being used.  Then Monday AM on way to work, a mile from home the car stalled 3x.  Luckily it kept going and hasn't stalled since..but I think it was the mid-grade gas...my car is spoiled.  Not worth saving a few dollars.


----------



## mondeo (Jun 3, 2011)

bvibert said:


> My car also has a turbo, and there's nothing unfortunate about it. 89 octane seems to work well enough in it.


14.5PSIA of boost. I go with 93. I just look at it as an entertainment expense.

Check my record and hit me if I've ever complained about gas prices.



SkiFanE said:


> I use Super. Considered skimping. Then I was forced to skimp b/c the station was out of Super so I got premium. I usually fill up on Friday. The car sat all weekend w/o being used. Then Monday AM on way to work, a mile from home the car stalled 3x. Luckily it kept going and hasn't stalled since..but I think it was the mid-grade gas...my car is spoiled. Not worth saving a few dollars.


That...shouldn't happen. Timing should be retarded and you lose power, but it shouldn't be so bad stepping from 93 to 89 that it stalls.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 3, 2011)

I put super in both cars (finally managed to convince my wife that the extra $4-$5 per fillup for her car is worth it (especially since she gasses it on the company card).). I notice a significant difference in performance, to be sure, and at least a perceved difference in mileage.

I've been paying attention to mileage a lot the past few weeks, especially since traffic has been particualry awful on 95 (lower gas prices?). In the morning, when traffic is bad but moves at 15-20mph semi consistently, I get about 18-19 mpg. In the evening, if I leave work between 5 and 7 and it's really bad (averaged 11 mph last night), I average about 15-16 mpg (15.4 last night). If I leave at a more normal (for me) hour, like 7.30 or 8, when traffic is light and I can run at normal speeds (70-80 on the highway consistently) I hit 24-25 mpg.

Which all reminds me of a Top Gear TOp Tip from a few weeks ago- every time you hit your brakes, you're turning that valuable gasoline into useless heat. And when you follow close on to someone, and hit your brakes, causing the person behind you to hit even harder, and the person behind that to stop, you are reducing everyone behind you's mileage by as much as 30%. So leave a decent following distance, drive thinking ahead, and stop wasting my gas.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 3, 2011)

So, I think I'm in for a marital battle over vehicle practicality.  When it's time for a new car, my wife wants a Jeep Wrangler  

granted with her only putting 10K miles a year on a car vs me 35-40K, our perspectives are a bit different.


----------



## o3jeff (Jun 3, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> So, I think I'm in for a marital battle over vehicle practicality.  When it's time for a new car, my wife wants a Jeep Wrangler
> 
> granted with her only putting 10K miles a year on a car vs me 35-40K, our perspectives are a bit different.



I've had two of them over the past 2-3 years, a 2003 and a 2009(2 dr) and have since gotten rid of both. They are neat, but just wasn't for me right now. If it is just around town it was fine, but after I took it to the Bronx Zoo I realized the ride wasn't for me. Someone once said if you are looking for a car with with no storage, bad gas mileage and a bouncy ride, look no further than a Wrangler. They are coming out with a new engine in the next year or so for it that is suppose to be a lot better. The only good thing is they hold their value. I bought the 2009 when they had all kinds of incentives/rebates(during the government bailout) and ended up selling it a year later for more than I paid for it.


----------



## SkiFanE (Jun 3, 2011)

mondeo said:


> That...shouldn't happen. Timing should be retarded and you lose power, but it shouldn't be so bad stepping from 93 to 89 that it stalls.



No kidding...I'd expect knocking and pinging.  But it was so coincidental...this car has never stalled before, so that's the only reason I could come up with.


----------



## SkiFanE (Jun 3, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> I put super in both cars (finally managed to convince my wife that the extra $4-$5 per fillup for her car is worth it (especially since she gasses it on the company card).). I notice a significant difference in performance, to be sure, and at least a perceved difference in mileage.
> 
> I've been paying attention to mileage a lot the past few weeks, especially since traffic has been particualry awful on 95 (lower gas prices?). In the morning, when traffic is bad but moves at 15-20mph semi consistently, I get about 18-19 mpg. In the evening, if I leave work between 5 and 7 and it's really bad (averaged 11 mph last night), I average about 15-16 mpg (15.4 last night). If I leave at a more normal (for me) hour, like 7.30 or 8, when traffic is light and I can run at normal speeds (70-80 on the highway consistently) I hit 24-25 mpg.
> 
> Which all reminds me of a Top Gear TOp Tip from a few weeks ago- every time you hit your brakes, you're turning that valuable gasoline into useless heat. And when you follow close on to someone, and hit your brakes, causing the person behind you to hit even harder, and the person behind that to stop, you are reducing everyone behind you's mileage by as much as 30%. So leave a decent following distance, drive thinking ahead, and stop wasting my gas.



Yeah..what's up with 95?  I drive 128 every day and it's been getting worse and worse every week.  Thought maybe the job market is improving?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 3, 2011)

She wants the 4 door, which I guess has a bit more storage.  The convertible top is the main attraction for her.  I guess I'd enjoy that and it would be nice to be able to get to the mountain with no worries no matter how much it snows.  We'll see, it'll be a few years.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 3, 2011)

SkiFanE said:


> Yeah..what's up with 95?  I drive 128 every day and it's been getting worse and worse every week.  Thought maybe the job market is improving?



I'm guessing it's people adjusting their driving pattern due to the Medford Fast 14 project.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 3, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm guessing it's people adjusting their driving pattern due to the Medford Fast 14 project.



Maybe, but I'm in Connecticut, and it's really getting bad.
People think Mass drivers are bad- Nutmeggers make Massholes look like 80 year old women going to church.


----------



## bigbog (Jun 3, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> www.eia.gov- tons of interesting stuff.



I think your charts, along with all mass media-talk(what a surprise..:lol, lacks the acknowledgement of _Wall Street speculative effort_ ct....

I'm watching all the media-thing with the big oil execs...and I'm thinking to myself about how simple it would be to legislate the adjustment of speculative limits in Wall Street software...in times like these, instead of the complaining about how countries and companies are profiting too much...

*Was amazed ~3 weeks ago, a Saturday evening...and wound up way upstate in the woods with little balance in the only gas card I had on me.   Shocked me just how far I could drive(all the way back home) with an eigth of a tank of gas....but staying right around 45mph on the paved highways.

$.01


----------



## bvibert (Jun 3, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Maybe, but I'm in Connecticut, and it's really getting bad.
> People think Mass drivers are bad- Nutmeggers make Massholes look like 80 year old women going to church.



Hey, I resemble that remark!  But, Masshole drivers are worse, almost as bad as NY drivers.


----------



## SkiFanE (Jun 3, 2011)

bvibert said:


> Hey, I resemble that remark!  But, Masshole drivers are worse, almost as bad as NY drivers.



As a Mass driver, I say NH drivers are the worst.  Could be because I commute with them and they drive through and work in my town...they cut me off all the time and generally don't give a crap that they are zooming through neighborhoods to rush to their jobs.  BUT...if I ever see a green VT license plate, I try to get in front of them as quick as i can...they are slowpokes and horrible to follow. 

There you have it...my stereotypes of drivers (haven't found any commonality in NY, CT or ME drivers).  Next up...my thesis on drivers of certain automobiles (ie...Saabs and Subarus)


----------



## mondeo (Jun 3, 2011)

SkiFanE said:


> As a Mass driver, I say NH drivers are the worst. Could be because I commute with them and they drive through and work in my town...they cut me off all the time and generally don't give a crap that they are zooming through neighborhoods to rush to their jobs. BUT...if I ever see a green VT license plate, I try to get in front of them as quick as i can...they are slowpokes and horrible to follow.
> 
> There you have it...my stereotypes of drivers (haven't found any commonality in NY, CT or ME drivers). Next up...my thesis on drivers of certain automobiles (ie...Saabs and Subarus)


I hate Subaru drivers.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 3, 2011)

SkiFanE said:


> As a Mass driver, I say NH drivers are the worst.  Could be because I commute with them and they drive through and work in my town...they cut me off all the time and generally don't give a crap that they are zooming through neighborhoods to rush to their jobs.  BUT...if I ever see a green VT license plate, I try to get in front of them as quick as i can...they are slowpokes and horrible to follow.
> 
> There you have it...my stereotypes of drivers (haven't found any commonality in NY, CT or ME drivers).  Next up...my thesis on drivers of certain automobiles (ie...Saabs and Subarus)



Having lived many years in Vermont, almost 3 in Maine and now 3 in New Hampshire, I definitely vote for NH drivers as the slowest of the three states.  Going 5 mph below the speed limit is the norm on State Highways up here.

Maine drivers are tied with PA drivers of being guilty of cruising in the left lane on the highway.  Drives me nuts coming up on someone doing 65 in the left lane and drivers in those states are frequent offenders.

I actually like the aggressive nature of Mass drivers.  At least people are trying to get somewhere.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 3, 2011)

bigbog said:


> I think your charts, along with all mass media-talk(what a surprise..:lol, lacks the acknowledgement of _Wall Street speculative effort_ ct....



The chart does carry the effect of speculation (that's a whole other topic)- it's explicitly in the 69% of price attributed to the price of oil.



mondeo said:


> I hate Subaru drivers.



I've decided that CRV drivers are the new bane of my existance. Don't know why, but they're the new minivans of the road.


----------



## tjf67 (Jun 3, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> The chart does carry the effect of speculation (that's a whole other topic)- it's explicitly in the 69% of price attributed to the price of oil.
> 
> 
> 
> I've decided that CRV drivers are the new bane of my existance. Don't know why, but they're the new minivans of the road.



Hey my wife has a CRV,yeah her driving makes is way irratic.

You think we r in for a jolt?  Good for gas prices...


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 3, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> Hey my wife has a CRV,yeah her driving makes is way irratic.
> 
> You think we r in for a jolt?  Good for gas prices...



If I had to guess, I'd say we'll see oil bouncing in the 90's for a bit, and then either the Middle East bumps it back over 100 or it doesn't and it dips back down to the 80's.

Either that, or it stays somewhere between 35 and 300.


----------



## snoseek (Jun 3, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> If I had to guess, I'd say we'll see oil bouncing in the 90's for a bit, and then either the Middle East bumps it back over 100 or it doesn't and it dips back down to the 80's.
> 
> Either that, or it stays somewhere between 35 and 300.



Perhaps you should look into a career in meteorology


----------



## eatskisleep (Jun 3, 2011)

o3jeff said:


> Credit card, I refuse to go to those places where they get a premium to use a credit card, especially when the place up the street is usually the same price and takes them.



Same here. I hate places that have two different prices.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 3, 2011)

snoseek said:


> Perhaps you should look into a career in meteorology



:lol:


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 4, 2011)

I saw everything from $3.75 to 3.89 today. Seems to be all over the place.

Phoenix drivers are the worst I've seen in the US. Old and just kind of drift all over the place. It doesn't help that all their roads are 8 lanes across with the suicide lane in the middle for left turns. I kinda like Mass drivers. I assume the worst and act accordingly, it pisses me off these days if someone tries to be nice on the roads. Screws up my moves ...


----------



## Geoff (Jun 4, 2011)

SkiFanE said:


> As a Mass driver, I say NH drivers are the worst.  Could be because I commute with them and they drive through and work in my town...they cut me off all the time and generally don't give a crap that they are zooming through neighborhoods to rush to their jobs.  BUT...if I ever see a green VT license plate, I try to get in front of them as quick as i can...they are slowpokes and horrible to follow.
> 
> There you have it...my stereotypes of drivers (haven't found any commonality in NY, CT or ME drivers).  Next up...my thesis on drivers of certain automobiles (ie...Saabs and Subarus)



Vermont drivers have been trained from years of hick town speed traps to go the speed limit on secondary roads.   After you've been pulled over for going 45 in a 40 zone often enough and paid the insurance surcharges, you eventually conclude that speeding fails the cost-benefit analysis.   As a native of Massholia who has lived in Vermont and CowHampshire, I think it's the rate of enforcement that controls driving speeds.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 8, 2011)

$3.62


----------



## bigbog (Jun 8, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> The chart does carry the effect of speculation (that's a whole other topic)- it's explicitly in the 69% of price attributed to the price of oil.



I stand corrected...


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 8, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> $3.62



Don't get too excited. OPEC is fighting about something so Oil went back up today ...


----------



## tjf67 (Jun 8, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Don't get too excited. OPEC is fighting about something so Oil went back up today ...



TodAy the increase in oil  was all speculation.  Don't look into it all that hard.  Greece will take down prices 10 bucks a barrell.  Germany is on the right track but no one wants to pay the piper.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jun 8, 2011)

OPEC ended their meeting with no changes in the supply pipeline. It's in their interest to not have $4+ prices at the pump as demand destruction begins.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 9, 2011)

Exxon Mobile announced yesterday they found 700 million barrels in a new well in the Gulf.  That's 28 days worth of US consumption.  Drop in the bucket yes, but probably will have a positive effect on the price per barrel.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 9, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Exxon Mobile announced yesterday they found 700 million barrels in a new well in the Gulf.  That's 28 days worth of US consumption.  Drop in the bucket yes, but probably will have a positive effect on the price per barrel.



It'll take them 5 years to get the field into production, though.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jun 11, 2011)

ski_resort_observer said:


> I think we are over the peak and headed downhill, $3.50 by July 4th.



Made this prediction a month ago..... feeling like it might go lower during the summer. Someone mentioned the dollar. It was low during the run-up, it will remain low. Don't see much of a connection.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 11, 2011)

potentially

Saw gas on Route 1 in Peabody yesterday at $3.59 if you paid cash.  I paid $3.63 on debit card.


----------



## Geoff (Jun 11, 2011)

I filled the SUV this morning for $3.59/gallon.   The spread between regular and premium is still close to 40 cents.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 13, 2011)

$4.59 for premium in CT on Saturday.


----------



## o3jeff (Jun 13, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> $4.59 for premium in CT on Saturday.



I only paid $4.16 for premium on Saturday


----------



## andyzee (Jun 13, 2011)

Free GAS!


----------



## bvibert (Jun 13, 2011)

bvibert said:


> I usually put mid grade in my car, even though it should really have super.  I noticed that the mid grade is significantly higher than regular now.  It used to be around 10 cents/gallon more, the last time I filled up my car (I have my wife's today, which takes regular) it was like 25 cents/gallon more for mid grade and another 15 or so cents/gallon more for super.



I stopped at a Valero in Thomaston the other day and the difference between regular and mid-grade was more like 10 cents/gallon.  I need to start paying better attention to who has mid-grade prices that are closer to regular than others.  The problem is that they don't all advertise the mid-grade price on the big signs by the road, so sometimes you don't know until you pull up to the pumps.


----------



## dmc (Jun 13, 2011)

Drove down to the Jersey border for a gig on Saturday..
Made $100.... Out $60 in the tank....


----------



## Geoff (Jun 14, 2011)

dmc said:


> Drove down to the Jersey border for a gig on Saturday..
> Made $100.... Out $60 in the tank....



What do you see for MPG?


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2011)

Geoff said:


> What do you see for MPG?



I get around 27...   In fairness - I had JUST enough gas to get to the gig and rolled into the NJ gas station on fumes..

I want a diesle Tiguan like I saw at the dealers in Germany a couple years ago.


----------



## Geoff (Jun 14, 2011)

I see 31 in the GTI at this time of year.   Same engine.   Same weight, more or less.   The resistance from the 4Motion system and lousy aerodynamics certainly are an MPG penalty.   I'd really like to keep to 30 MPG.   Diesel has issues, too.   You have to be super-careful about fuel and filters.

I only have 50K on the GTI so it's likely there will be a 30 MPG alternative when I need to collapse the SUV and the GTI down to one car.   I really like the maxed-out Tiguan.


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2011)

Geoff said:


> I see 31 in the GTI at this time of year.   Same engine.   Same weight, more or less.   The resistance from the 4Motion system and lousy aerodynamics certainly are an MPG penalty.



Really? you think? 

I'm aware of the penalty...    I love my car... It's fits all the stuff I need and more..


----------



## wa-loaf (Oct 18, 2011)

Prices seem to be all over the map around here. I've seen $3.35 to $3.79 all on the same day.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 18, 2011)

What I've noticed is that they're starting to creep back up again.  I filled up for $3.24 two weeks ago in Danvers, MA.  That same station was $3.37 yesterday.  I've noticed about a 5 cent increase in the past week in my town as well.


----------



## Nick (Oct 18, 2011)

Anyone lock in for oil heat? what did you get for a rate?


----------



## hammer (Oct 18, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Prices seem to be all over the map around here. I've seen $3.35 to $3.79 all on the same day.



Just filled up with 93 Octane for $3.71/gallon and the local Mobil is at $3.99.



Nick said:


> Anyone lock in for oil heat? what did you get for a rate?



Is oil heat cheaper than NG overall?


----------



## wa-loaf (Oct 18, 2011)

hammer said:


> Is oil heat cheaper than NG overall?



Oil is more expensive. I probably should pre-buy, but I burn less than 500 gallons a year (basically 2 tanks worth) so it doesn't kill me. No gas available on my street or I'd seriously consider switching.


----------



## o3jeff (Oct 18, 2011)

Nick said:


> Anyone lock in for oil heat? what did you get for a rate?



Paid $3.49 last week. Luckily it is mostly just for hot water.


----------



## Nick (Oct 18, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Oil is more expensive. I probably should pre-buy, but I burn less than 500 gallons a year (basically 2 tanks worth) so it doesn't kill me. No gas available on my street or I'd seriously consider switching.



I don't have gas either. I'm not on a plan but I just pay monthly and right now I have something like a $800 credit going into the season on my account. That way it doesn't hurt too bad in the winter :lol:


----------



## hammer (Oct 18, 2011)

Nick said:


> I don't have gas either. I'm not on a plan but I just pay monthly and right now I have something like a $800 credit going into the season on my account. That way it doesn't hurt too bad in the winter :lol:


I'm on NG and I also do direct billing to avoid the big bills in the winter.


----------



## darent (Oct 23, 2011)

$4.65 a gallon regular and probably won't go down and a good bet it will go up!!


----------



## gmcunni (Oct 23, 2011)

$3.37 for regular unleaded in Delaware yesterday.  $3.87 in my town (CT) same day.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 23, 2011)

I haven't checked heating oil prices yet this year, should at least call & ask. Last year the cost was $3.29  for most of the season. The last fill up of 100 gal. in May cost $3.79, it's still full. Hot water, stove, BBQ & dryer are on gas. I haven't locked in a price for 2 years. I did for several years previous & it worked out. 1st year I didn't it was to my advantage by over $1 gal., last year I could have locked in @ $2.79 so I lost. I use between 500- 600 gal. for the heating season. It's probably to late to consider locking in price now but who knows maybe I should roll the dice again.

Regular gas in NYC is between $3.65 & $3.75 for the most part. I did pay $3.23 in NJ last week when I was passing through.


----------



## Geoff (Oct 24, 2011)

My Vermont place is on a metered propane tank.   I'm locked in for the year at $2.20 which is a lot higher than it has been.

Heating oil contains 140,000 BTUs per gallon.
Propane contains 91,300 BTUs per gallon

So that's like paying $3.37 for home heating oil

My Vermont place is a townhouse condo so most of my walls are shared with other heated units.  I might see a $300-ish bill in January assuming I'm there for the whole month and keep it at 68F.


My VW GTI requires 91 octane gasoline.   Recently, 87 octane 'regular' has been available at fairly low prices but 'premium' prices never went down.   I see $3.30-ish for 'regular' and $3.80-ish for 'premium'.


----------



## Zand (Oct 24, 2011)

$3.39 back home at Cumby's and Hess... $3.51 at Cumby's in Lyndonville yet $3.60 down in St. J... love how 10 miles away it can change 10 cents.


----------



## billski (Oct 24, 2011)

I just ask the attendant if he wants to go for a ride in my Ferrari.  My cost, $0.


----------



## wa-loaf (Oct 24, 2011)

billski said:


> I just ask the attendant if he wants to go for a ride in my Ferrari.  My cost, $0.



Is that some kind of code for offering sexual favor for free gas? 

BJs, the store not the sex act, was $3.35 on Saturday.


----------



## billski (Oct 24, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Is that some kind of code for offering sexual favor for free gas?
> 
> BJs, the store not the sex act, was $3.35 on Saturday.



Why do my comments elicit these type of responses! :evil: I'm too naive and innocent to even think such nasty thoughts.  uke:  Reminds me of someone who was banned not too far back in time.

Just stick with my cheapness threads and you won't feel so threatened.  :grin:.  



p.s., lest me comments become twisted.  All the above is in jest.   I think.


----------



## ctenidae (Oct 24, 2011)

If east coast refineries close the way it looks like they're going to, might be a bad thing for gas prices. mIght be a really bad thing for heating oil (thanks, New York...)


----------



## Nick (Oct 24, 2011)

My Saab takes premium but at least it's like 30mpg


----------



## snoseek (Oct 24, 2011)

335 today in Hookset. I'm not looking forward to the upcoming 3000 mile drive to California-that's gonna hurt. I am parking the truck for the winter mostly though


----------



## o3jeff (Feb 24, 2012)

Going back up, $3.91 for the cheap stuff this morning.


----------



## wa-loaf (Feb 24, 2012)

o3jeff said:


> Going back up, $3.91 for the cheap stuff this morning.



Come to MA, still in the $3.60's. I guess we are exporting gas now because they get more money for it overseas, so our prices are going up.


----------



## ScottySkis (Feb 24, 2012)

Nyc is over4 a gallon in spots.


----------



## drjeff (Feb 24, 2012)

wa-loaf said:


> Come to MA, still in the $3.60's. I guess we are exporting gas now because they get more money for it overseas, so our prices are going up.



Being a CT resident, I do enjoy the fact that where my office is located, I'm 1 town down from MA and bordering RI so it's just a quick run across a border to my choice of states that have far lower gas taxes than CT does!

Quickest way to drop the cost of gas by about 75 cents a gallon on average,  suspend all state and federal gas taxes


----------



## ctenidae (Feb 24, 2012)

wa-loaf said:


> Come to MA, still in the $3.60's. I guess we are exporting gas now because they get more money for it overseas, so our prices are going up.



Actually, we're importing more- gasoline-focused refineries in the US have been shutting down. Ones that run heavy deisel slates are doing much better.


----------



## wa-loaf (Feb 24, 2012)

ctenidae said:


> Actually, we're importing more- gasoline-focused refineries in the US have been shutting down. Ones that run heavy deisel slates are doing much better.



I heard on the radio, probably Market Place on NPR, that the low cost of natural gas is making it very cheap to refine gas in the US an thus we are selling that gas to Mexico and other countries because the refiners get more money for it there.


----------



## ctenidae (Feb 24, 2012)

wa-loaf said:


> I heard on the radio, probably Market Place on NPR, that the low cost of natural gas is making it very cheap to refine gas in the US an thus we are selling that gas to Mexico and other countries because the refiners get more money for it there.



We recently bought a set of refineries. Gasoline crack spreads suck. Deisel spreads are good.

The cost to refine gas may not be high, but the margin on gas with oil where it is is still low.


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 24, 2012)

Three southeastern Pennsylvania refineries that comprise over 50% of the total refining capacity in the Northeast (Central Atlantic and New England States) have recently been proposed for sale. Two of these refineries have already been idled. In early September 2011, Sunoco announced plans to sell its refineries located in Philadelphia and Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, with the intent of exiting the refinery business by mid-2012. Later that month, ConocoPhillips announced its intention to idle its Trainer refinery pending its sale, along with the associated pipelines and terminals. On December 1, Sunoco announced the immediate idling of the Marcus Hook refinery.

source: http://205.254.135.24/analysis/petroleum/nerefiningactivity/

Guess there's not much money in the refinery business.


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 24, 2012)

wa-loaf said:


> I heard on the radio, probably Market Place on NPR, that the low cost of natural gas is making it very cheap to refine gas in the US an thus we are selling that gas to Mexico and other countries because the refiners get more money for it there.


Mexico is the third largest source of imported oil to the U.S.

source: http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Funny I don't see Libya on the list as oil export disruptions from there was the excuse used to release 30 million barrels from the strategic petroleum reserve this past June...

You can see how that helped.


----------



## legalskier (Feb 24, 2012)

I paid 3.43 (credit) on Wednesday in NJ, cash was 3.39.  But it's already gone up since.

_How Wall Street Is Raising the Price of Gas_
Story: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/02/how-wall-st-is-raising-the-price-of-gas/


----------



## darent (Feb 24, 2012)

$4.65  here for regular, and going up


----------



## ScottySkis (Feb 24, 2012)

Cisco is good for saving on gas.


----------



## andrec10 (Feb 24, 2012)

darent said:


> $4.65  here for regular, and going up



what!!!!!!!!


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 24, 2012)

Filled up the car yesterday $3.879, same station today $3.939. Many stations now $3.999 in the greater Brooklyn area. Oil futures up significantly again today. Happy daze.

Took 184 gals. of home heating oil today. Can't wait to get the bill. Been lucky so far because of the weather as I've only had one fill up of 125 gals. before today. Seriously contemplating putting a wood stove in. Knowing our gov't they'll probably outlaw them soon saying they hurt the enviroment.


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 24, 2012)

Loving my diesel right now. Fuel is only up about 15 cents from before it started going up. Nothing to freak out about compared to the bigger jumps in gasoline. One of the reasons I went diesel is in the long term, the price gap will close the more expensive both fuels get.


----------



## Nick (Feb 24, 2012)

I was thinking yesterday, what are towns doing with all the money they are saving on plowing / sanding / heating


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 24, 2012)

Nick said:


> I was thinking yesterday, what are towns doing with all the money they are saving on plowing / sanding / heating


If they were smart, they would bank it for next year. :idea:


----------



## Geoff (Feb 24, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Loving my diesel right now. Fuel is only up about 15 cents from before it started going up. Nothing to freak out about compared to the bigger jumps in gasoline. One of the reasons I went diesel is in the long term, the price gap will close the more expensive both fuels get.



Diesel is relatively cheap right now because the warm winter killed off demand for home heating fuel.   Come back and talk to us in a winter where it's abnormally cold.


----------



## Zand (Feb 26, 2012)

Was $3.61 at Cumby's in Lyndonville when I left last Friday. Up to $3.70 or so around here right now. Used to be 20 cents cheaper here than up there but that's not the case anymore.


----------



## wa-loaf (Feb 26, 2012)

Paid $3.59 in NH on my home today.


----------



## o3jeff (Feb 26, 2012)

Paid $3.86 for premium in MA yesterday compared to the $4.05 they want here CT.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 26, 2012)

$4.03 for reg in Shelton CT @ BP - same price cash/credit


----------



## o3jeff (Feb 26, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> $4.03 for reg in Shelton CT @ BP - same price cash/credit



They're bending you over down there, reg was $3.84 at Bj's this morning.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 26, 2012)

o3jeff said:


> They're bending you over down there, reg was $3.84 at Bj's this morning.



there is no BJ's or costco close enough to me to make it worth filling up there regularly.


----------



## twinplanx (Feb 26, 2012)

$3.53, on the card, at Hess in Jersey on the way home from PA. I think its BS that most places charge about 10¢ more per gallon to use plastic. Hess seems to be the one place that usually is the same price cash or credit. I will drive out of my way to my bank to get cash to pay the cheaper price. (don't get me started on bank fees). Its the principal!!!


----------



## hammer (Feb 26, 2012)

o3jeff said:


> They're bending you over down there, reg was $3.84 at Bj's this morning.


CT is sticking it to all of you...


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 26, 2012)

hammer said:


> CT is sticking it to all of you...



word


----------



## ScottySkis (Feb 26, 2012)

O





twinplanx said:


> $3.53, on the card, at Hess in Jersey on the way home from PA. I think its BS that most places charge about 10¢ more per gallon to use plastic. Hess seems to be the one place that usually is the same price cash or credit. I will drive out of my way to my bank to get cash to pay the cheaper price. (don't get me started on bank fees). Its the principal!!!



Ya me to, or I pay just enough on credit to get me to next gas station that charge the same.


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 27, 2012)

$3.75 in Woodstock....$4.03 on LI...

we've been taking advantage of the Stop and Shop/Shell gas discount


----------



## Warp Daddy (Feb 27, 2012)

3.93 yesterday for REGULAR


----------



## Puck it (Feb 27, 2012)

Gotta love speculation!!!!!!


----------



## hammer (Feb 27, 2012)

Warp Daddy said:


> 3.93 yesterday for REGULAR


That's what I just paid for 93 octane...


----------



## ctenidae (Feb 27, 2012)

$4.35 for Super in Norwalk CT yesterday.


----------



## legalskier (Feb 27, 2012)

3.51 (credit) this morning in NJ. Up from 3.43 on Friday.


----------



## billski (Feb 27, 2012)

Here's something that can make you feel a little better about gas prices.   Buy your gas in the north country when  you ski. I'd rather eat and shop there too. They need the money more than you might think.  I'd rather leave my coin there.


----------



## legalskier (Feb 28, 2012)




----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 28, 2012)

$3.59 this morning with cash, which I thought was a good deal.  Same store was charging $3.65 credit, which is still cheaper than anything I've seen around the past few days.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 28, 2012)

Puck it said:


> Gotta love speculation!!!!!!



Traders should be required to take physical receipt of the oil.  The fact that any commodity can be traded as an investment instrument is ridiculous.  End the games that benefit the few and let true supply and demand determine the price.


----------



## ctenidae (Feb 29, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> Traders should be required to take physical receipt of the oil.  The fact that any commodity can be traded as an investment instrument is ridiculous.  End the games that benefit the few and let true supply and demand determine the price.



While there is the potential for speculation to alter the market (the extent to which it can or does is highly debatable) , without the futures market and the ability to speculate it would be nearly impossible to develop new mines or drill new wells or plant new crops. Without the speculative market you would be forced to pay up front and immediately for your project, which is a massive capital requirement that locks up cash for a long time. With the futures market, you can sell next year crop to buy the seed today. You can sell the oil from the next well now to pay for drilling the well.

These "games" benefit everyone by allowing for the development of new supply, an important element in the supply/demand /price equation. Demanding physical delivery, while attractive sounding and a kneejerk palliative, isn't actually a practical solution.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 29, 2012)

spoken like a true Wall Street guy.  :lol:

Not that I 100% disagree with your statement having monitored with beef, corn and soy futures for my job , but let's be real, oil is traded primarily to make quick investment dollars today as an investment, not to finance the next well.  There is a greater supply of oil TODAY than there was 3 years ago when prices dove below $2.  Big Oil has made over a trillion in profit the last decade.  They've got plenty of money for exploration and infrastructure development.

10 years ago, speculators controlled 30% of the futures market.  Wells and infrastructure were built just fine and the price of gas was under $2.  Now speculators control 80% of the futures market and we're closing in on $4 again.


----------



## hammer (Feb 29, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> spoken like a true Wall Street guy.  :lol:
> 
> Not that I 100% disagree with your statement having monitored with beef, corn and soy futures for my job , but let's be real, oil is traded primarily to make quick investment dollars today as an investment, not to finance the next well.  There is a greater supply of oil TODAY than there was 3 years ago when prices dove below $2.  Big Oil has made over a trillion in profit the last decade.  They've got plenty of money for exploration and infrastructure development.
> 
> 10 years ago, speculators controlled 30% of the futures market.  Wells and infrastructure were built just fine and the price of gas was under $2.  Now speculators control 80% of the futures market and we're closing in on $4 again.


+1

Crude supply is up, the refineries are not running at capacity, but prices are going up nevertheless.  I'm an engineer, not an economist, but something doesn't seem right.


----------



## ctenidae (Feb 29, 2012)

hammer said:


> +1
> 
> Crude supply is up, the refineries are not running at capacity, but prices are going up nevertheless.  I'm an engineer, not an economist, but something doesn't seem right.



Crude supply (by which I presume you mean production) is up, sure- a whopping 8% 2010 vs 2000. Flat versus 2005, and up 1% vs 2007. So, not up by much.  Consumption, on the other hand, is up 13% since 2000, 3% and 1% vs 2005 and 2007. So, using high school economics, the price should go up- demand is increasing faster than supply.

Add into the mix the difference between light sweet crude and heavy sour, andthe sources, supply, and refining requirements, and you begin to see the refining element of teh situation. Refineries that can only process light sweet crude are not running full, since light sweet crude is in shorter supply. Heavy sour, which trades at a $10-$15 discount to the benchmark Brent Crude (which has itself been trading at a premium to US benchmark WTI (which is trading at a premium to Gulf Coast, but I digress), is tougher to process, and the refineries capable of processing it are running at much higher rates. 

So, supply is up, but the mix has changed substantially (Canadian tar sands, anyone?). Demand is up more, but refining capacity isn't set up to process the changed supply slate. Demand up more than Supply equals increase in prices.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 29, 2012)

ctenidae said:


> Crude supply (by which I presume you mean production) is up, sure- a whopping 8% 2010 vs 2000. Flat versus 2005, and up 1% vs 2007. So, not up by much.  Consumption, on the other hand, is up 13% since 2000, 3% and 1% vs 2005 and 2007. So, using high school economics, the price should go up- demand is increasing faster than supply.
> 
> Add into the mix the difference between light sweet crude and heavy sour, andthe sources, supply, and refining requirements, and you begin to see the refining element of teh situation. Refineries that can only process light sweet crude are not running full, since light sweet crude is in shorter supply. Heavy sour, which trades at a $10-$15 discount to the benchmark Brent Crude (which has itself been trading at a premium to US benchmark WTI (which is trading at a premium to Gulf Coast, but I digress), is tougher to process, and the refineries capable of processing it are running at much higher rates.
> 
> So, supply is up, but the mix has changed substantially (Canadian tar sands, anyone?). Demand is up more, but refining capacity isn't set up to process the changed supply slate. Demand up more than Supply equals increase in prices.



cten, we have seen gas prices fluctuate over 100% during the past 5 years.  That isn't supply and demand forces at work.  

The recession didn't cut demand enough in 2008 to drop gas down to $1.68 a gallon nationally that winter when it was at $4 in some markets 6 months prior.  The economy hasn't improved enough and demand hasn't increased enough to put gasoline back up near $4 today.

While I can appreciate that you have infinitely more knowledge regarding economics than I do, one need only to  look at the history of gas prices http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html  and know that speculators control a vastly larger percentage of oil futures today than they did in 2001 to come to the accurate conclusion that his is a money grab by Wall Street.  You just don't want to admit it because you play on their team.  

The fluctuations in prices from 79 through 2005 seem reasonable.  Since 2005, not so much.  WAY too much market manipulation going on.


----------



## hammer (Feb 29, 2012)

ctenidae said:


> Crude supply (by which I presume you mean production) is up, sure- a whopping 8% 2010 vs 2000. Flat versus 2005, and up 1% vs 2007. So, not up by much.  Consumption, on the other hand, is up 13% since 2000, 3% and 1% vs 2005 and 2007. So, using high school economics, the price should go up- demand is increasing faster than supply.
> 
> Add into the mix the difference between light sweet crude and heavy sour, and the sources, supply, and refining requirements, and you begin to see the refining element of teh situation. Refineries that can only process light sweet crude are not running full, since light sweet crude is in shorter supply. Heavy sour, which trades at a $10-$15 discount to the benchmark Brent Crude (which has itself been trading at a premium to US benchmark WTI (which is trading at a premium to Gulf Coast, but I digress), is tougher to process, and the refineries capable of processing it are running at much higher rates.
> 
> So, supply is up, but the mix has changed substantially (Canadian tar sands, anyone?). Demand is up more, but refining capacity isn't set up to process the changed supply slate. Demand up more than Supply equals increase in prices.


Don't trouble me with details...:wink:

Good arguments for the supply/demand part of prices but I somehow doubt that the increase is all due to that.  Prices are going up because somehow they can, not because they should.


----------



## hammer (Feb 29, 2012)

One thing I always wonder is if anyone ever tries to determine what the price of gas _should_ be to make it reasonably profitable to extract/produce and also to invest in infrastructure and technology.  I doubt that $2/gallon at the pump is enough and my guess is that $4/gallon at the pump is too much.


----------



## ctenidae (Feb 29, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> cten, we have seen gas prices fluctuate over 100% during the past 5 years.  That isn't supply and demand forces at work.
> 
> The recession didn't cut demand enough in 2008 to drop gas down to $1.68 a gallon nationally that winter when it was at $4 in some markets 6 months prior.  The economy hasn't improved enough and demand hasn't increased enough to put gasoline back up near $4 today.
> 
> ...



I'm not denying speculation moves the price around. I'm saying the solution is not a blanket "require delivery" because the futures market is required to keep development functioning.

Oil costs more now to produce than it used to. Try drilling a well in 5,000 feet of water to 10,000 feet below the sea floor. You can't use the same equipment you use to drill a 5,000 foot well on dry land.  That's why, with volatility smoothed, prices have increased at a pretty steady normal rate. Gasoline prices have stayed remarkably consistent with oil prices, though the ratio has increased over the past 20 years- along with the mix of crude coming in to refineries.

As to "money grab by Wall Street," I find that phrase to be ridiculous. Guess who's money "Wall Street" is using, and who they're making the returns (or trying to) for? I'll give you a hint- look in the mirror. I agree that bonuses for poor performance are ridiculous, and need to be addressed, but you can, in fact, influence that- rather than cry and complain about "Wall Street fat cats," move your money to managers who you think are doing it right. If they don't have management fees, they can't pay bonuses unless they have performance.

I don't work on Wall Street, and in the end financial shenanigans and economic meltdowns make my life way harder than it needs to be.


----------



## ctenidae (Feb 29, 2012)

hammer said:


> One thing I always wonder is if anyone ever tries to determine what the price of gas _should_ be to make it reasonably profitable to extract/produce and also to invest in infrastructure and technology.  I doubt that $2/gallon at the pump is enough and my guess is that $4/gallon at the pump is too much.



Depending on the basin/region, finding and development costs can run from $30 to $60/barrel of crude. A deepwater offshore well can cost upwards of $150 million to drill. An onshore gas well in a well-developed play costs $8 to $12 million to drill.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Feb 29, 2012)

As it has everytime the price at the pump gets high, demand starts to decrease. In CA where the price is over $5 a gallon the purchase amount per customer has already dropped 25%. As it has been mentioned before there is no direct correlation between the price of crude and the price a gas station owner pays for unleaded gas. When a barrel of crude hits our shore it can be refined to unleaded gas(RYOB), diesel, heating oil, kerosene, white gas. 

The end seller, the gas stations, have unreal low margins on the gas they sell. They are the ones most sqeezed when the price goes up. You have oil company owned stations, franchisees and stations owned by refiners. Right here in the MRV we have a Valero station which is one of the countries largest refiners. Technically, they could charge alot less but they don't because driving the other stations out of business would be a very bad thing in the long run. 

Years ago the price of diesel was alot lower then unleaded gas. Not anymore. This has really hurt the trucking industry as their costs have gone way up. T. Boone Pickens has been pushing changing trucks from diesel to natural gas. That would be a game changer and I wish people would start listening to him. 

BTW as I am watching the price of crude on the ticker right now the price of a barrel of crude has dropped from $110 to $105 the last couple of days.

If you want to really want to get the facts about this latest price spike, read this
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/28/markets/gas_price_rise/?source=cnn_bin

Here is a comparison bwtween gas prices around the world right now. We pay less than most major countries, most of the countries that are much lower do so because of goverment subsidies
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 29, 2012)

ctenidae said:


> I'm saying the solution is not a blanket "require delivery" because the futures market is required to keep development functioning.
> 
> .



how is it required when the oil companies are making the profits they do.  none of them are hurting for cash.....


----------



## ctenidae (Feb 29, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> how is it required when the oil companies are making the profits they do.  none of them are hurting for cash.....



Capital Expenditures budgets for a few major oil companies:
Petrobras: $224B through 2014 (~$55B/year)
ExxonMobil: $33-$37B/year through 2015
Chevron: $33B/year

Exxon has $7.8B of cash, Chevron has $16B, Petrobras about $30 at 2010.

Not exactly swimming, there.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Feb 29, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> how is it required when the oil companies are making the profits they do.  none of them are hurting for cash.....



Lots of obvious reasons. One would be if a company wants to build an oil platform offshore it takes several years and millions of dollars in cost/investment before one drop of oil is produced.


----------



## Geoff (Mar 1, 2012)

ski_resort_observer said:


> The end seller, the gas stations, have unreal low margins on the gas they sell. They are the ones most sqeezed when the price goes up.



You have this backwards.   When the price goes up, the small retailers have a commodity sitting in their buried tanks that they can sell at a much higher margin.   The chains that change prices daily to reflect the spot market price do very well every time the price spikes.   On the flip side, if the price of gasoline drops dramatically, the little guys are stuck with inventory that either won't move at all if they keep their pricing or will cause them a big loss when they sell it at the retail market price.

I don't know this for sure but I'll bet that a lot of the bigger gasoline retailers insure their inventory by buying options.   You don't want to have millions of gallons of inventory and have the price drop 20% on you.

The same logic applies to the monster oil companies.   During price spikes, all their inventory magically becomes worth a lot more.   That's why you always hear the "record profits" smear stories and congressional inquiries about Exxon-Mobil every time gasoline gets expensive at the pump.   You never see the news stories about dwindling profits when prices are declining.


----------



## o3jeff (Mar 1, 2012)

Luckily I have a company car.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 1, 2012)

Geoff said:


> You have this backwards.   When the price goes up, the small retailers have a commodity sitting in their buried tanks that they can sell at a much higher margin.   The chains that change prices daily to reflect the spot market price do very well every time the price spikes.   On the flip side, if the price of gasoline drops dramatically, the little guys are stuck with inventory that either won't move at all if they keep their pricing or will cause them a big loss when they sell it at the retail market price.
> 
> I don't know this for sure but I'll bet that a lot of the bigger gasoline retailers insure their inventory by buying options.   You don't want to have millions of gallons of inventory and have the price drop 20% on you.
> 
> The same logic applies to the monster oil companies.   During price spikes, all their inventory magically becomes worth a lot more.   That's why you always hear the "record profits" smear stories and congressional inquiries about Exxon-Mobil every time gasoline gets expensive at the pump.   You never see the news stories about dwindling profits when prices are declining.



You're both right, to an extent. The sudden swings are good on the way up, but bad on teh way down. In teh end, it balances out to gas stations making, on average 1-3 cents per gallon. This is why cash prices are generally cheaper, because the credit card companies are charging fees that amount to up to 10 or more cents per gallon- and it gets higher the higher gas prices go.

Gas sations can't really play int eh optins market- their supply cycle is measured in a couple of weeks, not in the month or more of options contracts. Plus the small volume means any protection gets eaten up in transaction fees, and the cost of the protection eats up even more. 

The big retailers have some advantage in their ownership of the end of the supply chain, the trucks that bring the gas form the pipeline terminal to the stations, so they're not giving up all of that margin to an outside group, but the majority of branded sations are run by independent franchisees, not the company with the name on the sign. I think Hess and Lukoil are the only real exceptions to that rule.

All of the gasoline in any station you go to comes out of the same spigot on the same pipeline. The difference between the brands are the additives that are mixed in at the truck- Exxon, for intance, has a facility at the truck filling station with all of their proprietary additives that they mix in. There are also generic additive companies, often run by the independent suplliers that cart gasoline to independent stations. So, all of the gasoline that you get is at base the same- Exxon stations don't sell Exxon gas, they sell generic gas with Exxon additives. 

Refiners can get squeezed the same way as gas stations, actually. When oil prices spike, they have to pay more for their inputs. However, it can be several weeks before that high-cost product makes it into the system, during which time the price of oil may have fallen again, so they're selling high cost product into a market that thinks it should be low cost. Again, it tends to balance out over the longer term as cycles move around, but ther'es a lag in teh system- that's why you don't see gas prices dropping quickly when oil prices drop. Of course, it just makes good business sense to raise prices quickly when you can, to cover teh inevitable loss on the drop later on.


----------



## hammer (Mar 1, 2012)

ctenidae said:


> Refiners can get squeezed the same way as gas stations, actually. When oil prices spike, they have to pay more for their inputs. However, it can be several weeks before that high-cost product makes it into the system, during which time the price of oil may have fallen again, so they're selling high cost product into a market that thinks it should be low cost. Again, it tends to balance out over the longer term as cycles move around, but ther'es a lag in teh system- that's why you don't see gas prices dropping quickly when oil prices drop. Of course, it just makes good business sense to raise prices quickly when you can, to cover teh inevitable loss on the drop later on.


The average consumer sees price spikes at the pump as soon as oil prices rise (even though the product in the tanks is cheaper), but the drop always trails the drop in oil prices (because the product in the tanks is more expensive).  Not sure how this can be explained other than opportunistic actions on the part of the gas stations...

As far as the tight margins are concerned, if there wasn't any money to be made the gas stations would close shop.  Must be enough profit at the pump to get by.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 1, 2012)

hammer said:


> The average consumer sees price spikes at the pump as soon as oil prices rise (even though the product in the tanks is cheaper), but the drop always trails the drop in oil prices (because the product in the tanks is more expensive).  Not sure how this can be explained other than opportunistic actions on the part of the gas stations...
> 
> As far as the tight margins are concerned, if there wasn't any money to be made the gas stations would close shop.  Must be enough profit at the pump to get by.



The gas pumps are a way to get people into the convenience store to buy high margin items, generally. Or to draw people into the garage.

Gas prices going up are opportunistic, to be sure- the function they end up serving is to help the gas stations maintain a margin of some sort. If gas station owners were gouging, you'd expect to see a wider variability in pricing station to station- some people would be charging every penny they thought they could, while others would be undercutting the hell out of everything. Instead, prices are remarkably consistent- the biggest variance between stations I recall is on the order of 10 cents. In the end, they're all paying about the same price for the same product at about the same time. And consumers are savy and generally go to wherever gas is cheapest or most convenient or both.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 1, 2012)

Saw a "pump patrol" ticker scrolling across the bottom of the morning news here in Utah today - a low of $3.27 upto $3.59 for regular across the state here is what I saw. I wonder if some of this "cheap Utah gas" would work in my CT car?


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 1, 2012)

drjeff said:


> Saw a "pump patrol" ticker scrolling across the bottom of the morning news here in Utah today - a low of $3.27 upto $3.59 for regular across the state here is what I saw. I wonder if some of this "cheap Utah gas" would work in my CT car?



Yeah but CT will probably send you a tax bill for any miles driven not paying CT gas taxes...


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Mar 1, 2012)

several of the stations around me are closing as they needed new tanks and cant justify/afford the $500K to put a new tank in so they are now just repair shops and pulling the tanks..


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Mar 1, 2012)

Geoff....Gas stations do not exist in a vacuum. If they raise prices, as you propose, and it results in having the area's most expensive price they know drivers will bypass them for stations charging a cheaper price. It's much more complicated then just changing the price on the sign. 

A busy gas station can recycle their deliveries every couple of days. The gas station I worked at as a kid got delivries everyother day during the busy summer season. Daily prices on the Spot Market was a non factor. This depends, of course, on how much storage they have. Putting in more storage tanks is much complicated nowadays and expensive then simply digging a hole in the ground and dropping in a new tank. Gas stations have always had tight margins and have to make up for that with high volumes and as mentioned supplement their revenue with convenience store purchases if they don't do repairs or sell tires. 

CA has higher prices as CA law requires a special blend, high property taxes and one of the smallest number of gas stations per capita in the nation according to the Pres of the CA Assoc of Gas Dealers interview I watched on Wed morning on CNBC


----------



## Geoff (Mar 1, 2012)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Geoff....Gas stations do not exist in a vacuum. If they raise prices, as you propose, and it results in having the area's most expensive price they know drivers will bypass them for stations charging a cheaper price. It's much more complicated then just changing the price on the sign.



Show me where I ever suggested that?

When prices spike, everybody raises their at-the-pump prices at the same time based on the spot market price.   Every gas station owner looks at the same Nymex RBOB Gasoline Future every day to set their prices.   You know to the penny what every gas station you compete against in town is going to do that day.

When prices tumble, those at-the-pump prices are much slower to drop... particularly in small towns that don't do much volume.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 2, 2012)

Don't forget the supplier link in the chain, too. The guys who deliver the gas to the station set a selling price that the station has to pay. They themselves have to pay at the terminal, a price set, depending on the pipeline, by either the pipeline operator or by an aggregator who is feeding the product into the lines. The refiner who sells into the line is trying to get a price that gets their margin based on the price of the oil they're processing then. The tanker company or pipeline supplying that crude gets a margin, setting price based on the producers pricing. The producer is willing to sell at a price that justifies the expense of drilling the well in the first place.

Point is, at every step the price gets reset, and it takes a couple of weeks for it to flow through. Stations have to price today to cover the cost of the next delivery, and the delivery company is charging today to cover tomorrow's deliveries. When spot prices go up, retail prices go up to cover the increased cost coming through the line. NYMEX prices (even though that's not what anyone actually pays) don't fall suddenly, either, at least not off a spike. Your station owner is making the right business decision when setting prices up quickly and down slowly. If you don't agree with the practice, take your business elsewhere. But you better hurry, because they won't be there long.


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 2, 2012)

Reality check time on the gas price increases: a ten cent increase on a 15 gallon tank is an additional $1.50 at the pump. The total price increase in the past few weeks is half a six pack of craft beer, a pack of cigs, a little more than your latte at starbucks (give or take depending upon area and specifics). I'm far more concerned with price increases on the back end as transportation prices increase which then increase the price of goods. I continue to find it fascinating how much a few cents here and a few cents there sends consumers off the deep end... the same consumers that would not make other purchases based only on the difference of a few dollars (similar margin). Would you go to XZY Discount to save $3 on a $100 purchase or stick with a known brand retailer with a good return policy and good service? Is an extra $10 in gas going to make you change your big vacation plans? $10 more in gas is making people not want to spend $1000 in total vacation? $10 more in gas a week is not making people go out and do the same things they used to? Isn't that ridiculous considering how many frivolous things we spend our money on? There is absolutely a population of citizens that $10 will make or break and I understand they have a tough go whenever even a minor change happens. Personally, I don't notice on my bank account statement when I pay an extra two bucks at the pump to fill up. I'm certainly wasting way more than two bucks each week buying crap I don't need, ordering take out, and in general not using my money at 100% efficiency.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 2, 2012)

I put 35K miles per year on my car.  An increase of a dollar per gallon is roughly $1400 per year for me.  To put that in skiing message board perspective, that's almost double what I spend in a ski season on a season pass and lift tickets for myself.  I don't consider that an insignificant amount......


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 2, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> I put 35K miles per year on my car.  An increase of a dollar per gallon is roughly $1400 per year for me.  To put that in skiing message board perspective, that's almost double what I spend in a ski season on a season pass and lift tickets for myself.  I don't consider that an insignificant amount......



If you drive that much, you should get a car that gets better than 25 mpg. Or write it off against your taxes.

You must be filling up yur car twice a week for it to cost you an extra $27 a week for a $1 increase.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 2, 2012)

Car averages about 25MPG.  35K / 25MPG = 1400 gallons per year.  

Next vehicle I purchase, I will be looking for something that gets 30+.  It just doesn't make sense to make that switch now as my car is paid for and is still running great.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 2, 2012)

Looking at spot vs retail gas prices, and it seems the idea that retail prices don't come down as quickly as spot prices is pure hokum, much like Firday the 13th and full moons. The retail price lags the spot price by about a month on teh way up, but bottoms at the same time.

Spot price peaked at 3.69 in June 2008 (monthy average, LA RBOB), but average retail peaked in July 2008 at $4.09. Average spot hit $3.37 in April 2011, retail didn't peak until May at $3.93. December 2011 saw a bottom at $2.70 and $3.28.

In between the peaks and valleys, it seems like gas prices move a little slower both up and down. Even in extraordinary price movements since 2003, of the 34 months that retail was more than 1 standard deviation away from the average difference with spot, it was 18 times above, and 18 time below the average difference.

Post-Lehman Bros, spot bottomed at $1.11 in December 2008, retail hit a low of 1.68 that same month.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 2, 2012)

ctenidae said:


> Post-Lehman Bros, spot bottomed at $1.11 in December 2008, retail hit a low of 1.68 that same month.



It's that number right there that puts speculators in my cross hairs.  Did they honestly believe the economic crash was going to drive demand for oil down to less than 50% of what was needed during the prior summer when the price was $4.09?

Just seems to be far too wild a swing for normal supply/demand forces.  Maybe I'm wrong


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 2, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> It's that number right there that puts speculators in my cross hairs.  Did they honestly believe the economic crash was going to drive demand for oil down to less than 50% of what was needed during the prior summer when the price was $4.09?
> 
> Just seems to be far too wild a swing for normal supply/demand forces.  Maybe I'm wrong



Again, not denying some speculative impact, but prices of gasoline were right back in the 2005-2007 sort of average area by June of 2009- around the end of 2008, no one was doin' nothin'- markets essentially shut down around the world. So, what's the value of something no one is buying? That bottoming was just as much an overreaction as the high was. Looks like gas price volatilty was actually higher  2004-2008 than it has been 2009-2012. Certainly from early 2009 to early 2011, the spread between spot and retail has been incredibly consistent. 

I don't have an agenda to convince you one way or the other, or to protect speculators. I just htink that having a singular viewpoint and assuming one cause for any event is dangerous- there are forces at play far beyond a prop desk trading commodities futures, and to ignore that fact can only need to poor decisions and inappropriate reactions. As I said a while ago, teh kneejerk reaction of demanding physical delivery is dangerous, and is much more likely to cripple the markets than anything else.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Mar 2, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> It's that number right there that puts speculators in my cross hairs.  Did they honestly believe the economic crash was going to drive demand for oil down to less than 50% of what was needed during the prior summer when the price was $4.09?
> 
> Just seems to be far too wild a swing for normal supply/demand forces.  Maybe I'm wrong



It was an amazing drop in a short amount of time. Personally, I have yet to hear a logical explanation. I do know there are always several factors in any price change, not just the futures market.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 2, 2012)

ski_resort_observer said:


> It was an amazing drop in a short amount of time. Personally, I have yet to hear a logical explanation. I do know there are always several factors in any price change, not just the futures market.



Everything dropped at the same time- spot prices as well as futures. It was a case of no one buying anythign at all, and assuming they wouldn't for a long time. Inventories that had piled up were getting used, instead.


----------



## Abubob (Mar 8, 2012)

Of course I remember filling my 10 gal tank on my Corrolla for $5.00 but also remember paying $2.00 per gallon $25.00 for a tank and thinking I won't be able to afford it much longer. Ah those halcyon days of so long ago!


----------



## Geoff (Mar 9, 2012)

I'm daydreaming about compressed natural gas bi-fuel conversion with a compressor in my garage.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 9, 2012)

Geoff said:


> I'm daydreaming about compressed natural gas bi-fuel conversion with a compressor in my garage.



Apparently, the state of NC is now requiring that all of their small engine equipment (mowers, weedeaters, etc etc) be converted to propane canisters.


----------



## stek (Mar 14, 2012)

CC for gas.  Accumulating those points!!!


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 15, 2012)

Article in Bloomberg showed an analysis (can't remember who did it) that said every 1 cent rise in gas prices equates to $1 billion in consumer spending redirected from retail to gas. I'm not sure how they come to that conclusion, since the US uses an average of 19.8 billion gallons of motor gasoline per year. To my way of mathing, that means $198 million per year per 1 cent change. And that ain't much.


----------



## Glenn (Mar 15, 2012)

ctenidae said:


> Article in Bloomberg showed an analysis (can't remember who did it) that said every 1 cent rise in gas prices equates to $1 billion in consumer spending redirected from retail to gas. I'm not sure how they come to that conclusion, since the US uses an average of 19.8 billion gallons of motor gasoline per year. To my way of mathing, that means $198 million per year per 1 cent change. And that ain't much.



I saw that too. I think it was the same issue that had the economics of buying a hybrid. And how a 40mpg gasoline engine is a better value.


----------



## Geoff (Mar 15, 2012)

Glenn said:


> I saw that too. I think it was the same issue that had the economics of buying a hybrid. And how a 40mpg gasoline engine is a better value.



CNG really makes the most sense for a commuter car.  The energy cost is about 1/3 that of gasoline and the country is swimming in natural gas.   

You can buy a Honda Civic GX that runs on compressed natural gas for about the same cost as a hybrid.  If you have city gas at your house, you can install a compressor for about $4,000.   My NStar cost is equivalent to about $1.00 per gallon.   In eastern Massachusetts, there are quite a few filling stations though the cost is double what you pay at home if you own your own compressor.   

GM is coming out with a bi-fuel Chevy Silverado/GMC Sierra pickup next month.   Dodge has a bi-fuel Ram 2500 pickup coming out this summer.   It makes a ton of sense as a work vehicle.


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 15, 2012)

ctenidae said:


> Article in Bloomberg showed an analysis (can't remember who did it) that said every 1 cent rise in gas prices equates to $1 billion in consumer spending redirected from retail to gas. I'm not sure how they come to that conclusion, since the US uses an average of 19.8 billion gallons of motor gasoline per year. To my way of mathing, that means $198 million per year per 1 cent change. And that ain't much.


I just don't see how they come up with that crap. Maybe those on super tight budgets or poor are changing their spending habits. But a good part of the country that isn't living pay check to pay check and has reasonably good finances are not adjusting their spending habits due to paying an extra buck or two at the pump for fuel. I know where they are going with this but I think the more likely result is the money is coming from not saving or perhaps not paying down debts rather than not spending. Or at the very least, the reality lies somewhere in between.


----------



## AdironRider (Mar 19, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> I just don't see how they come up with that crap. Maybe those on super tight budgets or poor are changing their spending habits. But a good part of the country that isn't living pay check to pay check and has reasonably good finances are not adjusting their spending habits due to paying an extra buck or two at the pump for fuel. I know where they are going with this but I think the more likely result is the money is coming from not saving or perhaps not paying down debts rather than not spending. Or at the very least, the reality lies somewhere in between.



I believe the figure is every .10 rise in gas prices, not .01. 

I think you are right on an emotional level. Most people (I fall into this bracket) havent been hit that hard emotionally with gas. I pay what I need to pay and get on with my day. 

That being said, on a strictly economic sense, it makes a big difference. Regardless of where the money was coming from, more money spent on gas is less money spent elsewhere in the economy. We are not a country of savers, so it wasn't that. We are approaching debt levels seen pre-crisis these days. So we havent become savers either.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 20, 2012)

Interstingly, it seems that Saudi Arabia is about to send "a wall of oil" at us to cut prices. Not sure how 22 million barrels (2 days of total US imports, 20 or so of Saudi Arabia's typical daily imports) is going to really impact prices, but it couldn't hurt. Of more interest in the article is the reactivation of old fields and increased storage outside of the Middle East. What do they know/worry about Iran that we're not paying attention to?


----------



## Nick (Mar 20, 2012)

What about all the money we saved on heating oil this winter. WTF.


----------

