Yeah it will be up to them, but if one station has the balls to actually have their prices reflect the waving of the state fuel tax. Other stations would probably follow suit. But there is always some idiot who will buy gas at one station when the price is 20 cents cheaper across the street.

 

"You really think that oil will go down signifcantly? You really think that in 6 months or a year or whatever all the oil companies are going to saw well we fixed all our refineries built a few new ones. All that is paid for. So why don't we lower the gas / oil prices by a buck a gallon? "
************************************************** *************

I already said "Yes", but I will answer you again and say "Yes, I do".

And the great weight of evidence supporting my position makes it easy for me to reach that conclusion - it appears you have yet to discover a gram of that. Pick a commodity: sugar, oil, lumber, etc and it is easy to support. By your logic, "Big Lumber" should have chopped down all the trees and left America a barren wasteland - is that the case, or do we have plenty of timber, a renewable resource, driven not be Big Govt, but by the market forces that no industry that wants to be in business 50 years hence will cut off its right arm?

(I exercepted all the silly vitriolic "sound bites" and Mike Moorish comments on the President. They did not make rational discussion points, but sounded like Alec Baldwinisms). And just for the record, I did not, and do not, support President Bush's decision to go against Free Market forces and "protect" the Steel Industry by import tariffs and the like - they were wrong, just as p[rice freezes are wrong.

I suggest you spend an hour and look at the history of oil prices, and answer your own question. Go back to the first "OIL Crises" in the 1970's, followed by the first "Oil Glut", then the 2nd "Oil Crisis" followed by the 2nd "Oil Glut", and what happened to prices in each case. Finally, you may reach an understanding of the simple facts that until the recent upsurge, prices for gasoline, adjusted for the CPI, were lower than they had ever been. Not an opinion - fact. I grew up with $.20/gallon Sunoco 260 for my 1968 Road Runner 426 CID Street Hemi, but the $2.00/gal I was paying for premium for my TL last Fall was actually less.

Before you rant, do some discovery and think. I will not always be here to help you with Economics 101

 

Well gals and guys, lucky if you live Hawaii if you like paying $3.16 for premium at Chevron! Unless you live in Georgia....where in the paper I seen the sign as high as $6 for premium! How in the heck do you live?! IN YOUR CAR I GUESS!

 

For the record that was one GA station and the owner will be prosecuted.

Gas price in my town right now: $2.78/gal for regular.

 

I am glad, he should also have to pay restitution. What a bastard.

 

Haha get this... he said the reason he jacked up the prices so much was so customers wouldn't buy up all the gas. I wonder what exactly he was going to do with it?

 

Wow I'm a pretty good judge of character. I figured thats why he did it. If I didn't want people to buy the gas though, why didn't he just close the store?

 

In Marietta, GA. last Monday (Aug. 29th) I paid $2.69.9 for Premium. Today I just paid $3.39.9...WTF?

 

Gas prices shouldn't be $3.40 anywhere in GA. Didn't our resident redneck Perdue say that gas prices in GA should not exceed $3/gal or was I hearing things?

 

HA! In Delaware which neighbors MD, PA, & NJ gas prices for premium right now is $3.39.....WTF!!!! The latest news is gas prices are going to be 5.00 soon for regular.....Im screwed.......

 

Trees take a while to replace. 30 years maybe? 50? sugar one season to grow a new crop. If sugar went upto .50 a teaspoon we could either stop using it or just pay. sugar isn't required to run the economy. Less junk food would be made or it would cost more but, people could survive. Could eat. Could drive to work and heat thier homes.

Haven't they chopped down much of the rain forset in Central America? Haven't enivornmentalist had to flight to protect the rain forest from big business?

Can't and aren't homes / buildings made out of alternatives to wood? My parents had a deck built last summer. Most of it was made with an alternative to wood. Somethink like Trex. A plastic based material. There is some pressure treated lumber being used but, instead of 100% of the deck being wood maybe 10% is. It cost more then wood but, should last longer and not require as much maint.

At some point (20 years - 2000 years) they will run out of oil. As they think they (or convince us they are) are getting closer to the end of the supply price will go up. If they can convince us the supply is drying up they will jack the price up. Just look at what they did in a couple of days. Oil / gas that was already in the pumps and in the 'pipelines' all of a sudden cost a buck or more a gallon. Why cause they used the huricane as an excuse to cash in. A local station on friday change the price at 10am and again at 1pm. (It went UP). Did they get 2 or 3 delivies that day at high and higher prices? Or where they just out to screw the public and make a few bucks profit off the hurican?

Sorry I just don't trust big business to do the right thing. They will keep the prices up if they can. If the government doesn't cry foul and the newer prices don't hurt their sales they will leave the prices as they are now.

The oil criss of the 70s did change the Auto Industry. Smaller lighter cars getting better millage. Boring cars yes. Also the emissions control helped kill horsepower too.

I do remeber vaguely the gas lines and stuff. And I do remeber my dad having a 68 Chevelle and a 70 Charger that were fun cars (ok only in a straight line).

My mom ended up with two Chevy Wagons in the late 70s - 80s. Big tanks with no horsepower. Big yes. The 78 was a 350 and had SOME power. The 84 was a 305 (same body style both top o line versions) with NO power. I have driven ecno boxes with more zip. If gas prices stay up it will be interesting to see what happens with the Auto industry.

The gas cruch was in my opinion a big reason Honda got their foot in the door here.

 

Well the 70s gas crunch did cause a lot of stir in the auto industry for sure. However when I had the last year (77) for a full sized monte carlo the car average 20 MPG with a v8. There are lots of cars today that cannot achieve that. We will see another change... Not sure if we shall see lower displacement, but maybe more cylinder deactivation (aka displacement on demand) and hybrids. I saw gas go down to 86 cent a gallon in 86. I hope the cycle repeats and we get to see gas at 1.50 a gallon in a few years!!

 

Yesterday driving Ms1995hoo's RSX Type-S on the way back from Charlottesville I found 93 octane Shell for $3.19 a gallon in Woodbridge (regular was $2.99 at the same station); that's the cheapest I saw in the 110-mile drive, so we stopped there. Yet all the other stations around there were 20-30¢ a gallon more. Very odd.

Later in the day I was driving the RX-7, which takes regular, and could not find it for less than $3.38 a gallon ($3.58 for super) in my area of Fairfax County.

What is very weird, IMO, is two things:

(1) I've been seeing some extreme variations between stations right across the street from each other that are normally within pennies of each other (which you'd expect for obvious reasons)--for example, yesterday I passed an Exxon and a Shell that I pass every morning when commuting, located directly across the street from each other, and the Exxon was about 12¢ a gallon higher for all three grades. Weird.

(2) I am NOT seeing the variation from area to area that I usually see. For example, I live in Fairfax County. Stations in Prince William County have ALWAYS been about 10-20¢ a gallon cheaper than in Fairfax County, and stations on VA-3 near Fredericksburg have almost always been another 5¢ a gallon cheaper than Prince William County. With a few exceptions (such as the Shell noted above), that's not the case at present--there was just about NO variation yesterday.

 

im screwed...i fill up every 3rd day ....3.39 a gallon this morning...i commute 100 miles each day

 

ouch! , I am assuming most of those 100 miles are on the highway so unless there's bad traffic you are getting about 29 - 31 MPG.

6.45 gallons round trip * $3.399/gallon = $21.93 in gas every day. I hope your job is worth that commute and cost.

 

HAs the price of Gas ever gone down before? it feels like if things do get better, the gas prices will stay were they are. Its like the price of realestae, prices don't go down, they just coast till the next increase.

 

the american government must increase wages according to inflation. And the oil situation is DEFINITELY inflation. But that makes me wonder if they will raise wages in accordance to gas prices going up? Usually they take a survey of certain items every year and compare them. So if you have a gs job hopefully your wages will go up accordingly. Other jobs though... hmmm?? I wonder if minimum wage will go up as well.

 

Sure, I remember it going back down below $1 a gallon in the late 1990s (I recall paying 88¢ a gallon in Roanoke in 1998).

 

I remember that, too, as I was in college and it was great to be able to get a break somewhere! Some places even had $0.84-0.85, although most were in the upper 80's. But right now, I'd be happy with $1.80-anything!

 

Hey let us look at it like this. Even though gas is high, I would rather pay for the price of gas,then be going thru what people in NO are going thru right now. No money, no food, no jobs, No car (someone brand new TL is gone) no house. Which would you rather have?

 

[QUOTE=Road Rage Before you rant, do some discovery and think. I will not always be here to help you with Economics 101[/QUOTE]

Actually, it would be a good thing if you stop helping with economics... I have a great respect for you and always listen very carefully when you talk about cars. This forum isn’t the right place to debate world economy, so I wouldn’t argue with your “facts”. Please, stick to the cars and try not to talk about oil and economics - you are ruining your image... No RAGE, please!

 

Actually, it would be a very sensible thing if you stop helping with economics... I have a great respect for you and always listen very carefully when you talk about cars. This forum isn’t the right place to debate world economy, so I wouldn’t argue with your “facts”. Please, stick to the cars and don't talk about oil and economics - you are ruining your image... No RAGE, please!

 

He wasn't debating, he was stating facts... facts relevant to our cars. This forum needs informed posts such as his - besides, who are you to tell him what he can or can't talk about on the forum?

 

I remember fuel was about $.89 / gallon in 1998. Then was when I bought my 1st SUV.

When fuel hit $2 + / gallon I ditched the SUVs and bought the TL. Initially I cut my fuel costs by nearly 45% (even by stepping up to premium fuel costs). Now I am at the same fuel costs as the last SUV, although more efficient in my fuel use. I expect it will drop some, and our pattern of short term memory will prevail. Still I am glad for my switch back to a car and particularly the TL. Considering the performance delivered, relative efficiency (compared to SUV days) and the ULEV2 (tree huggin' responsibility contribution) I cannot complain too harshly.

 

Thx for pointing out to gregtomash what should have been obvious, but apparently was beyond his ken. My post was on topic, and if somehow it did not rub him the right way, so be it - I will be happy to mentally spar with anyone on this Forum. But it is sophistry to tell me I am permitted to post on car threads, but not "worldly" topics.

Gergtomash: The same knowledge and education that allow me to post what some consider useful threads on topics automotive also help me think, I hope, lucidly about any number of other topics. It is called wisdom, interdisciplinary thoughtfulness, etc. You might be interested to know that I write for several high-end audio magazines, and edit another one - is that "out of my league" do ya think?

If you want to enter the "arena of ideas" - fine, bring it on. But I resent you or anyone else telling me what i can or cannot post. And thx for singling me out - considering some of the "thinking" in this thread that seeped out of the intellectual septic tank and was not challenged as being off-base, there must be some agenda you are trying to address.

 

RR,

While I agree that the price for a barrel of oil will settle back down some, I believe your estimate is optimistic. $50 - $55 is more likely, assuming nothing else major goes wrong to screw with supplies.

Your point about what happened back is the 70's with the "shortages" followed by the gluts is true enough, but the circumstances back then were different. The global demand for crude oil was far less then, and overall refining capacity in the US far exceeded demand. What happened was OPEC "kinked the hose" on us and created an artifical shortage to drive up their prices. They were willing to supply, but at more than we were willing to pay. They pulled it again around 78 at which point the US collectively got pissed off and took some drastic conservation moves that knocked OPEC on its' collective ass. Demand stayed well below capacity for decades after that.

This time things are different. OPEC, and other oil producers, are pumping at high rates, and have been for some time. Cheating on quotas has been SOP with them for years now. Crude oil supply isn't the issue.

Issue one is that we are no longer the only country vying for the oil. China and India are in the game now and they have money to spend. Pure capitalist supply and demand is at work here, not ornery Arabs trying to jack up the price. That, more than anything, is driving the price of a barrel of oil.

Issue two is, as I pointed out in an earlier post, that there has been no new refinery capacity added in the US for 25 years, yet the number of vehicles and consumption of refined product has gone up to now, finally, match and exceed capacity to supply the demand. Even if we can have all the crude oil we want, we can't refine it. That has been pointed out frequently of late.
In order to increase capacity somebody is going to have to be willing to invest in building a new refinery or two. But nobody will be willing to do that unless they can see a decent return on investment. For that to happen the price for the end product will have to be a lot higher than it has been up until recently. Again, captialism at work. If the consumers want to pay the price the supply will be there. If consumers don't want to pay the price, then they have to figure out how to cut demand down to below refining capacity, creating an over supply to drive the prices down.

The short term options are drive slower, drive less, or run more efficient vehicles.

Your points about ANWR and nukes are correct, as far as they go. But those are long term initiatives that will do little for the here and now or even the next 5 - 10 years.

This country has an irrational fear of nuclear power and that is certainly hurting our position. But, even if the government reversed policy today and went full bore for nuclear power, it would still take something like 10 years to cut through all the red tape to get a new plant commissioned and on line.

The same is true of ANWR. The estimate is that if DC gave the go ahead today, the first drilling wouldn't begin for 5 - 7 years and signficant output several years beyond that. So, again, a long term solution but nothing that has any short term value.

Don't even get me started on hydrogen. Until the rocket scientists figure out a process to extract hydrogen that uses far less energy than it nets, that isn't going to happen either. And that doesn't even figure the infrastructure that has to be put in place to make it viable.

As for hybrids. Ech. You simply can't recover the extra cost with the modest incremental mileage gains. The technology has promise, but it's still too much in its infancy to make much of a difference.

Your point about the the cost per unit of gasoline having been, until recently, at a historic low is true. But our society has changed drastically since the 50's and 60's.
Back then more than one car in a family was unusual. Let alone having motorhomes, ATV's, boats, personal watercraft, snowblowers, power lawnmowers, gas weed eaters, etc., etc. Today more that two cars isn't unusual.
So what's my point? Simple, while the cost per unit may have been historically low, it's more the issue of total units consumed per household has gone WAY up. So if the price of a gallon of gas doubles it isn't just for one vehicle anymore, it could be two, three, four or more vehicles.
And our savings rate in this country has gone to zero. Back in the 70's people actually put money aside in savings. So, back then, people had some buffer they could fall back on to cushion the sudden surge and mitigate some of the impact on their lives. Today, there is no buffer. If the cost of fuel goes up, then, in many cases, their has to be a decision made on discretionary spending reductions to offset the fuel costs, or cut the total fuel bill. Either way, that will have a ripple effect on the economy in some form. How much? I don't know, except that Wally World is feeling the pinch.

And for sure "Detroit" is going to feel the pinch as their high margin SUV sales evaporate, which will further accelerate their downsizing efforts, and putting higher wage workers out of jobs.

The big reason everyone is getting shook by this jump in gas prices is because it's playing havoc with the budget balance they've gotten comfortable with over the last 10 to 15 years and forcing them to make some choices. They're being forced out of their comfort zone. Many for the first time in their lives.

 

gas in mass has been ranging from 3.45- 3.80 for premium. I hear that exxon/mobile is making 110,000,000 profit each day... Making hay while they can. They must love hurricane season!

 

Yep, and therein lies the irony of the situation. If a person owns stock in Exxon/Mobil, CHA CHING, let the good times roll. Even if they gag at the price on the pump when they fill the tank.

Certainly the oil companies are taking advantage of the situation, but that isn't any different than it has ever been.

An Arab shiek sneezes and the pump price jumps overnight, not withstanding the fact that the oil used to make that gallon was pulled from the ground three or four months earlier.

 

I am hating the situation.

My city has second cheapeast gas in nation next to Edmonton and it is retailing around $4.00 a gallon

Regular price
My city is selling at 1.14/Litre = $4 per gallon premium
National average is 1.26/Litre
Montreal is averaging 1.34/Litre
Highest reported is 1.46/Litre = $5 per gallon premium

For Premium, add 40 cents per gallon to regular

 

Premium at the local Tesoro station is $3.19 a gallon. At the Shell station right across the street it is $3.05. Go figure.

 

This is actually not true. Oil and gas company stocks do not rise and fall in large chunks. They move ever so slightly over time. These are not stocks that will garner anyone big bucks immediately. They are stocks for the long haul. If you look at the charts of major oil companies you will find that over the last 3 months they've changed very little. As I have mentioned before, I used to work for ExxonMobil. I still own stock in my retirement fund and I have not made much at all recently. Over time one can do very well as they are a good safe buy because you are pretty much guaranteed to come out ahead and not lose your money.

 

Most any good stock is a long haul venture, appreciating over time.

It wasn't my intent to mean the profit run up would translate to a big run up in the stock value. What I meant was that, yes, the price of gas is relatively painful, but if you hold stock in an energy company that price and profit represents a positive to the company and is going to keep the stock moving in the right direction.

The downside is that exploration is expensive with no guarantee that discovered reserves will generate a payback.

The only ones who potentially come out on this short term are the commodities traders, depending on how shrewd they are.

 

Well, let me - respectfully - disagree. "The same knowledge and education" in automotive world can't be possibly applied to the field of world economy with the same success - it's not a car! I am also suspicious of people talking about their own "wisdom, interdisciplinary thoughtfulness, etc." But my main point is that your "facts" are plain wrong, or, to put it bluntly, you are deceiving people who are accustomed to trust your opinion. Prices are not, as you say "adjusted for the CPI, were lower than they had ever been. Not an opinion - fact." I'm sorry, but without data it's an opinion, and a wrong one for that matter. Prices are steadily going higher in recent years and everybody can tell that just by the gut feel. But here is the data (doesn’t include Katrina aftermath). If you forgive me the liberty of giving you an advice - always have data – otherwise you are running a risk of looking a little bit Sean Hannitish.



(please click on the image box - sorry, I'm not sure how to post a chart). You can find similar charts in many other sources. Peak in the late 70’s early 80’s was an artificial one and prices eventually dropped. Current price hike isn’t artificial but reflects a grim reality - oil is a non-renewable recourse, consumption goes up at an ever increasing rate - price cannot go down in a long run or even stay at the same level (fluctuations up and down always possible, but general trend - up). It's quite possible that prices will eventually go down to pre-Katrina level ($2.70 - $2.90 premium) or even slightly lower, but they will never be like those 5 - 10 years ago. Given your wisdom, I am sure, it was clear to you, too, but you preferred, for some reason, not to share that with the rest of us - maybe you too have an agenda?
Bottom line – the only reason I said that you’d better stick to cars is because you were giving wrong information – knowingly or otherwise. I have no problem with people having different opinion as long as they stick to the facts – you didn’t. And one more advice, if I may – it’s always a good thing to talk to people with respect, even if your name is a Road Rage.

 

Sorry, I just found out that chart isn't there - I'll try to figure out how to put back.

 

I was giving the wrong information? Your statements are inaccurate - I can defend mine. I would expect a stand-up guy to offer an apology, but since you continue to question my statements, and even hint that I am somehow trying to deceive people here, I am not holding my breath.

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/I..._Inflation.asp

You also are misstating what I wrote - I said I ecxpected prices in a year to be at the $35-40/barrel (pre Katrina) level, not at the prices of 5-10 years ago. Futures have already begin to drop, as the market adjusts for the fact that Gulf Coast production will not be hurt as badly as first predicted.

The data are there - you just needed me to point you to it to confirm that I am far more knowledgeable on this topic that you have shown yourself to be? I have to prove myself to you? Unbelievable.

 

here is 1 thing wrong i see with your statement. you state its because its a non renewable resource. well i dissagree why the prices are up. part of the fact is because of the amounts that the oil company are profiting per quarter. (some are as high as 11 BILLION a quarter)
there are many ways to get cheaper oil, actually implimenting them are alot harder

 

To Road Rage - Yes, you are wrong. Your data compares the highest point of embargo prices to the relatively stable, average prices back in 2003 - 2004, which is in itself incorrect way of comparing data. Even the site you are referring to says "When adjusted for inflation, it is clear that gasoline prices are far below the 1981 inflation-adjusted peak of $2.94." And we were at or above that price ($2.94) even before Katrina! You should know your data! If you look at the bigger and more accurate recent chart (up to July 2005 - you can add to that August hike) you'll see a different picture. http://inflationdata.com/inflation/i...l_20050819.gif
Forget about proving yourself - you don't understand your own data...

 

I definitely agree with you. I should've said something like "part of the reason why prices are going up is that it's a non-renewable resource". Your point is very true, but I have reason to believe that even if oil companies were very altruistic and were caring about consumers more than super profits (11 BILLION/quarter is a super profit!), prices wouldn't go down anyway.

 

Gas in Fort Worth, Texas just fell from 3.09 for regular to 2.79 for regular!! That was last night... I talked to a guy at the Shell station here and he was telling me it should go down from that as the week progresses.... We'll see

 

[QUOTE]So, Road Rage, why you went silent? Is it because you've been proven not "far more knowledgeable"? Shouldn't you also be a "stand-up guy" and "offer an apology" as you demanded it from me? But, since you obviously lack integrity you want to see in others, "I am not holding my breath." By the away, I'm taking back my "hint" that you were trying to deceive people - you just didn't know the subject.