A new idea for gas prices...

I think it's supply versus demand more than anything. A boycott of Exxon/Mobil wouldn't make a difference because gas demand would go up at other stations.

Besides, there will come a time when we look back nostalgically on the low gas prices of 2005.

 

I'd think as much as "gas holidays" do. If it does anything, maybe just hurt a local retailer a bit. Even a well organized boycott of a very determined group is hard to pull off. Exxon could always find someone to buy their refined gas, even if not sold as Exxon. The demand is almost equal to refined supply, and Exxon supplies a LOT!

Best way for gas prices to go down is reduce global demand or increase global supply of crude, though not much potential supply increase for awhile, with some speculating we've reached the ceiling on supply capacity due to shrinking reserves. More refining capacity could help in this country, but they're difficult to build and energy companies kinda like the high price anyway (if the price gets high enough the incentive will be so great someone won't be able to resist) Getting our national energy policy off consumption and "drilling the Alaska Wildlife Refuge" and onto more viable, long term alternatives would be a good start and pay dividends for the next generation.

We could add a $3/gallon federal tax, reduce income tax a corresponding amount, and drive demand and wholesale prices thru the floor. Many people would pay the same tax (assuming the tax break was loaded to low income) and all the stuff our taxes pay for related to oil like roads, security, environmental cleanup, and healthcare would be truely reflected in the price we pay and not hidden in our taxes. I'm guessing that wasn't what you had in mind?

 

No, it's not viable. What would happen is that demand at Conoco, Shell, and whatever the other merged oil company names are would shoot up - face it - Somebody who drives a big honking SUV as their daily commuter is going to have to buy gas SOMEWHERE - if not Exxon, the Shell or BP or some other company. Or, even if there was a "gas out" for a day for all oil companies, they'd most likely have record breaking profits on the following day.

The only way to drive down prices is to drive down demand - the American Public has the power to do that - I can assure you that if there were as many Prius driving around as there are of these trucks cleverly disguised as "cars" (except when it comes to CAFE standards....then they are TRUCKS), there wouldn't be quite the demand for gasoline as there is today. Because of that, I don't care if the US wants to impose mega taxes on gasoline (like in Europe), if it means that fewer SUV's will be taking to the American highways....With the economy of my Prius, even with gas at $4 a gallon, I could drive for one month for $80.

 

This email has been going around for awhile and it seems to target one retailer after another.

I read an analysis of it once and it absolutely will only hurt local retailers and not the target.

You see, ANY gasoline that gets delivered to an area that cannot be used by the target station simply goes into the local total gasoline supply. Thus, if a tanker enters the bay and delivers a million gallons of Exxon gas, but the local Exxon stations can only handle 100,000 gallons, the other 900,000 gallons simply go to the local Mobil or Shell or Getty or to the local "no name" station.

So any boycott of Exxon will not affect the amount of Exxon sold in your neighborhood. It simply means that the local Texaco station will be selling more Exxon gas than usual. And Exxon will still get their price.

 

I don't know if the major companies, those with their own refineries, will buy spot market gas. Not only would their advertising about their blends be false, but companies certified "Top Tier" like Shell, ConocoPhillips, and ChevronTexaco would lose their certification. All stations must meet the standard on all grades consistently for the whole company to be certified.

I've always been wary about any brand I didn't know had their own refining capacity, especially the super discount places below everyone else's price. I've heard to get the gas cheap they buy gas that the major brands define as "expired". Who knows if this is true.. but something makes the price cheaper than the rest for a price sensitive, low margin product like gas.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gschoen\";p=\"80640)</div>

sorry but 95% of all gas in the US across ALL BRANDS is fungible. false advertising? hmmm. not really. gas commercials dont say they have something the other brand doesnt. they just say things like "fill up on our gas and we garantee you will notice a difference" ya well, i did and i noticed a big difference and that is, if i filled up on their gas, the car moved, if i didnt the car didnt move. that is about all i noticed.

 

Shell is consistently the has the highest prices around here. Chevron Union 76 in the middle and Arco the lowest. Any reason for this?

 

that is a very good question. keep in mind that most gas stations around here are franchises that have the freedom to set gas prices to anything they want. i feel that the difference may have to do with the cost of doing business with the parent company.

 

An auto mechanic teacher warned that Arco had the highest legal limit of whatever the additive is that is in gasoline and to stay away from it. Any truth??

Here our Shell stations offer about the middle of the road pricewise. 76 stations may have the highest price on one corner and the lowest on another. USA gas here is usually the cheapest.

 

The Shell a block and a half away from me in North Seattle is 2.58/gal for 87, while the Shell down the road 6 blocks is 0.12 cheaper a gallon! It's even cheaper near where I work in Kent, where it's 2.39.

The highest near my commute is downtown, at 2.79/gallon.

The lowest near my commute (within 10 miles) is 2.35/gal 43 blocks north of me on WA-99.

I've been very happy with my source for prices - seattlegasprices.com. I've submitted a few myself. If everyone uses a service liuke this, we can cheaply "boycott" the expensive stations in favor of the cheapest. It hurts to know that Seattle gas is about 0.12/gal higher than the US average, while Boston is just as far below (where I lived until april.)

 

While I know it's false economy... since buying the Prius I almost get excited when prices rise. It gives me more "perceived value" to my purchase, even though I am still paying more. But then I get to go to the gas calculator and see all the money I'm saving! I should have worked for Enron!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gschoen\";p=\"80761)</div>

I have to say that I smile when Gas goes up means more demand for Prius more demand for me as an expert. Also I invested in in energy and when barrel of oil goes up so does my stock. This helps to curb the cost at the gas pump.
BUT it is going to cripple the economy. I have never seen it so slow. People don't have much money left over I know I don't.

 

i know a young lady whose father owns a few gas stations around town and she promised to grill him for some info about setting prices.

but she did say that nearly every gas station in town is independantly and locally owned. all brand name stations pay a fee that provides them name recognition, national advertising and corporate support for financing in exchange for them adhering to a few policies of basic customer service, product availability, etc.

she says that gas prices are set by the local station and used to average 10 cents a gallon profit, but she thinks that might be different now that prices are higher. she stated that her father cut their profit in half during price spikes last year. stations do get a better price if they have sold a higher quota of gas the previous quarter. and around here, the gas is the same when it reaches the gas terminal because there is only one pipeline that goes through here and its full all the time since it does not end here and each company taps what its alloted to use.

the nearest refinery is independantly owned by Dutch interests and is all Alaska crude. (isnt BP co-owned by the Dutch which owns Arco? maybe that is why Arco is cheaper? although i have had people tell me in the past week that at times Safeway and Costco have been cheaper.) we used to have oil from south america here but that ended about 5 years ago when 4 refineries in the Pac. northwest closed. there is a refinery in Tacoma where limited trucking is used, but because of the expense and safety issues of OTR transportation, there is limited delivery here despite being only 20 miles down I-5.

now all this is only off the top of her head and although she does pay the bills for the stations, she's not sure of the mechanics of the situation any more. she says that a few years ago when the refineries closed that there was a major shakeup of the distribution system

 

another article about the Exxon-Mobile merger and the problems it caused by reducing market variety and therefore hampering free market pricing does talk about the Pac Northwests gas prices being higher from lack of competeing brands since many brands although they retain different local names are actually owned by a few entities and show evidence of colusion when pricing wholesale refined goods to independent retailers.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/03/exxonmobiltestimony.htm the article is dated (1999) and because of refinery closures in this area, things have gotten worse so that would explain the difference in pricing for here

 

Oil company mergers definately not good for consumers (along with banking, and cable, and.. well I won't start). Our economy is so oil based the shakeup will really hurt, but it's just bad planning by the government. We all know the oil supply is finite, and the ones already tapped were the easiest and cheapest to get. I never considered the rise in global demand by emerging markets, but I'll bet plenty of economic & security analysits did. Of course, they don't run policy, politicians do.

I like the idea of fuel cell vehicles, but it seems more likely hybrid vehicles will help advance battery technologies to the point of making electric vehicles feasible, especially if they could go 250+ miles on a charge, and rapid charge in 15 minutes. The infrastructure for this would be much easier than fuel cells. Either way, our electric generating capacity would have to skyrocket to meet the demand, and that's the scary part. More nuclear, anyone? ugh Anyone who advocates nuc power should agree to hve the spent fuel stored in their backyard. hehe Maybe the rise in rates with increased demand would make renewable more cost effective.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA\";p=\"80857)</div>

I thought that even though it was technically a 'merger' in effect BP/Amoco (British Petroleum/American Oil Company) bought ARCO (Atlantic Richfield). BP is a British PLC

Amoco started out as Standard Oil of Indiana (Rockefeller Trust)

It bought:

American Oil (Amoco)
Pan American Petroleum and Transport
Dome Petroleum of Canada

Brand names include
American
Amoco
AmProp (real estate)
Canmar (offshore oil drilling) LDO
Permalube
Spilt Second (gasoline and retail stores)
Standard
Syncrude

ARCO was Atlantic Ritchfield Oil Company, a California Company

BP started out as Burmah Oil and Anglo-Persian Oil

The British Government became majority stakeholder and changed the name to British Petroleum

It bought
SOHIO (Standard Oil of Ohio)
Purina Mills
British Gas
Castrol

In the ARCO acquisition, BP had to unload all of ARCOs Alaska holdings to satisfy the trust guys. Those went to Phillips/Conoco.

Conoco was Continental Oil (Utah)
Phillips was a Oklahoma Company


Officially BP/AMOCO/ARCO is the largest UK Corporation in the world and second in Oil to Exxon/Mobil.

As far as I can tell the only external ownership is 10% by Kuwait.

I don't see a Royal Dutch/Shell connection anywhere.

 

i like the idea of fuel cells too, but what i dont like is that GM is the leader in the field and their track record for quality rollouts of new technology is...uh..its ahh... hmmm....

im sorry but cant recall that GM has ever done anything like that since the war. and even back then, it wasnt quality, it was quantity.

now they say they will have one to market by 2010?? and we have to bank on that? sorry, im not that stupid. 2010 is three years ahead of their planned rollout of their half-assed hybrid. guess they are taking their marketing announcements lessons from microsoft now.

i can see it now, about nov of 2009, the rollout will be postphoned a few times, until it will be set to a date "as yet undetermined" but by then, we will have had to suffer with their crap an additional 5 years?

but im not that worried, because if fuel cell technology is that close, Toyota will probably do it first and better.

 

Yah fuel cells have quite a few quirks to work out. Plus we still have to get the energy from somewhere, most of the public thinks fuel cells are a form of energy, not a storage medium. If batteries and charging systems become advanced they could easily become a better, easier storage medium. I was trying to think of how much power you could transfer in 15 minutes, considering most households maxing at 220V. Commercial "charging stations" could use higher voltage, perhaps slower charge at home and quick charge on the road for long trips.

Mass Production of hybrids is definately speeding advancement batteries. Each time Toyota releases a new model they have significant improvements, and there's certainly a lot more development going on.