Gas Prices!

[179]

$2.09 here in town this morning, how long until we hit $2.50 a gallon for 87 octane?

[Nebe]

the mobil stations on the corner of 138 and rt 1 and in narragansett are 2.13

[Mike P]

Originally posted by 179
$2.09 here in town this morning, how long until we hit $2.50 a gallon for 87 octane?

There are stations in my neck of the woods that are already at $2.25. 10 days until Memorial Day weekend

[cheferson]

$40 bucks to fill my s-10 up yesterday . Friggin bush and cheney!!!

[RIROCKHOUND]

Go get a gas card with rebates; shell has a deal for first year, get 10% off, for the first year, no fee's; with 10% off 2.00 = 1.80 a gallon... helps a little

[179]

"$40 bucks to fill my s-10 up yesterday . Friggin bush and cheney!!!"

Oh yes another blame Bush subject

[cheferson]

Has nothing to do with the fact that they both have huge investments in oil , and bush's family has very close ties with the saudi royal family. Im sure there not cashing in.

[179]

"Has nothing to do with the fact that they both have huge investments in oil , and bush's family has very close ties with the saudi royal family. Im sure there not cashing in."

Not even worth a response!

[fishweewee]

Originally posted by cheferson
Has nothing to do with the fact that they both have huge investments in oil , and bush's family has very close ties with the saudi royal family. Im sure there not cashing in.

Um, how 'bout supply and demand?

Supply: OPEC is a cartel, they're limiting daily production. What do Bush and Cheney have to do with this? High energy prices HURT Bush's re-election prospects! (consumers get pissed off and you endanger the economic recovery) I don't think Bush and Cheney want high prices.

Supply part deux: Different states have different clean air and emission laws. Different states thus have different clean gas formulations. More different formulations = it costs more to make customized gas. Therefore, gas cost is increased.

Supply part trois: Your federal and state gov't tax the chit out of gas. What is it per gallon in your state?

Demand: India and China are guzzling a lot more product than they used to.

Demand part deux: Seasonally, demand for gas goes up during the summer season - we're all out driving to get to our fishing spots.

Less supply, more demand = prices going up.

Take a minute to think about what you are saying.

[179]

Info Note. Taxes on gasoline:


Fed Tax Rate $ .18 per gallon
RI Tax Rate $ .31 per gallon (highest rate in the country )

Maybe we should be asking the RI House and Senate members why they think they are entitled to .31 cents per gallon of fuel?

fishweewee- great informative post.

[Rappin Mikey]

Frrrrrrrrrt! Gas stinks!

[redlite]

I was griping about it to my old man the other day and his years of age and wisdom helped me to see things in a little better light.
Gas is $2.00 a GALLON.
Think about it.
First, someone has to find the oil. Then they have to get it out of the ground. Then they have to transport it to a refinery. The oil is refined many times to get the end result of gasoline. It is then passed through countless wholesellers, transported to the local dealer, and utlimately ends up in our tanks.
I told him it was still out of control.
He then proceeded to pick up a 2 LITER bottle of Pepsi from behind the kitchen door and said, " You see this hear, it is nothing more than sugar and water, yet it costs over a dollar for 2 LITERS!!! And all you can do is drink it."
Lesson learned.
But I'll still piss and moan about it, especially with a 30 gallon tank in the truck.

[KLMulder]

If you don't like the price of gas now HOPE PRAY AND VOTE so that Kerry does not get in office with his proposed 50 cent a galon tax increase.

[mrmacey]

most wont think twice about laying down $3.00 at a bar for a bottle of beer how come nobody complains about that give up 10 beers whala tank full of gas or coffee for that matter $2.19 for a large regular most drink it every day $2.19 x 7 whala 1/2 tank of gas

[fishweewee]

Mike, much as I'd like to, I don't think most people drink twenty-plus gallons of beer every week.

[Moose Nuckle]

Howz bout this. $ 2.65 a gallon to get gas for boat on the water at local marina.

[MartinD18]

Wait a minute...I thought one of the reasons we started Gulf War II was that Saddam was threatening to destabilize the region (read: disrupt the flow of oil) from our "allies" Saudi Arabia, the Emerates, Kuwait, etc. Nice little "thank you" from them for saving their a$$es, eh??

[Mr. Sandman]

All we need to do is
A) Build more refinerys
B) Drill in Alaska...
C) Help the russians pump their oil (they have gobs of oil and little technology to pump/refine it)
D) Stop buying all mid-east oil.

That will hold us for 200 years easy..

Then we could "offer" to buy gas from the middle east for 10 bucks a barrel (or whatever we want to pay. Think about it, oil is ALL they have and WE are the largest consumer. If we stop buying they will starve. We could re-nego. all the leases the way WE want.

Also, I think it would be good for the world for us to pull out of buying oil for a few years, after all all this oil money is funding terror anyway.

[hooked]

.

[STEVE IN MASS]

You also have to remember......I was in Germany 10 years ago for a few days, and they were paying the equivilant of $2 a LITER back then.....yeah sure, also had mostly to do with the tax, but I don't think we should whine too much (other than whining about the tax)......

I also remember back around 1978, during the "gas crisis", waiting on line for hours to get your allocation of 5 gallons on odd/even days dependant on your license plate, between the hours of 2 and 5 PM........and everyone beatched and moaned that the price went up to $0.65........funny, you could buy a loaf of bread back then for 3 for $1 (I know, I used to stock them on the shelves at the Super).....today, try to get a loaf of bread for less than $1.59.....and that would be the "store" brand.....a five fold increase at minimum.....so if gas did the same thing, it would be about $3.50 a gallon......

So yeah, $2 a gallon sucks, but ya gotta think of it in perspective....

[NJTackle]

I kind of look at it differently. We've made great strides in technology in the way we refine fuel. One would think this increase in efficiency would be carried down to the consumer.

Here is a simple example: Looking back, VCR's cost a few hundred bucks back in the day but you can now buy them for $59 in Walmart. Why? We've gotten more efficient in manufacturing (not to mention overseas manufacturing but that is a whole different issue).

Has the cost of refining fuel really sky rocketed in proportion to the increases we see at the pump today? I don't think so…..someone is giving us the hot poker here!

[striprman]

There is a article in National Geographic this month. It basically says prices will not go down.

[STEVE IN MASS]

Originally posted by NJTackle


Has the cost of refining fuel really sky rocketed in proportion to the increases we see at the pump today?

Um, probably not if they could do it the "old way"......but you have to remember, refining oil today is a lot different than it was 20 years ago.....one you can thank the wonderful government for.....aside from the gasoline producers having to meet this regulation, and that regulation, and the other regulation (which all differ state to state) to provide a "cleaner" product for cars to burn, they also have to produce it in accordance with the Clean Air Act, meaning different techniques and equipment such that they don't "pollute" the air in manufacture.

Not that is necessarily a bad thing, but it does contribute to the cost, and unfortunately, the Clean Air Act puts many un-necessary burdens, that actually do very little to achieve the goal, on the refineries. Meanwhile, there are better and cheaper ways to make fuel and still keep the air clean, but the government has not "mandated" them, and so, money is wasted, and the cost passed along to us.

In addition, distillation columns consume fuel to make fuel, so as the price of energy, in general, rises, so does the cost of producing it......

[NJTackle]

All good points Steve.

I remember seeing a show on Modern Marvels (great show by the way) about fuel refineries and how they came about and changed over the years.

Years ago, crude oil was first refined for kerosene for lanterns and such. From what I remember, one of the byproducts was gasoline which was nuisance to dispose of since it had no use. Back then there was no law or EPA to govern the disposal of this byproduct. So, it was commonly dumped in streams and rivers. Imagine….gasoline simply dumped in the waters we fish and drink from today.

Anyhow….I guess my point is you are right that things have changed over the years and the rules and regulations around how fuel is refined and used have changed……for the better I hope.

Personally, I believe the auto manufacturers and oil refineries work closely together to meet new EPA regulations. Auto manufacturers build cars to meet today's requirements with cost as their primary concern, not how clean burning or how efficient (MPG) it is. I believe we have the technology to build cars that get MUCH better gas mileage then what we have today. Example: An early 70's Datsun pickup truck got somewhere around 28 mpg. A similar truck today gets about the same or worse MPG. ???? HOW is this possible? How can what basically was a tin can with holes drilled out for a carburetor equal or exceed today's latest computer controlled fuel injected engines? It just blows my mind that some trucks are getting worse or equivalent MPG today then what was offered years ago. Granted, we added some weight, HP and pollution control devices to our auto's today but still…..

I owned a 87 or so Honda Civic HF which if babied easily broke 50 mpg. That was over 15 years ago!!! Show me one gasoline Honda today that exceeds 50 mpg!!!

What about diesel? Diesel is cheaper to refine and has approximately 17% more energy by volume then gasoline. Why aren't we seeing more highly efficient diesel engines? My guess is because they are costly to manufacturer and usually last years longer then gasoline engines.

Another example….I owned a 2003 Jetta TDI diesel. It was rated for 49 mpg. I got around 46 - 48 depending on how fast I drove. Back in the 80's, I had a friend who had a diesel Rabbit. I think he got around 40 or so mpg. Not that big of a jump for almost 20 years.

I believe the technology is here today to build a 100mpg+ auto/truck BUT will not because 1)EPA hasn't required them to 2) simpler cars equal cheaper cars equal more sales equal greater profit & 3) the fuel companies wouldn't know what to do with all their surplus fuel if consumption would decrease significantly. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry. No way they're going to shoot themselves in the foot.

Just my 2 cents……

[redneck24]

Originally posted by 179
I wonder how high they are going to get, it's only the first week of May and we are about to break $2.00 a gallon for 87-octane. Sure makes my wife's 40-mpg Corolla look awfully tempting...LOL

i agree, makes me feel better about driving a focus

[cheferson]

I dont see bush promoting hybrid cars. Coulda ended homelessness and made a super effecient engine with all the money and lives they have been dumping in Iraq. " He tried to kill my daddy" George bush. Bush would make less money from his oil investments if cars were more efficient no? Cheney's cronies at his old corp that he was the ceo of arent cashing in in iraq now either.

[fishweewee]

At the end of the day, it's the auto companies that have to design more fuel efficient cars.

But before that, consumers have to start demanding them.

Perhaps today's high gas prices and all the geopolitical unpleasantness associated with oil (wars, terrorism, etc) will be the catalyst to get consumers to buy hybrid products.

That's an awful lot to expect one person - our President - to accomplish in four years.

[179]

I think the auto manufacturers are going the exact opposite way they are developing bigger faster higher horsepower vehicles, why because this is what the public wants.

It's always a problem when the facts get in the way.

[JohnR]

Steve - I can't come close to debating the process involved in refining fuels but I can honestly say that the Clean Air Act (and a less hobbled EPA - they are hobbled a lot by the current administration) are GOOD things.

If there was no clean air act, we'd be choking on cheaper gas. This country was responsible for so much toxic output into the air, into streams and rivers, into soil, and into the ground water. If there was no EPA, would big business and small business police themselves in the best interests of out quality of life? Do you really think that government has screwed us with the EPA and Clean Air? Or the PCBs in the rivers, the glycol in the streams, the toxins in the air? If anything, the government has screwed us on the RELAXING by this administration of these rules. I wish I had a link but I was reading recently that in Maine they recently started using the same formulation of gas for cars that Mass, RI, Cali, and others use because it burns just a bit cleaner. They then extrapolated the amount of rudeced toxins in the air and credited that reduction against some plants in Maine so those plants could burn just that bit more dirty. So the CONSUMER is essentially paying for the processor to not pay and we haven't actually achieved any improved cleanliness. So in my opinion, EPA and the latest revisions of Clean Air don't go FAR ENOUGH.

Maybe I didn't read your post right, but where are they putting unneccesary burdens and what alternative methods would work better and what reasons (including cost) are stopping this??



Nuclear Fuel

[JohnR]

WeeWee - I'd love to buy a hybrid, if they make them in V8 power class, 7K towing, OverSand capable and RELIABLE, I would pay a premium for that capability.

Hmmmm, how about direct injection 2 stroke technology for cars