How to stop the Gas Companies from robbing us.

quote:

Originally posted by T S C:

quote:

Originally posted by FloTownDown08:

quote:

Originally posted by Taciturn:

quote:

Originally posted by FloTownDown08:
I am a "Newbie", this is only my 4th post, but I sure am happy to see some intelligent conversation on here, made by mature adults.

Definitely not a smart statement for a newbie to make. You just shot yourself in the foot, we are all intelligent, mature adults!

Was I talking to you?
Who are you & where did you come from?
If my post offended you in any way, I am so sorry.
Sometimes guilt makes one jump to conclusions.
I'm sure your mature enough to have heard the old slogan
The Guilty Dog Will Always Bark First.

Just to be clear FloTownDown08, in THIS post you called out and attacked Taciturn. You did so by replying directly to her post. If you would like to single out and attack a veteran poster for doing nothing except calling you out on your ugly behavior, then you will have to answer for it to the rest of us "old timers" and "Hall of Famers". Maybe your dad can explain how that all works to you, since he is one of "us".

Guess I'll step in for a Bee Sting .lol
But see TSC what you just wrote ? You will have to deal with us "Old Timers & Hall of Famers"
Thats what the newbies are trying to saying you do ,,If someone new says anything about someone on here all the Old times jump in and now I know Yall are gonna get on me about this too .But if someone says something about one person why do all have to jump in ? Please dont say cause they are friends .thats like getting inot a fight and then running to get help cause you know you cant beat them alone ? Go ahead and get me now ,,I got my medicine for Bee Stings . lol

TNT, FloTownDown is the one who brought up that her/his dad is a Hall of Famer and that whole issue of "newbies". S/he also decided to jump in and on his/her 4th post insult ALL of the members of this forum.

Then, she flat out attacked Tac. If she had attacked you, I'd have stepped up for you, too.

Yes, if one of us sees another poster attacking or posting inappropriately we should call them out on it. Otherwise it sends the message that behavior like that is accepted, and it isn't acceptable on this forum. It isn't "the moderators job" because the mods do not and can not read every post. It is our job as regulars to take up for ourselves, take up for our friends, and take up for our forum. Otherwise it will be over-run with trolls who post stuff like:

quote:

Was I talking to you?
Who are you & where did you come from?
If my post offended you in any way, I am so sorry.
Sometimes guilt makes one jump to conclusions.
I'm sure your mature enough to have heard the old slogan
The Guilty Dog Will Always Bark First.

That type of junk is not and should not be tolerated by anyone on here.

I didnt see it that way ,,that flotowndown8 jumped on Tac ,,I seen her say "
Posted 14 January 2008 11:09 AM Hide Post
I feel like I should warn you after the last thread I posted on & fully read! I am a "Newbie", this is only my 4th post, but I sure am happy to see some intelligent conversation on here, made by mature adults.

quote:

Originally posted by Taciturn:

quote:

Originally posted by FloTownDown08:
I am a "Newbie", this is only my 4th post, but I sure am happy to see some intelligent conversation on here, made by mature adults.

Definitely not a smart statement for a newbie to make. You just shot yourself in the foot, we are all intelligent, mature adults!

Then I seen Tac say to her ,," you just shot yourself in the foot ? who got on who first ?

But thanks TSC for saying you would take up for me too.

Telling someone they shot themselves in the foot is not attacking. That is like saying "you just gave us a backhanded compliment". Tac just called FloTownDown08 out for insinuating that this forum has a lack of intelligent conversation and mature adults. FloTown's statement was insulting to every poster on here. S/he had no right to jump on Tac like they did. Sort of reminds me of another poster with multiple personalities....

...anyway - yes TNT I am an equal-opportunity defender! If I see someone getting up in your kool-aide then I'll be there for you!

Ok TSc ,,thanks .

quote:

Originally posted by 46:1:

quote:

As was stated earlier in this thread, the only way to decrease the price of gas is through less demand or greater supply.

Bill Gates, Bellsouth, AT&T ect. might beg to differ.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Your vague statement seems to indicate you disagree, but your sign seems to uphold my point.

Regardless, here's a question I've asked before but no one seems to be able to answer. Maybe you can.

If oil companies are gouging US consumers with $3 per gallon for gas, considering all the factors in todays world, how much do you think a gallon of gas should cost? Not how much do you wish it cost, but how much oil companies should charge so they wouldn't be gouging ? In other words, at what point on the price scale would you consider that you were not being gouged ?

I actually believe that the "war" in Iraq is adding about $1.0 to $1.50 per gallon.
A lot of the price of gas along with supply and demand , is speculation and a lot of that is driven by the uncertainly caused by this nut in the White house who may bomb anybody at any time. In addition, that "war" is consuming about 1/2 million barrels / day of oil just to run it. Add to that the fact that Iraq is not producing even what it did in oil before Bush attacked them. All these things are affecting prices. The ammount I guess is debatable, but I do believe we are paying for that "war" with gas cost.

I remember in Germany about twenty years ago paying a buck a liter for gas. That works out, for you math whizzes, to about four bucks and change a gallon. But think about this:

When I was in high school gas was about 30 cents per gallon and I made a dollar an hour. So for a gallon of gas, I had to work a little less than 20 minutes. Now, here in California at least, gas is $3.50 per gallon but I only have to work about ten minutes to pay for it.

And, let's face it: Around 35 years ago, we went through a real "gas crisis". It seems the people who went through that event haven't learned anything from it. Or have they? Your average car gets greater gas mileage now than it did in the early 70's.

The only way to get the oil companies to stop robbing us is to invest in electric cars, fuel cell cars, and other cars that are not dependent on oil FOR WHAT DRIVING THEY ARE APPROPRIATE FOR. I don't care what it costs, I'll still put gasoline into my motorcycle to ride that loud sucker around, and I'll pay whatever it costs to take my boat out. But for driving around town? A hybrid, electric, or public transit fit the bill just fine. The truth of the matter is that petroleum is too valuable a product as a chemical to go around burning it up to drive to WalMart.

quote:

Originally posted by T S C:
Telling someone they shot themselves in the foot is not attacking. That is like saying "you just gave us a backhanded compliment". Tac just called FloTownDown08 out for insinuating that this forum has a lack of intelligent conversation and mature adults. FloTown's statement was insulting to every poster on here. S/he had no right to jump on Tac like they did. Sort of reminds me of another poster with multiple personalities....

...anyway - yes TNT I am an equal-opportunity defender! If I see someone getting up in your kool-aide then I'll be there for you!

I've said it before & I'll say it again, take it as you wish, but If I attack anyone, although it's not my nature, you'll know it. It's not ONLY the job of the "regulars" to stand up for themselves, it's ALSO the "newbies" place to defend themselves as well. Because you are on here more often than others does not give you any special rights over anyone else. You offended every poster on here when you were talking about newbie's, and making jokes about running people off. I can't help you automatically take it upon yourselves to think my judgement was towards you, when initially, it wasn't. Now your no better than those you were arguing with in the previous forum, in my eyes. No wonder you can't get along with anyone.
Arguing with you over the Internet & in this forum is equivalent to winning the special olympics.
I will now let you know that you will be ignored, your opinion invalid, and basically invisible to me.
Speak as you wish, just know that you will not get another response from me.

I just would like to apologize to everyone on this forum that is actually using it for what it was originally intended for. I am marked as The Newbie, and I guess some think that if they follow me, they might successfully run me off. So I am very sorry for all of that to have interferred with your intelligent discussions.

quote:

Originally posted by T S C:

quote:

Originally posted by HIFLYER:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by T S C:
Led by the media? Hardly.

I am trained in the study of economics. The article features quotes by several prominent economists. The study of economics is the study of market forces. Market forces drive price. If you stop shopping at Exxon, you will do nothing to help or hurt the price of gas. If everyone on the earth stopped shopping at Exxon, they would lower their price temporarily and then people would once again start shopping there. Other stations might follow suit, but then the prices would go right back up to where the market forces dictate.

The price of gas isn't some big top secret collusion agreement between the oil companies or the world leaders or the Red Hat Society. It is driven by the market - the same as the price of milk, Beanie Babies, washers, Happy Meals, cars, and poodles.

Perhaps you forgot a lesson.
Oligopoly

When a few FIRMS dominate a market. Often they can together behave as if they were a single MONOPOLY, perhaps by forming a CARTEL. Or they may collude informally, by preferring gentle NON-PRICE COMPETITION to a bloody PRICE war. Because what one firm can do depends on what the other firms do, the behaviour of oligopolists is hard to predict. When they do compete on price, they may produce as much and charge as little as if they were in a market with PERFECT COMPETITION. &
Collusion/Cartel

An agreement among two or more FIRMS in the same industry to co-operate in fixing PRICES and/or carving up the market and restricting the amount of OUTPUT they produce. It is particularly common when there is an OLIGOPOLY. The aim of such collusion is to increase PROFIT by reducing COMPETITION. Identifying and breaking up cartels is an important part of the competition policy overseen by ANTITRUST watchdogs in most countries, although proving the existence of a cartel is rarely easy, as firms are usually not so careless as to put agreements to collude on paper. The desire to form cartels is strong. As Adam SMITH put it, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

I have not forgotten any lessons. Oligopoly is a few firms that dominate a market, true. There are more than a FEW firms that sell oil. Yes oil is controlled by a cartel (duh - it is called OPEC). It is obvious that you do not understand economics, pricing or markets so this conversation is pointless. Good day. Go argue your conspiracy theories and boycott schemes with someone as ignorant as you are.[/QUOTE

I sorry you cannot debate different ideas without getting defensive and name calling. In my experience when someone resorts to name calling and loosing their temper, they are the ones with no leg to stand on. I think when a few major oils "currently about 5-6 major players" companies dominate the whole world market it is called a Oligopoly. Remember I am talking about oil producers not the local gas stations. I am to college educated and travel the world as well. I do believe in the free market system as I stated in my first post. I simply believe there needs to be more competition for true free market forces to work.
As I stated before the electric companies did the same "collusion" in CA during the rolling black outs a few yrs ago. So much for being conspiracy theories, you are very naive to believe the oils companies do not do the same.

As far me being ignorant, well I am entrusted to fly an over 200 million dollar wide-body aircraft to all the continents of the world. I frequently see and experience different cultures first hand. I graduated college with a 3.9 GPA. Which does not count the technical training and expertise I must have to operate the aircraft. When at work I have more responsibly on my shoulders than you can imagine and at home even more since I am a father.

I gave you facts, others gave you facts - you counter with nonsense and ignorance. IGNORANCE is not a name, it is a fact. You don't understand what an oligopoly is. It is when a few suppliers control the sale of a product. NOT when there is one product with no substitutes. There are hundreds of oil (petroleum) companies, not just hundreds of brands of gas. So you are apparently ignorant to that fact since you stated there are 5 or 6. There are 8 that have over 100 billion barrels of oil reserves alone. Not to mention the fact that none in the top 10 are even American owned.

Collusion is not taking place between all of the oil competitors. Supply is being outstripped by demand. Do you really think the Saudis, Iranians, Qatar, Iraq, Kuwait, and Nigerian oil producers are getting together to fix oil prices? Those are the major oil players, and if you can get those guys in a room to agree on anything then I think Condi Rice would like to talk to you about a job.

When I am at work I have responsibility too, and guess what - I'm somebody's mama. That does not mean that I didn't put myself through college where I majored in Economics and learned all about pricing, cartels, collusion, game theory, markets, and the principals of supply and demand.

The original post stated that a boycott of Exxon (a gas station, not an oil company) would drive down gas prices. Basic knowledge of price, markets, and game theory proves that the scheme would not work. Further the scheme has been shown to be a popular internet hoax. Why do you keep defending it? It is garbage!

quote:

Originally posted by FloTownDown08:

quote:

Originally posted by T S C:
Telling someone they shot themselves in the foot is not attacking. That is like saying "you just gave us a backhanded compliment". Tac just called FloTownDown08 out for insinuating that this forum has a lack of intelligent conversation and mature adults. FloTown's statement was insulting to every poster on here. S/he had no right to jump on Tac like they did. Sort of reminds me of another poster with multiple personalities....

...anyway - yes TNT I am an equal-opportunity defender! If I see someone getting up in your kool-aide then I'll be there for you!

I've said it before & I'll say it again, take it as you wish, but If I attack anyone, although it's not my nature, you'll know it. It's not ONLY the job of the "regulars" to stand up for themselves, it's ALSO the "newbies" place to defend themselves as well. Because you are on here more often than others does not give you any special rights over anyone else. You offended every poster on here when you were talking about newbie's, and making jokes about running people off. I can't help you automatically take it upon yourselves to think my judgement was towards you, when initially, it wasn't. Now your no better than those you were arguing with in the previous forum, in my eyes. No wonder you can't get along with anyone.
Arguing with you over the Internet & in this forum is equivalent to winning the special olympics.
I will now let you know that you will be ignored, your opinion invalid, and basically invisible to me.
Speak as you wish, just know that you will not get another response from me.

Your father must be proud. *shakes head* Yep, don't want anything more to do with you after that highlighted statement.

You don't seem unintelligent to me, so the fact remains, why are you still being extremely snarky?

No one is "following you" here. TSC came on here to talk about the gas companies, other's click on this to read it. I read a lot of threads here and don't reply to all of them. I glean knowledge from them, just by doing so.

Thing is, you could have easily said, "Oops! My bad, I really didn't mean that rude or how it sounded." And things would have been completely fine. But you didn't, you got defensive, snarky and attitudish to every single person that's replied to you, and we've been mostly nice to you.

Perhaps it's your perception of things, and you feel you are a victim, but feeling that way is your own doing if you are reading /more/ into what is said than there is.

Anyway, you can ignore me too, if you ignore TSC, but at the rate you are going, by ignoring two of the nicest people, you're not going to have anyone visible on your list- in no time flat.

Have a great day.

~Amanda

Well, I'm not a pilot or a college graduate, but you don't have to be to figure this out.

First off, oil is not produced. Gasoline is produced from oil. There is a finite supply of oil. Therefore as the supply of oil goes down the price goes up.
The US, and the world for that matter, has an oil based economy. Whoever controls the supply of oil will be able to use that power in their interest.

Could we have avoided being in this position ? Sure. We could have started developing alternative energy sources forty years ago, and if we were energy independent we wouldn't be as concerned with what happens in the Middle East. But we didn't, so now we must face the consequences. Did the "war" in Iraq hasten our predicament ? Perhaps. Could we have avoided this predicament altogether by minding our own business? No.

If our next President pulls all our troops out of Iraq, you won't see gasoline drop $1.50 a gallon. With all the in-fighting between the different religious factions, add in Israel, add in nuclear capability, and there's always going to be speculation and uncertainty.

The fact is , they got us by the throat and sooner or later we'll have to pay the price. The US can do one of three things. We can lower our demand and increase our supply by allowing domestic drilling, which we apparently don't wish too do. We can take other's oil by force, which we apparently wish not too do. Or we can buy it. Exxon or OPEC...who would you rather be in charge of the oil supply?

Manda - thanks for pointing that out, I missed it, too. And to Miss Thang who posted it: I sincerely hope that you NEVER have a friend, family member or loved one who has a child with special needs. I hope you never ever have to endure the stares and the ignorant people who call people names like the one that is at the end of the statement you 1/2 way quoted. I hope that somehow, you can find it in your heart to be thankful that you don't have to endure such a thing, and that you can find compassion for those who do. You might think you were just making (another) snarky comment, but that was beyond tacky and beyond out of line.

Midknightrider ~ great post.

Actually EXXON is an oil company. You are correct on who the producers are and I do not dispute that. I am saying that the major oil companies in this country restrict production at the refinery level to manipulate the gas prices here. Remember the cost of gas at the pump has gone up much more than the price of the barrel. Here is a quote from you post "Go argue your conspiracy theories and boycott schemes with someone as ignorant as you are." If you do not think that is not name calling, well thats just say I am not the one ignorant. At least we something in common we both put our selves through college.

And yes most of the middle east and other major producers get together to fix the price of crude I think it's called OPEC. OPEC CONTAINS ALL OF THE MAJOR PLAYERS YOU LISTED!!

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a permanent intergovernmental organization, created at the Baghdad Conference on September 10–14, 1960, by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The five Founding Members were later joined by nine other Members: Qatar (1961); Indonesia (1962); Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1962); United Arab Emirates (1967); Algeria (1969); Nigeria (1971); Ecuador (1973) -- suspended its membership from December 1992-December 2007; Angola (2007); and Gabon (1975–1994).

Also, please show me a reference to the validity of this claim you made, I must have missed that economics class. I have never heard the claim that oligopoly was restricted from gas companies. I thought that was the very reason the government had to approve major mergers between any American oil Companies to prevent a monopoly or oligopoly situation in teh U.S. "You don't understand what an oligopoly is. It is when a few suppliers control the sale of a product. NOT when there is one product with no substitutes"

I am not defending anything, unless it was tried we simply will never know if it would work or not. All we both really have are opinions. I feel you should be able to debate without getting personal. Show a little class.

If I say you are ignorant, that is not name calling. It is saying you have no knowledge of a subject. If I say you are "stupid" or "dumb" then that is name calling.

I already stated that OPEC is a cartel and OPEC fixes the oil prices. I also stated that if you think that these different oil suppliers are meeting in back rooms somewhere conspiring about it - you are nuts! Yes, the companies all belong to OPEC. OPEC makes the rules. We (the oil companies in the USA, like BP, Exxon, and Shell) have chosen to buy oil from OPEC so we have to buy it at their price.

I can quote Wikipedia and other random internet sources too, just like you did. When I do it, I'll provide a citation. I know all about OPEC. I have a thesis on it and the similarities between them and the NCAA if you'd like to read it I can mail it to you.

An oligopoly is FEW (not 100's - FEW) companies that supply a good or service. Comcast, Charter, and Knology have an Oligopoly in Huntsville. The product, in this case oil, does not have any perfect substitutes. But to say there is an oligopoly is wrong. There are hundreds of companies that play big. There is one cartel that plays big. But there is no oligopoly.

We have opinions, and we have facts. The fact is, there is no oligopoly. The fact is that boycotting Exxon will not help.

I just quoted definitions and who was in OPEC, because you said certain oil producers did not get together to set the crude oil price. Which is exact ally what they do through OPEC. OPEC by setting production limits sets the crude price. I am talking about US prices and production not other countries. By just taking the reasonable man theory, you can just look at the extreme profits the major oil companies are making to see they are working together. It seems where we most disagree is I say there are few really big production players in the U.S. which creates the oligopoly in the U.S. According to my economics education there can a monopoly or oligopoly regionally or in a single Country. I am not talking about the whole world. You say you represent facts, I say they are theory's. Since there is no major boycott we cannot observe the process to make my hypothesis or yours fact. What is laughable is this almost exact thing happened in CA during the blackouts a few yrs back 2001. During the blackouts all the economics said it was only free market forces at work. When the dust settled and the government investigated they found widespread manipulation of the power grid to drastically increase the rates. There are even recordings of traders on the phone telling upper management of the elec co's "we need another shut down or outage so we can raise the rates further". I know you do not like links but this validates my claim on the Electric Companies. http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/wec/e...summary-findings.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by T S C:

Collusion is not taking place between all of the oil competitors. Supply is being outstripped by demand.

But our colluters are better than their colluters, as noted by an earlier post, European gas prices are astronomical.

quote:

Do you really think the Saudis, Iranians, Qatar, Iraq, Kuwait, and Nigerian oil producers are getting together to fix oil prices? Those are the major oil players, and if you can get those guys in a room to agree on anything then I think Condi Rice would like to talk to you about a job.

Mmmmm, well yes, I do. It's called OPEC and their credo reads: "OPEC's mission is to coordinate and unify the petroleum policies of Member Countries and ensure the stabilization of oil markets in order to secure an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consumers, a steady income to producers and a fair return on capital to those investing in the petroleum industry."

http://www.opec.org/home/

In fact, the massive oil crisis of the '70s came about because the OPEC countries got together, and instead of allowing the oil companies to dictate prices to the member countries, stood up and demanded a fair return on their product. That is they kicked the oil companies out, and took control of their oil. They don't directly control the price, the speculators do. They control the supply toward the ends stated in their credo (I'm sure that I'm using "credo" wrongly, but it ain't "click" )

You are absolutely correct that demand is outstripping supply. Even if OPEC were to loosen up on the supply, our refineries are currently running at capacity, and I wouldn't expect us to see any decrease in price until OPEC actually lowers their asking price. Why would they? China appears to be growing demand at an astounding rate, and with 1 billion+ people, the end to their demand growth is nowhere in sight.

quote:

Originally posted by excelman:
I actually believe that the "war" in Iraq is adding about $1.0 to $1.50 per gallon.
A lot of the price of gas along with supply and demand , is speculation and a lot of that is driven by the uncertainly caused by this nut in the White house who may bomb anybody at any time. In addition, that "war" is consuming about 1/2 million barrels / day of oil just to run it. Add to that the fact that Iraq is not producing even what it did in oil before Bush attacked them. All these things are affecting prices. The ammount I guess is debatable, but I do believe we are paying for that "war" with gas cost.

But, I thought Halliburton made us go to war so that we would have cheap oil?

quote:

We (the oil companies in the USA, like BP, Exxon, and Shell) have chosen to buy oil from OPEC so we have to buy it at their price.

These are not US companies.. Britian is the major holder of BP. The dutch (Netherlands)own Shell. Exxon, who knows (Rockefellers?)

They do not get any oil from opec countries. I'm not saying opec doesn't play a part in oil prices, they supply 40% of the world oil supply.

Chevron, Mobil, Shell and Texaco have settled price fixing lawsuits before.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE4DB...34A2575BC0A967958260

BP price fixing suit.

http://www.newser.com/story/10148.html


Just google [oil price fixing], theres plenty of reading.

Exxon later settled.

OK, so now we've come full circle. Yes OPEC is a cartel. No, all oil producers do not belong to it. Yes oil is a global commodity. Yes it's price is determined in the global market. Yes that price is a huge factor in determining what consumers in the USA pay for it. Yes taxes are also a large part of the price of oil in the USA. Yes the oil companies make a profit, if they didn't then they would close shop and someone else would take their place.

I still say: you can boycott all you want, it won't make prices go down. It may make prices INCREASE but there is no economic principle that would even suggest that it would cause a decrease in price. So good luck with your internet hoax scheme.

You guys got some NOVEL sounding ideas but a boycott against a certain company is not going to work and, let me tell you why....

You cant just refuse to buy a certain companies gas. You are going to have to quit buying gas period...The company that has a surplus of gas is just going to load it up on a barge and sell it it else where...When you have countries that are willing to give $3.00 to $4.00 a gallon for it at wholesale prices the companies are proud to sell it to them at that price...Its going to take a nationwide effort to stop the GOUGE...

I haul gas for a living and see how it works...

***REMEMBER IF YOU HAVE A TRUCK BROUGHT IT ****

does anyone remember the "gas" wars in the late 60' early 70's.went to Fla. in '72 on a diving trip and paid 0.25 cents a gal in lower Ga. and upper Fla.was it because we had that big a surplus? just wondering. In China the Gov subdises the gas to keep it at around $2/gal to keep their econony going.

quote:

Originally posted by matthew_tubbs:
You guys got some NOVEL sounding ideas but a boycott against a certain company is not going to work and, let me tell you why....

You cant just refuse to buy a certain companies gas. You are going to have to quit buying gas period...The company that has a surplus of gas is just going to load it up on a barge and sell it it else where...When you have countries that are willing to give $3.00 to $4.00 a gallon for it at wholesale prices the companies are proud to sell it to them at that price...Its going to take a nationwide effort to stop the GOUGE...

I haul gas for a living and see how it works...

***REMEMBER IF YOU HAVE A TRUCK BROUGHT IT ****

YEP, what he said!

quote:

The company that has a surplus of gas is just going to load it up on a barge and sell it it else where...When you have countries that are willing to give $3.00 to $4.00 a gallon for it at wholesale prices the companies are proud to sell it to them at that price...

I don't understand your point , I think?

If they can sell it elsewhere then why aren't they doing it already? Is there a shortage somewhere I'm not aware of?


Lets take exxon for example. If US boycatted them, where would they do business then, who would they sell their gas to? It is a UK owned company. Gas in the UK is over $5.50 per gallon, why do you suppose they are selling gas here at just over $3.00 per gallon?


Why are all the gas suppliers not selling their product where it commands the highest price? Several Countries are higher than the US.

In Europe gas costs more because of taxes. In the UK, its about 70 percent of the cost. Sorry, no price supports. Since 35 percent of US gas is still domestic, our production costs are a little less. UK's domestic production is still high due to the North Sea fields.

quote:

In Europe gas costs more because of taxes. In the UK, its about 70 percent of the cost. Sorry, no price supports. Since 35 percent of US gas is still domestic, our production costs are a little less. UK's domestic production is still high due to the North Sea fields.

So then, that rules out selling it to the UK. Where do they try to sell it now?

Netherlands, Norway? their price is a lot higher than ours.

Its about 70 percent in France and Germany as well. French do have fuel efficient Peugeots and Citroens, but at a 10 MPH crash, they fall apart - literally.

quote:

Originally posted by 46:1:

quote:

In Europe gas costs more because of taxes. In the UK, its about 70 percent of the cost. Sorry, no price supports. Since 35 percent of US gas is still domestic, our production costs are a little less. UK's domestic production is still high due to the North Sea fields.

So then, that rules out selling it to the UK. Where do they try to sell it now?

Netherlands, Norway? their price is a lot higher than ours.

They'll sell to Shell or BP, because all those people that boycott Exxon are just gonna go across the street and fill-up at the Shell station. You think they have enough spare gas laying around to handle all the former Exxon customers ?

quote:

Its about 70 percent in France and Germany as well. French do have fuel efficient Peugeots and Citroens, but at a 10 MPH crash, they fall apart - literally.

Actually all the other countries where the price is higher than ours is because of taxes.

In the UK, Gasoline @ $5.50 per gallon, considering the 70% tax, actually cost $1.65 per gallon.

In the US, a gallon of gas @ $3.00 per gallon including taxes, is actually about $2.60 before taxes, in Alabama. (states vary)

Why do we pay at such a high rate compared to the rest of the world? gouging maybe?

quote:

They'll sell to Shell or BP, because all those people that boycott Exxon are just gonna go across the street and fill-up at the Shell station. You think they have enough spare gas laying around to handle all the former Exxon customers ?

This idea falls apart before it gets started. For one thing Exxon and BP are owned by the same people. (mostly)


And do you mean Shell would by gas from exxon @ $3.00 per gallon and sell it at $3.00 per gallon?

What makes you thing Shell couldn't up their production with their own Gasoline?

A boycott will NOT work. There is no substitute good! You can boycott Coke and buy Pepsi. So Coke may lower their prices. That would work. You can boycott Ford and buy Toyotas and that would make Ford lower their prices. But boycotting an oil company is not the same because you are still going to have to buy the exact same product somewhere else.

You might even cause prices to go up if everyone began to boycott Exxon stations. That's because the remaining companies would have a greater demand for their product. (They'd split Exxon's share of the market.) Exxon could respond by temporarily lowering its prices a small amount, which would almost certainly break the boycott. Who is going to drive by $2.85 gas at Exxon when everyone else has it for $3.00? No one. Boycott over. Prices go right back up. Even if the people held true in their conviction to the boycott, they still wouldn't achieve their goals. As the other oil companies struggled to meet the rising demand (remember, there is NO SUBSTITUTE GOOD - demand for gas is flat), they'd be forced to buy wholesale gasoline from their competitors. (Their refineries are already operating at maximum capacity, so there's no way they'd be able to meet that demand by themselves). Guess who would be the only one able to step in to sell them that gasoline? Exxon. If gas is going for $3 per gallon do you think Exxon will sell it to a competitor for $3 a gallon? Hell no. They'll make a profit off of it, and the higher cost will be passed on to the consumer. Hence, higher gas prices due to the boycott. Great idea.

The only way to lower the price of such a good (one with no good substitutes) is to LOWER DEMAND or INCREASE SUPPLY. There is no other magical solution.

quote:

Originally posted by 46:1:

quote:

They'll sell to Shell or BP, because all those people that boycott Exxon are just gonna go across the street and fill-up at the Shell station. You think they have enough spare gas laying around to handle all the former Exxon customers ?

This idea falls apart before it gets started. For one thing Exxon and BP are owned by the same people. (mostly)


And do you mean Shell would by gas from exxon @ $3.00 per gallon and sell it at $3.00 per gallon?

What makes you thing Shell couldn't up their production with their own Gasoline?

Think man. Put that education to work.

I guess there would also be a need to boycott BP then. You'd also need to find out who else buys gasoline from Exxon. Does Kangaroo,Cowboys, or any other off brands, they'd all have to be boycotted.

The price at the pump is retail. Why would Shell import more oil, build and staff more refineries, when they could just drive those tanker trucks over to Exxon's refineries and fill em up. Besides, it would never get to that point. As TSC said, before they resorted to this, Exxon would simply lower their wholesale prices to whomever buys gasoline from them, which in turn would allow station operators to lower their price at the pump, which in turn would get them customers for their "cheaper" gas which would break any kind of boycott.

I don't know if you just don't understand, or you would just rather argue than admit your wrong.

If you want to hurt the oil companies, drive less, buy fuel efficient cars, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, insist on methanol rather than just ethanol. Insist we increase our refinery capabilities with blind, mandatory auction licenses for new refineries. Insist on drilling in our domestic supplies.

quote:

Originally posted by 46:1:

Actually all the other countries where the price is higher than ours is because of taxes.

In the UK, Gasoline @ $5.50 per gallon, considering the 70% tax, actually cost $1.65 per gallon.

In the US, a gallon of gas @ $3.00 per gallon including taxes, is actually about $2.60 before taxes, in Alabama. (states vary)

Why do we pay at such a high rate compared to the rest of the world? gouging maybe?

I don't know where you get your info from, but I have a friend from London who told me a few months ago, that gas was about 100 pence per liter, of which about 65 pence per liter was tax. At the current exchange rate, that's about $7.50 per gallon with about $4.70 per gallon tax. That is about $2.80 before taxes.

quote:

Originally posted by Howard Roark:
If you want to hurt the oil companies, drive less, buy fuel efficient cars, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, insist on methanol rather than just ethanol. Insist we increase our refinery capabilities with blind, mandatory auction licenses for new refineries. Insist on drilling in our domestic supplies.

I agree with most all of what you said , except the part about methanol. That would probably come from oil, and most cars have trouble with it- I am thinking it rots the hoses, and O-rings and such. Don't want that stuff around unless it is clearly labeled.

Historically, methanol was made from wood -- wood alchohol. Presently, methane, natural gas, is being used to produce methanol. But, methanol may be made from any organic material -- corn cobs and corn stalks, instead, of corn kernals.

Methanol shouldn't effect any rubber in cars made since the late 90s, when congress mandated all vehicles use multi-fuels. Ethanol used to rot rubber hoses in the older cars. Formulation of the hoses was changed.

Of course we could drive as the Amish do...