Someone explain this BS to me

[Lieslntx]

And while we're on the subject, anyone want to try and explain this: That same station is across the street from another station. The other station is inevitably 10 to 20 cents cheaper (as of yesterday, it was 20). OK, that happens. Fine. I get that. But here's the thing: THEY'RE BOTH CONOCO STATIONS! Why does that happen?

One of the stations is owned directly by Conoco and the other is an independently-owned Conoco.

That makes no damn sense. I don't mean that to impugn your answer, by the way, because that's probably what it is. But it still makes no damn sense.

The station owned by Conoco doesn't have to raise the price of their gas to make a profit. They actually get it cheaper than the independent owner. Independent owner has to raise the price a few cents just to make a little something.

 

[JBHawkEye]

I told this story over on the How Much Did You Pay For Gas Today thread.

Last night on the local news, they did a story on area stations getting close to the $4 mark. The reporter and camera guy found a convenience store that was selling gas 20 cents cheaper per gallon than all of the other stations in the area. The manager wouldn't come on camera to talk.
So the reporter and camera guy, as they're packing up to leave, catch him coming out of the store with his remote control (it was an electronic sign outside the station) and tape him as he jacks up the price 30 cents. They go over and ask him why he did it. "Everybody else is doing it," he said, and walked into the store.
You can blame the politics of this all you want (although I somehow doubt if there's Obama in the White House and a Democratic House and Senate this time next year the price of gas is going to magically drop to $1.50). There's just a lot of profit taking all along the distribution ladder because the market is so volatile.

 

[Brooklyn Bridge]

Not to defend the oil companies by any means, but there is a lot more at work here than just Bush sucks and oil companies are making money. That maybe true, but you have to figure in the rise in demand from India and China, who are taking in much more oil today than they were 10-15 years ago. Booming industry and a growing middle class means more people buying cars (what you think they wanted to ride bicycles everywhere?) Combine that with problems in Nigeria and Venezuela--Chavez replaced actual engineers with his dopes and guess what? Production goes down. Combine that with the fact that refineries in this country are 30 years old and no new ones are scheduled to come online and that slows the whole refining process down.

Now Congress and your local/state/county gov't can also cut your gas tax--But OMG! We would lose precious revenue!

 

[Twoback]

Any congressman who wants to get re-elected should demand that the oil execs be dragged into public hearings to explain this. It's the no-brainer political play of the decade.

Once again:
Oil is traded as a commodity. Right now, that commodity is being valued extremely highly -- because speculators are piling in and buying up oil contracts figuring that consumers will not decrease their demand for oil and therefore the price will continue to go up.
Last time I checked, oil had touched over $127 a barrel.
It cannot be a surprise that this would lead to astonishing increases at the pump.
It's not fun, but there's no evidence the oil companies are responsible for this. They're just the beneficiaries.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Oil is now $127 a barrel. Who is beating off to that? Have you watched the price on the world oil markets steadily climbing the last few weeks? It was below $100 a barrel as recently as two or three months ago.

And BT, that "speculative" influence is not people just making up prices out of thin air. There is a market. Buyers and sellers. The market knows the price of oil is heading to $200 a barrel, as places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuala keep holding back on drilling more to limit supply to the world market, while demand in China, India and the emerging markets continues to increase. Buyers want in. No one is selling unless they can get a premium. It would be stupid to.

And people are investing, or speculating, because with the dollars in a free fall, this is one market that fundamentally looks to be offering higher prices in the future for people who were overexposed to the U.S., and promises to actually pay a return. No one is "speculating"--i.e. investing--to lose money.

These threads always elicit the worst, most irrational responses too. There is no conspiracy. There isn't enough oil to meet demand. The worse that situation gets, the higher prices get. Get used to it, because the price is not done going up.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Just now reading Jack Beatty's The Age Of Betrayal. There's a long passage about how much John D. Rockefeller hated free-market competition and how hard he worked to destroy it. Yergin's right. Oil has always been uniquely vulnerable to control-by-cartel. Argue about good-or-bad on that basis, but no oil company has truly exposed itself to market forces in an awfully long time.

 

[trifectarich]

Gas can go up 18 cents overnight because you and me and everyone else has little choice but to pay.

You can talk supply and demand and speculators and global markets and pipeline worries and trouble in Nigeria and all the economic factors you want, but for one second put yourself in the shoes of Mr. Convenience Store owner. If a higher price doesn't impact the number of gallons you sell, why wouldn't you put a few extra cents in your pocket?

There has to be a price where it has a great impact on our driving habits, but evidently we're not there yet.

 

[Football_Bat]

Oil is now $127 a barrel. Who is beating off to that? Have you watched the price on the world oil markets steadily climbing the last few weeks? It was below $100 a barrel as recently as two or three months ago.

And BT, that "speculative" influence is not people just making up prices out of thin air. There is a market. Buyers and sellers. The market knows the price of oil is heading to $200 a barrel, as places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuala keep holding back on drilling more to limit supply to the world market, while demand in China, India and the emerging markets continues to increase. Buyers want in. No one is selling unless they can get a premium. It would be stupid to.

And people are investing, or speculating, because with the dollars in a free fall, this is one market that fundamentally looks to be offering higher prices in the future for people who were overexposed to the U.S., and promises to actually pay a return. No one is "speculating"--i.e. investing--to lose money.

These threads always elicit the worst, most irrational responses too. There is no conspiracy. There isn't enough oil to meet demand. The worse that situation gets, the higher prices get. Get used to it, because the price is not done going up.

This is the very definition of a market bubble. The dollar's drop in the last 18 months has been WAY disproportionate to the rise of the price of a barrel of oil.

The bigger the bubble grows, the bigger the pop. And the "beating off" will be to the joy of watching Joe Oil-Douche have to hock his BlueTooth after oil craters back to $40 a barrel.

 

[alleyallen]

And while we're on the subject, anyone want to try and explain this: That same station is across the street from another station. The other station is inevitably 10 to 20 cents cheaper (as of yesterday, it was 20). OK, that happens. Fine. I get that. But here's the thing: THEY'RE BOTH CONOCO STATIONS! Why does that happen?

One of the stations is owned directly by Conoco and the other is an independently-owned Conoco.

That makes no damn sense. I don't mean that to impugn your answer, by the way, because that's probably what it is. But it still makes no damn sense.

The station owned by Conoco doesn't have to raise the price of their gas to make a profit. They actually get it cheaper than the independent owner. Independent owner has to raise the price a few cents just to make a little something.

Folks...she's spot on with this one. And trust me, we know from first-hand experience.

 

[flopflipper]

The Senate yesterday rejected, 56-42, an energy plan that called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and some offshore waters that are now off limits to oil development.

Well, at least the paisley-beaked worbler is safe. We can all feel good about that.

 

[ink-stained wretch]

Oil prices are pegged to the dollar, ergo a weak dollar drives up the price. In addition, speculation is pushing the price of crude skywards. Increased demand from developing countries. They, too, want to drive SUVs.

Just as with tech stocks, hedge funds and housing, the speculation is pumping up a bubble.

Want to burst that bubble? Cut demand. That's coming as the consumer reacts to "market forces" -- those would be the bastards with their hands in my wallet.

 

[alleyallen]

The Senate yesterday rejected, 56-42, an energy plan that called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and some offshore waters that are now off limits to oil development.

Well, at least the paisley-beaked worbler is safe. We can all feel good about that.

Yes, let's continue to rape the planet so you and yours can drive gas-guzzling SUVs.

What happens then, smartass, when the oil runs out in that area? Right back where we are.

 

[Armchair_QB]

The Senate yesterday rejected, 56-42, an energy plan that called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and some offshore waters that are now off limits to oil development.

Well, at least the paisley-beaked worbler is safe. We can all feel good about that.

Yes, let's continue to rape the planet so you and yours can drive gas-guzzling SUVs.

What happens then, smartass, when the oil runs out in that area? Right back where we are.

Under that line of thinking we shouldn't be drilling anywhere.

 

[alleyallen]

The Senate yesterday rejected, 56-42, an energy plan that called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and some offshore waters that are now off limits to oil development.

Well, at least the paisley-beaked worbler is safe. We can all feel good about that.

Yes, let's continue to rape the planet so you and yours can drive gas-guzzling SUVs.

What happens then, smartass, when the oil runs out in that area? Right back where we are.

Under that line of thinking we shouldn't be drilling anywhere.

No...under the line of thinking from my argument, we shouldn't be drilling in an wildlife reserve. Big difference.

 

[Armchair_QB]

The Senate yesterday rejected, 56-42, an energy plan that called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and some offshore waters that are now off limits to oil development.

Well, at least the paisley-beaked worbler is safe. We can all feel good about that.

Yes, let's continue to rape the planet so you and yours can drive gas-guzzling SUVs.

What happens then, smartass, when the oil runs out in that area? Right back where we are.

Under that line of thinking we shouldn't be drilling anywhere.

No...under the line of thinking from my argument, we shouldn't be drilling in an wildlife reserve. Big difference.

What about offshore?

 

[alleyallen]

The Senate yesterday rejected, 56-42, an energy plan that called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and some offshore waters that are now off limits to oil development.

Well, at least the paisley-beaked worbler is safe. We can all feel good about that.

Yes, let's continue to rape the planet so you and yours can drive gas-guzzling SUVs.

What happens then, smartass, when the oil runs out in that area? Right back where we are.

Under that line of thinking we shouldn't be drilling anywhere.

No...under the line of thinking from my argument, we shouldn't be drilling in an wildlife reserve. Big difference.

What about offshore?

With the waste and other secondary results that come with drilling offshore, the refuge could face ecological danger even then. With this administration's sometimes disregard for the environment and protections, I wouldn't trust them to do the job right even offshore.

 

[flopflipper]

The Senate yesterday rejected, 56-42, an energy plan that called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and some offshore waters that are now off limits to oil development.

Well, at least the paisley-beaked worbler is safe. We can all feel good about that.

Yes, let's continue to rape the planet so you and yours can drive gas-guzzling SUVs.

What happens then, smartass, when the oil runs out in that area? Right back where we are.

So what's your solution? Everybody on here is bitching about gas prices and then when a solution is brought forth it's not good enough. Okay everyone, just ride a damn bike. There's Alley's solution.

 

[Armchair_QB]

The Senate yesterday rejected, 56-42, an energy plan that called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and some offshore waters that are now off limits to oil development.

Well, at least the paisley-beaked worbler is safe. We can all feel good about that.

Yes, let's continue to rape the planet so you and yours can drive gas-guzzling SUVs.

What happens then, smartass, when the oil runs out in that area? Right back where we are.

Under that line of thinking we shouldn't be drilling anywhere.

No...under the line of thinking from my argument, we shouldn't be drilling in an wildlife reserve. Big difference.

What about offshore?

With the waste and other secondary results that come with drilling offshore, the refuge could face ecological danger even then. With this administration's sometimes disregard for the environment and protections, I wouldn't trust them to do the job right even offshore.

Uh, this admin won't be around by the time they start drilling. It'll be Obama and Co. in charge by then.

And I wasn't speaking of drilling offshore in ANWR. Just offshore in general.

 

[flopflipper]

The Senate yesterday rejected, 56-42, an energy plan that called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and some offshore waters that are now off limits to oil development.

Well, at least the paisley-beaked worbler is safe. We can all feel good about that.

Yes, let's continue to rape the planet so you and yours can drive gas-guzzling SUVs.

What happens then, smartass, when the oil runs out in that area? Right back where we are.

Under that line of thinking we shouldn't be drilling anywhere.

No...under the line of thinking from my argument, we shouldn't be drilling in an wildlife reserve. Big difference.

What about offshore?

With the waste and other secondary results that come with drilling offshore, the refuge could face ecological danger even then. With this administration's sometimes disregard for the environment and protections, I wouldn't trust them to do the job right even offshore.

Uh, this admin won't be around by the time they start drilling. It'll be Obama and Co. in charge by then.

And I wasn't speaking of drilling offshore in ANWR. Just offshore in general.

When Obama's president there won't be any need to drill. Gas will be free for all.

 

[alleyallen]

The Senate yesterday rejected, 56-42, an energy plan that called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and some offshore waters that are now off limits to oil development.

Well, at least the paisley-beaked worbler is safe. We can all feel good about that.

Yes, let's continue to rape the planet so you and yours can drive gas-guzzling SUVs.

What happens then, smartass, when the oil runs out in that area? Right back where we are.

Under that line of thinking we shouldn't be drilling anywhere.

No...under the line of thinking from my argument, we shouldn't be drilling in an wildlife reserve. Big difference.

What about offshore?

With the waste and other secondary results that come with drilling offshore, the refuge could face ecological danger even then. With this administration's sometimes disregard for the environment and protections, I wouldn't trust them to do the job right even offshore.

Uh, this admin won't be around by the time they start drilling. It'll be Obama and Co. in charge by then.

And I wasn't speaking of drilling offshore in ANWR. Just offshore in general.

Misunderstood you on several fronts, then. I'm not necessarily against offshore drilling, but I absolutely am in this area. And this administration has been the one pushing for drilling in the ANWR, whether the drilling starts now or later. But if Obama goes ahead with it, then he's equally culpable.