Gas prices

[chippa13 1844]

Consumer Reports has weekly averages by region.

[Jason Harris 31]

Although not everyone will be able to take advantage of this, people should consider buying their gasoline at Costco with the American Express True Savings credit card, which sends a 3% rebate check at the end of the year.

Costco is known to have high quality gasoline, and they tend to be five cents to twelve cents less than most other independents in an area. Throw in the 3% rebate (not instant savings) and that's another seven to ten cents depending on gas prices. By the way, it's a 4% rebate if you own a business and get the business version of the AmEx card.

To put it into real world circumstances, I filled up yesterday at Costco for $3.509/gallon for 87 octane. With my business card, that will make the net price $3.37 per gallon when I receive my rebate check.

By the way, as a political and editorial aside, I saw this information two days ago, because it was the anniversary of the Gulf spill. In the ensuing year, 101 bills were introduced to try to approve the potential safety of offshore drilling, because it has been well established that lax oversight led to the accident that caused the spill. Some of bills proposed that the oil industry must present safety procedures along with their requests for permit. None of those 101 bills passed. However, one passed in committee this week that had two curious provisions. The first provision says that if a request for permit is not approved within sixty days, it will be considered automatically approved. The second provision says that if a request for permit is not approved within thirty days, then the oil company must be given the name of the exact person on whose desk the permit sits; presumably, this is so they can ply that person with sexual favors or money, or so they can threaten them with loss of life. One or the other, just not sure which.

Finally, oil companies have easily been the most profitable industry in our country the past 3-5 years, with profits in the billions. However, it would appear to me we have antiquated thinking in our tax code regarding socially engineering corporate welfare for these behemoths. For instance, Paul Ryan's proposed budget that was much ballyhooed two weeks ago is asking for $40B in tax credits for the oil companies. Just playing with numbers, but assuming 200 million working Americans, that's a $200 annual investment that each of us would have to make to spur the oil companies to invest and continue eeking out their survival.

I've said it before, but somebody has to invent a polymer that can be added to paint to absorb solar rays, effectively make cars solar powered while the sun is shining. It might take 50 years, but whoever solves that riddle will be a wealthy man, unless the oil companies ply them with sexual favors or death first.....

[chippa13 1844]

Keep in mind, those billions in profits only represent a profit margin of 5-8%. The numbers that many of these companies deal with are so enormous that they sound ridiculous in numbers but when looked at as percentages, honestly, not ridiculously out of whack.

I do agree that the tax code needs to be simplified and folks should be paying their fair share. It is silly when the GE is the company with the largest tax office of any company out there.

[Sputnik20 46]

I'll take the sexual favors....just don't tell my wife...

[gxc999 7]

Keep in mind, those billions in profits only represent a profit margin of 5-8%. The numbers that many of these companies deal with are so enormous that they sound ridiculous in numbers but when looked at as percentages, honestly, not ridiculously out of whack.

I do agree that the tax code needs to be simplified and folks should be paying their fair share. It is silly when the GE is the company with the largest tax office of any company out there.

That's a particularly naive half truth, to put it mildly. To begin with companies that sell necessaries and have a large volume have traditionally had margins thinner than average and nobody ever had a gripe about it until recently.

Profit margins, you say? Exxon Mobil is about 9%, Chevron Corporation is at 9.8% (http://ycharts.com/companies/CVX), Shell is about 8%. If not for Conoco-Philips being an outlier at only 4%, the big 3 are doing well, considering overall average corporate profit margin was about 7% in 2008... The truth is that the big 3 used the price spike of a few years ago to grow their percentages nicely.

However the real point is that the oil companies receive an ASTOUNDING amount of government aid, direct and indirect, so much so that their making even 5% is practically equivalent to at least double that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

"According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry."

"Some of the tax breaks date back nearly a century, when they were intended to encourage exploration in an era of rudimentary technology, when costly investments frequently produced only dry holes. Because of one lingering provision from the Tariff Act of 1913, many small and midsize oil companies based in the United States can claim deductions for the lost value of tapped oil fields far beyond the amount the companies actually paid for the oil rights."

They also abuse tax shelters. I've read estimates suggesting total US Gov't Aid (direct and indirect) to oil companies, has exceeded $200B in a single year, http://www.ethanolrfa.org/news/entry/oil-subsidies-reached-312-billion-in-2009-iea/ I could go on but you get the point.

[hyprlte 0]

It now costs me over $60.00 to fill up my focus in Canada...

[RadioGaGa 162]

I don't remember the last time my truck was full...I put in what I can...when I can...usually $50-60 at a time...that's about half a tank.

[JTully317 11]

Read an article in the Boston Globe yesterday saying that prices may drop by up to 75 cents per gallon by summer time instead of everyone thinking they will continue to rise.

[RadioGaGa 162]

Read an article in the Boston Globe yesterday saying that prices may drop by up to 75 cents per gallon by summer time instead of everyone thinking they will continue to rise.

Wishful thinking...but I don't see them having a change of heart like that, unless it is legislated. Having said that...I remember when gas was just under a buck here, it spiked one Friday going into a long weekend...to 1.26/L. Then, Sunday afternoon back to 98.9. not sure if that was a long weekend gauge or in response to somethign that happened in the world at the time.

I suppose anything can happen.

[bigdmac 12]

$1.41/L in Toronto now, i think thats it highest ive ever personally seen

[RadioGaGa 162]

Coming down 6.7 cents tonight.

[Rustpot 1]

Spiked at $4.40 last week and dropped back to around $4.10 this weekend. Most stations I passed today are back up to $4.20-4.30

Just when I thought we were going to get under $4.

$250 in the last 3 weeks of receipts, hovering around 24mpg and traveling about 90 miles a day for my work commute.

[HolyRollie 0]

Just paid $64.04 to fill my Pilot today...wasn't even on empty yet.

[sitzlejd 0]

Just as the prices are getting out of control, the Fortune 500 list of Most Profitable Companies comes out. With $30 billion in profits, Exxon Mobil is number 1. They had 33% more profits than second place AT&T. Another oil company, Chevron, is in third by a hair.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/performers/companies/profits/

[Jason Harris 31]

Conoco Phillips was among the top ten also, and they had something like 113% increased profits last year.

The Senate had discussions today to remove from the budget the $4B in tax breaks given to the oil companies, since that was put in place when oil was $17 a barrel and was meant to be an incentive to get the oil companies to explore for new sources. At $100 a barrel, they have the resources -- and the incentive -- to go looking for new wells to dig, so the trending emotion is we don't need to subsidize them on our dime.

Finally, I saw something the other day that a government report estimated that nearly 20% of the cost of gasoline is caused by speculation, meaning no ties to the production, refining or transportation of oil/gas. The speculators invest in the market with the express purpose of jacking up the price. While many might say that's savvy business, I think Washington is viewing gasoline as too necessary to society, because Congress is discussing whether to make it illegal to speculate in the oil market.

[Chadd 916]

While many might say that's savvy business, I think Washington is viewing gasoline as too necessary to society, because Congress is discussing whether to make it illegal to speculate in the oil market.

I'd love to see a law requiring oil buyers to actually take physical delivery of some percentage of the oil they buy.

[Jason Harris 31]

I believe that's what's being discussed, but the impression I got was it wouldn't be likely to pass.

[Chadd 916]

I believe that's what's being discussed, but the impression I got was it wouldn't be likely to pass.

We have to prop up the economic numbers with bubble money on wall street.

[skyscrape 5]

I read something yesterday that said oil prices fell enough that gas should drop ten to twenty cents in the next week. This would be nice!

[gxc999 7]

I'd love to see a law requiring oil buyers to actually take physical delivery of some percentage of the oil they buy.

We have to prop up the economic numbers with bubble money on wall street.

Dead RIGHT, brother. It's embarrassing how we let a few hundred greedy morons destroy an economy made up of billions of people...

[acollette49 0]

gas was $3.93 two days ago. wish id filled up then instead of waiting till today when it was $4.05...

[-venom- 0]

I'd love to see a law requiring oil buyers to actually take physical delivery of some percentage of the oil they buy.

This, exactly.

Makes me mad that congress allows this practice to continue, when it's seriously hampering the recovery of oneof the worst recessions this country has ever seen. It's a joke, really.

[Leafsrule16 5]

What pisses me off is this whole 'under __ mpg' crap. If its going to come to a point where the government tells you what you can and cant drive then we all might as well just move to a Communist country. What a person's personal vechical gets for miles per gallon (a subjective, highly false and unrealistic government measurment) shoudlnt matter to anyone but the person paying the overpriced gas bills. I bought an 05 civic, i get between 36-44 mpg roughly depending on circumstances. Sure its great but i dont want to drive a small car, hell if gas was half decently priced (80 cents a litre anyone?) id drive something with a big block. I guess what i was trying to say was the goverment should back off and stop trying to make these rules which are totally useless. For a president in an office to try and control something he knows little to nothing about and has no buisness meddling in is rediclous. What he should be doing is trying to find other ways to get the price of oil to lower, not bully hard working citazens into buying crap new cars which will just fall apart anyways. They dont make new cars near as good as they used to, i bet i could never swap a motor in my yard with an engine lift and basic tools and have it running in a 3 hour peroid with any of these new eco crap cars. Also, domestic 4 cylinders are almost all shit.

[Jason Harris 31]

You'll always have the personal choice to buy the lowest mileage car available; the only difference is the lowest mileage car today might be 9 MPG, whereas five years from now it might be 13 MPG.

Regarding the durability of the cars, today's cars are actually lasting longer overall; it's not unheard of for cars to hit 100K with no more than oil and tire changes. And they're more comfortable and safer. From what I've read, hitting the mileage mandates won't be that tough for the auto makers; they could have done it earlier, but the truth is there is more profit in trucks and SUV's, so they try to steer buyers in that direction.

[Chadd 916]

From what I've read, hitting the mileage mandates won't be that tough for the auto makers; they could have done it earlier, but the truth is there is more profit in trucks and SUV's, so they try to steer buyers in that direction.

Getting people to buy the vehicles that hit the mileage mandates is the bigger issue. People seem to want bigger vehicles and vehicles with more power than in the past. Add in all the added weight from the safety features added over the years and there are issues making sufficiently efficient vehicles, that also appeal to consumers.