Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Gas prices set new records, $6 possible

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 04:53 PM
Original message
Gas prices set new records, $6 possible
Gas stations in states such as California, Hawaii and Florida have already started charging more than $5 per gallon in isolated cases, and reported that a gas station in Orlando, Fla., was charging $5.69 per gallon of regular gas. That currently is the highest price per gallon in the country.

Gas prices across the country average $3.86 per gallon for regular gas right now, according to AAA Fuel Gauge Report. That is more than $1 per gallon higher than this time last year, potentially setting up a very expensive summer driving season.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. And with high prices for food
I fear the nation won't be in peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Drale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. When people stop driving and
Oil companies profits drop, the price will go down. Don't try and tell me gas is high because of the market or supply or any bullshit, because if that was true Exon would not be expecting record profits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. When public transportation is offered on a wide scale
People will drive less.

I am currently on a trip to the midwest that I would have considered using High Speed Rail for IF it were available. Flying is no longer convenient or timely for such trips as this. But if I could have hopped on a train in Cleveland and taken it through Chicago or St. Louis to Kansas City, I would then have someone pick me up there and not spent 10 hours on the freeway burning the gas. 20,000+ vehicles travel I80 between Cleveland and Chicago alone. High Speed Rail would alleviate a lot of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. 6% of $120/bbl is more than 6% of $70/bbl
Just by maintaining the same profit margin a demand driven price increase means higher profits; especially since people have to keep buying about the same amount of gas even if they have to pay more.

There could be (are) shenanigans going on, but increased profits aren't the proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. Link - note the graphs for supply and demand /

if prices weren't high then we really would be in bizarro world. When you have more buyers than you have product, and they're willing to pay any price (seemingly), you make out pretty well. No conspiracy necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. What me Worry? electric cars will bring down gas consumption and gas prices - in a 'few' years.....
"What, ME worry?"

. like 25 years....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. cars and trucks averaging 80-85 mph on the ron reagan tollroad from chicago
only the big rigs were traveling at posted speed.

it`s a real trip watching a big ass chevy or ford truck blowing by at 80-85 mph knowing they are averaging around 10 mpg.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. When I see that, I just remake "The price of gasoline is NOT high enough".
I drive a 1997 Dodge Dakota, get about 18 mpg when I keep it around 50 mph. I looked into buying a new car but the math still keeps me driving the Dakota.


I drive about 20,000 miles per year (most people average 15,000, the Insurance Companies say 12,000). Given the fact I bike from Home to work, tells you something about the Mileage I put on.

But lets look at the numbers:

At 20 mpg, I use about 1000 gallons of gasoline a year (at 15,009 miles, 750 gallons, at 12,000 miles 600 Gallons per year).

Thus, at 20 mpg, I pay $4000 a year at $4 a gallon (15,000 miles equal $3000, at 12,000 miles $2400).

I looked at the new Chevrolet Eco Cruze, a 1.4 turbo-charged four Cylinder engine, gear for maximum fuel economy, it gets 42 mpg, If I assume 40 mpg, I cut the COST of gasoline I use per year in half (Down to $2000, if I drove 15,000 miles to $1500, at 12,000 miles $ 1200).

If I assume insurance will be about $1000 a year, no matter what I drive, I "Save" $2000 a year if I buy the Eco, the problem is my Dakota is 100% paid for, the Eco, sells for about $18,000 or about $450 a month for a five year payment plan or about $5400 per year. Thus while I save $2000 in gasoline, my cost of paying off the Eco is $5400, or a net lost of $3400 per year for five years (at 20,000 miles per year, or $3900 at 15,000 miles per year, $4200 at 12,000 miles per year).

The numbers get better at $5 a gallon, $5000, $3750, $3000 price of fuel with saving of $2500, $1875, $1500 Less the cost of a new car of $5400, $2900, or $3525 and $$3900.

At $10 a gallon the numbers get interesting:
$5400 cost of a new car per year
At $10 per gallon, 1000 gallons equal $10,000, 750 equals $7500, 600 gallons equal $6000.
Saving on switching to a 40 mpg car, $5000, $3250, $3000

Thus even at $10 a gallon, it is cheaper for me to keep my car then trade it in.

At $11 a Gallon, my 20 mpg Dakota cost $11,000 at 20,000 miles, $8250 at 15,000 miles, and $6600 at $12,000 miles. Savings of $5500, $4125 and $3300. Thus at $11 a gallon it pays me to trade in my Dakota and get a new car no matter how well my Dakota is running.

At $12 a Gallon (I will ignore 20,000 mile per year, just use 15,000 and 12,000 miles per year)
At 15,000 miles per year, price will be $9000 and at 12,000 miles per year $7200. Still Cheaper to keep my Dakota at 15,000 miles (Saving is only $4500 at 15,000 miles per year, $3600 if I drive 12,000, both still in excess of $5400 per year price of a new car per year).

At $14 a gallon, my Dakota will cost me $10,500 in gasoline to use, the savings in getting an Eco will be $5250. Given the cost of repairs on a 13 year old trucks (It cost me $580 to get the truck to pass inspection this year), At just over $14 a gallon I have to junk my Dakota and get a Eco.

At $16 a gallon, at 12,000 miles per year, my Dakota will cost me $9650 in gasoline. If I purchased an Econ $4800 in gasoline. About the breaking point for the Dakota NOT to pay for itself.

At $17 a gallon, at 12,000 miles, My Dakota would cost me $10,200 in Gasoline, An Eco would cost me only $5100 in gasoline.

Thus my "Break even point" in terms of whole dollars is $11 at 20,000 miles a year, $14 a gallon at 15,000 miles per year and $17 a gallon at 12,000 miles per year. Thus until the price of Gasoline get a lot higher then what it is, I am better off NOT trading in my car, but using other alternatives, i.e Biking to and from work. Taking the Train on Weekend trips to Pittsburgh from my Home in Johnstown Pa (One way fare is only $14. The train and the Dakota are tied in terms of price right now, at 20 mpg gallon and a round trip of 180 miles the gasoline cost at $4 a gallon at 20 miles per gallon or 9 gallons, is $36 dollars, round trip is $28 dollars so a saving of $8 per trip to Pittsburgh, I started to use the train when Gasoline hit $3 a gallon or $27 a round trip as oppose to Amtrak's $28 a round trip). The only problem is the train only runs once a day, 6:00 pm in the Evening at Johnstown to Pittsburgh and 7:20 am (except Sunday, then it is 1:20 pm) from Pittsburgh to Johnstown and points east). If I have a hearing early Monday Morning, I have to take the 1:20 on Sunday instead of the 7:20 on Monday. The Train arrives in Johnstown at 3:00 pm on Sunday, and 9:00 am every other day of the Week).

My point is that it will be hard for a lot of people to STOP using their cars from just an economic Point of view. i.e. it is hard for them to justify trading in their old cars for a new more fuel efficient one. The other major way to save money is to move closer to your point of work. This is easier for high income people then low income people for over the last 20 years you have have seen a lot of Gentrification in old urban centers so that it is easy to get a high end home close to work, if you work in the Urban center. It is also relatively easier to find housing close to suburban work locations if you are willing and able to pay the price. The problem is low income people tend to live miles away from their jobs, and most of low income people's jobs, now-a-days, tend to be in suburbia, where their is no mass transit, biking is hard to do, and housing is to expensive for low income people to obtain (Most low income people live in the old urban centers, older suburbs (i.e. former "Trolley Suburbs" of the 1900-1930 period), or old rural industry centers (Common in Western Pennsylvania, referred to as "Coal Patches" built in the late 1800s to early 1900s to provide housing for miners, many such "Coal Patches" exist all through the suburbs of Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania) and even old small cities and towns now absorb by suburbia.

One last comment, as to "Big Ass Chevrolets and Fords Truck" passing at 80-85 miles per hour, I rarely see that, I do see a lot of "Big Ass Chevrolets, Fords, Dodges, Toyotas, Hummers and Jeeps" SUVs, passing me at 80-85 mpg but rarely pickups. This goes back to a study done a few years ago and when it came HOW someone looked at a Vehicle, a clear division exists. SUV drivers are much like Sports Car drivers and large Cars drivers, they put more importance on appearing to be "empowered" then anything else. Mini-Vans, Station wagon and Pick up owner used the same terms, but meant it in terms of how it permit them to help their neighbors and communities (i.e. hauling people and things around for themselves AND others). When I read the Article it was interesting, but like the Authors not unexpected. SUV drivers are closer to Sports Car drivers then Pick up Drivers in attitude. Pick up drivers have always had more in common with Station Wagon and Mini-van operators then SUV drivers. I See Pick up drivers, Station wagon drivers, Hatch back drivers and Mini-van Drivers, opting for lower speeds, bicycle and mass transit while before Sports car and SUV drivers are off the road.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. that`s why i have`t sold my 86 crx yet
it`s not running and it needs about 1500 to rebuild . the last 86 i had got around 35mpg at 75 mph. at 64 years old what the hell do i need a new car?

i was surprised at the big trucks and suv`s going that fast but it`s a really nice road where the cops will pull you over if you really drive stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. I got rid of my 1995 Jeep Wrangler last month, cost to much to repair
It needed a whole new exhaust system, four new tires, a new right side spring, and the engine mounts replaced and the engine put back on them, just to pass inspection (Total estimated cost about $2000 dollars). The lack of a Radio (needed to be replaced) and the Driver's door needed extensive repairs (It would sometimes close, sometimes not, it needed its whole inside re-worked). I never did replace the glove box that was fixed the last time it was Stolen. Thus an additional cost of over $1000 just to get it to "Good" Condition, just was NOT worth it, given I also had a 1997 Dakota in much better shape (and only 137,000 miles compared to the Jeeps, 250,000 miles).

My mechanic looked over the Jeep, came up with a rough estimate and suggested I just scrap the Jeep Wrangler. I had to agree. I then looked into buying a new car, the Cruze Econ intrigue me for it had a 1.4 Turbo Charge Engine, which gave it plenty of power, yet given its 1.4 turbo charge engine it was rated by the EPA at 42 mpg on the Highway with a Six Speed Standard Transmission.

I remember in the 1970s, the main automobile writer for Popular Science or Popular Mechanic mentioned that as far as he was concerned, no one needed a car with a larger engine then 2.5 liters. With Turbo Charging, you could have a smaller (and lighter) engine that provide the same amount of power, thus I liked the 1.4 liter engine.

In the 1970s, several automobile writers endorsed turbo Charging for it permitted a smaller and lighter engine to provide the same power as a larger heavier engine. The smaller engine being lighter, brings with it better fuel economy.

Now, some writers of the 1970s advocated the adoption of Super Chargers instead of Turbo Chargers, the main difference is the Super Charger permits even greater gain in power from an engine (Thus permitting even smaller and lighter engines, thus even better fuel economy). The main disadvantage of the Super Charger was it drew power from the engine, while the turbo-charger did no. While the Super Charger did draw power from the engine, it provided MORE power then even a Turbo Charger attached to the same engine. I believe other technical problems kicked in, greater maintenance needed on Super Chargers, the need to replace Super chargers sooner then turbo Chargers (Including maybe even within the Five year warranty period) and the extra belts that must rotate even when the Super Charger is NOT is use (i.e. drain on the engine even when NOT needed), were among the technical problems. On the other hand a Supercharge 1,0 liter engine could provide the same power as a V-8 (Through at the cost of blowing out the engine within the five year warranty period).

Just remembering the 1970s, the last time the US was serious about Fuel Economy, and what was being looked at, before Reagan and Thacher (To destroy the Soviet Union) conspired to drop the price of oil below the cost of production in the Soviet Union (One of the causes of the Collapse of the Soviet Union) but while it was "Good" in the short term (The Soviet Union fell), it was more harmful in the long term (No one even looked at improving Fuel economy in the US from 1980 till 2008 and in my opinion they still have not).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. around 74-78 i had a 72 Pontiac Formula 400
functioning hood scoop with side pipe exhaust ending at the the rear wheels. to say the least the car was a lot of fun driving on pavement but more fun on gravel. mpg was around ten mpg well 15-20 when i kept my foot out of it. i decided for some unknown reason to sell it cause gas went up to 1.50. i was working a union job in the forge shop making around 10-11 per hour. i should have stored the car instead of selling it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
endless october Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. $4.17 at this 20 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
8. Exxon-Mobil expected to see a 56% rise in profits over last year due to $100 a barrel oil.

Wall Street analysts expect Exxon to earn $9.8 billion, or $2.01 a share, according to the consensus forecast in a survey by FactSet Research, when the company reports on Thursday.

If the Irving, Texas-based oil and natural-gas powerhouse hits the mark, its profit will rise a hefty 56% from $6.3 billion, or $1.33 a share reported in the year-ago period.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. What do you expect, Exxon owns most of the "Stripper" wells in the US
Edited on Mon Apr-25-11 09:33 PM by happyslug
85% of all wells in the US are "Stripper Wells", One out of every six barrels of Oil produced in the US is from a "Stripper well". I have heard these referred to a "Seepper wells" but that appears to be an incorrect term, which I have even used in the past on DU.

A "Stripper well" is a well that is producing "10 barrels of oil a day or less". /

A "Stripper Well" is an old well, long past its prime. You get oil out of it, but slowly, as low as a barrel a month (or lower). The owners of such wells send a truck to the pump, operate it for a few hours, till it run dry, then cap it again till it is time to pump that well again. Between pumps the remaining oil in the well "seeps" to the well head. Water is pumped into other well heads (Oil will float on top of Water) so the water pushes to oil to the well head. Over time enough oil reaches the well head to justify pumping the well.

Operating costs of these wells are cheap, they were drilled decades ago. The pipe may be rusty, but is still strong enough to withstand the little stress put on it by the little pumping from the well that is done. These exist all over Western Pennsylvania, You can go months without seeing them in operation, then they work for a few hours, then not used for months afterward. The same with various wells in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and other oil producing states. These are cheap wells to operate and the oil can be sold for whatever the market will bare.

More on "Stripper wells": /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
12. God Damn, God Damn . . . The Pusher
The Pusher Man isn't going to tell the addicts the supply is drying up.

Can't have the addicts kicking before the price run-ups due to a dwindling supply of a critical inelastic commodity.

"Everything is fine, we're getting a load in from KSA next week, just hang in there. By the way, the price for a tar ball has gone up $1.00/gal."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
16. Wind-fall Profit Tax, now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 20th 2017, 06:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC