***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 8 *****
This is a sub forum to discuss the problems associated with the ever increasing cost of fuel.
This is Volume 7. It will be locked after 100 replies and another volume opened.
Usual rules apply.
Any newly opened threads surrounding fuel costs will be moved in here.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 10/10/2008 at 13:49
|
we should stop driving to work & stay at home claiming its too expensive to go to work. That would bring the country to its knees in 2 weeks.
I have a Pal thats now spending £450 a month just on fuel to commute! more than he Mortage & he now thinks its time to pack up alltogether. All the time we keep buying it , it will keep going up!
America are taking a stance on fue;l prices now & starting to reduce the number of days they work
i Doc
|
|
And when you don't turn up for work and they dock the pay... and then the bills come through the letter box you will do what??
|
My local Shell hasn't moved its pump prices since the Supermarkets dropped theirs last week. The price at this station has stalled for a couple of weeks.
In the U.S. as soon as the price of a barrel comes down, the pump price is immediately lowered. Why can't they do it here?
|
|
Having just come back from the US I would hazard a guess that there is a political reason George W drills oils, big oil companies like him as a consequence and for many reasons want McCain to get in, currently the way to an American's heart is through the gas filler. Easy. Shame no-one likes Gordon (apart from Mrs Gordon)
|
|
|
|
I have a Pal thats now spending £450 a month just on fuel to commute!
He should do what I did 15 years ago, which was buy a house nearer to where I worked.
|
|
|
|
Earlier this week, noticed that they've gone down:
Thu, 17 Jul £1.199
Mon, 21 Jul £1.189
Thu, 24 Jul £1.139
What's happening? Is it the end of the world?
|
|
Local Asda unleaded is now £1.08. They are simply reflecting the drop in crude prices. It's always headlined as a 'supermarket fuel price war', but I'm sure my local Shell will have U/L at £1.07 pretty soon.
|
|
|
|
Why do certain members of the government get upset when utility companies increase gas/electricity prices?
After all isn't their stated policy (on vehicle fuel) to reduce use by increasing cost (fuel duty escalator) and what is the difference, apart from who gets the money.
Yet another example of politicians hypocrisy!
|
Why do certain members of the government get upset when utility companies increase gas/electricity prices?
They don't... they just pretend to... to make it look like they "care"...
|
|
|
............... reduce use by increasing cost (fuel duty escalator) ..........
Any reduction is usually only temporary. After a short while people forget about it and go back to their usual consumption. I use just as much petrol now as I did when it was 25 pence per gallon (5.5 pence per litre).
|
|
|
Why do certain members of the government get upset when utility companies increase gas/electricity prices?
Actually I was quite surprised by the opposite view taken by the Energy Minister. He was defending their right to raise prices to make profits as we need the Companies to survive to provide our future energy.
It is the emotive and misleading headlines and reporting by the media [ of "billions of £s" of profits ] that I find is hypocritical. Those same journalists and media commentators have no qualms demanding hundreds of thousands of £s in pay and fees for a few hours or minutes work each week.
If the likes of Shell, BP, Centrica [British Gas] are not allowed to raise prices and make profits, there is no incentive for them to invest in the energy market. When Centrica make just 2% profit on gas sales to the consumer, their shareholders will want to know why the Company does not switch to investing in Bonds and Deposits which will earn a return of between 5% and 10%.
The scandal which worries me is that with the threat of "windfall taxes", there is less incentive for these energy companies to invest in new power stations that we will need in the coming decades. The switch to electric power for cars is going to add to the capacity needed on top of the basic capacity needed to replace present supplies when the older nuclear/coal/oil/gas stations retire.
The news today that EDF has withdrawn from the deal to buy British Energy shows that these important decisions are hanging in the balance. www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7536479.stm
|
It is the emotive and misleading headlines and reporting by the media [ of "billions of £s" of profits ]
The scandal which worries me is that with the threat of "windfall taxes"
Two things cause me concern.
One is that many ordinary, decent people think that these 'huge profits' are somehow immoral - not realising a) that if oil companies don't make reasonable profits, they won't be able to look for oil, so that supplies dwindle, and prices rise further, and b) these profits largely go to fund jobs in the oil industry and the pensions and insurance policies of millions of ordinary people.
The other is that we are actually hearing people in positions of responsibility calling for "windfall taxes" on these profits. It seems to me that this is basically a call for Mugabean economics.
|
|
|
The green argument has been hijacked by energy companies as a licence to print money.
If we are serious about saving energy, and if it is really necessary, then there's a good argument for rationing - I mean real rationing, by capping consumption rather than rationioning by price.
As for EDF, I wonder what Lady Thatcher thinks about our nuclear power stations being owned and operated by the French government. After all, it's her fault!
Edited by Sofa Spud on 01/08/2008 at 11:14
|
The green argument has been hijacked by energy companies as a licence to print money.
Eh? Can you elaborate which companies and how the "licence to print money" claim applies?
As for EDF, I wonder what Lady Thatcher thinks about our nuclear power stations being owned and operated by the French government. After all, it's her fault!
IIRC [but need to check], Thatcher kept the nuclear part in state ownership.
Her successors then sold the nuclear bit as well, but kept a state "golden share".
Some politician later on gave up the golden share, perhaps because EU treaty rules meant it had to be given up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's because of the suddenness - the struggling proletariat will blame the political classes, and change them for a set with a different colour.
|
Oil hit a 7 week low this morning.
While prices at the pump have been dropping, they are not reflecting the actual drop in world prices. Typically the oil companies tell us that it takes time to use up their expensive oil that they have had to stock pile but quite frankly this is complete ********. They increase their prices at a whim, and this rather suggests that they value the stock that they hold at market prices (rather than what they paid for it) and therefore as the price rise is instantaneous then so should the price cuts.
Does anyone have the average price now (I think it is 115.2) and what it was 7 weeks ago?
|
The refining process from oil to petrol/diesel plus distribution to pumps takes 3-4 weeks.
I know it spoils the story but facts matter.
As for oil companies and windfall profits.
The people who write that have without nay shadow of doubt proved they are 100% ignorant of economics.
The hire rate for an undersea drilling rig has gone up 500%+ in the past 5 years.
Which means drilling holes and putting in N Sea pipelines has got a LOT more expensive.
As most MPs are economic ignoramuses except when it comes to their expenses...
Edited by madf on 05/08/2008 at 19:47
|
James May, in his TG mag column, stated that people who tow caravans should pay a premium green tax, becasue with all the extra weight and poor aeordynamics, they're using much more fuel
anyone agree?
|
people who tow caravans should pay a premium green tax
anyone agree?
That's the least that should be done to them.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=42...0
If you must carry a dwelling with you for your holidays, take a tent. Much, more, er, um, environmentally friendly :-)
|
And if you want a serious answer . . .
if they are using much more fuel, then they are already paying much more tax in the form of fuel duty - so, no, there is really no need for yet another new tax.
|
I heard on the wireless today that the cost of cooking has rocketed in the last 12 months or so. Experts reckon it's due to the rise in use of bio diesel & wholesalers fighting for crops against fuel companies too.
|
|
|
|
|
Since spending some time over the past two years travelling on the continent using a 1.7 diesel Civic, mainly in France, I have always suspected that the diesel sold over there gives better mpg-I haven't been over there in the 2.2 Type S yet.
Travelling to Dover on GB diesel I get 47-48 mpg on the mpg meter-can't get it to go any higher no matter how gently I drive. As soon as I fill up with French supermarket diesel and reset the meter and out onto their motorway it's straight up to 53-54 mpg at French motorway speeds. Coming back into the UK, as soon as I fill up with UK diesel, it's back down to the forties again.
I have poked around and asked questions etc. but have never managed to get any information from any company or organisation about this-until now!
From Auto Express of this week:-Feedback views and opinion
Heading--Why the difference in European diesel?
FROM: Brian Millwood RE: Different diesel
I'M a taxi driver and had a passenger recently who was in the petrochemical industry. He said the UK has a different blend of diesel to that on the Continent. Apparently, theirs returns around 8mpg more. With all the uproar over petrol prices, why don't we import this?
REPLY: A spokesman for the Petrol Retailers Association said: "We used to use this fuel, but stopped to meet environmental regulations. Our diesel is lighter and less economical, but it is also cleaner, so it' s not a question of importing this alternative. Overtime, these European countries will have to switch to the same fuel as us.
So, our "environmental regulations" demand that a diesel fuel that gives 8mpg less economy is good for the environment.
Over a full tank of ten gallons I would be travelling 80 miles less on a tankful of fuel than if using the European fuel-how come that is good for the environment?
It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that as diesel cars are much more economical, they pay less fuel tax to the treasury, and they have meddled with things again to get them more money-could it? No surely not, that'd be dishonest!
|
I'm not sure you are right.
Diesel fuel is rated by cetane number. Normal City diesel is rated about 50-51, and the premium diesels are normally around 55. Diesel is rarely if ever made with a cetane of more than 58. Interestingly, in the US it's common to have much lower cetane fuel, as low as 40. I doubt there is any difference between UK sold and Continental sold diesel, and it's highly likely that it comes from the same refinery in some cases.
The effect of the cetane number is that higher-rate fuels burn faster, more evenly, and cleaner, and so produce more energy by volume.
My guess is that the difference you are seeing is simply because Northern France is very flat, and their motorways are empty and well-engineered. Compare that with the journey from Dover to Heathrow, where you have some considerable gradients that you'd not see in most of France outside of the mountain areas, and I think you may have the answer.
|
I was going to post on this when I got back home after reading this article. The "expert" says there is a difference. This would be an explanation for why we get poorer mpg than the official figures for one.
But oldnotbold is right in saying isn't there meant to be a cetane number... interesting.
|
|
having driven on the continent for almost 8 years and then coming back to the UK i can notice a real difference in driving let alone MPG, m more inclined to believe that its down to roads and traffic then the diesel burned
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel- the very word gets me hot under the collar. Our insipid leader (GB) set the inland revenue rate for mileage when using your car for business when fuel was 65p per litre. Now it is 1.29 per litre. Some of my colleagues are refusing to use their cars for work matters and insist on the company hiring a car for them. Only one loser-us. While he sits back and does nothing to help. It would cost him nothing to have a mileage rate set in line with fuel prices but will he act on our behalf- will he bogroll. What do we expect from a person who does not or cannot drive. Roll on election time. Concrete
|
Roll on election time.
Amen
|
|
|
I saw snippets of the old "Battle of Britain" film on Channel 4 today (a lovely RR Merlin soundtrack).
I think GB has modelled his leadership style on Hein Riess's portrayal of Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring.
Kevin...
|
Another item from yesterday's Telegraph (link to Telegraph website): tinyurl.com/6cdnox
High fuel prices and the growing economic crisis is leading to a drop in road congestion, as more motorists leave their cars at home.
Those who do take to the roads are slowing down to save fuel, according to figures compiled by the RAC Foundation and Trafficmaster.
It showed that the average speed on motorways fell to 62.2mph in June compared to 63.3mph 12 months ago. The most dramatic fall in congestion was noticed on the M25 between junctions 21 and 31 ? the stretch running from the M1 interchange to Thurrock, Essex.
This has seen a 26 per cent reduction in traffic jams over 12 months.
Presumably what seems like a small drop from 63.3 to 62.2 is statistically significant, although the 26% drop in jams must be more noticeable.
|
Again in yesterday's (Thursday's) Telegraph an interesting article arguing that the sum raised by "green taxes" is way in excess of the financial value of the damage cars cause.
Treasury spokesman pops up to explain that there's a misunderstanding. When we were told "green taxes" on motoring were good for us and reduced car use and so on, that wasn't the whole story.
These taxes are also used for "core" spending including a reduction in child poverty.
I'm all in favour of reducing child poverty, but what's charging a higher rate of VED for my car than for one which emits less CO2 got to do with that?
Or to put it another way, why should someone who owns an expensive but low-rated hybrid not help in eradicating child poverty as much as I do?
|
|
Back on the European diesel debate, a lot of the fuel we use in this country comes from mainland Europe anyway, for example Rotterdam. I work in the industry and from my office/lab I can see the entrance to a storage depot, where ships come in from Europe and there is a constant stream of road tankers of all liveries coming and going all day (Mainly supermarket brands)
|
>A lot of the fuel we use in this country comes from mainland Europe anyway <
.. so maybe they send us some of their off-spec stuff .. :-)
|
|
|
|
I'm all in favour of reducing child poverty,
Child poverty, by definition, can never be reduced, unless you have a communist utopia. The cut-off for the definition of "poor" in the EU is "60 percent of median income".
Definition of median:
MEDIAN is the number in the middle. In order to find the median, you have to put the values in order from lowest to highest, then find
the number that is exactly in the middle.
So whatever you do, there will always be a point which is 60% of median income, unless everyone is on the median income.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil has dropped again today to a low of $105 from a high of $147. Wonder how long it will be before we see big changes at the pumps. Never i suspect!
|
Oil has dropped again today to a low of $105 from a high of $147
It is the £s per barrel that matter to the UK consumer.
About $2 plus to a £ for many months had helped soften the blow.
Now that our Darling Chancellor and the OECD
www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/20...l
have pronounced that the UK economy is in dire trouble, the value of the £ has plummeted.
"Even more embarrassingly for Gordon Brown, the OECD forecast shows that Britain is the only major economy in the world which will face recession in the next six months. "
When I just looked at
moneycentral.msn.com/investor/market/exchangerates...1
it was valuing: British Pound = $1.78380
Edited by jbif on 02/09/2008 at 15:40
|
At $147 and $2.00 = £1.00 it cost £73.50/barrel
At $105 and $1.78 to £1.00 it now costs £59/barrel, so a price drop of just under 20%, but that won't translate into a pump price drop of the same proportions due to the way the duty and VAT is applied.
|
At $147 and $2.00 = £1.00 it cost £73.50/barrel
However, note that because the $147 peak was just a blip, it was not reflected in the pump prices. Pump prices peaked based on an averages of $125-$130 [ except, of course, during the Shell tanker drivers dispute when the price was based more on demand and availability of fuel at the point of delivery to the motorist ].
|
|
Nigeria is an oil producer with a large population most of which is poor, and petrol prices are low. However the country is creatively short of refining capacity, and there used to be an annual fuel shortage lasting a month or so on the pretext that the main refinery was closed for maintenance. During that period there would be queues, higher prices than usual and all sorts of entrepreneurs selling juice out of bottles and jars at the side of the road (not uncommon in Africa anyway, but not usual in Nigerian cities). An annual bonanza for certain elements, and an annual PITA for non-plutocrat motorists (the rich could send their drivers to queue or better still install their own big fuel tanks in the back yard).
|
|
That price only refers to spot price Rotterdam and not long term contract price.
|
|
|
|
|
The Price of diesel where we live seems to have stuck at £1.209 to £1.249. Even the supermarket war did not seem to make more than a five pence drop. I just feel ripped off every time i stick another £55 in the Clio.
|
|
Better get used to that feeling then, because they're not pumping any more out of the ground.
|
price of oil is dollars is one thing
BUT the great british pound is in freefall against all other currencies
so its likely oil will stay very expensive for those who only have pounds to spend
expect mega house price crash, job losses
dont worry the government will build more wastelands of public housing with poor schools for the unemployed to move to, that will trap them for generations into poverty
and spend billions on national ID card and useless IT for the NHS that doesnt work, that money will help the economy
i hang my head in shame and feel so sorry to be british
|
|
Diesel went up at my local Tesco Extra on Sunday by 1p.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In whose interest is it to drop them? We are now used to paying these prices now so the oil companies are making more profit and our so called government are quite happy to cream the duty.
If anyone was running the country, they would be awake to the fact that we might be heading for an economic crisis and putting pressure on getting fuel down.
Does anyone know what the cost of petrol/diesel was last time oil was this low? Prices round here have not changed more than a couple of pence since the end of June.
|
Somone in the DT this morning was explaining the failure of the price of fuel to fall by pointing to the £'s fall against the US$. 2.5p per litre effect, he said.
OK. But if that's the case why didn't the price of fuel fall as the £ rose against the US$?
Or am I being naive again?
|
OK. But if that's the case why didn't the price of fuel fall as the £ rose against the US$?
I would pose the question "Why did the price of fuel at the pump not rise as fast as the oil $/barrel price ? " and point you to this thread for a possible answer:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=61438&...e
Look at the graphs linked there
oil $/barrel values over 2 years
www.upstreamonline.com/market_data/opec_basket/?id...s
currency £ to $ values over 1,2,3,4,5 years
www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=forexqkchart&curcode1=GBP&...D
Now if you have the time, plot a graph of the UK pump prices* [with and without the duty/vat] and overlay all four graphs over the same time period.
;-)
* pump prices over the past few years may be available from searches on Google or fromsome of the anoraks on this forum who keep regular logs of their fuel consumption.
;-)
|
|
Paid £1.079 for Shell unleaded today in Barnsley. Seems strange on reflection that I now see that as something of a bargain.
|
|
|
|
|
"Chaos at £20,000 petrol giveaway
Traffic was gridlocked outside the Last Stop garage in Finsbury Park as drivers queued for £40-worth of free fuel each. "
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7599639.stm
|
|
OPEC have just announced a 520,000 barrel a day CUT in production. They believe the market is oversupplied.
|
|
Or Gordon Brown persuaded them it was a "green" policy?......
|
|
Opec very rarely do what they say and as gas is tied to petrol the lower prices we will see a reduction in our gas bills not going to hold my breath though.
|
|
|
|
They seem to want the price per barrel at round about $100.
Plenty more football clubs to be bought up yet!
|
|
|
I have noticed the spot price for Brent crude is at around 90 Dollars, and is likely to fall further, when will this translate into price drops at the pumps and roughly what should the cost of petrol/diesel be at these oil prices?
Is there a formula to working out the cost of roadfuel relative to the price of crude?
Thanks
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 15/09/2008 at 15:01
|
|
Yes but you have to relate it to dollar pound exchange rate also the different inflation rates and the hedge price,the price quoted is the spot price so its not so easy.
|
Thanks Andy,
So in your opinion are we paying a fair price for road fuel, or are the oil companies taking advantage of a naive public?
|
|
I would not know if its fair or not, even oil companies have in built inflation due to transport costs,wages rising etc its a deminishing product so the long term view is that it will rise above the inflation rate in the western world.
|
|
|
I was out of the country for 8 days, during which the price of crude plummeted from somewhere around $112 a barrel to just under $100. I was expecting to see a penny or two come off the local pump prices, yet when I came back, our local petrol and diesel stations have actually put their prices up by a penny in this time.
I saw a piece on BBC News recently which showed pump prices are several pence a litre higher than they were when oil was at this price on its way up to the recent peak.
Don't forget though, the real villain of this piece is the Treasury.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is this entitled "Alfa Romeo GT Coupe - Oil Price" in the Discussion topics list?
Edited by FotheringtonThomas on 15/09/2008 at 14:48
|
Not sure really,
It asked me to put in the details of the car I owned and so i did!
|
It asked me to put in the details of the car I owned and so i did!
Voluntary in discussion, and ONLY if it has a relation to your post/question.
However over in Technical Matters it is compulsory to include car make/model.
|
Brent crude less than $93 per barrel for October delivery.
So George Soros ("it's a spike in price") seems to have been right and Goldman Sachs ("could reach $200 per barrel") seem to have been wrong.
So much for the skill of another bunch if bankers, then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to this site, www.oil-price.net/ oil has dropped from a high of just under $150 a barrel in july to just over $92 today. So why have all our local supermarkets gone up a penny to 108.9 ? I know these changes take a while to come through, but surely it shouldn't be going up when the trend for the last two months is down? According to that site the last time oil was at $93 was about mid March, when according to ny ful log we were paying around £103 pence per litre.
|
>>over $92 today ... our local supermarkets gone up a penny to 108.9 ...oil was at $93 was about mid March, when according to ny ful log we were paying around £103 pence per litre.
www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=forexqkchart&curcode1=GBP&...D
Mid March $ to £ = £2
Today $ to £ = £1.78
So crude oil at $92 a barrel is 10% more expensive today in £ than it was in Mid-March 2008.
Also, since March, the costs of refining and delivering petrol to the pumps have gone up. [higher inflation, including much higher wages for Shell tanker drivers! ]
Edited by jbif on 16/09/2008 at 12:52
|
Lowest price in my area (NW) is currently 106.9p a litre - 109.9p a litre is the general figure.
Edited by Stuartli on 16/09/2008 at 12:53
|
|
Expect oil to go back up after Hurricane Ike closed down the Texas oil fields...
|
|
|
|
The changes only take a while to come through when oil goes down. The changes are instant when oil goes up.
The good news is our government will be making loads of extra dosh through taxation on high petrol prices and this money will be invested wisely for us all to enjoy and benefit from. So maybe we should not shout too loudly.
|
The changes only take a while to come through when oil goes down. The changes are instant when oil goes up. The good news is our government will be making loads of extra dosh through taxation on high petrol prices and this money will be invested wisely for us all to enjoy and benefit from. So maybe we should not shout too loudly.
Ha, yeh like it, some chance.
|
I seem to remember the "worthless" dollar didn't help us much when the oil price went high. The system seems rigged to me, in that whatever combination of circumstances you have, the motorist always seems to be the loser.
Don't forget as well about the "deferred" 2p duty hike that's still rattling around in the system. As soon as the pump price drops much below 110p, that'll be slapped on. I'd almost put money on it.
Cheers
DP
|
I seem to remember the "worthless" dollar didn't help us much when the oil price went high.
This may help you check your facts:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=65500&...e
|
|
|
|
I wrote this in a thread back in January and I think it still holds water.
'My personal opinion is, cynic that I am, that now the psychological barrier of the £1 litre has been breached the next time you refuel for less than £1 a litre you will probably be filling up your squadron of flying pigs.
The basis for my thinking is that most chains kept their prices below the magic £1 mark seemingly against strong upward oil prices for some time, almost as if they were fearing a backlash when the trigger was reached, thus they probably squeezed their margins hard. Now the genie is out of the bottle they will probably keep it there to claw back some extra profit to repair their margins, in the meantime the oil price and the increase in duty planned for April will be sufficient to prevent it dropping back below £1 once the margins have improved. As some justification for this I would point to the fact that once the £1 was broken prices very rapidly, within a couple of weeks, and without great fuss, reached the 110-115 range before falling back to around 102, at least locally, in the last week or two.'
I believe that the supermarkets now make up the majority of the market and although they have the power to probably undercut the oil companies by more they have no motivation to enter into a price war at the moment due to the fact that they are getting a bad press over some of their food price rises and are also under pressure via their logistics costs the same as every other business. They will undoubtedly be looking at their fuel prices as a way to relieve the pressure on other parts of their businesses as part of the overall company basket therefore they will price at a level to just undercut Shell et al but will look to maximise their margins where they can. And, as I said above, now the bogey level of £1/litre has been breached do you seriously believe you will see it go below any time soon? I'm still a cynic so I certainly don't.
|
|
When oil was under 30$ a barrell we were paying 80p plus per litre its over three times that but the price is around 110pence I wouldn't complain to loudly.its never going to be cheap again not ever, the trend wil be to rise and carry on rising until we have a war over its ownership or we have an alternative fuel source its all part of the shifting economic power going west to east.
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly, the oil companies will always have us 'over a barrel' - whatever price it may be :-(
|
|
Oldsock is right. We rely on the car to so much fuel is essential and we will pay what they charge.
|
|
I'm still paying £1.13 at my local supermarket. Robbing pink fluffy dice
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 17/09/2008 at 01:40
|
|
Well if were to take myself south of the river (Ribble that is) Tesco at Leyland is 106.9 and seems to be some of the cheapest in the country.
|
|
£1.13? Luxury! 115-117 round here...
|
|
|
>Well if were to take myself south of the river (Ribble that is) Tesco at Leyland is 106.9 >and seems to be some of the cheapest in the country.
I wonder why Tesco feel its a good idea to charge 8 pence a litre more in Stockton on Tees then!!
I expect their tins of beans are the same price in both shops though.
|
|
My wife once took a part time job with a major supermarket chain. She was in what was called the price control dept. Now I may have misheard her or misunderstood but I was under the impression that if one branch of Tesorriburys had a product at a given price then they all had to. Wonder if petrol is exempt ?
Edited by Humph Backbridge on 16/09/2008 at 20:10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I notice that at a large well-known supermarket, prices vary at outlets only 10 miles apart. At one, the price is now £1.11/L. At t'other, the price is now £1.15/L. A price difference has been maintained between the same locations for at least 6 months (source: petrolprices.com).
Every penny matters, so why the difference?
Edited by FotheringtonThomas on 16/09/2008 at 18:43
|
|
I don't understand it either. If you drive the A51 from Lichfield to Stoke, the Shell station prices vary by a similar amount. Equally strange, that road has several Shell stations in a few miles (no refineries anywhere near AFAIK) while on the A39 in Somerset there are few stations of any major brand, never mind one in particular.
|
|
Um. I hadn't expected this to be relegated to the backwater of " Fuel costs & surrounding debates", thinking it more a "Why do supermarkets near to each other charge different prices for their products, particularly their fuel" sort of question, rather than a straight "Why does fuel cost as much as it does" sort of question. Oh well.
|
|
Radio 4 news tonight - Asda, Morrisons and Sainsbury are cutting petrol prices down to below 1.10p a litre.
|
Aw cheers PU. Just put a full tank in at 1.139 !
Have to take my own butties tomorrow as penance.
:-(
|
|
|
£1.11 near here at the moment (source: petrolprices).
Rcvd. your comment. Thanks.
|
Paid 109.9 for unleaded at Tesco in Weston Super Mare on Tuesday. Earlier in the day it was the same price at both Esso and Sainsburys on the A420 near South Marston in Swindon.
On the road from Wells to Weston SM I also saw unleaded for 119.9 at some independent garage whose brand of petrol I've never heard of before, which name also escapes me right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil price sees biggest gain ever as dollar drops and shorts scramble to cover their exposure on last day of trading for October contracts.
tinyurl.com/4gyvo5
It's sure getting bumpy.
Kevin...
|
Filled up at Morrisons for 106.9 a litre and then read
The future price is up to $126.50 and will mean the price of petrol will go up at the pumps next month in the UK.
The Chancellor has admitted to Sky News that the sharp rise could be bad news for the UK economy.
|
|
|
|
|
ok its that time of the month again oil up a staggering $22 a barrel so come on folk roll up roll up guess the price of petrol on the 1st of october
Edited by welshlad on 22/09/2008 at 22:56
|
Just heard on the news that today was the last day for speculators to go into oil for October delivery.
Having rubbished property and banks, there's not much left. So it's back into commodities again.
|
>Just heard on the news that today was the last day for speculators to go into oil for October delivery.
It was the last day for shorts to cover themselves for October contracts - panic buying. I'm guessing that some took a bit of a beating today.
Kevin...
|
It was the last day for shorts to cover themselves for October contracts - panic buying. I'm guessing that some took a bit of a beating today.
At least you understand that the risk borne by short-sellers in the market is not a one way bet. A lot of people including Ministers in the Scottish and UK Gubermint seem to think that short sellers make profits all the time. [ Short sellers who were blamed for profiting in HBOS by driving down its share price actually made huge losses! ]
The short-sighted knee-jerk reaction by the FSA to ban short-selling in Banks is already causing unintended negative consequences in the market. Social engineering free-markets eventually ends up costing taxpayers more than they bargained for. As with the Equitable Life, the policyholders and shareholders should be left alone to suffer consequences of their own making.
|
In the Equitable mess, jbif, the policyholders weren't to blame. How could they have been?
The risk borne by short-sellers bears no relation to the potential reward. Particularly when they borrow (rather than buy) the shares they're selling short. Few seem to have the bottle to short naked. Though they may not have been involved in HBOS remember what happened at the time of the rights issue.
If people are short selling and massively influencing a market, is that market actually free?
|
In the Equitable mess, jbif, the policyholders weren't to blame. How could they have been?
Because they were gullible, investing in a product which offered "guaranteed" returns far higher than any other competitor in the market at the time.
.. borrow (rather than buy) ..
Many businesses are run on that basis. Another commonly used name for it is "leasing" or "renting". Even ordinary mortals make use of these instruments, for example - in a simple form - hiring a car for a day. If everything had to be owned/bought before you could use it, our economy would grind to a halt.
Few seem to have the bottle to short naked
Not allowed. AFAIK. Stock has to be borrowed or owned.
If people are short selling and massively influencing a market, is that market actually free?
Yes, because it works both ways.
A market can exist only when you have a buyer and a seller. Words "greed" and "excess" usually demonstrate the political leanings of the speaker [quite often the politics of envy] and/or demonstrate a lack of understanding of how free market economies work.
|
investing in a product which offered "guaranteed" returns >> The firm offered the policies. The punters took up the offer. It's identifying value as your short sellers allege that they do. Because the rights of these policyholders were enforced everyone suffered.
Another commonly used name for it is "leasing" or "renting" >> I think you'll find that if you sell an asset that you lease or rent you're breaking the law.
Not allowed. AFAIK. Stock has to be borrowed or owned. >> Interesting. I thought you could but I could be wrong. It continues to puzzle that an institution lends out stock when it knows the purpose of the exercise is to reduce that stock in value.
Yes, because it works both ways. >> Not really. If you're playing with borrowed stock your exposure is minimal. Unlike the poor victims who see their holdings becoming valueless.
Edited by Optimist on 23/09/2008 at 13:06
|
I think you'll find that if you sell an asset that you lease or rent you're breaking the law.
As I said, these are just other words used to describe what is essentially the same process.
Person A offers to buy a house from person B. It turns out B has an outstanding charge against the property, and B owns just 20% of the equity. The other 80% is owned by bank HBOS. When you look in to it further, HBOS says their 80% has been funded by their savers, shareholders plus borrowings from institutions such as Morgan Stanley. You then discover all those parties in turn have debts which they have to repay. Etc. etc.
In summary, people borrow from others to "buy" something which they think they now own. This asset and any "cash" they "own" in fact are illusionary, meaningless and worthless unless and until they are used to buy them the basics to live/survive another day.
Cars, our consumption of oil and other diminishing resources for the "material things" we value in the West are all evidence of our greed and exploitation of the poor people of the third world. The West is at the top of the pyramid which rests on the very wide base provided by the third world.
|
|
|
|
Words "greed" and "excess" usually demonstrate the political leanings of the speaker
You realise the same applies to your comment, don't you?
>and/or demonstrate a lack of understanding of how free market economies work.
A comment usually made by people who believe that free markets can actually exist outside the heads of theoreticians. Your comment above shows they can't: ideology and its practical cousin, influence, are everywhere.
|
You realise the same applies to your comment, don't you?
Yes, of course. It means I am an atheist and believe in the survival of the fittest. I have no time for politics of envy.
>>.. ideology and its practical cousin, influence, are everywhere
Exactly. While the unions exist and socialists prevent true free market from operating, the markets have to do the best they can inspite of interfering politicians. NuLab saving Northen Rock is just one of the recent examples of badly thought through interventions.
But it has all to be paid for, and the motorist is an easy target for raising revenue via fuel duties and increasing VED rates.
|
Yes of course. It means I am an atheist and believe in the survival of the fittest. I have no time for politics of envy.
Which is itself an ideological position. Those who believe in the survival of the fittest are generally in a comfortable position. See? We can both play the Generalisation Game.
>>.. ideology and its practical cousin influence are everywhere Exactly. While the unions exist and socialists prevent true free market from operating
I presume by 'socialists' you mean George W. Bush and his mate Paulson.
As Wall Street has found to its great relief no doubt, truly free markets in stable advanced societies are impossible, regardless of unions, governments, or whoever. They are a practical impossibility because the operation of markets depends on social structures which they cannot sustain and remain free. The ideologues who believe free markets are possible are as deluded as the Communists; they just have more money to spend on PR.
|
Those who believe in the survival of the fittest are generally in a comfortable position.
I would assume from that comment that you have not visited Darfur, or Somalia, or the slums of Nairobi and Mumbai. You would know the meaning of survival of the fittest and markets in action within those communities. The true basic nature of human beings comes to the surface when faced with day to day survival rather than the comfort of our lives in the West in front of our TV and computer screens.
This aspect of human behaviour was very apparent when a few days ago a petrol station in London offered £40 worth of free petrol on a first-come-first-served basis.
I presume by 'socialists' you mean George W. Bush and his mate Paulson.
timm84.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/george-w-bush-soci.../
I think anyone who goes in to politics has to have some socialist tendencies.
p.s. I promise not to mention Microsoft, British Leyalnd, Scargill or Thatcher [or Ryanair or Virgin for that matter] as I am sure that will only raise the temperature of this debate.
|
>> Those who believe in the survival of the fittest are generally in a comfortable position. I would assume from that comment that you have not visited Darfur or Somalia or the slums of Nairobi and Mumbai. You would know the meaning of survival of the fittest and markets in action within those communities.
Indeed I have visited real proper slums, though not the ones you mention, and the reason most people are appalled by them is because 'survival of the fittest' is not a good way to run a decent society, or an efficient one. Those slums are the result of failed markets and in reality they are run on the basis of fear by gangsters and warlords. They are also a massive drag on the respective economies of the countries concerned, though whether that inefficiency is offset or rendered 'worth it' in other ways and for other non-slum-dwelling more comfortable people, is another matter.
>I think anyone who goes in to politics has to have some socialist tendencies.
Don't confuse Socialism with social conscience. One is a highly specific economic and political theory, the other is a moral and ethical sense taking many forms and arising from a great variety of often contradictory positions. The idea that Bush and Paulson are in any way acting as socialists is ridiculous. They are acting expediently and out of desperation, benefiting most those who support and fund their party and who would otherwise feel betrayed.
|
Gentlemen,
I know i'm not a Mod....but...any chance you could leave the politics alone? I enjoy this site, but don't enjoy politics.
|
but don't enjoy politics. >>
Must be a Liberal ;-)
|
|
Sorry Westpig - I do agree with you, the issues can be debated with getting into the politics.
|
I doubt it. All due respect but you just can't divorce it from politics. The cost of fuel is a political matter. To put it another way: what is there about the cost of fuel that's not tied up with politics?
|
|
|
|
