we really stuck it to 'em on May 15, the anti-gas day, huh?

[Care4all]

If I can stand between 2 gas stations half a block apart, and pay $3.49 at one and $3.34 at the other, someones gouging something. Gas station #1 is a Speedway with a full store and deli attached. Gas station #2 is a Mobil, which may or may not contain a coffee machine, and a soda fountain.

MY guess would be that Speedway is tacking extra nickels on to the price of their gas if they're not happy with their food sales for the day.

I don't know what state u r in, but it seems that your state does NOT have the protections mentioned in this article...

it seems that Mobile sevice stations which are oil company owned, are low balling to put speedway, out of business? at least this is a possibility of what is going on in your neck of the woods? but i really don't know...it is interesting and strikes interest to see such disparity in retail price...

this is a great link, tons of info on ''how it all works''

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/gas-price.htm

care

Station markup - While it isn't represented in the diagram above, of course some of the actual money you spend at the pump does go to the service station. Service stations add on a few cents per gallon. There's no set standard for how much gas stations add on to the price. Some may add just a couple of cents, while others may add as much as a dime or more. However, some states have markup laws prohibiting stations from charging less than a certain percentage over invoice from the wholesaler. These laws are designed to protect small, individually-owned gas stations from being driven out of business by large chains who can afford to slash prices at select locations.

 

[Shattered]

I'm in Wisconsin, and I'll tell you right now, Mobil will go out of business here long before Speedway will... I'll pay the higher price merely for convenience sake.. I can get coffee made 10 min ago at Speedway, or *maybe* I can get coffee made yesterday from Mobil.

I think we have some of the highest (if not THE highest) gas tax in the US..

 

[bush lover]

Tweny years ago, California had too many oil companies and refineries. The wide choice confused consumers. So the major oil companies started merging with each other, bought up independent refiners and closed the refineries. That brought the refinery profit margin up to around 90% today from around 50% or lower before the consolidation. Fewer refiners is much more efficient and far less confusing for consumers, who had too much choice. Now we have four brands to choose from, instead of a mind-boggling 20 like in the 1970s. Meanwhile, if you had been smart and bought oil company stocks when our President took office, you could have taken part in the profits! Oil stocks have quadrupled and so have dividends?!

 

[Vintij]

There are no contraints, we make our own oil and on top of that we buy oil from other country's. We are up to our ears in oil so supply is not the problem. Demand is very high though, which means oil companys are going to take advantage of that by raising prices and/or not creating new refinerys on purpose. Its called a monopoly. Gas production has risen at the equivalant of one new refinery per year, yet 10 refinerys have closed since 1990 and none have replaced them. That is why there is an invesitagtion into exxon, bp, orco etc.....and the investigation is going to look at price fixing, and the mismanagement of oil refinery's and lack of new ones.

Better relations with middle eastern countrys would help. (Bush is against talking things over)

A national oil reserve would help during times of spiked demand.

And RSR, even if oil companys only got 10 cents per gallon (you cited no proof at all), that is still so atronomically high that I cant even begin to argue how high that is when you multiply every single car in America which is about 200 million, by 10 gallons, which is the average size of a gas tank. Thats one dollar everytime someone fills up which is usually twice a week. So thats around 400 million dollars a week. And thats not a high profit? What planet are you from?

 

[red states rule]

There are no contraints, we make our own oil and on top of that we buy oil from other country's. We are up to our ears in oil so supply is not the problem. Demand is very high though, which means oil companys are going to take advantage of that by raising prices and/or not creating new refinerys on purpose. Its called a monopoly. Gas production has risen at the equivalant of one new refinery per year, yet 10 refinerys have closed since 1990 and none have replaced them. That is why there is an invesitagtion into exxon, bp, orco etc.....and the investigation is going to look at price fixing, and the mismanagement of oil refinery's and lack of new ones.

Better relations with middle eastern countrys would help. (Bush is against talking things over)

A national oil reserve would help during times of spiked demand.

And RSR, even if oil companys only got 10 cents per gallon (you cited no proof at all), that is still so atronomically high that I cant even begin to argue how high that is when you multiply every single car in America which is about 200 million, by 10 gallons, which is the average size of a gas tank. Thats one dollar everytime someone fills up which is usually twice a week. So thats around 400 million dollars a week. And thats not a high profit? What planet are you from?

Oil Company Profits

The Investment U e-Letter: Issue # 653
March 23, 2007

Oil Company Profits: Just Who Is Gouging Whom?
by Alexander Green, Investment Director, The Oxford Club


The new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, calls oil company profits "obscene."

And at first blush, many would agree. Over the past 12 months, for example, ExxonMobil has made pre-tax profits of $164 billion on sales of $369.5 billion. That's a lot.

But are big oil company profits bad?

Hardly. Companies exist to maximize profits. Profits are what keep workers employed. They keep companies innovating, creating new products and services. They keep the economy humming and the country strong. And they allow you and I to invest and secure our financial future.

Even the school teacher who plunks some of her retirement account in an S&P 500 Index fund benefits from Exxon's rising share price - which is a direct result of Exxon's rising profits.

Many will argue that there is nothing wrong with an oil company's profits, per se. It's just that Exxon is gouging us at the pump. They're making too much.

But are they? After all, Exxon can't dictate gasoline prices. Markets determine the price of oil. It's supply and demand that sets the price at the pump.

Oil Companies, Profits, and the Courts

Some Americans are skeptical on this point, I know. So I direct them to last year's Supreme Court decision. The court ruled unanimously that oil companies have not been colluding to set prices.

Oil prices are high today because the economies of huge nations like China and India are developing rapidly. More oil is being demanded in the world market and there are few new sources of supply.

Hurricane Katrina destroyed a lot of oil processing capacity around the Gulf of Mexico too, so there has been less oil being processed. When less oil is supplied, gasoline prices rise.

What does the average oil company make today on the sale of a gallon of gas? Ten cents.

The federal tax on gasoline, on the other hand, is nearly twice that. Then there's state gasoline taxes. (If you live in New York, for example, you're paying 68 cents a gallon in taxes.)

If Exxon is gouging us at ten cents a gallon, what exactly is the federal government doing to us at 18.4 cents a gallon?

Who Is Gouging Whom?

After all, Exxon has to compete with other oil companies both here and abroad. It has to spend billions on exploration, billions more on development, and further billions on refining and transportation.

As a result, it's hardly making money hand over fist. Earnings at Exxon rose 9% last year but fell 4% in the fourth quarter, underscoring the challenges of rising costs and lower commodity prices.

And Exxon's profit margins are only 10.7%. Profit margins at Microsoft, on the other hand, are 26%. Perhaps we should pass a windfall profits tax on software companies.

Because that's what Big Oil's opponents really want: a bigger federal gasoline tax. Why? To fund the search for alternative sources of energy, such as ethanol and nanotechnology.

That's a fine sentiment. But will throwing around tens of billions of dollars in federal research grants really create alternative energy sources? If that were the case, shouldn't Uncle Sam give grants to:

Dell… to create more powerful computers?
Boeing… to build faster aircraft?
McDonalds… to make low-fat French fries that taste good?
The federal government doesn't need to do this, of course. These oil companies will continue to make higher quality products at better prices on their own. Why? Because they exist to maximize profits. (Profits, incidentally, that provide much of the tax base for the U.S. government.)

Trust me, we will have alternative energy sources eventually. Many scientists believe that near incredible advances in nanotechnology will allow us to solve all our energy needs with solar power within 20 years.

But it won't be the federal government that solves the problem. It will be the private sector - and its relentless drive for profits.

http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2007/20070323.html

 

[red states rule]

Oil Patch Democrats Concerned Global Warming Bill Could Raise Energy Prices
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 17, 2007 - 14:29.
Did you hear about the nineteen Democrats that sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) expressing concern that a global warming bill being discussed in the House could reduce energy supplies and raise prices?

You didn’t? Want to know why?

Well, because other than Environment & Energy Daily, nobody reported it.

*****Critical Update: Complete text of letter follows.

Regardless, the short piece by Ben Geman was rather extraordinary (h/t Benny Peiser, subscription required, emphasis added throughout):

[Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas)] and 18 other Democrats sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) noting oil and gas will continue to provide a large share of the nation's energy supply. The letter cautions against an "unrealistic or inequitable" approach to oil and natural gas.

"If our climate change policy leads to gasoline or natural gas supply disruptions and price spikes, consumers and voters will question that policy," wrote the House members from Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Colorado, Utah, Arkansas, Georgia and Hawaii.

Any wonder why this wasn’t reported? The article continued:

The letter links high natural gas prices in recent years to job losses in the manufacturing sector. "I want to make sure that whatever we do, we address global warming and still realize we need to run our vehicles and cool and heat our homes," Green said in the interview.

It appears that to a global warming alarmist media, any discussion of climate change solutions causing higher energy prices is verboten, even if raised by Democrats.

What a disgrace.

*****Here is the letter in question:


Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer: -

As the House of Representatives addresses the important issue of global climate change and the most effective way to deal with this challenge, we must consider the impact of any proposal on the reliability and affordability of our nation's critical energy supplies.

U.S. consumers use 880 million gallons of oil products, such a gasoline, and 60 billion cubic feet of natural gas every day to drive, fly, keep warm and cool, and make indispensable items like medicines, fertilizers and fabrics. Of our total energy use, 40% comes from oil, 23% from natural gas and 23% from coal.

Renewable energy is expected to dramatically increase in the next 25 years, and we support many efforts to diversify our energy supply. Even with increases in renewables, conservation and efficiency, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and other forecasters conclude that oil, natural gas, and coal will continue to make up the large majority of U.S. energy use in 2030 and beyond.

We can increase renewable energy, but if we take an unrealistic or inequitable approach to oil and natural gas, we will fail to provide Americans with adequate supplies of fuel and energy at affordable prices. If our climate change policy leads to gasoline or natural gas supply disruptions and price spikes, consumers and voters will question that policy.

For example, legislative action capping greenhouse gases must take into account a likely increase in demand for already expensive natural gas in the short-term, since it is the most widely available and affordable climate-friendly alternative to coal-fired power plants. High natural gas prices over the past few years have already led to higher heating, cooling, and power bills for consumers, in addition to the loss of approximately 100,000 manufacturing jobs. Without increasing supply from our vast North American gas resources as part of a climate change policy,

American consumers will likely see increased natural gas prices. Our goal is a climate and energy policy that maximizes greenhouse emission reductions while minimizing negative impacts to the economy such as shortages or price spikes. We look forward to working with you to promote conservation and new technologies while simultaneously ensuring adequate and affordable supplies of oil and natural gas.

Thank you for your consideration and please contact us if we can be of any assistance.


http://newsbusters.org/node/12820