Diesel Prices Summer 2012

2slowtdi said:

Back in 08 there where a few people that wanted fuel to get to five dollars a gallon to get the SUV's off the road here on this web site.
From what I see here people understand that its just not the cost of filling a gas tank its everything else that the cost of fuel impacts.
And the people that can not afford it the most is the ones that are hurt the most when they have to pay for food or fuel.
The bad part is a barrel of oil was $150 back then and its just $108 to $109 today.
So what I want to know is where is the disconnect on the fuel prices and the gallon of fuel?

Click to expand...

I am one of those that believes the only way to get the idiots out of their SUV's and over sized gasoline wasting pickup's is for the cost at the pump to be high enough. I believe from the fact that many have started to care about mpgs is a direct positive that came from the last price spike.

So that is a real positive that came out of the last spike in price, the fact that many got the message that they couldn't any longer afford to waste energy for no reason.

WE American's have cut our oil imports down by almost 1/3rd since the last price spike. In large because of choosing to drive less in wasteful vehicles like SUV's and pickups as a daily driver. And by choosing to replace these wasteful vehicles with more efficient transport. This is 100% because of the cost high prices have taken on drivers over the last few years. If this is what we will get out of $5+ a gallon at the pump again I for one support this happening for as long as is necessary.

I say, Bring on higher prices for as long as is needed to get these idiots still believing they can afford to drive a 10-15 mpg SUV or pickup as a single passenger daily driver out of them. I know I am not the only one that feels this way.........We remove these oil wasters from our roads replacing them with 28-30 mpg vehicles and we can export oil off of what we are getting out of the ground today.

RotaryKid: As a suburbanite that sees the lines of minivan and SUVs picking up one or two children at school, to be driven less than a mile home, I couldn't agree more with you that the "soccer mom/dad" demographic needs to hear your message. Ditto for the family of 4, with a fully loaded SUV, barreling down I95 at 80mph, passing on the right, driver talking on a cell phone, or better yet, watching a video.

However, you've neglected to acknowledge out that a significant part of our population, i.e. the building/service industry (especially the small, privately owned construction companies) rely on trucks as their daily drivers. High fuel prices are devastating their ability to make a living.

It's just not as simple as "Bring on higher prices"...I wish it were...

I was driving in the late 70's when OPEC cut the U.S. off and we have gas stations that would only sell 10 gallons at a time.
That helped the U.S. national oil production and hurt OPEC so in the late 80's with West Texas oil fields going strong OPEC came in with cheap oil and killed the oil boom we had going here.
So if we get our better mileage car's and truck's bio fuels get going to a point that it cuts into oil imports that hurt OPEC we can look forward to cheap oil to kill that off also.
Just back in 1993 it cost more to run the electric pump to get the oil out for the ground than oil was worth.

rotarykid said:

I say, Bring on higher prices for as long as is needed to get these idiots still believing they can afford to drive a 10-15 mpg SUV or pickup as a single passenger daily driver out of them. I know I am not the only one that feels this way.........

Click to expand...

Amen. Nothing changes until it hurts......

2slowtdi said:

I was driving in the late 70's when OPEC cut the U.S. off and we have gas stations that would only sell 10 gallons at a time.
That helped the U.S. national oil production and hurt OPEC so in the late 80's with West Texas oil fields going strong OPEC came in with cheap oil and killed the oil boom we had going here.
So if we get our better mileage car's and truck's bio fuels get going to a point that it cuts into oil imports that hurt OPEC we can look forward to cheap oil to kill that off also.
Just back in 1993 it cost more to run the electric pump to get the oil out for the ground than oil was worth.

Click to expand...

^^^^ Mostly true and simplified, except OPEC is not the "Old OPEC" anymore.

I was in those gas lines too. The embargo's (1973 and 1977) were very much aimed at controlling crude oil prices and certainly hurt our country. These days it's a bit different as OPEC has minimal control over the global supply/demand metrics. This is mostly due to greed amongst the large producers (Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, etc). OPEC is rife with countries in the group that will say one thing and do another.

OPEC can (at this point in time) be the "swing producer" and pick up production slack in the middle east (see Iran ~ 3 MM BPD). That sun is setting on that as their (Saudi ARAMCO's) large fields are in deep decline and no new fields are being found.

OPEC's goal is to keep worldwide prices at a level that will provide adequate income for the "family" that now has grown considerably since the 70's. Plus, Saudi Refining owns several retail assets and refineries in the U.S. and that provides an outlet for some of their crude oil. So they have a keen interest in making sure we have a suitable crude supply.

Understanding the world crude oil markets has gotten a lot more complex than in the 70's when there were few large producers and brokers selling crude.

I second the Amen to rotarykid. I'm old enough to have seen all the gasoline shocks since the 70s, and we have incredibly short memories. My neighbors have a Mercedes GL and a Range Rover, and the mom comes and goes many times a day with one kid in the M-B. Life in suburbia requires driving, but we'd all be better off if she drove something more fuel efficient.

The most inefficient car I've ever owned was my '96 Audi A4 with the V6 and quattro. Even though at that time the expense didn't bother me, I was always annoyed at it's 19-24 MPG on premium. We drove the kids around for years in a '94 Previa, which would get 20 MPG doing shuttle duty and 24 on a trip. Not great, but not bad for a vehicle that would comfortable move 7 people around.

I believe we need $5/gallon gasoline with no hope of a price drop in the future to force people to change behavior. It would get me back on my bicycle, too.

IFRCFI said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by rotarykid
I say, Bring on higher prices for as long as is needed to get these idiots still believing they can afford to drive a 10-15 mpg SUV or pickup as a single passenger daily driver out of them. I know I am not the only one that feels this way.........
Amen. Nothing changes until it hurts......

Click to expand...

Based on that, I guess I should dump this very-expensive-to-fill diesel, and get a Chevy Volt. After all it hurts me to pay $60+ to fill Cranberry, since I'm on a fixed income.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

I second the Amen to rotarykid. I'm old enough to have seen all the gasoline shocks since the 70s, and we have incredibly short memories. My neighbors have a Mercedes GL and a Range Rover, and the mom comes and goes many times a day with one kid in the M-B. Life in suburbia requires driving, but we'd all be better off if she drove something more fuel efficient.

I believe we need $5/gallon gasoline with no hope of a price drop in the future to force people to change behavior. It would get me back on my bicycle, too.

Click to expand...

Problem is actually Psychological, we in North America think that "Bigger is Better"... Bigger food servings, bigger homes, bigger rooms and bigger vehicles.... This is why in North America car manufacturers have designed and built cars specifically for us and not the rest of the planet....

Honda puts out the North America only version of the Accord, while the rest of the world gets the Accura TSX (badged as the Accord), because our Accord is BIGGER... Volvo stopped importing the "V" series of "Station Wagons" to North America because we bought more of the "X" series of SUV's instead.... VW is not going to bring in the Passat Wagon to North america because they sell too many Tiguans.... Audi is going to stop bringing in the A4 and A6 Avant because all we want is the Q5 and Q7...

We as North Americans want BIGGER.... Our roads are bigger, our cars are bigger.... our Butts are bigger (that is why we get the North American only version of the new Passat... Wider seats)....

Once Gas hits about $6 per gallon, we may finally realise just what the cost of wanting things bigger really means.

Ok... Rant Mode Off...

MrVermin

mrvermin said:

Problem is actually Psychological, we in North America think that "Bigger is Better"... Bigger food servings, bigger homes, bigger rooms and bigger vehicles.... This is why in North America car manufacturers have designed and built cars specifically for us and not the rest of the planet....

Honda puts out the North America only version of the Accord, while the rest of the world gets the Accura TSX (badged as the Accord), because our Accord is BIGGER... Volvo stopped importing the "V" series of "Station Wagons" to North America because we bought more of the "X" series of SUV's instead.... VW is not going to bring in the Passat Wagon to North america because they sell too many Tiguans.... Audi is going to stop bringing in the A4 and A6 Avant because all we want is the Q5 and Q7...

We as North Americans want BIGGER.... Our roads are bigger, our cars are bigger.... our Butts are bigger (that is why we get the North American only version of the new Passat... Wider seats)....

Once Gas hits about $6 per gallon, we may finally realise just what the cost of wanting things bigger really means.

Ok... Rant Mode Off...

MrVermin

Click to expand...

Do you want that Supersized...????

mrvermin said:

Problem is actually Psychological, we in North America think that "Bigger is Better"... Bigger food servings, bigger homes, bigger rooms and bigger vehicles.... This is why in North America car manufacturers have designed and built cars specifically for us and not the rest of the planet....

Honda puts out the North America only version of the Accord, while the rest of the world gets the Accura TSX (badged as the Accord), because our Accord is BIGGER... Volvo stopped importing the "V" series of "Station Wagons" to North America because we bought more of the "X" series of SUV's instead.... VW is not going to bring in the Passat Wagon to North america because they sell too many Tiguans.... Audi is going to stop bringing in the A4 and A6 Avant because all we want is the Q5 and Q7...

We as North Americans want BIGGER.... Our roads are bigger, our cars are bigger.... our Butts are bigger (that is why we get the North American only version of the new Passat... Wider seats)....

Once Gas hits about $6 per gallon, we may finally realise just what the cost of wanting things bigger really means.

Ok... Rant Mode Off...

MrVermin

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that manufacturers make what we ask for or people buy what manufacturers want to sell them. American car companies figured out that they could make a lot of profit on big SUVs and trucks and that the Japanese and Europeans couldn't compete in those segments, so they discontinued station wagons and offered incentives on SUVs. And many people were swayed by "bigger is safer" (false) and "I need 4WD" (also false). I joke that where I live owning an SUV is a zoning regulation.

For fun a couple weekends ago I went to an open house in the next town. It as 5,500 square feet, 5 bedrooms, 6 baths, two staircases, you name it. A family of 4 lives there. It was nice, but I'd have to make a point of taking a walk once in a while to visit rooms I may forget about otherwise. I can't imagine the utility costs. Or putting a new roof on it.

My brother says that McMansions in subdivisions will become the new ghettos. People won't be able to afford the houses, taxes, utilities, or fuel for all the driving it takes to get to the remote subdivisions. They'll be broken up into rooming houses. Sounds believeable.

Car companies are pretty pro-active to what the public wants, or is willing to buy. They conduct expensive marketing studies to gauge consumer sentiment, desires and ability to pay. When I was in graduate school, I worked on a GM marketing study as part of my thesis. I was shocked as to how much effort goes in to this. Plus, once a buying trend is going, the car companies feed off it with "telling the consumer what they want to hear" (as mentioned above).

No doubt in my mind that the car companies are (were) selling Big is Good, especially seeing that our U.S. fuel prices are the least expensive in the free world.

One thing that needs to be pointed out in the discussion of bigger is better:
Most of us on this forum live in two of the largest coutries in the world, with some fo the better roads. We can drive well over 1000 miles and never cross an international boarder. I know if I go to california, the driving laws are the same as they are in North Carolina, with minor exceptions. A lot of cars/SUVs were designed with this in mind. Not many people have actually done this but at they can. We also have modern cities that were layed out with wagon teams in mind and work well with larger vehicles. Look at Salt Lake City, it was layed out to enable one to turn a wagon with a team of six oxen. Most of our suburban streets are designed for larger cars. A small car was typically relagated to the second or third car in the household.

There is an article in this mornings Wall Street Journal saying the same basic thing in the headline: "Showdown on the Texas Highways: In the land of big trucks, small European cars are hot sellers; Buying the perfect third family car". Once I read it, I post more info.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

My brother says that McMansions in subdivisions will become the new ghettos. People won't be able to afford the houses, taxes, utilities, or fuel for all the driving it takes to get to the remote subdivisions. They'll be broken up into rooming houses. Sounds believeable.

Click to expand...

Your brother is absolutely right - it's already happening. I have a friend who bought a townhouse in a subdivision 30 miles south of DC. It was nice and fancy for a few years until the market crashed. Now most of the owners have moved out and are renting the townhouses out to all sorts of seedy people who have no interest in maintaining the properties. The HOAs are unable to do anything about it because they require a majority of owners to vote - but none of the owners live there anymore and don't have any interest in participating in the HOA.

Jason and I are quite happy paying higher rent in a 1200 square foot house with a 7.5 mile commute to work. I'll put my money into rent/mortgage over commute time/fuel any day of the week... no brainer.

High fuel prices also drive up the prices of everything else!!! From a loaf of bread to a gallon of milk, it all goes up when fuel prices climb, making life harder on everyone especially the lower and middle income families.

Some people own their gas guzzlers outright and cant afford a new car payment on something more fuel effecient even if it saves them money on the fuel bill. It may cost less to pay for a higher fuel bill and have no payment than to have the payment and pay less for fuel...

Basically speculators and the record profit reaping oil companies suck! I like BOTH low fuel prices and highly effecient DIESEL engines!!!

In Average you are paying 1.1 $ per liter in the US. Very cheap.

Here in Portugal, the diesel liter is at 1,5€, that is 2.025$

It's nothing more that the double!

Petrol is 2,27$ per liter

Chris Tobin said:

Some people own their gas guzzlers outright and cant afford a new car payment on something more fuel effecient even if it saves them money on the fuel bill. It may cost less to pay for a higher fuel bill and have no payment than to have the payment and pay less for fuel...

Click to expand...

I doubt their gas guzzlers are 40 years old. That's how long we've known that oil is a scarce resource subject to pricing spikes, either because of speculation or supply. First it was OPEC, not it's traders. If folks paid attention and made better decisions there would be no SUV market at all. But they didn't, and now they're stuck. It's not pleasant, but it's a problem of their own making.

aja8888 said:

Car companies are pretty pro-active to what the public wants, or is willing to buy. They conduct expensive marketing studies to gauge consumer sentiment, desires and ability to pay. When I was in graduate school, I worked on a GM marketing study as part of my thesis. I was shocked as to how much effort goes in to this. Plus, once a buying trend is going, the car companies feed off it with "telling the consumer what they want to hear" (as mentioned above).

No doubt in my mind that the car companies are (were) selling Big is Good, especially seeing that our U.S. fuel prices are the least expensive in the free world.

Click to expand...

Bingo Tony. You got that right!

Fundamental and long lasting (longer than 'decades') changes in our global planet earth civilization will happen from the 'bottoms up' or 'grass roots level' not they other way around (in my humble opinion).

If I start looking at my own defects (to correct them) rather than magnifying or paying attention to other folks defects it would be a good start in my humble opinion.

Thanks for bringing up the topic. I am trying to learn.

Energy cost inflation 'collateral damage'

Chris Tobin said:

High fuel prices also drive up the prices of everything else!!! From a loaf of bread to a gallon of milk, it all goes up when fuel prices climb, making life harder on everyone especially the lower and middle income families.

Some people own their gas guzzlers outright and cant afford a new car payment on something more fuel effecient even if it saves them money on the fuel bill. It may cost less to pay for a higher fuel bill and have no payment than to have the payment and pay less for fuel...

Basically speculators and the record profit reaping oil companies suck! I like BOTH low fuel prices and highly effecient DIESEL engines!!!

Click to expand...

This is true that there is going to be 'collateral damage' coming up in the next years/decades and nothing to celebrate about :-(

As for larger-is-better, remember that the safety, eco, and other morons like Ralph Nader (along with insurance companies) did their best to kill off smaller, more fuel efficient cars.

I just feel sorry for the people that where like the two putting gas in their pickup four dollars and change , it had the bed full of metal going to get recycled.
They must have spent hours rounding up the metal.
I guess Social Security left them out they must have been in their late 60's.
And their pickup was early 70's.

I can almost drive what ever I want , I choose to drive a diesel and not for the mileage , but for how long a diesel will last as I drive a lot.
Prices for fuel do not affect me as my company pays for it.

So those that want $5 to $6 for fuel be careful what you wish for as it maybe you thats walking as you will not get parts or tires for your bike due to shipping cost and material cost.

Collateral Damage is something we will all have to pay for in one form or another.

I got rid of my truck when it started running over $60 a week to run it. 32 gallon tank that gave the same miles per tank as the 2000 tdi beetle. Today, that would be $120+ to fill.

I'm one of the "ignorant" people that isn't unhappy about higher fuel prices.
Yes, I know there are people that this will hit a lot harder than others. (Poor people, people on fixed incomes that are already having trouble, etc.)
I also know that it effects prices of shipping, food, and businesses. I feel sorry for the people that NEED to use trucks for their work.

Sure, I also own a '96 Dodge Dakota that gets between 12-15MPG, and when my Jetta is down (at the dealer, etc) I'm much less likely to do wasteful driving (probably half my mileage on my Jetta is pleasure driving).

But the simple fact is, if more people that don't need them would migrate from trucks/SUVs/etc to more fuel efficient vehicles, fuel demand would go down, and (theoretically) the price would go down.
But as a whole, the American population is really just stupid. Just look at your average American (walk into a WalMart), it's quite clear.

There is no real reason or excuse for auto makers today building a pickup that can only achieve low 10s at best. We have had the ability to build diesel powered pickups that could easily hit the 30-35 mpgUS mark for 25+ years. I have owned several early 80s Toyota diesel pickups over the years that easily hit these mpg marks.

The last year we had real CAFE with yearly increases and a target of the low 40s mpgUS, 1986 every auto maker offered pickups that could hit this mark.They all could do so today with no effort, so maybe high prices will force auto makers to offer these if they want to continue to sell over sized pickups.......

Here we go again hating and blaming "Big Oil".

donDavide said:

Here we go again hating and blaming "Big Oil".

Click to expand...

Can you blame them? Just look at how much money they make.

rotarykid said:

... 1986 every auto maker offered pickups that could hit this mark.They all could do so today with no effort, so maybe high prices will force auto makers to offer these if they want to continue to sell over sized pickups.......

Click to expand...

Agreed... I'm sure auto makers could offer high FE pickup trucks at no additional cost to consumers by simply dropping one or two luxury gadgets (video entertainment system, maybe?) off the "option included with price" list. Of course, the Marketing department would have a fit...

I Disagree Completely

rotarykid said:

There is no real reason or excuse for auto makers today building a pickup that can only achieve low 10s at best.
We have had the ability to build diesel powered pickups that could easily hit the 30-35 mpg US mark for 25+ years.
I have owned several early 80s Toyota diesel pickups over the years that easily hit these mpg marks.

The last year we had real CAFE with yearly increases and a target of the low 40s mpg US, 1986, every auto maker offered pickups that could hit this mark.[Say What?] They all could do so today with no effort [How?], so maybe high prices will force auto makers to offer these if they want to continue to sell over sized pickups.......

Click to expand...

PUs that someone could build that would get F E in the low 40s?

Your old Toyota diesels would not pass smog today nor could they begin to get the fuel economy
that they did back then because of the required DPFs and other pollution devices nowdays.

Just look what has happened to the fuel economy of the new MBZ CR Bluetecs compared to my old 2005 CDI. Now with their DPF, they are choked off so badly that fuel econmy is now down to 30 mpg highway and they are actually slower than the older CDI.
Fuel economy for their diesels are not hardly any different from their V6 gassers.

Concerning PUs, if VW would bring out a small one using their 2.0L CR TDI engine,
fuel economy would be right at the 40s, but they won't be doing that!

No Sir, the days of high fuel economy for lighter and heavier vehicles is long gone, never to be seen agian.



Derrel

narongc73 said:

Can you blame them? Just look at how much money they make.

Click to expand...

Would you rather they make less? If so, just how much? As much as Apple or Microsoft? Apple has $100 Billion in the bank from selling overpriced phones and tunes. They are not spending billions looking for new oil.

Well the major oil players that are selling us over 50% of our oil, are FOREIGN NATIONAL OIL COMPANIES!

Bingo!

Not True

NachtRitter said:

Agreed . . . I'm sure auto makers could offer high FE pickup trucks at no additional cost to consumers by simply dropping one or two luxury gadgets (video entertainment system, maybe?) off the "option included with price" list.
Of course, the Marketing department would have a fit . . .

Click to expand...

How pray tell is dropping some light-weight gadget off of any vehicle going to increase Fuel Economy?

Some of these things have become almost necessary and they weigh very little and DO NOT cost F E.



Derrel

Well, it's not summer, but Biodiesel (B99.9) in Berkeley is now less expensive than some gas sold here, same price $4.60 it's been for a long spell.

http://www.biofueloasis.com/faq/berkeley-station