Yes, diesel is more expensive than gas!

[Route 66]

When I am at the gas station with my diesel, people are always asking me about my fuel mileage. My comment is, "Let me ask you a question. If the oil companies came out with a new grade of fuel that is so ahead of its time that they would charge sixty cents more per gallon, but by paying the extra sixty cents, your fuel economy will increase by twenty five to thirty percent would you - as a driver - pay that difference? Every driver always answers yes.

 

[Lex4TDI4Life]

Just pull out the old "I get 800 miles a tank" and watch their jaws drop.

 

[noairbag]

I've been wondering this since I bought my TDI in 2006.. Why has diesel become more expensive than gas.. It was cheaper than gas and truck drivers would threaten to strike I heard in the past.. What happened hear? Isn't diesel a by product of gas?

 

[Lex4TDI4Life]

read, read, read all of the threads in this forum. global demand and high profit margins have driven the price of diesel up. there are other reasons, as well, but then we start getting into a political pi**ing match.

Also, diesel is not a byproduct of gasoline. It is merely another distallate from crude oil. refineries can be set up to yield more gasoline or more diesel. more of one does not equal more of the other.

I've been wondering this since I bought my TDI in 2006.. Why has diesel become more expensive than gas.. It was cheaper than gas and truck drivers would threaten to strike I heard in the past.. What happened hear? Isn't diesel a by product of gas?

 

[noairbag]

ok glad someone could clear up that... I didn't understand why so many people who don't even drive diesel's try to say that to me.... but yeah I think it's political..

 

[lkchris]

A gallon of diesel contains more energy than a gallon of gasoline--it ought to be more expensive.

 

[CentralFloridaTDIguy]

really?

A gallon of diesel contains more energy than a gallon of gasoline--it ought to be more expensive.

since when does more expensive = better?

I believe it should go by Cost of Goods sold plus a profit margin....

the cost of diesel is less to produce(even with taking lot of the sulphur out), so that means the market is making a lot more profit....

if the market works the way it is supposed to, then more refineries will adjust their processing method to produce more diesel and less gas if it can be done cost effectively...

I believe that if the Fed/State governments lessened refining restrictions (less BS to build/expand....less gas formulations, etc) then the price of fuel would drop 25% or more.... that is my opinion, but I am sure if you did some research, there might be studies to back my opinion up....

One of our founding fathers said it best...

"The government is best which governs least." - Thomas Jefferson

so if govmint got out of the way, we would all be more prosperous/happy

 

[john.jackson9213]

CentralFloridaTDIguy -

Are you saying refineries should be regulated as if they were a public utility? Public Utilities get a specific rate of return based on their investment and their cost of good.

since when does more expensive = better?

I believe it should go by Cost of Goods sold plus a profit margin....

 

[meetis]

Whats really funny is that last i remember a diesel engine is 40% more effecient then a gasser counter part due to the fuel. Using that logic we could decrease national consumption of fuel by nearly 40% if a majority of vehicles ran diesel instead of gas. So if that happened our net use of fuel would decrease by 40% If we suplimented that with heavy bio-d production we could really hurt the oil barrons where it counts.

 

[jetdiknight]

read, read, read all of the threads in this forum. global demand and high profit margins have driven the price of diesel up. there are other reasons, as well, but then we start getting into a political pi**ing match.

Also, diesel is not a byproduct of gasoline. It is merely another distallate from crude oil. refineries can be set up to yield more gasoline or more diesel. more of one does not equal more of the other.

not to nitpik, but global demand is only one of the reasons, with the main reason responsible for the bulk of the recent upsurge in prices being The entry of vast institutional and private investors into the commodities market. A lot of people and companies are putting money into basic necessities/commodities market, since stocks are not going up, and real estate is going down. Umm...what are the things that people must buy ? They do not have to buy SUVs, do not have to buy big screen TVs, do not have to go out to eat at Bennigans( which filed for bankruptcy), but they do buy gasoline...umm....is crude oil sold freely on stock exchange ? YEs....

So let's take money out of the bad investments...and put them into an appreciating asset...one that every one is addicted to...

whala.....crude oil at $140 per barrel.




Crude should be at most $70 per barrel due to global demands, but not run up like stocks and real estate were by profit takers. (not that there is anything wrong with that).


Personally, I think that basic living necessities should be under more governmental regulation, and not subject to investors whim or market instability. Let us trade on the stock market hobby and luxury items like : Prada bags, Aquarium fish items, Ipods and PLasma TVs; let them be bid up by investors....

I think we have our priorities wrong in this world.



also, more of one does normally equal LESS of the other.

 

[MAXRPM]

As of today, at the pump where I usually get my Diesel, regular gas was $4.06, unleaded $4.19, super $4.25, and D-2 was $4.19, so even making a comparisson with regular gas there is only 11 c difference, and D-2 is dead even with unleaded right now,, it is defenitly a lot better than the 65 to 75 cents difference that was about 7 weeks ago.

And when you do the calculation per mileage rate in your car, you are way way ahead than any gasser car.

 

[lkchris]

since when does more expensive = better?

I believe it should go by Cost of Goods sold plus a profit margin....

the cost of diesel is less to produce(even with taking lot of the sulphur out), so that means the market is making a lot more profit....

I said the better comes first and equals more expensive. Read again.

Yes, profit is usually higher with better products.

Got a complaint about the cost of diamonds, gold, Porsches?

Think there's an "entitlement" to energy?

Need to take Econ 101 again, not to mention reading/comprehension.

 

[Croberts]

jetdiknight

My feelings exactly. One financial analyst said on a investment blog site yesterday, "there isn't a shortage of any of these commodities that has shot up in value" Market manipulation of any quality of life commodities i.e. food, energy etc... has to stop. 401k and mutual funds have no business in high risk commodities anyway.

 

[Bob_Fout]

I said the better comes first and equals more expensive. Read again.

Yes, profit is usually higher with better products.

Got a complaint about the cost of diamonds, gold, Porsches?

Think there's an "entitlement" to energy?

Need to take Econ 101 again, not to mention reading/comprehension.

Food should be priced on energy content, correct? Even though we have nothing to do with how much energy is in it, natural processes do... I can see the carbohydrate speculators now! Soylent green, anyone?

Diesel costing more than gas based solely on energy content sounds like something I'd see in 1984, Brave New World (good books, both of them) or other flights of fancy. This is reality though.

 

[TornadoRed]

I believe it should go by Cost of Goods sold plus a profit margin....
(snip)
if the market works the way it is supposed to, then more refineries will adjust their processing method to produce more diesel and less gas if it can be done cost effectively...

The adjustment process takes longer in very capital-intensive industries like oil refining.

The only way to ensure adequate supplies is to let the prices adjust freely. Any attempt to set or fix a price is a sure way to create unwanted shortages or surpluses.

 

[wjdell]

Did you see a General threatened Poland with a Nuclear strike - If he damages that engine plant we shall see him hung for war crimes. They seem to be controlling the prices, you would think the prices would go through the roof with the situation.

 

[TornadoRed]

Did you see a General threatened Poland with a Nuclear strike - If he damages that engine plant we shall see him hung for war crimes. They seem to be controlling the prices, you would think the prices would go through the roof with the situation.

That was one of the reasons given for the $5.60 increase in crude prices Thursday. Oddly, it wasn't mentioned today when crude fell $6.50.

But I know what you mean... It's been a long, long time since we had to worry about the Russian threat. Now it's real. Not that I think anybody is going to use nukes, but Russia still has lots of tanks and has shown they are not afraid to use them. Poland is not as vulnerable as it was in 1939, politically or militarily -- but Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are not any safer than Georgia. And if the oil pipeline through Georgia ends up under Russian control, then Azerbaijan and ultimately the other Central Asian countries will be more vulnerable to Russian threats. Mongolia is also being pulled back under Russian control. So Russia is on the move politically... let's hope the military actions are limited to Georgia.

 

[wjdell]

I have never in my life heard such threats - 100% he said they will strike - If they do then the final question who is the anitchrist has been answered.

 

[WVU TDI]

I passed an old run down station the other day, RUG was priced at $1.79/gal, Diesel was 99 cents/gal...

My gf and I pondered how far/where we could have went on $20 for the next hour or so.

 

[vwtom]

I passed an old run down station the other day, RUG was priced at $1.79/gal, Diesel was 99 cents/gal...

I wouldn't be surprised to see diesel cost less than gasoline again. Over the years it was almost always cheaper per gallon and at the time it was unthinkable that it would ever be more.

 

[Dimitri16V]

That was one of the reasons given for the $5.60 increase in crude prices Thursday. Oddly, it wasn't mentioned today when crude fell $6.50.

But I know what you mean... It's been a long, long time since we had to worry about the Russian threat. Now it's real. Not that I think anybody is going to use nukes, but Russia still has lots of tanks and has shown they are not afraid to use them. Poland is not as vulnerable as it was in 1939, politically or militarily -- but Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are not any safer than Georgia. And if the oil pipeline through Georgia ends up under Russian control, then Azerbaijan and ultimately the other Central Asian countries will be more vulnerable to Russian threats. Mongolia is also being pulled back under Russian control. So Russia is on the move politically... let's hope the military actions are limited to Georgia.

Mongolia ? Come on... Mongolia depends on Russia for energy, that's all.
Russia has changed their militry doctrine. Polland by accepting those anti-ballistic missiles has included itself in the Russian list of targets in a nuclear conflict. Polland is pissed at Russia for wanting to build an under sea pipeline to transfer gas to Germany. They will loose $$ when this pipeline is built.

 

[TornadoRed]

Dmitri, maybe you can explain why Russia is making an enemy of the West, instead of joining the West. They received the invitation, why do they pretend they didn't?

 

[wjdell]

Its also my understanding that we have offered to share missle defense system tech with them.

Remember Dimi there are 1.5 billion Chinese that would just love to mine all tha coal - gas - oil and diamonds in Siberia, they have the manpower. Russia attacks the west and there will be no oil shortage in China anymore. Then we will have a West Russia and a East Russia. I bet allot people will head west just like they did in WWII.

 

[Dimitri16V]

Dmitri, maybe you can explain why Russia is making an enemy of the West, instead of joining the West. They received the invitation, why do they pretend they didn't?

Back in the Yeltsin years, Russia put in an official request to become a NATO member . Guess what happened ? It was not even debated between NATO members , just rejected.
Lets say, the Waswaw pact still existed and Cuba, Mexico, Canada decided to join. Better yet, an antiballistic umprella would be stationed in Mexico to counter missiles from Brazil . You think USA would like that ?
Why should Russia allow to be encircled by NATO ? Russia shut down their bases in Cuba, Vietnam, Syria. Russia opened bases and allowed US planes to use their airspace for the Afghanistan invasion after 9/11.
NATO on the other hand has been adding members and treats Russia like it;s still the Cold war adversary.

Why the NATO expansion and anti-baliistic defense ? Are our politicians plan in fighting a war with Russia at some time in the future ?

that's a question to ponder about ..

 

[Dimitri16V]

Its also my understanding that we have offered to share missle defense system tech with them.

Remember Dimi there are 1.5 billion Chinese that would just love to mine all tha coal - gas - oil and diamonds in Siberia, they have the manpower. Russia attacks the west and there will be no oil shortage in China anymore. Then we will have a West Russia and a East Russia. I bet allot people will head west just like they did in WWII.

hence the revised Russian military doctrine. It relies more on nuclear capability since its conventional is lacking. The Chinese know that, in a nuclear war numbers mean sh$t.

 

[TornadoRed]

Back in the Yeltsin years, Russia put in an official request to become a NATO member . Guess what happened ? It was not even debated between NATO members , just rejected.

I did a little research on this... there seems to be a path to membership, starting with the Partnership for Peace (PfP), then an individual partnership action plan, then a declaration of goal, intensified dialogue, a membership action plan, and finally NATO membership. Russia seems to be stuck at the PfP stage since 1994. Since then a lot of cooperation took place, including nuclear disarmament and a $40 billion bailout in the late 1990's. And Russia reciprocated by allowing overflights during the runup to the US invasion of Afghanistan, when airfields in Central Asia were used for staging.

But there have also been some disappointing aspects of the Russia-NATO relationship. For example, despite a UN arms embargo on Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Russia continued to supply it with weapons... and throughout the runup to war in 2002-2003 it seemed to actively take the side of Saddam, and almost used its veto in the Security Council. Russia also provides technical assistance to Iran's nuclear program. Russia has blocked UN action against genocidal regimes in Sudan and Burma. Russia also did not seem to do all it could during the Six Party Talks regarding North Korea's nuclear program. Finally, at one point the US and Russia both pledged not to target each other with nuclear missiles. Didn't Russia break that pledge a few years ago? Or was it that some minister or general just threatened to revoke that pledge?

If you make a list of pariah nations, the ones with the worst records of human rights in the world, Russia can be numbered among the friends of nearly every one. Why is that?

Something else which is vitally important -- NATO membership generally requires a commitment to democratic principles, a serious attempt to eliminate corruption, and a demonstration of good will toward its neighbors and other member states. In Russia's case, each election has been less free than the one that preceded it; corruption is bad and getting worse; finally, Russia has tried to manipulate elections in neighboring countries and has been implicated in assassinations or attempts on the lives of politicians in those countries. These are not conducive to friendly relations... Russia might have asked at one time to join NATO, but its actions have not been those of a country which would make a good fit with NATO.

Why the NATO expansion and anti-baliistic defense ? Are our politicians plan in fighting a war with Russia at some time in the future?

Clearly, several of Russia's neighbors are fearful that Russia seeks to regain control over them; and they hope NATO membership might protect them from that happening.

As for the ABM defense network, if you bother to look at it then you will see that it might work against a threat from Iran or some other nation with a handful of nuclear weapons and missile launchers. But it would be completely ineffective against Russia. It is not directed at Russia, it is not aimed at Russia, and it does not threaten Russia's nuclear deterrent. Yet Putin & Comp. constantly use rhetoric which suggests that they believe attack and invasion are imminent. This is simply nuts... another worrisome sign about Russia, since we prefer to do business with nations whose leaders are not nuts.

 

[wjdell]

A Russian Doctor wrote a joke that tells all - in short a Frenchman a American and a Russian meet a genie. He grants them all three wishes.

The Frenchman says - I want money - a home on the Riviera - and women
The American says - hell I want the same on the west coast in the USA
The Russian says - my neighbor has 2 goats I have none - kill his