Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

How does gas at $4 and higher impact you?



  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,273
    No, but it is generally about $0.10 less than road diesel, which is at $3.80 right now, so I imagine it to be between $3.60 and $3.70. Much better than a month ago, if that's the case!
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,684
    Is most of FBKs on Natural Gas now?
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,273
    No, but there's a lot of talk about it. The problem is that it is a relatively small market, fairly spread out, and 1,000 miles from nowhere. So, the return on investment isn't all that promising. And, as you know, the mentality around here is never "build to fit." There could be a small diameter poly pipeline installed from the north slope to the interior in a summer by practically strapping it to the TAPS, but that wouldn't do. No, no.... we must have something grand that takes twenty years to plan, five years to build, and an eternity to maintain.

    Now, they're talking about building a LNG plant on the slope and trucking gas to Fairbanks. :sick:
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 39,015
    edited December 2012
    Just read where they are experimenting with solar hot water in Kotzebue, of all places. There's an idea, put a closed loop water pipe/heat exchanger around the outside of the pipeline under the insulation and loop it through downtown Fairbanks. The SeaLife Center in Seward is doing a heat exchanger with sea water to heat the aquariums.

    Gas seems cheap but the radio said the Michigan average was just about the same this time last year. I'm betting holiday traffic will be up though for our drive south, because the price sure seems cheaper.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,684
    edited January 2013
    Notice these five men making sure your car is roadworthy with a gas fill-up. Gas was probably 25 cents a gallon at the time. You know they were making a profit even with all those people working for them. I think at the current pump your own $3.50 per gallon we're are getting screwed royal.

    click on the picture:
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,120
    Thanks for posting that.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,937
    Many factors at play, from different tax policies to different tolerance of corporate shenanigans, to more motorists and different residential development patterns.
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 39,015
    "Hamburger, health care and taxes are all set to take a bigger bite out of the family budget this year. But drivers' annual gas bills are expected to drop for the first time in four years.

    Forecasters say ample oil supplies and weak U.S. demand will keep a lid on prices. The lows will be lower and the highs won't be so high compared with a year ago. The average price of a gallon of gasoline will fall 5 per cent to $3.44, according to the Energy Department."

    After price spikes, gas could get cheaper in 2013, thanks to ample supplies, feeble US demand (Yahoo)
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 39,015
    "How much does your fuel economy fall -- and how much does your fuel cost rise? -- if you drive at 60 m.p.h. rather than 50? How about 70 m.p.h.? 80?

    Would you believe a 41% decrease in fuel economy from 50 m.p.h. to 80? That's like paying $1.38 more per gallon of gasoline, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's website

    There wasn't much correlation between decreasing fuel economy and the vehicles' frontal area and aerodynamic drag."

    Mark Phelan: The faster you go, the less m.p.g. you get (Detroit News)
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,937
    I guess it is believable. 80 is 60% more than 50, so using 40% more fuel doesn't sound bad. In marginal terms, more efficient. Of course, probably a distinct minority of highways the US allow long term 80mph cruising anyway.

    Here's my own anecdotal experiment, using a 2012 MB E350 with a 7 speed auto:

    image image
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,684
    Those are not statistics you would want to wave in front of this lame administration. They would pull a Nixon on US and we would be back to 55 MPH on the highways. For those that time is meaningless it may be worthwhile to look at. If you travel 500 miles a day on a trip the difference would be more than 3 hours behind the wheel. I usually cruise 70-75 when it is posted 65 or 70 MPH. I checked a tank once staying right at 60 MPH from Phoenix to Yuma taking the old highway. My mileage did not improve even 1 MPG over my normal driving habits. Not worth the risk of falling asleep at that slow of a pace.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,273
    I have to agree with you on that. Plus, gearing plays a big role, so not every vehicle is going to see that 40% between 50 and 80.

    Heck, at 55 mpg, my 1969 C20 gets 15 mpg. I never knew that, because I never went 55 for any appreciable length of time. Even traveling a 55 mph road at 60, I tended to get 12 mpg. At 65, I get 10.5-11. Above that, and it drops like a rock. So, over ten miles-per-hour, my fuel economy dropped 36 percent. I don't think there are many, if any, vehicles made today that would see that same impact between 55 and 65 mph.

    I think the best answer is "know thy vehicle." The driver always needs to balance speed, safety, and time, so adding optimal (acceptable) fuel economy within those variables doesn't really add too much more complexity to the decision.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,684
    CHU is gone... Hopefully Obama does not pick a more zealous anti vehicle person for the job.

    Chu’s departure had been widely expected and follows announcements by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson and Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that they are leaving. 02/01/9809fd8a-6c8f-11e2-8f4f-2abd96162ba8_story.html?wpisrc=al_politics_p
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 39,015
    The WSJ list a bunch of reasons why.

    "Problems with pipelines transporting crude around the nation have been the main driver of the 12% rise in U.S. crude futures over the last seven weeks. Crude is responsible for 68% of gasoline prices.

    [A] sluggish economy and more fuel-efficient cars have put a lid on consumption."

    Super storm Sandy lowered inventories.

    "The Northeast gasoline shortage has squeezed the futures higher for the contract, which is used as a yardstick for gasoline prices across the nation."
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,273
    Uh huh. Plus the guys that make tons of money on oil want to make their money on oil. The consumer will pay; oh, yes, they'll pay. ;)
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,684
    The discount gas stations are mostly charging $4.01 for RUG. I filled at Costco for $3.85. The lines were too long yesterday when it was $3.77. Diesel has not gone up much. $3.99 to $4.09 most places. A lot of our ARCO stations are now called USA Gasoline. Some ARCOs holding under $3.90.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,684
    I think they are trying to get Obama's attention on the Keystone Pipeline project. He is a slow learner. Or does not give a rip if gas prices are hurting the working folks.
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 39,015
    edited February 2013
    One argument is that Keystone XL will divert crude from the Midwest to the Gulf. So my gas prices will catch up and pass yours. :sick:

    But yeah, the election is over so POTUS can approve the rest of it now (the southern section was already given the okay) and not worry about losing the election.
  • berriberri Posts: 4,008
    I thought this Keystone pipeline stuff was OBE. As I understand it, the pipeline company changed the routing to satisfy aquifier concerns and Nebraska gave a thumbs up to Washington to proceed. The new pipeline will help clear out stockpiles in Oklahoma when completed, but I wouldn't count on it reducing gas prices here. The whole purpose of all of this is to reverse flow and allow oil into the gulf refineries which can then be exported. Remember, we're now talking about the US as a net energy exporter shortly. All this will really accomplish is making WTI oil similar in pricing to Brent crude.

    I'd like to be able to fly a thermal sight over some of these refinery storage tanks. How much you want to bet they are pretty full right now? No, there couldn't be any possible manipulation going on???
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,594
    around these parts, at least if you want premium. My Ram takes 89, which is usually priced closer to Premium anyway, so I'll try not to let it get below half a tank, and alternate between 87 and 93 when I fill up.

    Today was 87 day, so it was "only" $3.599 per gallon. I didn't notice if 93 was over $4/gal at this station, but I have seen it at others.
Sign In or Register to comment.