Last post on Dec 09, 2013 at 11:50 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
#743 of 961 more fuel means a higher price?
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Mar 18, 2013 (12:09 pm)
You'd think a surplus would lower prices.
"A glut of ethanol in the gasoline supply is threatening to push up prices at the pump and may have exacerbated the growing cost gap between regular gasoline and premium, some oil experts say."
Ethanol Surplus May Lift Gas Prices (NY Times)
#744 of 961 Re: more fuel means a higher price? [steve_]
Mar 18, 2013 (1:49 pm)
Not easy to grasp. What it tells me is a person is better off with a diesel vehicle, to avoid all the various mixes of ethanol.
The more ethanol the lousier the mileage.
#745 of 961 Re: more fuel means a higher price? [gagrice]
Mar 18, 2013 (5:31 pm)
Ethanol is agricultural welfare, whether ADM or large corn farmers...and Democrat or Republican - it ain't gonna change. My money says Congress and the EPA will ram that 15% down our throat, just like other recent dumb moves - think light bulbs, sugar quotas and on and on! To hell with what you want or need, it's special interest campaign contribution money!
#746 of 961 Re: more fuel means a higher price? [steve_]
Mar 19, 2013 (5:31 am)
>You'd think a surplus would lower prices.
It was only last week I was listening to a news story explaining higher gas prices because of a shortage of ethanol. Was that wrong? This article sounds like it's too much ethanol being manipulated for political purpose to change the Renewable Fuel Standard.
The article is confusing as far as how it's been written. I need to go back through and analyze it like an essay. I suspect part of the article got cut in editing?
The real tenet is that premium fuel will cost more just because more cars will need it in the future to try to reach the silly, over-reaching fuel mileage mandate of this Administration.
#747 of 961 Questions for group...
Mar 25, 2013 (6:35 am)
With more people buying PEVs (Plug-in Electric Vehicles) what are your thoughts on continuing rises in petrol prices? Let's say if the gov meets it's goal of the 50K or so per year in sales of PEVs, along with continued decline of fuel usage, does anyone think prices would have to fall or would the oil/gas traders / companies make "changes" to keep the prices elevated?
My thoughts are despite demand, the prices will remain artificially high by any means necessary to keep the record profits. I mean, I never understood drill baby drill Faux News crap-o-la because oil is sold on the world market, to get the highest $$$ trade possible. Plus, with China's demand why would our home oil go to $2 / be cheaper even if we drill every nook & cranny in the U.S.
#748 of 961 Re: Questions for group... [jae5]
Mar 25, 2013 (2:45 pm)
I mean, I never understood drill baby drill Faux News crap-o-la because oil is sold on the world market
I don't think price was the issue. Buying from countries that hate US and balance of trade was more the issue.
Now we see buy from companies that make their products in the USA. May be a bit late now that we have shipped a huge percentage of our jobs off shore.
#749 of 961 Re: Questions for group... [jae5]
Mar 25, 2013 (5:01 pm)
> I never understood drill baby drill Faux News
I never understand why some people think Fox News is biased. They obviously don't watch the news reporting part. They may watch some of the commentators in the evening, but the news is far from biased. In fact, I've been surprised how complete it is. Much more complete than ABC or CBS on topics covered and topics omitted.
As for Fox News and their news reporting, it is much more fair and balanced than the source of much of the ridicule, MSNBC. Here's Pew Report on their lack of fairness.
I personally listen to lots of different views and I can pick out the garbage, the slant by omission of whole topic or omission of parts of a report.
But I consider the term "Faux News" to be offensive because it's so far from the truth.
#750 of 961 Re: Questions for group... [gagrice]
Mar 25, 2013 (3:49 pm)
That's the fallacy of all that tea party crapola about the XL pipeline in Nebraska and oil supply and prices. It's really about a few incremental jobs in Houston area refineries once it's built and then oil company and refinery profit increases. Not going to mean squat for US gasoline prices despite all that BS on Faux News.
#751 of 961 Re: Questions for group... [imidazol97]
Mar 25, 2013 (4:29 pm)
I dunno, not just the Fox news channel, but Fox news in general always seems a bit sensationalistic to me. Actually, a good source for balanced news is the Wall Street Journal as long as you ignore the editorial pages section of it. TV news is more about entertainment and marketing, and cable channels are even worse.
It just occurred to me that I believe both Fox News and WSJ are now owned by that Rupert Murdoch guy and his media empire that is in trouble for their antics in the UK. Kind of ironic! Luckily, I believe he's allowed the WSJ reporters to stay away from that tabloid approach.
#752 of 961 Re: Questions for group... [berri]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Mar 25, 2013 (5:27 pm)
We used to subscribe but the WSJ has gone downhill, but then again, most of the papers have.
I find this a little hard to believe (naturally we have a drive planned there in a few weeks):
Chicago has highest gas prices in U.S.
Since it's from the local ABC station in Chicago, there may be an element of sensationalism going on.