PDA

View Full Version : UK fuel prices


OFSO
6th Nov 2014, 13:23
I saw on Sky News this morning some rep from the government saying UK pump prices should have dropped as the price of oil has done the same. But it hasn't. Gnash your teeth, Englanders !

Prices at the pump here in France and in Spain for both diesel and petrol have been dropping steadily over the past month - now down about 20% compared to the August 2014 prices I'd say.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
6th Nov 2014, 13:29
Down 20% also in Canada - equivalent of 63p a litre

BenThere
6th Nov 2014, 13:40
Going price around metro Detroit is $2.99/US Gallon. First time it has been under $3.00 since 2010.

Historical Gas Price Charts - Detroit Gas Prices (http://www.detroitgasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx)

seafire6b
6th Nov 2014, 14:22
Now $2.97 a gallon in Fort Lauderdale (down from $3.05 two days ago), but even just a fortnight past it was a mere $2.79 in Mississippi, so by now that price too has probably also been reduced - good times!

Trossie
6th Nov 2014, 14:58
... some rep from the government saying UK pump prices should have dropped as the price of oil has done the same. But it hasn't.Some facts: Since August the price at the pumps in the UK has dropped about 10%;
If you take the UK government's fixed 'fuel duty' out of that, the petrol price has dropped by about 17%.

Would it surprise you that the 'rep from the government' is a LibDem? The ones who are so pseudo-'greenie' that they would like to tax cars off the road. If you take out their government's punitive fixed fuel tax (now 48% of the cost of the fuel, and that's without the VAT that is stolen from the travelling public on top of that fixed fuel tax!), the price has dropped quite a lot. But those sums are probably beyond most LibDems. (The only thing that is worse is that if those Labour loonies were still in the fixed fuel tax, or 'duty' as they like to pompously call it, would be much higher and the economy would be so much worse off. Gits.)

Lonewolf_50
6th Nov 2014, 15:39
As I drove past the local gas station this morning, I noted that the prices is (US) $2.769 per gallon for 87 octane unleaded fuel. Diesel still over (US) $3.00 per gallon.

This is good news, but one wonders how long it will last.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
6th Nov 2014, 15:59
The Green River shale formation in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah is conservatively estimated to have 3x the proven Saudi reserves, and to be able to supply the entire US at current usage for the next 100 years.

more here: About Oil Shale (http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/)

There's half that in the Bakken formation in North Dakota/Saskatchewan.

Breakeven costs are estimated at $58-61 per barrel with multipad drilling technology.

Bakken crude breakeven prices as low as $58/bbl in 2014 -report | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/02/energy-crude-bakken-idUSL1N0MU21Z20140402)

You are sorted, mate!

and the [email protected] can can go back to doing just that

Trossie
6th Nov 2014, 16:31
Lonewolf, By quoting those prices you're just trying to piss the people in Britain off, aren't you? And I suppose also rub in the fact that while the Brits are (for a while still)l stuck with LibDems (who favour high taxes on fuel under that dishonest term 'green taxes'!) in the government, you have managed to oust your Democrats.

Effluent Man
6th Nov 2014, 16:49
The balance of cost duty to product is roughly 80p/50p so consequently what we have seen is about right,a 20% reduction in the product cost but non on duty.Countries that levy a lower rate of duty will of course see a larger fall in the full price percentage wise.

The party in government is pretty much irrelevant.Fuel duty is such an easy tax to collect and raises a fortune.No party will rock that boat.

BenThere
6th Nov 2014, 16:56
The US election could have a significant impact on oil supplies and prices in world markets by Congress now facilitating, rather than obstructing, production on vast federal lands now off-limits. The fracking boom has been almost entirely on private land. Keystone pipeline approval will potentially bring additional billions of barrels to market.

Perhaps the greatest bonus of all this is that the expanded supply most damages the economies and leverage of Iran, Venezuela, Russia and the Jihad-funding Middle East.

Now we just need to get behind the idea that government should not be allowed to tax anything at greater than 25%. Then the people of UK and elsewhere could have their petrol at 45p/liter.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
6th Nov 2014, 17:23
If you'd like fuel duty to be reduced, which tax would you like to see raised to compensate for the loss of revenue? There's no free lunch, as usual.

BenThere
6th Nov 2014, 17:28
which tax would you like to see raised to compensate for the loss of revenue?

The tax on immigrants.

MG23
6th Nov 2014, 17:44
If you'd like fuel duty to be reduced, which tax would you like to see raised to compensate for the loss of revenue? There's no free lunch, as usual.

Or they could just spend less.

rgbrock1
6th Nov 2014, 17:48
Or they could just spend less.

Sacre bleu! A government (federal) spending less? :eek::eek::eek:

Ancient Observer
6th Nov 2014, 17:50
Spend a lot less.

I would like each and every "Interest group" that wants the Government to spend more on them locked in a room with each other, and not allowed out until they have agreed how to cut taxes by 25%.

What spending reductions should follow? I get fed up with all these interest groups all wanting more money spent on their pet peeves.

The worst, by a long way, are the lawyers and their Trades Unions, who have the cheek to suggest that they should be paid by the Government to challenge all Government decisions.
The next worst are the "British medical Association" - the TU for the Doctors.

airship
6th Nov 2014, 17:53
Blame it all on the EU (or the French if you prefer)... :}

Two's in
6th Nov 2014, 18:15
If you can convince an entire Nation that they pay more for their cars than the rest of Europe because they are "better equipped", then you can definitely stiff them on the price they pay at the pumps without getting a real challenge. Easy money...

rgbrock1
6th Nov 2014, 18:47
airship wrote:

Blame it all on the EU (or the French if you prefer)...

Or Bush. It's Bush's fault. :}:E

airship
6th Nov 2014, 18:57
World oil prices might be even lower than they already are today if the USA would allow export of US oil. Funny that... :}

con-pilot
6th Nov 2014, 19:03
Uh, the US does export oil.

U.S. Exports of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products (http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_m.htm)

Shaggy Sheep Driver
6th Nov 2014, 20:06
Or they could just spend less.

What sort of answer is that? If they spend less you still have to decide what gets taxed and what doesn't and by how much. Why should any saving in spend be realised in lower fuel tax rather than elsewhere?

And don't forget, we NEED to spend less to reduce the deficit anyway. And once the deficit is zero (which won't happen any time soon, especially if, god forbid, Labour get in again) we can start paying off the massive debt the deficit has been building up (thanks, Gordon. You moron!).

Trossie
6th Nov 2014, 20:31
Why should any saving in spend be realised in lower fuel tax rather than elsewhere?Transport is vital to any economy. Fuel tax puts an increased cost on that transport and puts a brake on the economy. That is 'why any saving in spend should be realised in lower fuel tax rather than elsewhere'. Especially when the economy really, really needs every brake to be removed for the country to prosper. You can only improve by creating wealth, not hindering that wealth creation and not penalising transport that is so vital to that wealth creation.

MG23
6th Nov 2014, 20:59
What sort of answer is that?

If governments are spending lots of money, and the people don't want to pay the taxes to cover it, then they should... spend less. All seems pretty simple, really.

Hussar 54
6th Nov 2014, 21:35
Arrived home at the weekend after almost 10 weeks away, and pleasently surprised to find diesel 1.21 and premium diesel 1.25 at Geant Centre Commercial, Hyeres, on Monday....

Was about 1.38 and 1.43 when I left late-August....

At current FX rates, that's now below 1 Stg per liter....And forecasted to reduce still more over the next month....

Knew there must be some good news here....

Shaggy Sheep Driver
6th Nov 2014, 21:42
If governments are spending lots of money, and the people don't want to pay the taxes to cover it, then they should... spend less. All seems pretty simple, really.

But that doesn't answer the question - why should fuel tax be reduced at the expense of another tax increasing? If we could wave some magic wand and reduce ALL government spending, priorities on what is taxed to meet the (now reduced) cost have still to be set.

Just saying saying 'spend less' doesn't address the question of what should be taxed to what extent.

Trossie - any tax increases costs and therefore puts a brake on the economy. There's nothing unique about transport in that respect. A reduction in VAT would be a booster for the economy, but we're in debt and deficit!

onetrack
6th Nov 2014, 22:20
You do all realise, of course, that a substantially reduced pump price for petroleum fuels opens the way for any Govt to consider higher rates of tax on those fuels? :rolleyes:

The justifications for increased taxes being the old hoary ones;

"The motorists are used to paying high prices for petroleum fuels, so additional taxes won't be noticed as much, with reduced pump prices" ...

"We need to curtail totally unnecessary, wasteful driving trips, that are not really crucial to the operation of the economy - thereby saving a scarce resource, and reducing unnecessary motor-vehicle-caused pollution" ...

It will be interesting to see the result of the greatly-lowered oil prices in the short to medium term. Theoretically, much-reduced oil prices will translate through to substantially-reduced costs in nearly every manufactured item.

Transport costs feature as a large component of the vast majority of products - particularly food and heavier or larger manufactured items.
Transport costs should soon be showing a reduction, which will reduce costs for nearly every manufacturer, producer and retailer.

Airlines will start to show improved profits as fuel costs reduce substantially.
Balance of trade figures will improve markedly as the total bill for imported petroleum products will reduce substantially, thus improving the nations economic bottom line.

I won't be losing any sleep over the substantially reduced profits of the Middle Eastern nations, Venezuela, Russia, Malaysia, Indonesia, et al.

Another major factor in the world energy supply equation, is the enormous natural gas reserves of North Western Australia, that are now being tapped and shipped to the world (mostly Asia).
These natural gas reserves are the worlds second largest gas reserves and are capable of supplying the worlds energy needs for around 250 years.

The NW Shelf of Australia NG projects, contains one of the worlds largest natural resource infrastructure projects, and one of the largest resources projects ever constructed in Australia - and just one of them (Gorgon), is costing around AU$50B in capital costs alone.

NG can be relatively easily converted to petroleum fuels if necessary.
This Australian natural gas supply is one of the reasons there is now a very subdued world demand for heating oil, as well as other petroleum products.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
6th Nov 2014, 22:28
Where's the evidence that fuel is too expensive? All around UK you can't move for Chelsea Tractors guzzling fuel, it's certainly not a decreasing phenomena, quite the reverse. And Manchester Airport is almost certainly not alone in booming business, shipping planeloads of chavs to the usual chav destinations at amazingly low prices.

Fuel, on the visible evidence, is probably too cheap.

Dushan
6th Nov 2014, 22:37
If you'd like fuel duty to be reduced, which tax would you like to see raised to compensate for the loss of revenue? There's no free lunch, as usual.

How about reduce spending rather than try to make up for the lost revenue?

Shaggy Sheep Driver
6th Nov 2014, 22:39
How about reduce spending rather than try to make up for the lost revenue?

Duh!

Answered above! Posts 21 and 25! Why don't folk read the thread before posting?

Trossie
7th Nov 2014, 09:40
I will try to put this in quite simple terms that are easy to read.

The answer to "Why should any saving in spend be realised in lower fuel tax rather than elsewhere?" is that the transport industry is vital to the economy and affect every single aspect of everyday living and every industry in the economy.

All your food, clothing and other living essentials have to be transported.

Every industry in the economy requires goods or equipment to be transported (even those who feel that they are free from this working in 'e-commerce' require computer equipment and electrical fittings for that equipment that had to be transported to them).

Even services that are piped to customers or supplied to customers by cable (water, gas, electricity or telecoms) require transport to install and maintain those methods of delivery.

So to sum up, there is not a single industry in the economy that is not in some way affected by transport, even if it is just to feed and clothe the participants in that industry.

So anything that adds cost to that industry in some way adds cost to every other industry. If you want your economy to do well you do not deliberately hinder the industry that is of such core importance to all of them. An increase in transport costs hinders the entire economy.

So, lowering fuel taxes will benefit the entire economy. No other tax reduction could have the same overall benefit. (VAT is not applied to several areas of industry, so a reduction there would not have the same effect as a reduction in transport taxes.)

And for those who want to tax-and-spend, it has the advantage that the overall tax revenues from a growing economy will return that money that you love spending. Or better still, the increased tax revenue resulting from the growth in the economy following a reduction in transport fuel taxes could help to pay off that deficit that Labour left us with.

(Our American cousins will be absolutely astounded to hear that the equivalent of US$3.79 per gallon is charged in a flat tax at the pumps in Britain before the first cent of the cost of the actual petrol is added! And it is termed by some as a 'green tax'.)

All around UK you can't move for Chelsea Tractors......shipping planeloads of chavs to the usual chav destinations at amazingly low prices.Well, speak for yourself, but I can move quite freely on the roads in my part of the UK. If that is your narrow view that you use to judge the correctness of fuel prices, then you need to take your blinkers off and see the real economy out there!

I hope that that was all worded clearly enough and responded to 'Posts 21 and 25'!!

Tankertrashnav
7th Nov 2014, 09:49
I see that the government has announced that it will be closely monitoring the oil companies, to see if they reduce the pump price of petrol in the wake of the reduction in oil prices.

I bet the oil companies are quaking in their boots. They know the governent has no power to control the prices they charge, nor has it any desire to do so.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
7th Nov 2014, 10:24
Trossie, are you in the transport industry by any chance? That's the only reason I can think for your insistance that tax on transport should be lowered at the expense of tax elsewhere. All your arguments for that could apply just as easily to other taxes; NI for instance!

ian16th
7th Nov 2014, 10:29
It makes me shudder to see these numbers.

The UK is simply a highly taxed country, leaving the average guy very little 'discretionary spend' after paying for the socialist blanket.

I am paying about 75p/litre for 95 octane un-leaded.

Trossie
7th Nov 2014, 11:06
All your arguments for that could apply just as easily to other taxes; NI for instance!Not one of those other taxes have the universal advantage of spurring growth throughout the entire economy the same way that reducing the transport of goods can do. A tax that is targeted at making the transport of goods, something that the entire economy relies on, more expensive is quite clearly a hindrance to the welfare of the whole economy in a way that no other tax is. Economies that have been able to develop cheaper and more efficient transport systems have prospered from that. A reduction in a tax targeted at this industry would help the economy to prosper in the same way. The tax revenues from that prospering economy would be higher. Please read and digest what I write before commenting on it if you want your comments to be relevant. I, like everyone else, am a user of that transport industry, that is how it affects me.

ian16th, Your earnings are lower there so that your spending power is not relatively that high, especially after you add the extras that you have to pay for there that are covered by tax here (security, medical, schooling, road tolls, etc.). Also, none of the airlines here are a drain the taxpayer. Petrol is not price-controlled here, so it does come down in price relatively quickly due to market forces. Has yours come down as much in the past weeks? It makes me shudder to see those numbers too, but at least I have an MP that I can contact directly about it (and expect a reply).

Shaggy Sheep Driver
7th Nov 2014, 13:27
Not one of those other taxes have the universal advantage of spurring growth throughout the entire economy the same way that reducing the transport of goods can do.

I disagree. As I said, transport's not unique to the arguments you put forward. If anything, there's a strong case to increase tax on fuel.

OFSO
7th Nov 2014, 14:58
pleasently surprised to find diesel € 1.21 and premium diesel € 1.25

Yes, but Hollande has said he will increase tax on diesel to pay for the failed eco tax:

The private company contracted to organise the now-discarded eco tax is claiming 1bn euros in damages from the French state. It has built a nationwide grid of electronic monitors - destined now to rust - and employs hundreds of people.

At the same time, the money that would have been gathered from the tax - some 400m euros a year - is missing from the budget.

To replace it, the government has ruled that the price of diesel will go up - for all drivers. In other words, ordinary householders will foot part of a bill that was intended for the big polluters.


French automotive prices are currently well below Spanish prices. Don't think that this hasn't been noticed by the French !

con-pilot
7th Nov 2014, 17:08
(Our American cousins will be absolutely astounded to hear that the equivalent of US$3.79 per gallon is charged in a flat tax at the pumps in Britain before the first cent of the cost of the actual petrol is added! And it is termed by some as a 'green tax'.)


Not really, when I was living in England in the late 50s and early 60s, the cost of petrol was so high off base, that we (my father and mother that is) planed driving trips around England based on where USAF bases were to buy petrol.

If they had to buy petrol off base, my father would figure out to the exact pint just how much petrol he had to buy to make to the next base.

Also, that $3.79 a gallon tax the reason that anytime I got a hire car in the UK, when I was going back to the UK when I was still flying, I made damn sure that it was Diesel.

ian16th
7th Nov 2014, 17:19
Trossie,

My earnings were almost exactly 100% of what I would have earned in the UK. I know this, because I was employed by the same US based multinational company in both countries, and continually interacted with my peers in 'the other country'.

Medical costs are more than manageable, provided one takes the necessary steps to buy medical insurance when you are young enough. Once these costs are under the individuals control, the quality of service is far superior than what is published in the UK media on a daily basis.

My 'security' costs were and are no higher than in the UK. Many, maybe most, Saffers are paranoid and pay for unnecessary security.

WRT school costs, I sent my son to a very good private school that would never have been able to afford in the UK. This doing the job I was with the multinational company that employed me in both countries.

As for the road tolling, I don't live in Gauteng, so it isn't really a problem for me. Having a Car License, the equivalent of the Road Fund license, for 33.35/year for a 2.3l car leaves me a lot of spare cash for road tolls.

This leaves me to think that the UK is a high tax country with less value for the tax payer than I want to live with.

This, I understand is my opinion and others differ. A generation or more as been raised in the UK that needs the 'warm blanket' of the NHS and other perceived benefits of the nanny socialist state, it appears that you are one of these.

I choose to differ.

MG23
7th Nov 2014, 17:48
This leaves me to think that the UK is a high tax country with less value for the tax payer than I want to live with.

Bingo. If I remember correctly, British government spending is now higher than it was when the government ran half the industries in the country. Does anyone really believe they do anything useful with that extra money?

Edit: the first graph Google found claims UK government spending as a percentage of GDP is around 50% higher than it was in the 70s. That's so much growth that I have a hard time believing it, but wouldn't be entirely surprised if they can manage to waste that much, or give it to their mates.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
7th Nov 2014, 18:06
It goes in benefits.

Back in the '70s we employed millions in manufacturing ships and cars (ships went east, cars are made by machines now) and lots of low grade factory jobs that have gone elsewhere. We also had an army of clerical and secretarial staff whose work is done by computers today.

Hussar 54
7th Nov 2014, 18:34
OFSO...

Life good, still ?

Agree with most of what you said....Would just add that diesel here is probably the cheapest anywhere in Western Europe, not just Spain....

The result of many successive governments giving in to the very powerful Road Transport Industry and its unions over the decades every time an increase in diesel taxes ( as opposed to petrol taxes ) was planned....

This eco tax thing, though, was always a fiasco.....The usual tax grab disguised as an 'environmental tax' and which nearly all governments, everywhere, have been guilty of the past 10 years or so - think APD !!! The stupidity this time is that the monitoring infrastructure and privatisation of the service was completely uneccessary - all the mileage data of the vehicles on which the charge would have been based already exists from the annual road tests / examinations that commercial vehicles undergo each year.....Yet another example of helping our 'Friends in the City' with long-term, lucrative Government contracts which simply aren't needed....

But was it ever different - that private individuals have to pay increased taxes to make up the shortfall from tax legislation and tax avoidance schemes which seem almost specifically designed to benefit only big business and the already rich ?

So, yes, I do expect the government to increase fuel taxes for everyone, as others have suggested on here, while it is an opportunistic moment to get away with it....But an increase of, say, € 0.01 or € 0.02 per liter will pass through very quietly given the recent price falls, and even an € 0.01 per liter increase will bring in significantly more than € 400 million for the government than a so-called environmental tax on the biggest polluters....

Trossie
10th Nov 2014, 10:05
As I said, transport's not unique to the arguments you put forward. If anything, there's a strong case to increase tax on fuel.SSD, Just look at history. Economies that had high transport cost have struggled and have even led to revolutions. Economies that have had low transport costs have prospered, usually leading to political stability. To increase transport costs wilfully is stupidity. Where fuel duty in the UK stands out head-and-shoulders above all other forms of taxation in penalising the economy as a whole is that the flat-rate fuel duty then has VAT added on top of that meaning that there is a tax on a tax. To narrow down the importance of fuel prices to 'Chelsea tractors' or 'chavs on aeroplanes' shows a complete lack of understanding of the importance of fuel and its effect on transport and the economy. However, in a democracy you are entitled to your opinion; it would be nicer if it had a bit more foundation to it.

Ian 16th, if you read any of my posts you will find that I am certainly no supporter of socialism!! (Ref: "... needs the 'warm blanket' of the NHS and other perceived benefits of the nanny socialist state, it appears that you are one of these.") However, I do prefer to pay taxes that are providing me with value.
I was amused at your comment: "... the quality of service is far superior than what is published in the UK media on a daily basis. ". First, the service that I have experienced and witnessed first hand from the UK NHS has been superb and does not match what you seem to perceive from the 'UK media' (more on that shortly!)! However, I have followed very closely the medical treatment of quite a few people in your 'Saffer-land' and while individual aspects of treatment may be superb, I have been appalled at the lack of 'joined-up treatment' resulting in a very poor overall service. Making my own direct comparisons, I will stick with the UK NHS, thank you.
Then you remark that "... Saffers are paranoid and pay for unnecessary security.". Well, going on the media reports that I have seen (the media again!) and on a daily basis recently, it appears that people there run a very high risk of being shot dead. If what you perceive as my 'socialist blanket' is keeping me safe from that so that I do not have to spend extra on security, then I am quite happy with that!!
Despite what you might pick up from 'the UK media', there are a lot of excellent state schools here and I can point you to many engineers, physicists and mathematicians that have got there entirely through that state system. If that is perceived by you as a 'socialist blanket', so be it but it is again taxes worth paying.
What I do enjoy is being able to change a government at the polling booth when they are wasteful with our taxes, as happened in 2010. How have you got on with that for the past couple of decades? (If you are going to have wasteful spenders and 'socialists' in government, you might as well have a 'warm socialist blanket' to enjoy with it!!)

Back to the topic: UK fuel prices are too high due to the taxes (mostly levied by the previous government); it will be difficult for the present government to reduce those due to the need to pay off the financial mess left by the previous (socialist) government; but commodity prices have been bringing the costs down (and for those LibDem's whose sums aren't all that good, when the flat-rate taxes are taken out, the price-at-the-pump has come down about as much as it can) and the entire economy will benefit from this being translated into lower transport costs.

cockney steve
10th Nov 2014, 13:26
The UK is not going to balance the books until all the "huggy-fluff" services are seriously curtailed and a cold, hard look at Public Employment VFM takes place. The Public-sector is a self-serving monster that needs severe pruning, we cannot continue with almost 50 % of the employed (note I avoided "working") population is paid from the commercial endeavours of the other half.

A generous and sustainable burden would be around 20%...the problem being that the 60% dead-wood is totally useless to a competitive commercial organisation. and we'd have to pay them dole instead......
The only way I see , is for someone with real balls (Farage ?) To get voted in on a populist manifesto and only then to implement the drastic cull of public employees......hopefully they'd have about 4 years of re-programming (being de- institutionalised) before the next election,by which time the savings should have filtered down to lower direct taxes.

At present, we are in the position that Public Employ has a vested interest in maintaining their cushy,largely unaccountable well -pensioned lifestyle. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
This is probably the only action on which I'd support a duplicitous politician :8

Lonewolf_50
10th Nov 2014, 14:57
Lonewolf, By quoting those prices you're just trying to piss the people in Britain off, aren't you? And I suppose also rub in the fact that while the Brits are (for a while still)l stuck with LibDems (who favour high taxes on fuel under that dishonest term 'green taxes'!) in the government, you have managed to oust your Democrats.
I don't blame the price of gas on the dems or GOP. Under W, it got up to and above four dollars per gallon.

I appreciate that you all are stuck with more tax per gallon than we. Not meaning to rub faces in oil patch, I was happy that it's below 3 bucks a gallon for the first time in a very long time.

More beer money for me. :ok:

airship
10th Nov 2014, 15:38
con-pilot wrote: Uh, the US does export oil.

According to the data in your own link, US exports of crude oil in 2013 were 134,000 bbl/day (barrels per day) on an annual basis. This compares to (2011/2012 figures) in bbl/day for say:

Saudi Arabia 8,865,000
Russia 7,201,000
Iran 1,808,000
Iraq 2,235,000
Libya 1,313,000
Nigeria 2,500,000
Venezuela 1,712,000
Norway 1,680,000
UK 637,800

Heck, even Australia managed 314,000 (estd. 2010), a country where the CIA managed to get the elected PM Gough Whitlam dismissed in cohorts with HM's government back in 1975. :E

I made my original comment based on this BBC article 'Could the US start sending its oil overseas?' (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-29450562) dated 01/10/2014. Or 10/01/2014 if you prefer...?! :ok:

Tankertrashnav
10th Nov 2014, 16:25
Whilst it's self evident that petrol/gas prices are way cheaper in the US than in the UK, geography does have a way of evening up the playing field. The other day I was chatting on skype to friends in Texas who are ranchers. The lady said she had to go as she was setting off on the 50 mile drive to do her weekly shop at the supermarket. I mentioned that we had just driven 3 miles to do ours.

Of course if you live in a city its a different story, but even then US cities are far less compact than ours, in general, necessitating greater mileages. I recall renting a car in Omaha and clocking up around 150 miles in a day just driving around the place, visiting different stores, etc.

Just wondering if there is a generally accepted "average mileage" for a private motorist in the US. Here 10,000 miles is often quoted as a typical mileage, but my son knocks up around 35-40,000, whilst these days I rarely get much above 5-6,000.

airship
10th Nov 2014, 17:05
Can't comment on average mileage, presumably the outback Ozzies will be here soon and will be able to. But could not pass up on this somewhat non-motoring term: my son knocks up around 35-40,000 Did you mean 'clocks up'? :confused:

Whatever, if I was 67 (which I'm not) and I had a son (which I don't), I guess I'd be grateful to knock up even just one or 2 of my son's knock offs... ;)

con-pilot
10th Nov 2014, 17:42
Airship, did you forget what you posted?

Here, I will remind you;

World oil prices might be even lower than they already are today if the USA would allow export of US oil. Funny that...:}

The US does allow the export of oil.

Funny that. :}

airship
10th Nov 2014, 18:53
con-pilot, what part of this (and/or significance of) do you fail to understand? The current policy dates back to the Arab oil embargo of 1973-1974, when Opec countries reduced production to punish the US for giving aid to Israel during the Yom Kippur War. In order to protect itself from future volatility, the US instituted the export ban (exceptions were made for oil from Alaska and parts of California). :ugh:

More discussion here (http://oil-price.net/en/articles/oil-export-ban-hurts-us-oil-industry.php).

Background to the US policy of a general ban on crude oil exports here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis) (wikipedia).

PS. WOW! What if the main reason we're no longer paying around US$3.65 per bbl is because of the USA's decision to support Israel against the Arabs back then...?! Never in the history of mankind have so many paid for the benefit of so few... :E

Trossie
10th Nov 2014, 19:23
Never in the history of mankind have so many paid for the benefit of so few...I think that there are some who spent their time in the cushy comfort of Cold War participant countries that don't fully realise how much that same 'Cold War' was really a lot of proxy Hot Wars around the world. Simply look at who was supplying military equipment to which participants of any of the wars going on at that time and you'll see that each one was a lot more than just 'local issues' but rather a proxy 'skirmish' within the wider global reaches of the 'Cold War'. Those were very complex times. To say "... the benefit of so few..." is not quite what it may appear on face value to those who haven't looked into it all fully. I am not supporting either side in any of those many wars, just stating that they all involved a lot more than just face-value 'local' issues.

And with market forces very much to play in commodity pricing it is probably stretching it a bit to say that a matter four decades ago still has a definitive effect on prices now. On the counter side of it, while that price hike then obviously did enormous damage to economies at the time, it was a significant accelerator for design efficiencies that we enjoy today.

But the taxes on UK fuel are still far too high.

Fareastdriver
10th Nov 2014, 19:32
Careful Airship, you need to look at the facts before you slag off the USA again.

In 1973, just before the Yom Kippur War oil was about $3.65. When OPEC threw their toys out of their prams it went up to $9.35. It slowly increased during the next decade until the reduction in demand made it difficult for the sheiks to pay their gambling bills so in the late 70s it went down to $14. In 1998 it went down to under $12/barrel so it was now worth less in real money than it was the before Yom Kippur. Supply and demand is now the controlling factor, OPEC have little power over it. Should they bump up their prices China will go to somebody else.

The world is saturated with oil at the moment. It is purely unavoidable production costs in expensive areas that are keeping the price up. It has to be that way. Should there be a free for all the main oil companies will be effected and with them billions in pension funds, securities etc..

Pay now, pension later.

con-pilot
10th Nov 2014, 19:42
con-pilot, what part of this (and/or significance of) do you fail to understand?

What do you fail understand that you posted that the 'US does not allow the export of oil' and I proved you wrong.

You were wrong, take it like a man.


Back on topic, Saudi Arabia dropped their prices a couple of weeks ago to counter the dropping oil prices in the US.

A gallon of petrol is now below $2.50 here now. ($2.46 at the closest station to me.)

Trossie
10th Nov 2014, 20:57
41p per litre! Another one of you bloody rubbing it in!!

Could some of your new Congressmen and Senators come and have a few words with our clowns on fuel taxes!! (Actually, I can see why they wouldn't: with fuel prices here like yours our economy would boom and compete with yours too much. I can see that they're quite happy to have our loonies taxing fuel to the hilt...)

Lonewolf_50
10th Nov 2014, 21:12
Trossie, please don't hate me, but I agreed with Ross Perot back in the early 1990's that a nickel a gallon tax increase (allegedly to be fenced for debt service) was not a horrible idea by itself. The problem with such a tax is that you can't guarantee that it will be fenced, and thus the pols will just find new stuff to spend things on ...

I get your point on steep fuel / transport taxes. That said, where is the cash cow government needs to keep funds coming in?

That's the question, isn't it? :ugh:

Tankertrashnav
10th Nov 2014, 22:21
knocks - up / clocks up

Yes I can see that might cause some eyebrow raising in a transatlantic forum.

I recall being at a static display at Offutt AFB and we had a couple of RAF vehicles near our aircraft. A lady approached us and asked us if anyone would be able to give her a jump. Our hopes were dashed when we realised her car had a flat battery and she needed a jump-start :(