I would love one day to have a car that doesn't have to stop at any petrol station, this would be my little revenge.
But unfortunately not likely for quite a while.
Gouged at the pump
- Thread starter nick2fish
- Start date
I would love one day to have a car that doesn't have to stop at any petrol station, this would be my little revenge.
But unfortunately not likely for quite a while.
I have a few comments.
Firstly, Boggo, can I refer you to my earlier post regarding ROCE for BP. Shell's profit number as a proportion of the huge capital employed is only "satisfactory". Do not get seduced by the large number - look at it as a proportion of how much cash Shell has actually got tied up in their business.
I do not have their 2008 annual report, but for 2007 Shell had UKP84.25billion capital employed. A UKP22billion profit is a ROCE of 26% - and this during a period when oil prices spiked at US$150 per barrel. So, not a huge return. Microsoft, with a net profit of US$17.7billion in 2008 had a ROCE of 31% - go and complain to them about the price of computers.
This leads me to another point about the general confusion of exactly what oil companies can do with larger profit numbers attributable to higher oil prices.
Firstly, the major oil companies (BP, Shell, Mobil etc) have no control over the price of oil - but they are certainly beneficiaries of higher prices translating to higher income. However, they are NOT allowed to pass these profits on to the pump - this is deemed anti-competitive in most jurisdictions because if they were allowed to subsidise pump prices it would exclude retail entrants into the retail market which did not have an upstream business.
So, the retail businesses of the oil majors are legislatively required to purchase oil & refined products at market prices - when oil prices are high the costs of these products are high.
What do the majors do with this cash then? Well, if you look at the capital employed numbers, it takes huge amounts of investment to have an upstream oil exploration business and the cash is needed to invest in upstream projects. Don't forget, the timeframes for these projects are typically long (years to commission a rig etc) whereas the price of oil is volatile. What may look like a good investment at US$150 a barrel tends to look a bit sick at US$40! So large cash reserves are required to hedge against this volatility.
They also pay shareholders dividends. Go buy some oil company shares and use the divi's to subsidise your petrol!
The oil industry is a huge, complicated business and they provide a necessary resource from deep underground (and have to find it first), transport it, store it, refine it, build service stations to distribute it, and all with a highly flammable product - they do it safely, without complaint, and I hope to have at least partially shown, without the massive rip-off returns people unconnected with the industry think they have.
And all cheaper than the equivalent volume of milk.
Don't forget - they are not forcing consumers to buy their product. You need it and they are responding to demand by supplying it. There is no other entity (national governments included) that are able to provide the necessary levels of investment and expertise to provide this product as cheaply as the majors do.
You all should be thanking them instead of constantly carping about the price
Firstly, Boggo, can I refer you to my earlier post regarding ROCE for BP. Shell's profit number as a proportion of the huge capital employed is only "satisfactory". Do not get seduced by the large number - look at it as a proportion of how much cash Shell has actually got tied up in their business.
I do not have their 2008 annual report, but for 2007 Shell had UKP84.25billion capital employed. A UKP22billion profit is a ROCE of 26% - and this during a period when oil prices spiked at US$150 per barrel. So, not a huge return. Microsoft, with a net profit of US$17.7billion in 2008 had a ROCE of 31% - go and complain to them about the price of computers.
This leads me to another point about the general confusion of exactly what oil companies can do with larger profit numbers attributable to higher oil prices.
Firstly, the major oil companies (BP, Shell, Mobil etc) have no control over the price of oil - but they are certainly beneficiaries of higher prices translating to higher income. However, they are NOT allowed to pass these profits on to the pump - this is deemed anti-competitive in most jurisdictions because if they were allowed to subsidise pump prices it would exclude retail entrants into the retail market which did not have an upstream business.
So, the retail businesses of the oil majors are legislatively required to purchase oil & refined products at market prices - when oil prices are high the costs of these products are high.
What do the majors do with this cash then? Well, if you look at the capital employed numbers, it takes huge amounts of investment to have an upstream oil exploration business and the cash is needed to invest in upstream projects. Don't forget, the timeframes for these projects are typically long (years to commission a rig etc) whereas the price of oil is volatile. What may look like a good investment at US$150 a barrel tends to look a bit sick at US$40! So large cash reserves are required to hedge against this volatility.
They also pay shareholders dividends. Go buy some oil company shares and use the divi's to subsidise your petrol!
The oil industry is a huge, complicated business and they provide a necessary resource from deep underground (and have to find it first), transport it, store it, refine it, build service stations to distribute it, and all with a highly flammable product - they do it safely, without complaint, and I hope to have at least partially shown, without the massive rip-off returns people unconnected with the industry think they have.
And all cheaper than the equivalent volume of milk.
Don't forget - they are not forcing consumers to buy their product. You need it and they are responding to demand by supplying it. There is no other entity (national governments included) that are able to provide the necessary levels of investment and expertise to provide this product as cheaply as the majors do.
You all should be thanking them instead of constantly carping about the price
- Joined
- 10 July 2004
- Posts
- 2,913
- Reactions
- 3
From the Caltex website -
So, included in the Singapore MOPS95 price is "freight to Australia".
Ya gotta be kiddin' me. We import no more than about 15% of our petrol from Singapore, yet ALL our friggin' pump prices are based on Singapore MOPS95 + Freight!!
LOL
We have been screwed royally on that one. Must be at least 5c litre "freight" costs?
HAHAHAHAHA!!
Us poor, dumb Aussies.
- Joined
- 12 November 2007
- Posts
- 273
- Reactions
- 0
Look they are not a charity so I'll reserve my thanking for the more deserving
Banks respond to demand, yet when the RBA drops interest rates, we like to think that they will as well
I accept TysonBoss1 augments,which are based on sound business logic before I'll go for your defensive ramp.
Besides I only know of one company petrol wholesaler listed on AXO and that is Caltex, all the rest are multi national conglomerates. Glad to be corrected.
Cheers
- Joined
- 12 November 2007
- Posts
- 2,944
- Reactions
- 4
Can't wait to get my first plugin electric set of wheels,... though watching the news today, If the Melbourne grid can't handle everyone switching on their aircon's, will it handle everyone plugging in their electric cars.
I guess the electric companys could set up some sort of off peak charging that switches on at 2am when everyone is snoozing, like they do for hot water systems.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Thanks nick2fish - although I did rather hope my arguments also had a little business logic to them too?!!
Tysonboss1 made the good point about the level of the fixed cost component of the pump price which means that a doubling of the oil price will not result in a doubling of the pump price.
I was particularly interested in his(?) illustration using 5c per litre as a retailers margin. As far as I know this won't be too far from what is achieved on average by retailers, and it is worth dwelling on what this means.
This is a gross margin (revenue less cost of sales) and from this margin all operating costs must be paid.
A medium-sized retailer will sell around 80-100,000 litres per week giving a gross margin (@ 5c/l) of $5,000 at the top end of our range. From this wages, heating, lighting, rent, interest payments, tax all need to be paid before we start looking at a profit. No wonder they need to diversify into groceries in an attempt to turn a buck!
To look at it another way, 5c/l GM will probably translate to about 2c/l net profit (with fingers crossed and a following wind) and that is on the generous side. So if you were to turn retailers into non-profit making organisations (and a lot of them are probably there already!), then you will only reduce the pump price by 2c/l, or about $1 on an average full tank.
Is it really worth all the fuss?
Tysonboss1 made the good point about the level of the fixed cost component of the pump price which means that a doubling of the oil price will not result in a doubling of the pump price.
I was particularly interested in his(?) illustration using 5c per litre as a retailers margin. As far as I know this won't be too far from what is achieved on average by retailers, and it is worth dwelling on what this means.
This is a gross margin (revenue less cost of sales) and from this margin all operating costs must be paid.
A medium-sized retailer will sell around 80-100,000 litres per week giving a gross margin (@ 5c/l) of $5,000 at the top end of our range. From this wages, heating, lighting, rent, interest payments, tax all need to be paid before we start looking at a profit. No wonder they need to diversify into groceries in an attempt to turn a buck!
To look at it another way, 5c/l GM will probably translate to about 2c/l net profit (with fingers crossed and a following wind) and that is on the generous side. So if you were to turn retailers into non-profit making organisations (and a lot of them are probably there already!), then you will only reduce the pump price by 2c/l, or about $1 on an average full tank.
Is it really worth all the fuss?
- Joined
- 10 July 2004
- Posts
- 2,913
- Reactions
- 3
No comment on my previous post, so I guess everyone is to pay the EXTRA bogus "FREIGHT FROM SINGAPORE" fee on top of the lower price they WOULD be paying without it? So, happy to pay money for what is basically a blatant con?
Sure. We are generous folk. So what if Singapore fuel only makes up about 15% of our total Oz supplies. We rightly should pay a "FREIGHT FROM SINGAPORE" premium, even on the 85% of our own locally produced fuel. Makes sense, really
I guess since it's a Government sanctioned CON that helps line the pockets of oil company execs as well as Gummint coffers, that there's absolutely nothing we can do about this fake "FREIGHT FROM SINGAPORE" component added into 100% of local fuel supplies.
:angry:
PS: Sorry for the rant, but having just been made aware of this CON after driving for 41 years, I'm about to be struck dumb & speechless.
to pay the EXTRA bogus "FREIGHT FROM SINGAPORE" fee on top of the lower price they WOULD be paying without it? So, happy to pay money for what is basically a blatant con? Sure. We are generous folk. So what if Singapore fuel only makes up about 15% of our total Oz supplies. We rightly should pay a "FREIGHT FROM SINGAPORE" premium, even on the 85% of our own locally produced fuel. Makes sense, really
I guess since it's a Government sanctioned CON that helps line the pockets of oil company execs as well as Gummint coffers, that there's absolutely nothing we can do about this fake "FREIGHT FROM SINGAPORE" component added into 100% of local fuel supplies.
:angry:
PS: Sorry for the rant, but having just been made aware of this CON after driving for 41 years, I'm about to be struck dumb & speechless.
I understand what you are saying gilbo, but it will not change the fact that the general public will feel ripped off. I think mostly because a lot of what they do appears to be a black art. And we see little things that make you begin to wonder, for instance, the example re the increased premium on premium petrol.
Of the decrease in the discount on ethonal blend. Which started at a 3 cent discount, then went to 2.5, then 2. They also heavily inflat their price on non petrol items in the store.
Add this to the huge profits, included ExxonMobiles $44B, and yes we will complain. Just like we do with the banks, the bank fees and their huge profits. And with a Complain, bitch or moan, I know if will not be the only one doing it, irrespective of whether it is justified or not, I feel ripped off.
Of the decrease in the discount on ethonal blend. Which started at a 3 cent discount, then went to 2.5, then 2. They also heavily inflat their price on non petrol items in the store.
Add this to the huge profits, included ExxonMobiles $44B, and yes we will complain. Just like we do with the banks, the bank fees and their huge profits. And with a Complain, bitch or moan, I know if will not be the only one doing it, irrespective of whether it is justified or not, I feel ripped off.
- Joined
- 28 March 2006
- Posts
- 3,566
- Reactions
- 1,309
First Shell, now BP, Lets see someone try to justify this ripoff...
Industry News
Tuesday February 3, 09:50 AM
BP ahead 39% to record $25.6bn
By Ed Crooks
BP (LSE: BP.L - news) , the UK-based oil and gas group, faces "challenging" times but its leaders are determined to "hold our course",
Tony Hayward, chief executive, said on Tuesday as the company reported a 39 per cent rise in profits to a record $25.6bn for 2008.
He also warned that the company needed an oil price of $50-$60 a barrel to be able to pay for its capital spending and dividends without borrowing, compared with a price of about $40 on Tuesday morning (NASDAQ: TUES - news) .
However, the fall in oil and gas prices since the summer cut BP's fourth-quarter profits to $2.6bn on a replacement cost basis, stripping out the effect of price changes on the valuation of inventories.
That was a fall of 24 per cent from the equivalent period of 2007, and 74 per cent from the record profit of more than $10bn in the third quarter of last year.
The shares fell 21 ¾p or 4.5 per cent to 472 ½p in early London trading.
Excluding $900m one-off costs, mostly related to tax charges on TNK-BP, the Russian joint venture, the performance was in line with the consensus of analysts' forecasts, however.
Mr Hayward said the company's underlying performance was "continuing to show powerful recovery".
He added: "We have established very strong momentum in 2008 in our drive to strip out overhead costs and to make BP simpler and more efficient. There will be no let-up in that momentum, which gives me great confidence that we are well positioned for the challenge of the next few years."
BP cut 3,000 jobs last year, and plans to exceed 5,000 by the middle of this year, from a workforce that was 98,000 at the end of 2007.
Mr Hayward said the group's priorities were clear: to "continue to invest in safe and reliable operations, pay the dividend, and invest to grow our upstream business."
BP suggested there could be a modest reduction in capital spending this year, forecasting organic spending of $20bn-$22bn for the year, compared with $21.7bn last year.
That is a more cautious stance than Royal Dutch Shell (LSE: RDSB.L - news) , BP's leading European rival, which plans a slight increase in organic capital spending to $31bn-$32bn this year.
BP's dividend has been rising faster than Shell's: it was up 22 per cent in US dollar terms for last year as a whole, compared with an 11 per cent rise for Shell, although BP's most recent quarterly rise was an increase of just 3.5 per cent to 14 cents.
BP will need oil prices of $50-$60 a barrel for cash flows to cover those capital spending and dividend plans, although it expects that break-even point will fall as a result of cost-cutting, higher production and performance improvements in the refineries.
If oil stays below that level, then BP's debts will rise, although its net debt at about $25bn is at the lower end of what it considers to be acceptable gearing - as measured by the ratio of debt to debt plus equity - of 20-30 per cent.
Mr Hayward also hailed what he described as "exceptional performance" in securing access to new resources in North America. The year had been "one of the best in the last decade for exploration," he added, with significant discoveries in the US Gulf of Mexico, Angola, Algeria, Egypt and the North Sea.
Those discoveries would mean BP had replaced more than the total of last year's production in its oil and gas reserves.
In the refineries business, which in the US has suffered from a succession of problems and poor performance, Mr Hayward said BP was "working hard to restore earnings momentum."
He said BP had closed "about $2bn of the performance gap we saw a year ago between us and our competitors." The business has recovered sharply after making losses in 2007. However, it made a $416m profit in the fourth quarter, compared with a $1.97bn profit in the third quarter, as refining margins were squeezed.
In alternative energy, BP's wind power capacity more than doubled over the year to 432 megawatts in the fourth quarter. However, its solar cell manufacturing capacity fell, as a result of a fire at its Tata BP joint venture in India.
Industry News
Tuesday February 3, 09:50 AM
BP ahead 39% to record $25.6bn
By Ed Crooks
BP (LSE: BP.L - news) , the UK-based oil and gas group, faces "challenging" times but its leaders are determined to "hold our course",
Tony Hayward, chief executive, said on Tuesday as the company reported a 39 per cent rise in profits to a record $25.6bn for 2008.
He also warned that the company needed an oil price of $50-$60 a barrel to be able to pay for its capital spending and dividends without borrowing, compared with a price of about $40 on Tuesday morning (NASDAQ: TUES - news) .
However, the fall in oil and gas prices since the summer cut BP's fourth-quarter profits to $2.6bn on a replacement cost basis, stripping out the effect of price changes on the valuation of inventories.
That was a fall of 24 per cent from the equivalent period of 2007, and 74 per cent from the record profit of more than $10bn in the third quarter of last year.
The shares fell 21 ¾p or 4.5 per cent to 472 ½p in early London trading.
Excluding $900m one-off costs, mostly related to tax charges on TNK-BP, the Russian joint venture, the performance was in line with the consensus of analysts' forecasts, however.
Mr Hayward said the company's underlying performance was "continuing to show powerful recovery".
He added: "We have established very strong momentum in 2008 in our drive to strip out overhead costs and to make BP simpler and more efficient. There will be no let-up in that momentum, which gives me great confidence that we are well positioned for the challenge of the next few years."
BP cut 3,000 jobs last year, and plans to exceed 5,000 by the middle of this year, from a workforce that was 98,000 at the end of 2007.
Mr Hayward said the group's priorities were clear: to "continue to invest in safe and reliable operations, pay the dividend, and invest to grow our upstream business."
BP suggested there could be a modest reduction in capital spending this year, forecasting organic spending of $20bn-$22bn for the year, compared with $21.7bn last year.
That is a more cautious stance than Royal Dutch Shell (LSE: RDSB.L - news) , BP's leading European rival, which plans a slight increase in organic capital spending to $31bn-$32bn this year.
BP's dividend has been rising faster than Shell's: it was up 22 per cent in US dollar terms for last year as a whole, compared with an 11 per cent rise for Shell, although BP's most recent quarterly rise was an increase of just 3.5 per cent to 14 cents.
BP will need oil prices of $50-$60 a barrel for cash flows to cover those capital spending and dividend plans, although it expects that break-even point will fall as a result of cost-cutting, higher production and performance improvements in the refineries.
If oil stays below that level, then BP's debts will rise, although its net debt at about $25bn is at the lower end of what it considers to be acceptable gearing - as measured by the ratio of debt to debt plus equity - of 20-30 per cent.
Mr Hayward also hailed what he described as "exceptional performance" in securing access to new resources in North America. The year had been "one of the best in the last decade for exploration," he added, with significant discoveries in the US Gulf of Mexico, Angola, Algeria, Egypt and the North Sea.
Those discoveries would mean BP had replaced more than the total of last year's production in its oil and gas reserves.
In the refineries business, which in the US has suffered from a succession of problems and poor performance, Mr Hayward said BP was "working hard to restore earnings momentum."
He said BP had closed "about $2bn of the performance gap we saw a year ago between us and our competitors." The business has recovered sharply after making losses in 2007. However, it made a $416m profit in the fourth quarter, compared with a $1.97bn profit in the third quarter, as refining margins were squeezed.
In alternative energy, BP's wind power capacity more than doubled over the year to 432 megawatts in the fourth quarter. However, its solar cell manufacturing capacity fell, as a result of a fire at its Tata BP joint venture in India.
nulla nulla
Positive Expectancy
- Joined
- 24 September 2008
- Posts
- 3,588
- Reactions
- 133
The Aussie dollar is still arround US$0.65 and the overnight price for oil was under US$40.00, yet at the local caltex/woolworths outlet (on the Tuesday discount) ulp was still $1.10 per litre ($1.23 for 98ron).
We import less than 15% of our oil and it should be parity priced with the wholesale cost of Singapore Sweet or Malaysian Tapis, our closest International Oil refiners. The Australian Government Excise is fixed and no longer a floating percentage. There is no valid reason for the current price to be so high.
An irony of the suddden price hike was the email from Woolworths, offering members of their "everyday rewards" a $0.17c per litre discount, if they spent in excess of $250.00 in a given week at their outlets. They give with one hand then take with the other.
We import less than 15% of our oil and it should be parity priced with the wholesale cost of Singapore Sweet or Malaysian Tapis, our closest International Oil refiners. The Australian Government Excise is fixed and no longer a floating percentage. There is no valid reason for the current price to be so high.
An irony of the suddden price hike was the email from Woolworths, offering members of their "everyday rewards" a $0.17c per litre discount, if they spent in excess of $250.00 in a given week at their outlets. They give with one hand then take with the other.
- Joined
- 12 November 2007
- Posts
- 273
- Reactions
- 0
And given exchange rate plus barrel price, the 0.17c "discount" is what the normal, "fair" price per ltr we should be paying. Around the 0.90c level. How can you implement tax cuts, stimulus measures and RBA interest rate cuts to help re-ignite the economy, while letting a major and largely unavoidable expense for the Australian economy race along unchecked.
Seems like a blip on the radar going unnoticed.
Houston we have a problem....
Seems like a blip on the radar going unnoticed.
Houston we have a problem....
- Joined
- 23 September 2008
- Posts
- 919
- Reactions
- 174
Petrol prices have not reflected the crude oil increases based on increases in percentage terms - so we are actually getting a good deal.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=383667&postcount=1
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=383667&postcount=1
- Joined
- 14 April 2007
- Posts
- 158
- Reactions
- 0
What worries me is that I live in a town nth of Brisbane almost half of our servo's have not only closed but have been bulldozed flat. The majority of the rest are either owned by coles or woolworths. I filled my 4x4 up as well as a 20lt drum prior to going to Fraser Island and using the 4cent discount + the additional 4cents I thought ok ill save heaps. Much to my surprise I stopped at a little servo on the Gympie to Tin Can Rd and discovered that their normal price was 10 cents a lt cheaper or 18cents without my so called discount and if I was a local and shopped at the IGA store I would have saved an extra 4 cents. So if a small outlet 200ks north of brisbane can supply fuel 14cents cheaper and they have to pay freight costs to get it up there.......
I would love to see a breakdown of what profits woolies/coles made from there fuel oulets anyone have the breakdowns?
Give it 12 months and I reckon the last 2 independants in town will be closed and fuel will rocket.
I would love to see a breakdown of what profits woolies/coles made from there fuel oulets anyone have the breakdowns?
Give it 12 months and I reckon the last 2 independants in town will be closed and fuel will rocket.
- Joined
- 14 March 2006
- Posts
- 3,630
- Reactions
- 5
No comment on my previous post, so I guess everyone is
Sure. We are generous folk. So what if Singapore fuel only makes up about 15% of our total Oz supplies. We rightly should pay a "FREIGHT FROM SINGAPORE" premium, even on the 85% of our own locally produced fuel. Makes sense, really
I guess since it's a Government sanctioned CON that helps line the pockets of oil company execs as well as Gummint coffers, that there's absolutely nothing we can do about this fake "FREIGHT FROM SINGAPORE" component added into 100% of local fuel supplies.
:angry:
PS: Sorry for the rant, but having just been made aware of this CON after driving for 41 years, I'm about to be struck dumb & speechless.
Wow. I didnt know about the premium charged for freight.
A friend of mine once told me that the only oil that Australia imports is used as AVgas. Can anyone on ASF confirm or deny this? :dunno:
- Joined
- 10 July 2004
- Posts
- 2,913
- Reactions
- 3
Yeah. Unbelievable, ain't it? I don't know exactly how much that "mystery", rip-off FREIGHT FROM SINGAPORE premium adds to our mainly locally produced fuel - but it wouldn't be peanuts! :angry:
Anyone from Caltex care to share the inside info?
Frankly, given that around 80-85% of our fuel is produced locally, WHY THE HELL ISN'T OUR BASE PUMP PRICE LINKED TO OUR OWN LOCALLY PRODUCED FUEL?
This is an outrageous con that has gone on for FAR TOO LONG.
But, what can we do?? No OZ gummint has had the guts to change the fuel pricing act because it would likely hurt their fuel tax income. They're all thieving bastids.
aj
- Joined
- 10 July 2004
- Posts
- 2,913
- Reactions
- 3
From FuelWatch WA -
There ya go.
aj
There ya go.
aj
- Joined
- 10 July 2004
- Posts
- 2,913
- Reactions
- 3
Here is Shell's submission to the ACCC Fuel Price Inquiry.
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item...=23 - Shell Australia (Public Submission).pdf
According to Shell, it structures wholesale fuel sales across Australia around a terminal gate price (TGP). The TGP is based on import parity pricing and includes a Singapore fuel price benchmark (MOPS95) price + the following additional fees -
(1) Ocean freight (based on Singapore to Japan costs!! Did anyone of us know this??)
(2) Wharfage charges
(3) Freight Insurance
(4) Premium for MOPS95 to be converted to "Australian quality"
(5) Terminal margin to cover infrastructure
Most of the above costs are a direct result of conning us idiots since 1977 into paying a *hidden* "Singapore to Japan freight rate" in our local pump prices
Add to that GST + Excise & there you have it - the recipe for "liquid gold" for the big oilers & gummints.
chiz,
aj
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item...=23 - Shell Australia (Public Submission).pdf
According to Shell, it structures wholesale fuel sales across Australia around a terminal gate price (TGP). The TGP is based on import parity pricing and includes a Singapore fuel price benchmark (MOPS95) price + the following additional fees -
(1) Ocean freight (based on Singapore to Japan costs!! Did anyone of us know this??)
(2) Wharfage charges
(3) Freight Insurance
(4) Premium for MOPS95 to be converted to "Australian quality"
(5) Terminal margin to cover infrastructure
Most of the above costs are a direct result of conning us idiots since 1977 into paying a *hidden* "Singapore to Japan freight rate" in our local pump prices
Add to that GST + Excise & there you have it - the recipe for "liquid gold" for the big oilers & gummints.
chiz,
aj
nulla nulla
Positive Expectancy
- Joined
- 24 September 2008
- Posts
- 3,588
- Reactions
- 133
The latest Woolworths promotion for "every day rewards" was spend $210.00 and get a $0.15 discount voucher. So I went through the local woolies and only bought the items that were significantly discounted (against their normal prices and the opposition). The price of fuel has come down a little but it is still higher than it should be. I will wait for a further drop before using the voucher. I will also get the little lady to follow me through so we fill both cars and we max out as much of the 120 litres allowed. Two can play this game.
- Joined
- 10 July 2004
- Posts
- 2,913
- Reactions
- 3
Another curious anomaly...
WHY do almost all media commentators (news announcers, "experts", economists, analysts etc) continue to refer predominantly to the price of a barrel of US oil when either discussing Oz stock market oiler company activity or the level of Oz petrol prices - when plainly, the price of Oz fuel has absolutely NOTHING to do with US oil pricing, but IS linked directly to the price of SINGAPORE MOPS95 Unleaded - and nothing else??
Don't they know this FACT? Surely, they are not that thick?
So, WHY isn't the price of SINGAPORE MOPS95 commented on by ALL media outlets in their daily informative stock market wrap-ups - so that the Oz public has a better general understanding of why the local pump prices seemingly aren't responding to "cheap" US oil??
eg: US oil could drop $10, but if MOPS95 happens to go up 5% at the same time for whatever reason, guess what happens at our pumps!
aj
WHY do almost all media commentators (news announcers, "experts", economists, analysts etc) continue to refer predominantly to the price of a barrel of US oil when either discussing Oz stock market oiler company activity or the level of Oz petrol prices - when plainly, the price of Oz fuel has absolutely NOTHING to do with US oil pricing, but IS linked directly to the price of SINGAPORE MOPS95 Unleaded - and nothing else??
Don't they know this FACT? Surely, they are not that thick?
So, WHY isn't the price of SINGAPORE MOPS95 commented on by ALL media outlets in their daily informative stock market wrap-ups - so that the Oz public has a better general understanding of why the local pump prices seemingly aren't responding to "cheap" US oil??
eg: US oil could drop $10, but if MOPS95 happens to go up 5% at the same time for whatever reason, guess what happens at our pumps!
aj
