AV gas prices

In article ,
"Blueskies" wrote:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...

For starters, look at what companies like that will have to spend in
R&D, developing new field and processes, etc etc etc.

They're not just taking the profits and locking them up in the bank.

Profits are stated after all the costs, like R&D, new field developement, etc
etc are rolled in...

Profits are what's available to use for future development. They get
spent, one way or another, down the road.

Take away the profits and enjoy watching things come to a halt.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:01:36 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
wrote:


"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:13:16 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
wrote:

Well it has happened. Local 100LL is $5.60/ gal and is not expected to
decrease. Is there anyone out there using Supreme MoGas in a Lycoming
0320
with 8.5:1 compression? If so what ignition timing changes were needed if
any?

thanks
Stu Fields


bloody hell that is $1 47.9 cents per litre.

how the hell do you get it that cheap?

locally it is $aus1.64 per litre. actually with the last rise it is
probably $1.70 plus.

hey stewie its not $1000 per litre. get a life and go flying.

Stealth (still flying) Pilot

Hell Stealth, the problem is that I still remember getting a T-34 for $12/hr
wet in an age where the restrictions were much less. Now it costs more and
the flying is getting to be a contest of obeying the regulations. There is
obviously going to be a time when the cost outweighs the enjoyment and I
have a whole raft of interests that have been put on the back burner while I
dabble in aviation. My dabbling started in 1954. Maybe it is dying of
natural causes.

Stu


when I learnt to fly in the 70's the entire hour with instructor cost
me $aus15.
I earnt $9,200 per year.

if I blow up the costs and income figures to the present they are
still in the same ballpark ratio.

I remember locally when fuel hit 62 cents per litre. avgas accidently
became a cent a litre cheaper than avgas. just about the entire
airfield swapped from mogas to avgas.
the stupidity of using mogas when avgas is available led me to
realise that we focus on the pessimism of accountancy far too much.
locally fuel has tripled in price in the last few years. I still drive
to work, I still survive, the price of fuel in reality is just a cost.
so what, I dont buy papers and many magazines any more.

I'm building a turbulent which should see me with some cheap flying.
even cheaper than the tailwind.

I have two friends who show the way. if you want to do it just get on
with it. one is building a 2,000hp powered experimental and the other
has just bought a Yak 18T.

In a way I'm glad that you guys are giving up flying. that'll leave
more fuel for us!
bwahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahaah!

Stealth Pilot

cavelamb himself wrote:
BobR wrote:

Peter Dohm wrote:

"Blueskies" wrote in message
.. .

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...

For starters, look at what companies like that will have to spend in R&D,
developing new field and processes, etc etc etc.

They're not just taking the profits and locking them up in the bank.


Profits are stated after all the costs, like R&D, new field developement,
etc etc are rolled in...

Not necessarily. I am not an accountant, but AFAIK you are not
automatically allowed to expense and/or depreciate everything that would
make good business sense in the year that you might expect...


Most capital expenditures must be paid for up front and depreciated
over their life. A portion of the profits will be paid out in
dividends and a large portion put back into development of new
reserves. The biggest problem from the standpoint of the oil
companies is that each new find will cost substantially more to
develop that the current fields. The high prices are helping to make
some finds that were abandoned as unprofitable look just a little
better for development. They won't be developed though unless the oil
companies feel that there will be some stability in the market.



Everybody seems to be overlooking the tax breaks and subsidies.
Without which, gas would cost us somewhere between $10 and $12 a gallon!


FWIW

Richard

Just imagine what a gallon of gas would cost if the oil companies had
not found so many uses for hydrocarbons beyond burning them up as
fuel. If the only product derived from a $100 barrel of oil was
gasoline a gallon of gas would cost $5 just based on the crude price
alone. A 42 gallon barrel of the best grade of crude, which is the
basis for reporting oil prices, will yield less than 20 gallons of
gasoline. When you add in transportation, refining, more
transportation, distribution and a minimum profit for each step along
the way, the prices are surprisingly low.

"BobR" wrote in message
...


cavelamb himself wrote:
BobR wrote:

Peter Dohm wrote:

"Blueskies" wrote in message
.. .

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...

For starters, look at what companies like that will have to spend in
R&D,
developing new field and processes, etc etc etc.

They're not just taking the profits and locking them up in the bank.


Profits are stated after all the costs, like R&D, new field
developement,
etc etc are rolled in...

Not necessarily. I am not an accountant, but AFAIK you are not
automatically allowed to expense and/or depreciate everything that
would
make good business sense in the year that you might expect...


Most capital expenditures must be paid for up front and depreciated
over their life. A portion of the profits will be paid out in
dividends and a large portion put back into development of new
reserves. The biggest problem from the standpoint of the oil
companies is that each new find will cost substantially more to
develop that the current fields. The high prices are helping to make
some finds that were abandoned as unprofitable look just a little
better for development. They won't be developed though unless the oil
companies feel that there will be some stability in the market.



Everybody seems to be overlooking the tax breaks and subsidies.
Without which, gas would cost us somewhere between $10 and $12 a gallon!


FWIW

Richard

Just imagine what a gallon of gas would cost if the oil companies had
not found so many uses for hydrocarbons beyond burning them up as
fuel. If the only product derived from a $100 barrel of oil was
gasoline a gallon of gas would cost $5 just based on the crude price
alone. A 42 gallon barrel of the best grade of crude, which is the
basis for reporting oil prices, will yield less than 20 gallons of
gasoline. When you add in transportation, refining, more
transportation, distribution and a minimum profit for each step along
the way, the prices are surprisingly low.

While I tend to agree with you, there is another issue that seems to have
escaped any commentary--what is the price of domestic crude oil and where
does the money actually go?

Domestic crude oil comes from several US states including Texas, California,
Oklahoma, Loiusiana, and Mississippi. All of those states have considerable
power to tax what is produced there, just as much of the cost of imported
oil is tax money paid to the governments where it is obtained. So, how much
are we currently paying in state and local taxes on the crude oil--which is
in addition to the taxes on finished products of which we are already well
aware?

This same question might be of considerable interest in some other places
where crude oil is produced; such as Norway and the UK.

Peter

On Apr 29, 1:23*pm, Darrel Toepfer wrote:
Jumpin Jahosaphat wrote:
The problem Lars is the price is artificially inflated to a big degree.
As proof, in the US companies must annually report their profits. Last
year Exxon reported a profit of $4Billion US. Which is the largest profit
of ANY company of ANY product anywhere in the world, including all these
Cartel countries. The problem is one of gouging on the part of certain
companies.

Exxon Mobil said its net income for 2007 was $40.6 billion, a record for an
American company.

Royal Dutch Shell made a profit of $27.6 billion last year ($114 billion in
sales sofar this year), the biggest ever for a European company, 1st
quarter profit was $9.08 billion this year.

$89.2 billion in sales for BP, 1st quarter profit of $7.6 billion.

ConocoPhillips $4.14 billion net income for the 1st quarter. Exxon Mobil
and Chevron are both due to report 1st quarter earnings later this week.

They don't call it "black gold" for nut'n...

89.2 billion in sales, profit of 7.6 billion - sounds like about a
normal profit for any business. When discussing how much profict a
company makes it should be expressed in percent of gross, not jus the
total amount. Total is meaningless without the underlying gross to
compute the percentage.

Harry K

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT), BobR
wrote:

All the complainers have to do is just do the math. At todays price of
$120 a barrel, divided by 42 gallons = 2.86 a gallon. In my area,
regular is selling for 3:50 a gallon. That leaves 64 cents a gallon to
refine it, transport it, leave some profit for the oil company and gas
station, and includes the taxes. It's the price of crude that's
killing us, not the oil companies. The price of crude oil per barrel
is what needs to come down for any relief at the gas station. I think
the figure of 20 gallons of gasoline from 42 gallons of crude is way
off. With modern refineries, they get just as much gasoline from just
as many gallons of crude. Do some reseach on that, and you'll find
your 20 gallon figure came from some drunk talk in a bar one night.


Just imagine what a gallon of gas would cost if the oil companies had
not found so many uses for hydrocarbons beyond burning them up as
fuel. If the only product derived from a $100 barrel of oil was
gasoline a gallon of gas would cost $5 just based on the crude price
alone. A 42 gallon barrel of the best grade of crude, which is the
basis for reporting oil prices, will yield less than 20 gallons of
gasoline. When you add in transportation, refining, more
transportation, distribution and a minimum profit for each step along
the way, the prices are surprisingly low.

Sliker wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT), BobR
wrote:

All the complainers have to do is just do the math. At todays price of
$120 a barrel, divided by 42 gallons = 2.86 a gallon. In my area,
regular is selling for 3:50 a gallon. That leaves 64 cents a gallon to
refine it, transport it, leave some profit for the oil company and gas
station, and includes the taxes. It's the price of crude that's
killing us, not the oil companies.

Really? Have you noticed the profits of many of the large oil companies
of late?

Matt

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

Sliker wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT), BobR
wrote:

All the complainers have to do is just do the math. At todays price of
$120 a barrel, divided by 42 gallons = 2.86 a gallon. In my area,
regular is selling for 3:50 a gallon. That leaves 64 cents a gallon to
refine it, transport it, leave some profit for the oil company and gas
station, and includes the taxes. It's the price of crude that's
killing us, not the oil companies.

Really? Have you noticed the profits of many of the large oil companies
of late?

The large absolute values of major energy companies' profits results
from the much larger values of their costs of doing business.

Try looking at the profits as a percentage of total operational costs.

They're down around 10% or so, which is pretty typical for healthy
companies in other fields.

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

Sliker wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT), BobR
wrote:

All the complainers have to do is just do the math. At todays price of
$120 a barrel, divided by 42 gallons = 2.86 a gallon. In my area,
regular is selling for 3:50 a gallon. That leaves 64 cents a gallon to
refine it, transport it, leave some profit for the oil company and gas
station, and includes the taxes. It's the price of crude that's
killing us, not the oil companies.
Really? Have you noticed the profits of many of the large oil companies
of late?

The large absolute values of major energy companies' profits results
from the much larger values of their costs of doing business.

Try looking at the profits as a percentage of total operational costs.

They're down around 10% or so, which is pretty typical for healthy
companies in other fields.

And a lot lower than many other companies.

The U.S. pays a lot less for gasoline than may other countries. I
think it's over $18.00 (U.S.) per gallon in Aruba.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote:
Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

Sliker wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT), BobR
wrote:

All the complainers have to do is just do the math. At todays price of
$120 a barrel, divided by 42 gallons = 2.86 a gallon. In my area,
regular is selling for 3:50 a gallon. That leaves 64 cents a gallon to
refine it, transport it, leave some profit for the oil company and gas
station, and includes the taxes. It's the price of crude that's
killing us, not the oil companies.
Really? Have you noticed the profits of many of the large oil
companies of late?

The large absolute values of major energy companies' profits results
from the much larger values of their costs of doing business.

Try looking at the profits as a percentage of total operational costs.

They're down around 10% or so, which is pretty typical for healthy
companies in other fields.

And a lot lower than many other companies.

The U.S. pays a lot less for gasoline than may other countries. I
think it's over $18.00 (U.S.) per gallon in Aruba.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The oil companies don't own oil wells?