marky1

but Tiggs, you're still here talking about it, you love it really don't you? You're actually a petrol price discussion forum fanatic tempted to come out but you're just not quite sure. It's even more boring to hear people talking about this being boring than it is to actually hear about petrol prices. Shall we all leave now and bring this to a close......?

Faire D'Income

The British electorate is so apathetic that it can't even be bothered to get out of bed to vote so there's no chance of them/us making a stand against rising fuel prices.

Or

If fuel prices bother you so much then stick a LPG tank in the boot (not that I'd recommend it) or do something more constructive and vote this lot out of Government.

Or

Do as I did and get yourself a fuel card instead of trying to get a penny back from the Inland Revenue.

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

everyone on here uses Shell anyway.
its the only way you can spell on a calculator without a reference to breasts or a lack of them.

Tiggs

"but Tiggs, you're still here talking about it, you love it really don't you? "

has a trucker blockaded your ability to read a post?

i didnt say anything was boring...i said the original idea lacked common sense, which it did- my 3 year old could have spotted that.

i also commented on my opinion on fuel prices...which is basically the higher the better.

i love talking about non-sensical posts and fuel prices so whats your point?

marky1

Okay Tiggs but I actually don't think it lacks sense, if people did it, it would work, it would prove that although petrol may be inelastic, in terms of a single (or even 2 suppliers) it definately is not. On the practicality of it working, yep pretty unlikely because people in the UK don't really seem to care much. Oh and my point was I just didn't like the way you laid right into the guy, if you think it has no common sense then fine, but at least have the decency to explain why, and why do you have to immediately be such a t**t to him, as I said the guy is new, he's just making a comment and the only thing you can to is treat him like a **** and i quote "lol...a newbie! what excuse is that! newbie to what? common sense.." I have to say sometimes I wonder about the intelligence of people like you.

imlach

You're a fool for thinking it would work. The fuel suppliers (BP, Shell) won't care - they supply the stuff to all the UK stations.

The only guaranteed way to hit them would be to simply STOP purchasing fuel, but as I have said on here before, NO-ONE is prepared to go that far. Everyone wants their own small stockpile to tide them over. It's the "I'm alright Jack" mentality. You get loads of people who jump up & down and moan, but when it comes to the crunch, they rely on OTHERS to protest.

As Tiggs said, there's far too many cars needlessly on the road anyhow.

imlach

Anyway, petrol is still too cheap.

People buy a litre of bottled water which costs more than a litre of petrol, yet I don't see anyone moaning about that - same idea - it comes out of the ground for free, and I suspect it has lower extraction costs than oil, so how come it costs more?

Yet still people buy it....

marky1

i agree imlach, it is cheap, cheaper than coke and water as you say, and think how much more the cost of extraction, refining is etc. I do think though if one provider was boycotted it would work. anyway, aside from that most of it is tax so if you don't like it kick you're government out

marky1

oh and i'm not a fool, if you did do it to 1 supplier it would work

imlach

No, that won't work either.

From a apolitcal viewpoint, it doesn't really matter who is in power. Fuel duty is here to stay at around the current levels. It would be unwise of any goverment to lower it dramatically, and has been said MANY a time before, they'd get the tax back in some other way.

Tiggs

"Okay Tiggs but I actually don't think it lacks sense"

well read it agian...it lacks any sense.

"if people did it, it would work"

and if my aunty had ***** she'd be my uncle

"On the practicality of it working, yep pretty unlikely"

now theres a thought.

"because people in the UK don't really seem to care much."

exactlly my words a few posts up

"I just didn't like the way you laid right into the guy"

are you serious? he was insulted long before i got to him

"at least have the decency to explain why"

i will no more explain the lack of sense in that idea than i would explain to my 3 year old why he cant drawn on the walls- he gets a clip round the ear and can figure it out himself (interestingly he doesnt moan this much when he does"

"why do you have to immediately be such a t**t to him"

i made a fuuny comment- in fact a few ppl have posted since and confirmed it as funny.......hardly being a ****?

" I have to say sometimes I wonder about the intelligence of people like you."

well dont, worry about the ppl who think chain letters posted on the net are a good idea.

imlach

....it would NOT!

The BP refinery at Grangemouth has tankers from MOST forecourts coming out of its gates. Which part of that do you not understand?

imlach

Fuel just differs in the additives put in it, ie Optimax.
The tankers fill up with a load of plain old bog standard petrol at the generic refinery (BP in this instance), and the additives are added once the petrol is IN the tanker.
This is where the differentiation occurs. Not before....

The guy in the chain mail seems to think Morrisons, Safeway, Sainsburys, etc all have their own refineries somewhere producing their own 'cheap' fuel. Fool.

FrenchBoy

BTW if you dont pass this thread on to at least five people in the next 30 mins your grandmother will die.

marky1

"he was insulted long before I got to him" yep exactly I guess that makes it okay then because you're funny

Okay imlach, take BP, now I don't know who else they supply but lets say tesco? You boycott BP they will probably have a 50% drop in sales, as not all those that did use BP would go to tesco, they'd get spread around Shell, Texaco, sainsbury etc. If BP had a big drop in sales they would start cutting prices and they would also be banging on the chancellors door getting taxes reduced. It would work if people were to do it. Just please try to explain to me why it wouldn't?

FrenchBoy

The point is that the overall tax burden is not going to reduce!!!!!
Petrol prices come down - Hurray!!!
Taxes go up somewhere else - BOO!!!

marky1

well yes but only if the price fall comes about through a drop in the tax component of petrol.

imlach

BP has the only refinery in Scotland - I think all the other UK refineries are in the South of England?

Do you really think Shell sends tankers out from the south of England to it's stations in Inverness every day? Would it not be more sensible to come to some arrangement with BP to deliver petrol FOR Scotland's Shell stations from a supplier nearby?

I think you'll find that is how it works.

FrenchBoy

these two comments appear to contradict one another.

imlach

The other point is that retail sales make very little money for the petrol companies. The profit is in supply & distribution, which as I have already stated, will still go on no matter WHICH forecourt you use.

A lot of forecourts are also franchises, so you're threatning a local businessman, not a large conglomerate.

The amount of fuel bought/used/supplied every day will remain constant, and that is why this pointless stupid chainmail is an utter load of unresearched piffle.

Tiggs

""he was insulted long before I got to him" yep exactly I guess that makes it okay then because you're funny"

first sensible thing you've said.

Faire D'Income

Come off it, that argument is seriously flawed. There are several viable and easily available alternatives to water that are far cheaper whereas petrol/diesel is more of a necessity. Additionally, you consume much greater quantities of fuel than water.

You're also forgetting that although the main refineries in the UK (Grangemouth, Avonmouth, Fawley, Ellesmere Port, Milford Haven, Killingholme, Coryton etc) supply most of the major petrol retailers in the UK there are also many other smaller distribution points spread across the British Isles.

imlach

...and there are several alternatives to fuel.

1) Your legs
2) A bus
3) A train
4) A bicycle


Quite how is the fact that you consume larger quantities of fuel of any relevance? Price is not proportional to consumption....

The small distribution points are usually fed by pipeline....there's not pipelines from ALL the individual suppliers going around the country to their own distribution points.

marky1

go on frenchboy, why?

Imlach, ok so they come to arrangement, shell buys from BP or vice versa, but they still don't sell it do they if it's boycotted? It would still hit them in the same way.

Faire D'Income

Bah humbug! I was referring to having cheap alternatives to bottled water. If you make the assumption that the human body needs water to run, then you can use tap water which is cheaper instead of more expensive brands of bottled water. Making the same assumption for the internal combustion engine, there are no cheaper alternatives to make it run - not viable ones anyway.

A car requires far greater quantities of fuel than the body does water - hence it's more expensive which is why people don't moan about the cost of bottled water - they use less and it's not heavily taxed plus they have cheaper viable alternatives.

FrenchBoy

Marky1,

i could go to the bother of explaining, but would you really listen?
most of the reasons have already been given on this thread.

you think the petrol protest is a good idea. i get the feeling we could explain it to you all day and you still wouldnt agree with us.

imlach

I reckon I drink more water than I use fuel
I drink probably 3 gallons/week of water, and I don't use 3 gallons/week of fuel

If I add up the household's consumption of drinking water, it doubles (6 gallons), and we get through nowhere near that amount of fuel a week.

Given the average motorist does 10k miles/year, that's roughly 333 gallons/year (30mpg). A family could get through a gallon of drinking water every day, so your quote about far greater quantities of fuel is not valid

Edited to add that we should really include expensive fizzy drinks, fruit juices, coffee, tea etc in personal consumption - they all cost around about the same (sometimes more, sometimes less) as fuel.

marky1

yeah i would. I'm just trying to figure out why a comment about what component of petrol prices a cut comes from (i.e tax, or retailers margin etc) is such a stupid thing to say? and frenchboy it's not that I don't understand what you are saying, it's just that I don't entirely agree with you. I really believe that it could work in theory. that's all I'm saying and just that you guys seem to think your views are 100% valid and correct, I'm just trying to argue that they're not. If the whole country boycotted one supplier it would work, i have no doubt about that, regardless of agreements about supplies in scotland etc. It would cause enough trouble to get a reation either from the government, or from the suppliers themselves, and we would start to see price falls. You know imlach BP may supply shell in scotland but they still sell it to them, it's then up to shell to sell it to use, if you boycotted shell they'd end up with a load of petrol bought from BP sitting in their tanks unsold. Oh and just to say yes I agree about the chain letter stuff being a load of bollocks, I'm just arguing that in purely economic terms (and I studied it for 6 years) it could indeed work.

marky1

imlach if you only use 9 litres of petrol a week I'm not suprised you aren't bothered, it isn't exactly breaking the bank is it?

imlach

...because it seems you value a drop in fuel duty above all else and imply it comes for free.

A drop in fuel duty will have an impact on one or all of the other taxes you pay. If you are a light fuel user, this would have a negative impact on your finances. If you use loads, and by that I mean, tens of thousands of miles per year, then you may benefit.