General discussion


Petrol prices and profits ....

By jardinier ·
In a recent discussion, I commented that the cashier at a particular service station justified the inflated prices of drinks, snacks and groceries on the basis that little profit was made on the driveway.

Yesterday I raised this subject with the wife of the owner of another service station. Yes, this was so she assured me. While the motorist is paying more than $AU one dollar per litre, the service station makes only half a cent per litre.

I would be interested to learn if this is also the case in other countries. Do the service stations subsist on inflated prices for non-petroleum products, while making a negligible margin on gas?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Not that bad

by JamesRL In reply to Petrol prices and profits ...

From what I have learned about the Canadian situation, the retailer(gas station) makes 3 or 4 % of the total cost - which may get eaten in a price war situation, but its fairly consistent.

It is important to note that when the price of oil goes up that usually everyone else's share remains consistent percentage-wise and everyone, the taxman, the refiner, and the retailler make more money.


Collapse -


by JimHM In reply to Petrol prices and profits ...

That's interesting - Inflated pricing -

Lets see - In the US (numbers may not be exact)
Profit on Crude - 3 to 6% (at 42.00 a barr)

Now you see these same people complain about a gallon of gas but in the other hand is a 16 oz of bottled water they paid a $1.25 for. (How many of those make a gallon), or that 20 Oz Pepsi for $1.75 - how much is that a gallon.

Most people paid more for a gallon of gas back in the 1970's and during the 1980 oil shortages than today. Figure in 1970's what was your wage to a $1.12 a gallon.... (Thats around $3.25 today)..

And whats great about America - is they can charge what they want - and if you don't like it - you have the right to shop and purchase elsewhere..

So if you don't like the prices - I wouldn't purchase anything from that store - they will change their prices quickly if the only thing people buy is gas. Try it - it works.

Collapse -

Your cars were more fuel efficient then

by Oz_Media In reply to Interesting

THe cars USED to be far more fuel efficient than they are today, the price at the pump is noticeable when you are there more often.

Now I know a 360 V-8 burns more fuel than todays 1.4 litre engines in companct cars when looking at how FAR you can drive for $40.00. As for fuel efficieny, a 1.4 litre car will burn MORE fuel per combustion cycle in proportion per cylnder. As it generates LESS horsepower/PPM of fuel.

WHy would a new car burn less eficiently than a 74 Cuda? Heat for one, smal engines dissipate more heat that is generated by inefficient combustion. Less horsepower to the wheels, more weight on the pedal to keep going etc.

SO why don't OUR politicians demand that manufacturers build better cars, as is already being done in Europe, so we can get a better value for money at the pump. WHo cares how much of Iraq's oil we get, who cares how much TAX is added by our governments (which equates to the largest expense per gallon of fuel)if we are simply burning a LIMITED supply of oil we have drilled from the earth?

Oil will not be here forever, we drill it and consime it globally on a larger and larger demand every year. Once the oil is gone, the manufacturers will have to find new ways to run cars, they know this and have achieved this already, but make more on less efficient cars that break down randomly.

Did you know that auto manufaturers CAN build cars that virtually last forever? They choose not to of course, yay greedy business.

Instead of looking toresolve the SYMPTOMS, we need to address the cause, others have, they demand better cars and the manufacturers are supplying them. Then they build the same car with lower fuel efficiency and ship it to us.

Because our politicians won't do anything about it. WHy won't they do anything about it? THey ae supported by the capitalists that control the industry ad desire to appease the manufacturers before appeasing the consumers and protecting our environmnet. But hey, you voted for them, it's YOUR job to ensure that they improve YOUR quality of life.

Collapse -

I don;t know if it politic or not

by JimHM In reply to Your cars were more fuel ...

You would think at some point in time they would start really pushing tax breaks to increase the usage of Multi-fuel or alternate fuel vehicles.

Why is the price so high for a dulfuel vehicle (Gas/Electric) - Even at current fuel prices the break even point is a long way off. (Additional cost of vehicle to savings gained) - at one time with furnances in the us got a tax break on the purchase of 87% eff - demand drove them up to97%.. could do the same thing for dul-fuels and altnerate fuel vehicles (H-fuel, fuel cell, disels - gasahal) ...

I would love to fill up with sea water and emmisions be H2O and air ... (cover Sea water to H and O - then cover them to electric for the vehicle) ...

Never see it in my time ... Government has to encourage it - not mandate it ... like they did with other new technologies.

Collapse -

high costs

by Oz_Media In reply to I don;t know if it politi ...

Demand and a complete roduct change would instantly drop the price of such cars to an affordable level. When they can make more from a gas car, why seel better for less?

Now what I was saying (yes alternate fuels are the ideal) is that GAS cars are not as efficient as they coule be. THey do NOT generate the same amount of power from the fuel as they used to due to inefficient component design and all that freakin aluminum (supposed to make the car lighter).

Even with a gas buring car,Europeans demanded better quality and efficiency, they got it. We still stand at te pumps and blame, gas stations, taxes, Saudis or whoever, why don't we act at the root of the problem, demand the government gets better restrictions on fuel efficiency for cars shipped to North America.


The problem that I see is that the politians want these company's to feed well and make as much money as posible (politicians looking out for businesses before public) as they have thier hands in the auto manufacturers and petroleum companies pockets.

BUSH for example was spoon fed to become a high profile oil tycoon, now even though he failed somewhat miserably in his OIL ventures, he still has his hand in thier pockets.

Is it so hard to see that he is looking out for them and himself before the people of America? To me it's black and white, no reading between the lines here, you are all being scammed.

We have several petitions around here going out to Canadian politicians to push for this same issue, yet our governmet is only reluctant because of the percebtage of GAS that is tax money, not that they are fed by the petroleum and auto workers unions.

It is wrong and we can either sit by idly as we use up the world's oil and pollute our environment at the highest cost ever, or we can speak out as citizens in democratic nations and demand our politicians act on behalf of the people instead of the companies that got them into office.

Collapse -

Why bring bush into it - when BP is worse

by JimHM In reply to high costs

Why bring Bush - he is only a stock holder as are millions of other Americans and others around the world. So why bring Bush into it, they don't own an oil company.

BP purcahses somewhere around 80% of its crude from Middle east - Exxon another large purchaser of Middle east oil - Sunoco and Amoco purchase less than 5% ...

So again you want government to mandate it - well gee it worked according to you so well. The reason the power is less and miles per gallon is less - is because of Government - mandating clearing buring engines - less exhaust - cleaner air - Which the engine now runs compressors - vaccum chambers - computers -

Hum - less see can socialism ever produce what it set out to do - NOPE - Never works. Could a Free Market do it ... Yep. How, don't buy a car that gets less than 40 MPG's - guess what - ever manufacture would be putting them out, and higher. Someone puts out a low price dul-fuel everyone would buy one - and that would drive the market..

Socialism Fails - Communism Fails - Free Markets work ... Gee theres that word again - FREE - as in the first four letters of FREEDOM...

Collapse -

Dammit Jim

by Oz_Media In reply to Why bring bush into it - ...

Try and actually understand a post for just ONCE I don't mean always but just ONCE for god's sake.

GWB founded Arbusto Energy, Inc., with $20,000 of his own money.
The company foundered in the early 1980s when oil prices dropped, his father was VP.
The 50 investors, who were "mainly friends of my uncle" in GWB's own words, put in $4.7 million and lost most of it. GWB claims that investors "did pretty good," but Bush family friend Russell Reynolds told the Dallas Morning News: "The bottom line was there were problems, and it didn't work out very well. I think we got maybe 20 cents on the dollar."

As Arbusto neared collapse, Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation bought it in September 1984. Despite his poor track record, the owners made GWB the PRESIDENT (not share holder Jim, President) and gave him 13.6% of the parent company's stock.

Within two years of purchasing Arbusto and making GWB president, Spectrum 7 was itself in trouble; it lost $400,000 in its last 6 months of operation. That ended in 1986, when Harken Energy Corporation bought Spectrum 7's 180-well operation.

GWB was given $227,000 worth of Harken stock, and a lot more. He was named to the board of directors, made $80,000 to $100,000 a year well into the 1990s as a "consultant" to Harken, and was allowed to buy Harken stock at 40% below face value.

So this should clear up the issue that GWB was no more than a mere investor, he was the president, and later appointed to the board of directors at Harken even though his first attempts failed.

He comes from a VERY wealthy background, has received the highest quality edication that money can buy in America and yet claime to be 'one of the people' (wel yes I suppose, two arms, two legs but that's about it).

Answr, to your question, WHY bring BUSH into it, because HE could make a differenceyet his supporters and friends are in the business of selling petroleum so it is not in his better interests if he wishes to keep his friends although it is in the better interests of Americans.

Now, I just KNEW someone would say that the greater MPHG means cars are more fuel efficient, which is common and expected.

Certainly these newer cars go farther per tank of gas than the old V-8 muscle cars did. Yes there is the pathetic California air care act of 1979 (I think it was '79, off the top of my head). Neither of these are accurate when speaking of fuel efficiency. More air is forced into the injectors which reduces the Hydrocarbon emissions while increasing the more dangerous CO emissions.
The other main air control system is designed to create a thorough BURN of unburned fuel, thus again reducing the not so harmful hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons have not proven to bee very harmful to our atmosphere as they are broken down at high alittude, whereas CO is not.

So air care really does nothing other than create work and HUGE profits for guys like myself who are aircare certified to repair failed vehicles. The Califormia air care act was passed long before much of todays knowledge was available and really doen't help much other than to reduce VISIBLE low level hydrocarbons that are viewed as smog. The air LOOKS cleaner down here so it must be up there theory.

WHen I say more fuel efficient vehicle I am not referring to alternate fuels or dual fuel vehicle at all. In Europe, auto manufacturers now build cars with MUCH better fuel 'efficiency' than they do here. This has nothing to do with MPG. As a car gets smaller and lighter of course MPG will increase, the efficiency in which it burns the fuel does not.

Cars today are far less fuel efficiet than a car in the 60's and 70's for example.

Lets look at this on very basic terms:

Gas contains energy, this energy is used to create horsepower and torque to propell the car.
In the 70's engines were heavy, and cars weighed more, the ability for a car to burn a gallon of gas per nile was deemed a good thing.

With todays aluminum blocks and aluminum bodies, the ability to drive a car for 40Miles on one gallon is NOT a good thing. These cars COULD be getting 60MPG if they were burning fuel more efficiently.

Whereas a '69 V-8 would burn a gallon of gas and generate a great deal of horsepower to the wheels, todays cars burn a gallon of gas and much of the fuels internal ebergy is wasted in the form of heat smaller high RPM engines that emit more heat than an Iron Block engine). More gas is wasted, not emissions,but the actual harnessing of horsepower from the potential energy of the fuel. Because of this, our cars generate less horsepower per litre of fuel. The costs for manufacturing are lower though and the car is lighter, so lower MPG stats re reported which is the main selling point behind a compact car. They don't even give you a real spare tire anymore, no not because of trunk space, but wieght reduction that may offer a .1 mpg increase in mileage and sell more cars than the competition.

They are not interested in fuel efficiency, or the emissions and thier harms, they are interested in selling cars. This is capitalism at it's best, deceive the public but it doesn't matter because you make more money from them.

SO inclosing Jim, GWB DID own an oil company, his father was VP, his main campaign supporters were oil barons, he has an extremely high level of education and grew up in a golden world surrounded by capitalist greed, not the down home 'guy next door' he tries to be. I am here for the people and all that crap, well he single handedly just sent how many of the people he supports to die in a premature and unwarranted invasion, but that's another story as you know.

So BUSH is all for OIl he grew up around it, was probably babysat by it and thrives upon oil companies doing well. THAT's why he came into it.

Cars are NOT as fuel efficient as they used to be, despite increased MPG staistics.

In Europe, the leaders of several countries demanded that auto manufacturers improve fuel efficiency of their vehicles and they have. Less smog, less gas burned, better mileage etc.

In Canada, they are talking about knowcking a few cents per litre of the government's taxation on fuel. This does nothing to increase fuel economy, reduce the consumption of our netural (yet not expendable) resources, nor does it help the environment. Increased efficiency DOES all of the above.

Well there are two countries who don't want citizens to see this or request it from Ato manufacturers.

Canada: Taxes accrued from gas are fantastic, even dropping a few pennies per litre would still be bringing in millions if not billions each year.
Reducing fuel consumption doesn't help the government collect taxes.

US: GWB Is in favour of his family and friends who are in the oil business. His supporters are oil companies and car manufacturers. America's auot industry has been nurting for a long time now and couldn't afford to be competetive if forced to build better cars, at least not with the same margins they see now.

So if Canada and the US gets it's *** in gear and FORCES these men to comply, manufacturers will build more efficient cars, pollution is reduced, we get less headaches when in the city, we pay less per year for gas and everyone wins. Except BUSH for pissing off the oil companies that rely on him for protection from the pubic. The auto manufacturers who build batter cars for lower profits and the oil companies who are selling less oil, eaarning lower profits and possibly cutting off GWB's support which may in turn cause him to lose the upcoming election.

SO NO jim, cars aren't more efficient, you are just lead to believe they are by the same people that sell and put fuel in them.

Collapse -

Still no excuse for draging Bush in

by JimHM In reply to Why bring bush into it - ...

Still doesn't say why you drag Bush in - Why not the Rocketfellas - or any of the other true American Icon's that made billion in Oil.

Your just a Bush hater and no matter what - you try to slam him... and when someone calls you on it you whine like a baby and get mad..

Oooh you know why - Bush is Hitler reborn - You know why - Bush invaded Irag - Wa Wa - Bush Bush - I am a Canadian and can't vote for an American leader - Wa Wa - I will tell lies about him to and get people to believe it ... Wa Wa - People don't believe me - Wa Wa...

Your wasting your breat Ozzie Osborn - you reason of bring Bush into the discussion is to attempt to tell more lies...

Collapse -

Please correct me

by Oz_Media In reply to Still no excuse for dragi ...

What lies are you referring to?

Is it the facts regarding his involvement with oil companies? The fact that he was arrested for drunk driving yet said he wasn't? Was it his cocaine abuse that he denied? Who's lying to you Jim, some guy on TR (Who cares) or your president?

I have no reason to discount Bush or any of his actions unless he gives me a reaon. I didn't just wake up and decide to not trust him. He has the body language of a liar, the inflections of insecurity and doesn't pass ANY of the visual tests for truth.

He then has scandalous dirt dug up from every corner of the globe and blatantly side steps or denies issues outright. What a leader, of a slug colony maybe, leading you all to the big box of slug bait.

GEB was brought in to the picture as he is your CURRENT leader, not a Rockerfeller, not Daddy Warbuck, he's your president elect. HE is responsible for what is going on, HE is responsible for creating the mass hatred against America, HE s responsible for placing you in harms way.

Why would you ignore such idiocy by a president who's MAIN job is to work for the people? Why let him use his personal interests and gains to place YOU in harms way?

HE is responsible, it's about time someone held HIM accountable.

Collapse -

I don't buy from the stores

by jardinier In reply to Interesting

But the particular service station I referred to is a few minutes drive from where I live and is open 24/7. They sell the best meat pies I have ever tasted, and at a reasonable price. I can buy pies, sandwiches, freshly brewed coffee, milk, bread or whatever 24 hours a day. That is a definite convenience.

However there are NO fixed prices for anything in Australia. Consumer items, even things like newspapers, give a Recommended Retail Price only.

Petrol prices vary in different parts of Sydney. I happen to live in one of the most affluent areas -- (the fifth highest per capita income of any local government area in Sydney) and prices for most things are more expensive than in other parts of Sydney.

And I agree about your comparison between the price of gas and soft drinks.

As I often say -- when the price of gas reaches the price of refrigerated soft drinks, then we will REALLY have something to worry about.

Related Discussions

Related Forums