Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Gasoline Prices about to Peak—Just Six Weeks Later than the Experts Predicted
A little over a month ago, I wrote a column looking at the annual spring increase in gasoline prices. For that column, I interviewed six leading gasoline experts including Trilby Lundberg (Lundberg Survey), Jim Ritterbusch (Ritterbusch and Associates) Mark Routt (Energy Security Analysis Inc.), and Tim Evans (Citigroup Futures Research) about why this happens. Everyone of them agreed that EPA regulations requiring an almost automatic switchover from winter to summer gasoline blends creates a yearly crunch at the refineries that temporarily drive up prices.
All right, fair enough. But then at the end of the column I reported:
What's the bottom line for this year? All the analysts basically agreed that gasoline prices are probably close to their peak for the year and that they will fall soon. Prices may rise again toward the end of the summer, but unless all hell breaks loose-say a war with Iran or gigantic hurricanes assaulting the Gulf coast-gas prices should not exceed $2.75 this year.
$2.75? Ha! The Lundberg Survey is reporting that the average price for a gallon of gasoline is now at a record $3.07.
But are prices at really at record highs? Perhaps not. An analysis from the Cato Institute suggests that when one takes into account inflation and increases in disposable income gasoline is still a bargain compared to the bad old days.
In any case, the Senate is considering a bill that would raise corporate average fuel efficiency standards (CAFE) to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. But there is a much simpler way to encourage energy conservation. As I have previously pointed out:
If our Congressional overlords and environmental activists really think we should drive less and buy more efficient automobiles, then they should ditch the CAFE shell game and have the courage to recommend taxing gasoline at $5 per gallon.
For what it's worth, experts like Ritterbusch, Evans, and Routt apparently think that gas prices are about to peak now. Of course, that's what they told me six weeks ago.
|5.7.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Increases in disposable income?
Does CATO use that metric when they look at the tax burden,
too?
|5.7.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Raising CAFE standards has the advantage over a carbon tax/gas
tax in that it gives people and corporations a period of time to
ramp up for the change, rather than producing a big shock. This
saves some of the pain, and allows shifts in research priorities to
fill some of the gap.
It's also less regressive, as poorer people tend not to buy new
cars.
robc|5.7.07 @ 3:33PM|#
joe,
Does CATO use that metric when they look at the tax burden,
too?
1. CATO isnt some monolithical organization, so I bet different
researchers use all kinds of different metrics
2. I dont know
3. Wouldnt it be silly? Send this article defines disposable income
as (income - taxes) it would be silly to use a post tax
denominator. taxas/income makes sense. gas/income or
gas/(income-taxes) also both make sense. taxes/(income-taxes)
doesnt make sense. Heck, that would give a negative tax rate if
taxes were greater than income, which would sound good but would
really be bad.
After writing above, and playing with some numbers, I realize if
taxes/income is constant than taxes(income-taxes) is also constant.
So a change in rate in one place shows a similar change in rate in
another, so it wouldnt have the effect that you were thinking it
has anyway.
Ron Hardin|5.7.07 @ 3:35PM|#
When supply is running full out, the price is set by the
consumers, not the producers. It rises to whatever level is
necessary to get them to drive less, so as to match the
supply.
No future gasoline is burned. Only existing gasoline.
|5.7.07 @ 3:37PM|#
"An analysis from the Cato Institute suggests that when one
takes into account inflation and increases in disposable income
gasoline is still a bargain compared to the bad old days."
Not by much. From what I saw this morning we are only about $0.06
away.
Anyway, the folks who scream about "global warming/high gas prices"
probably are having a hard time talking out of both sides of their
ass.
|5.7.07 @ 3:43PM|#
If George Bush decided that you couldn't buy the car you want
because of "security concerns", you people would have the vapors.
The government can do the same thing through CAFE standards and
that is somehow okay?
You can make the argument that there are externalities in pollution
and CO2 emmissions in driving a large car. Fine, then solve those
externalities through taxing gas or the size of vehicles. That is
not what CAFE does. CAFE says that you cannot trade efficiency for
other values like safety or comfort no matter how much money you
want to spend. It is a direct restriction on your freedom. How any
self proclaimed "libertarian" can support such totalitarian
policies is beyond me.
|5.7.07 @ 3:48PM|#
How any self proclaimed "libertarian" can support such
totalitarian policies is beyond me.
When you find one that does, let me know.
|5.7.07 @ 3:51PM|#
I don't know about disposable income, but $3.07 is the same price per gallon as the inflation-adjusted price in 1981. Even if due to shortages in refinery capacity, it seems notable.
|5.7.07 @ 3:53PM|#
What strikes me about this article is how it says that $3.07 is a record for gas prices. Not so for us up here in Upstate, NY. Somehow our gas is right there at the national average, when sometime over the past couple of years I remember seeing it be in the $3.30's and higher. You all in the cheaper gas states can whine yourselves away, but we consider this "not yet time to panic."
ed|5.7.07 @ 4:00PM|#
I was shocked and a little ticked off at this time last year, but being a good little capitalist I blamed the government for their share of the costs, accepted market and other forces for the rest of the run-up and got on with my life, despite mainstream media outlets telling me I should be outraged that The Oil Man was butt-fucking me again. Just this morning I paid $3.09 a gallon and yawned. Using a debit card makes it seem almost free anyway. But, for entertainment value, I'll be sure to check out Katie Couric and company's over-the-top reports of consumer outrage. Sometimes I wonder if network anchors aren't just a wee bit retarded. The end.
Chucklehead|5.7.07 @ 4:01PM|#
In any case, the Senate is considering a bill that would
raise corporate average fuel efficiency standards (CAFE) to 35
miles per gallon by 2020.
Last time I checked mileage on my VW TDI New Beetle, I was up to 47
mpg.
But yeah, the government should raise the standards to placate the
SUV-driving bobos complaining about prices.
|5.7.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Interesting Reason_ing:
() Experts give a reasonable explanation for gas price fluctuation
in the spring.
() They got the maximum price wrong!
() They are idiots.
() Let's tax gas at $5/gallon. That will move all those drivers
back to a quiet, environment preserving village existence. It is so
much better for the Govt to do to us on purpose what pricing
changes do to us on occasion.
() Even better, declare that the average vehicle should get 35
mi/gal. Tax them if they don't do it.
() My suggestion is 80 mi/gal. If you are going to pick numbers out
of the air, then at least pick one we can be proud of. Also, this
will yield much more taxes, to be used for the benefit of us
all.
|5.7.07 @ 4:06PM|#
Of course there is this little thing call infaltion. What would
a dollar in 1980 be worth today? Absolute numbers really mean
nothing without considering inflation.
There are lots of high milage cheap to drive eco penalty box cars
to be had. If gases prices get high enough, those cars will become
popular. People will adjust their behavior. If they don't then that
means they have the money and don't give a shit. Either way, I fail
to see why the government should have its panties in a whad over
gas prices. Even if they are that concerned, just lower gas taxes,
that should take away some of the shock to the economy.
|5.7.07 @ 4:09PM|#
Frank G: I did not call them idiots. This is more a cautionary
tale about the limits of expertise.
I tacked on the gas tax discussion because I think it's superior to
Congress specifying the technical details of how cars are put
together. Give consumers and engineers a price incentive and
they'll figure it out.
In addition, I would like to associate myself with John's trenchant
observations.
|5.7.07 @ 4:11PM|#
If our Congressional overlords and environmental activists
really think we should drive less and buy more efficient
automobiles, then they should ditch the CAFE shell game and have
the courage to recommend taxing gasoline at $5 per
gallon.
OK, who are the leisure drivers here? C'mon, raise your
hands....don't be shy.
Both ideas suck, Ron. CAFE only makes it appropriate in the future
for the boot of the Feds to deign the "correct" gas mileage and gas
taxes just punish everyone and create a congresscritter's wet dream
of a tax kitty to loot.
CAFE wouldn't have moved my decision about what car to buy and I
don't really drive any more than I have to as it is. I drive to
work (I need my car at work and mass transit not only takes longer,
but also costs more) and errands on the weekends. That's about
it.
So how am I going to drive less? I won't sentence my family to a
certain death in an accident by sticking them in a Prius or other
sub-compact and mass transit doesn't work for me.
ed|5.7.07 @ 4:12PM|#
the Senate is considering a bill that would raise corporate
average fuel efficiency
Huh. Congress manufactures cars now?
I can hardly wait for the new model.
But what will they call it?
|5.7.07 @ 4:14PM|#
Another way that CAFE standards are pragmatically worse than a straightforward gas tax is that the former punishes those who don't drive much -- exactly who you are trying to reward. Think little old lady who only drives on Sunday and wants to do so in a Buick.
|5.7.07 @ 4:18PM|#
The Prius isn't a subcompact. It isn't even a compact.
And it does pretty well on the safety tests.
|5.7.07 @ 4:24PM|#
I wonder if anyone has ever thought about how the rise of the child safety seat has driven the desire for bigger cars. Ever try to get one of those things in and out of a small car like a Honda Civic? It sucks. Everyone I know drove a small car when they were single and first married only to buy something much larger once they had kids. Kids are small and a small car shouldn't be a problem with them, until you factor in the safety seat.
|5.7.07 @ 4:27PM|#
Well, let's not have the present system, which is the worst of
all worlds: horribly low standards, which when we try to raise the
US auto industry whines incessantly about how this is "regulating
them out of existance."
Of course, when we leave the market alone and the Japanese start
eating Detroit's lunch (partly because of the gas mileage on the
cars), these very same seeming Free Marketers in Detroit scream
they need protectionism and import quotas.
What the US auto industry wants is a captive market where they can
put out whatever junk they want and the US consumer just has to sit
there and take it.
Where's my Smart Car, dammit?
|5.7.07 @ 4:31PM|#
The problem Grumpy is that the CAFE standards really do kill Detroit unfairly. Detroit is actually responsive to customers and make big cars and trucks that people want. Thanks to the CAFE standards they can't just concentrait on those types of models where they you know can actually make some money and instead have to produce high milage lines that get killed by imports just so they can meet the CAFE mandated "average fuel economy". Why the hell is GM wasting anytime making small cars when the only cars they make that people want are big cars, pickups and SUVs? Because of CAFE standards that is why.
Russ 2000|5.7.07 @ 4:36PM|#
The Prius isn't a subcompact. It isn't even a
compact.
The original Prius is.
BTW, I get about 45 winter/52 summer with my original Prius (which
is roughly what the estimnates were, though they were touted as 45
highway/52 city). I don't know anyone with the newer Prius that is
reaching the mpg on the estimates for that model.
|5.7.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Well, let's not have the present system, which is the worst of all worlds: horribly low standards, which when we try to raise the US auto industry whines incessantly about how this is "regulating them out of existance."
They're doing a fine job of that without the help of the federal
government.
And we all know who'll they'll ultimately turn to when they can't
cook the books enough.
|5.7.07 @ 4:39PM|#
John,
If you buy an SUV for safety you're dumb. According to the
Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, your fatality rate in an
accident in a SUV is the same as in small cars and higher than in
medium or large cars. Plus your accident rate is higher due to
being less maneuverable.
I gotta agree with joe on this one. Taking inflation into account
is pretty standard, but using disposable income is a pretty
transparent way to lean on the scale.
|5.7.07 @ 4:40PM|#
John, I'm fairly sure that, for instance, Chevy's Tahoe or pickups or Ford's Expedition or Excursion count against their CAFE averages.
|5.7.07 @ 4:41PM|#
If I have to choose, I think raising the cost per mile of burning gas makes more sense than mandating lower cost per mile. I don't think the incentives line up very well on the latter concept.
|5.7.07 @ 4:45PM|#
They didn't for a while but I thought they killed the SUV loophole to the CAFE? Cars like the Mustang certainly do. Detroit for whatever reason does a better job of making larger less efficient cars. They shouldn't be penalized by that through CAFE standards.
|5.7.07 @ 4:56PM|#
JasonL,
You are exactly right about the cost per mile. People make
decisions at the margin. If you want people to consume less gas
make the value obtained from burning a gallon of gas less. Mandtate
5mph CAFE and people would stop driving and gas consumption would
drop.
|5.7.07 @ 5:46PM|#
JasonL
I think you have it right...it's not about mpg...it's a bout
gallons burned.
CAFE is jsut another unnecessarily complicated scheme built on a
house of assumptions about how I choose to drive...and what.
|5.7.07 @ 5:51PM|#
When economists do inflation-adjusted comparisons of the price
of gasoline, why the heck don't they use the pre-tax prices as
comparisons? The states have gone crazy with gas-tax increases over
the years, and there's also a federal tax. Those taxes are per
gallon and don't fluctuate with the market price of oil.
The car-seat point is interesting. On the one hand, the seats are
cumbersome. On the other hand, average family size has declined
over the last 50 years. My family used to tool around in a 1965
9-passenger Chevy Bel Aire wagon, and we needed every one of those
seats. If the youngest kids had to have been jammed into carseats
of the modern type we'd have had to take two vehicles, or buy a
stretched wagon like airport shuttles used to use.
In retrospect, the lousy gas mileage our old wagons used to get
doesn't seem so bad if it is represented as passenger-miles per
gallon.
Kevin
|5.7.07 @ 6:43PM|#
Hey, all you free-market zealots...
Down the street from my place, there's a "76" across the street
from a "Rotten Robbie's". RR consistently prices its gas lower than
the 76; as much as ten cents per gallon lower at times. Doesn't
that mean that Rotten Robbie should never have any gas, and have
gone out of business by now? After all, they're selling below
the market price!
Anyway. No doubt this sudden spike in gas prices will result in
large numbers of new refineries being built, which will lead to a
massive oversupply, and next month gas will be $2.50 a gallon.
Right? Isn't that how the market is supposed to work?
|5.7.07 @ 6:50PM|#
DensityDuck,
Your questions are such amazing strawmen that I must assume you are
some sort of anti-troll -- that is, a friendly commenter who poses
softball questions just so people responding to them look good.
z|5.7.07 @ 7:03PM|#
Carbon tax(charged to those who produce the CO2), accompanied with a tax rebate(divided equally), to make it revenue nuetral.
|5.7.07 @ 7:14PM|#
It occurs to me that my response might have been mean and that
DensityDuck might have been actual questions.
So, just in case...
1. The price of the reputation of the 76 compared to that of the
Rotten Robbie across the street is as much as ten cents per gallon.
If it were less, then the difference in price would be less. If it
were more, then the difference in price would be more.
2. Right now the hardest thing about building a new refinery is
that no locality will allow it in their neighborhood. It's hard to
build new refineries when you can't find a place to do so.
As a result, more product must come from existing refineries, which
pushes those harder and makes them more vulnerable to breakage and
maintenance disruption.
|5.7.07 @ 9:37PM|#
That $3.07 is an average. Out on the border between Oregon and Washington, I've watched prices go from $3.29 to $3.39 to $3.49 in a matter of weeks. In some cases, I've seen a 6 or 7 cent jump within two days of a previous jump. The jobs in this particular area tend to pay lower than the cities and we have to commute to work. I figure I now work one day out of my two week pay period just to buy gas. Good thing I don't drive an SUV or big pickup.
Guy Montag|5.7.07 @ 10:58PM|#
If our Congressional overlords and environmental activists
really think we should drive less and buy more efficient
automobiles, then they should ditch the CAFE shell game and have
the courage to recommend taxing gasoline at $5 per
gallon.
I am taking that as a joke and guess that you agree with me that
the best course is let fuel prices go where they may and when the
price gets high enough ohter energy methods will be implimented by
the market.
|5.7.07 @ 11:01PM|#
"If you buy an SUV for safety you're dumb. According to the
Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, your fatality rate in an
accident in a SUV is the same as in small cars and higher than in
medium or large cars"
Umm, no. I'm not sure what IIHS you're talking about, but according
to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, very large SUVs are
the safest vehicles you can buy (at least for their occupants), and
not by a narrow margin. Very large cars are the next safest, though
as a group, SUVs are safer than any other class of vehicle, pickups
the least (their stats don't include motorcycles, so I'm not
certain where they fit in). The death rate for small cars is nearly
twice that for even small SUVs. Their stats can be found at this
link:
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/occupants.html
While I find unnecessarily gigantic vehicles every bit as annoying
as you do, what's dumb is accepting at face value anti-SUV
propaganda spouted by some journalist too lazy to look at the
actual stats.
As to the CAFE/gas price issue...let's impose a variable tax on
imported oil that keeps it's price at a minimum of $70/bbl. It will
make lots of idle domestic production, and possibly some new
innovations, economically viable. It would also probably cause the
global price of oil to collapse. Yes, it will dent the economy, and
oil companies will profit immensly. But whatever you think of Lee
Raymond's pay package, I'm pretty sure he's not sending millions to
Hamas or AQ. Obviously, this tax would have to rebated to citizens
to eliminate any government incentive to stifle domestic production
in an effort to generate revenue.
|5.8.07 @ 2:21AM|#
Detroit is actually responsive to customers and make big
cars and trucks that people want.
Which must explain
why Detroit's sales have done so well lately.
Paul|5.8.07 @ 2:26AM|#
average price for a gallon of gasoline is now at a record
$3.07.
Where do these people live? (Yes, I know... average, but still, I
gotta complain). I'd love to see the rock-bottom prices of $3 a
gallon gas.
norman|5.8.07 @ 5:18AM|#
"very large SUVs are the safest vehicles you can buy (at least
for their occupants),"
Without the benefit of actual research ('cause I'm too lazy and
drunk to do it), is it possible that insurance companies are
tabulating not only the risk to the occupants of SUVs, but also the
damage they tend to inflict on the occupants of smaller vehicles
they come in contact with (which doesn't really address Mo's
assertion that you're stupid to buy one, but instead argues for a
certain amount of social Darwinian wisdom in choosing to do so)
when they calculate the costs of these vehicles to their
industry?
Nit-picking aside, I'm not a fan of fuel taxes or CAFÉ standards. I
believe that if fuel prices were allowed to find their natural
level, that people would drive the market to adjust to that level.
I don't even have a problem with oil companies maximizing their
profits when they think they can. But (correct me if I'm wrong here
[again, too drunk to bother with research {other than researching
the proper symbols for increasing levels of parenthetical asides}]
) I do have a problem with the tax funded subsidies that the quite
profitable oil companies, and less profitable automobile companies,
receive.
While we're (I'm) on the subject of undone research, can we look
into the (anecdotal) evidence of a correlation between alcohol
intake and parenthetical asides? I'm beginning to suspect that if I
began to control the former, that I might be able to exert some
control over the later.
|5.8.07 @ 9:28AM|#
"[L]et's impose a variable tax on imported oil that keeps it's
price at a minimum of $70/bbl."
You mean a tariff on imported oil? Like the one on imported
ethanol? Those work so well to promote efficiency in the
market.
|5.8.07 @ 9:29AM|#
You need to separate safety from the passengers point of view
and liability from the insurers point of view.
One of the critical factors determining injuries in an accident is
the mass of the vehicles. When a high-mass vehicle (like an SUV)
hits a low-mass vehicle (like a compact car), the passengers in the
SUV will have a very low likelyhood of injury while the passengers
in the compact will have a very high likelyhood of death.
From an owners point of view, SUVs are very safe. From an insurers
point of veiw, SUVs are very dangerous.
|5.8.07 @ 10:01AM|#
"One of the critical factors determining injuries in an accident
is the mass of the vehicles"
Actually, based on IIHS stats, that might be the most critical
factor, though driver habits seem to play a huge role too, as
demonstrated by the stats for pickup trucks and sports cars. In any
case, my point was that if your primary concern is your own
personal safety, it's not "dumb" to by an SUV, and IIHS stats don't
say it is.
"Those work so well to promote efficiency in the market"
Sorry if you got the idea that was part of the equation - the main
points of an import tax are to reduce the revenue going to people
who don't like us, get people to be more selective about when they
drive, and make higher cost domestic production sources economical,
which is by definition at odds with market efficiency - hence the
"dent in the economy" remark. Such a proposal has multiple
objectives and I suggest it as a "least bad" alternative, not a
perfect one.
|5.8.07 @ 10:10AM|#
SUVs are really safe...if you know how to drive them. Every year during the first week of winter I laugh at all the flipped-over SUVs littering our local highways left and right.
|5.8.07 @ 10:24AM|#
Hey Grumpy! I'm with you on that Smart Car. I'd love to have one
(but not at the price that the California importer is charging...
at the price it would be if imported by MB).
Yeah, I know it's small, and may not pass US side impact
regulations, so here's a plan... let them import Smart Cars, and
let customers license them, as motorcycles, instead of as cars. It
is certainly safer in a side impact than a motorcycle. By licensing
it as a motorcycle, I am accepting the risk that it is not as safe
in a side impact crash... but again, safer than a motorcycle. (Not
to mention, head ons... motorcycle versus Smart Car with airbags,
et al. I'll take the Smart.) And with the diesel model getting
close to 75 miles per gallon, it's perfect for my commute (17 miles
round trip). Only two seats? That satisfies more than 90% of my
transportation requirements; and I have something bigger for the
other 10%. (Don't mention that the HOV lanes, at least in Atlanta,
allow motorcycles, even if they only have one person on
them).
Gimme one now! Heck, I'd even wear a helmet if I had to...
(Bitching about the requirement to wear a helmet is for another
thread.
CB
VM|5.8.07 @ 10:58AM|#
What has changed is the short price elasticity for gasoline.
Back when, it was estimated to be -0.30; while today it's been
estimated to be -0.04.
Consumers today appear to be less responsive to changes in gas
price increases than before.
There is also evidence suggesting that short run income elasticity
from the late 70s and today is around 0.50. Fairly similar between
the two periods of high gas prices.
(from Hughes et al)
|5.8.07 @ 11:16AM|#
VM:
what?
elasticity?
whoa whoa whoa. don't go introducing NEW numbers! that's not
praxeo-logical.
reverend!
|5.8.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Color me confused here. How does one calculate the rate of
inflation? Isn't it based on something like "how much the cost of
consumer staples have increased over time"? Accepting that we can
argue about what is or isn't a consumer staple, isn't gasoline
almost always on that list? Wouldn't gas prices have to be
fairly stable once you've accounted for inflation, since "adjusting
for the changes in gas prices" is implicitly a part of "adjusting
for inflation"?
Something seems off about that. Hopefully, I'm just not
understanding things.
Guy Montag|5.8.07 @ 9:47PM|#
SUVs are really safe...if you know how to drive them. Every
year during the first week of winter I laugh at all the
flipped-over SUVs littering our local highways left and
right.
I keep hearing that but rarely see it even here in the DC area
where damn near nobody knows how to do anything mechanical and many
drive huge SUVs.
Not that I wish to see a lot of what you describe in real.
Color me confused here. How does one calculate the rate of
inflation? Isn't it based on something like "how much the cost of
consumer staples have increased over time"?
Actually, real inflation is caused by an oversupply of
money and all (or almost all) prices rise because of it.
What you are seeing in fuel prices is price appreciation,
caused by reduced supply (refineries shut down for maintenance) and
increased demand (nobody caring much about the price, still driving
recreationally).
Some places of the country see this with housing, where people
continue to bid up the prices of homes but the price of bread
remains stable. Also, housing price depreciation happens too, even
though fuel prices remain the same. The usual cause of housing
price hyper-appreciation is government restricting property use for
housing.
For all of you "big oil conspiracy" folk out there, if that were
true gasoline would be $14/gal. every day all of the time.
|5.9.07 @ 5:11AM|#
Today here in Californistan, I paid $3.62 for Chevron's Premium
for my MINI Cooper S.
I wonder what the price would be if fuel taxes actually covered the
cost of maintaining California's roads?
...Without direct & indirect subsidies for the fuel compaines?
(amounts to about $15b/y)
...without CAFE and CARB? (who keep me from buying a MINI Cooper
D[iesel]) :/
|5.9.07 @ 2:34PM|#
The Prius isn't a subcompact. It isn't even a compact.
And it does pretty well on the safety tests.
Yes, for its class. A good result for a compact and a large car is
not the same thing.
I'll put my large car up against your Prius in an accident any day
of the week. In the end, physics and mass rules, or so says
IIHS
|5.15.07 @ 1:01PM|#
- So, just in case...
1. The price of the reputation of the 76 compared to that of the
Rotten Robbie across the street is as much as ten cents per gallon.
If it were less, then the difference in price would be less. If it
were more, then the difference in price would be more. -
I have a different reason, and you see this everywhere. Up the road
from me is a Sheetz next to a mobile. Sheetz is always 5-15 cents
less per gallon. They simply price gas lower to get you in the lot
where they have a huge store with a deli. The lower gas price makes
you pull in. Then you pay an extra 10c for a coke. The mobile store
is 1/4 the sheetz store with no deli. It's just different business
models, or as Duck would call it, rocket surgery.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245