Slashdot Mirror
Motorists Sue Over 'Hot' Fuel
i_like_spam writes "Motorists in 13 states have filed lawsuits against big oil companies and gas retailers alleging unfair pricing practices related to fuel-pumping temperatures. From an industry standard developed in the 1920's, the price for a gallon of gasoline is based on the density of the fuel at a temperature of 60 degress F. A gallon of gas at higher temperatures is less dense, and therefore contains less energy. The lawsuits claim additional costs of 3 to 9 cents per gallon without temperature adjustments. The fuel industry claims that the costs of installing temerature-adjustment sensors on every pump would be prohibitively high. These sensors are already installed in Canada, however, where the colder temperatures favor consumers."
Because not only would they have to pay for the cost of the installation, but then they'd lose money due to the metering changes based on temperature. Then again, it's not like THEY pay for it. We do.
Sure there's a small amount of gas (probably less than half a gallon) above ground in the pump that will warm and cool relatively quickly but since it is only half a gallon who really cares?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Just make the standard at 100F instead of 60F, then temperature sensors will be all the rage, as they apparently are in canada.
I grew up around big oil. Wells, refineries, etc. and I've heard this premise more than once. On the surface, it makes sense but it doesn't hold up in practice. There are really two problems with this theory:
1. (the most important) gasoline tanks are buried 10+ feet under ground. They don't experience the same temperature fluctuations that the surface does. The temperature of the tank can easily be 15-20 degree below ambient air temperature or more. Also, it doesn't fluctuate as much.
2. In the vast majority of the country, the *average* weather nullifies this. Even in Texas, where I grew up, a lot of the state averaged 40-50 for a few months out of the year. In New York, where I am now... the *average* daily temperature breaks 60 for a few months out of the year. Average is important. If it's only above 60, even 70, for a few hours out of the day that will have *no* effect on the tank which is sitting comfortably at 50 or so. So yes... a few months out of the year you're paying more for gas. But a few months out of the year your also paying *less* for gas and most of the time you're breaking even.
I can see this being a valid argument in AZ, Southern NV, AZ... places that are at 100+ right now. But everywhere else in the country it's just someone else trying to get something for nothing.
You also have to bear in mind that this is going to hurt the station owners, not the petroleum companies. In some cases the petroleum companies own your local gas station (usually only in high profit locations) but most of them are licensed by franchises (still private individuals) or independent owner/operators and they will end up eating the cost of the equipment. Not "big oil".
I'm not a shill and I actually don't care for big oil at all... but this is just a stupid lawsuit. Sue them for not pursuing alternative energy. Sue them for not upgrading to more efficient and clean refineries. Sue them for not managing their waste products.
This is just a petty waste of time and doomed to failure.
Yeah, it's too expensive because it would cost the oil companies a lot of money.
What they did there is pretty clever, eh?
The fuel industry claims that the costs of installing temperature-adjustment sensors on every pump would be prohibitively high. These sensors are already installed in Canada, however, where the colder temperatures favor consumers.
Nutrasweet is harmless! (i.e. cheaper than sugar!)
IE is an integral part of Windows! (wait.. it's not yet... wait.. wait.. wait.. aaahh! now it is. congrats!)
We can offer better price and services as a single huge telecom monopoly, don't split us up! (we'll kinda merge later anyway)
Piracy causes tremendous losses to our industry! (we know this, since whatever our profits, we think they should've been 4 times that!)
People in the United States buy around 350,000,000 gallons of gas every day. Even if the temperature difference accounts for only one tenth of a percent, that's about 350,000 gallons a day. Or $1.1 million a day at $3.15 a gallon. Pocket change to an oil company, but most people would appreciate the slightly lower gas prices.
No. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion. There is no competition amongst oil producers, because OPEC controls a good 80+% of the supply. The competition only exists between different gas stations (although most of those are owned by OPEC puppets as well) where the small family owned gas stations (there are a couple out there) get squeezed for every last penny.
Great, so as a motorist, if I win as a member of this class action lawsuit, I'll maybe get a coupon for $5 of gas, while the lawyers will get tens of millions. I can't wait.
I'm I the only American on the planet rooting for higher gas prices in the US? Higher gas equals less SUVs and trucks which equals less congestion. I live in England now, and $7.50 gallon gas is the norm. Get over yourselves already America.
No, it's because the weight of the fuel is a significant factor in calculating the gross weight and the center of gravity of the aircraft.
Tell you what, if you *truly* believe your arguments are sound, I'll sell you pound of gold (based on Jupiter's gravity), measured at prices defined against Earth gravity. You shan't complain because I'll sell the same amount of gold to someone else at Moon-measured pounds. And just to be fair, I'll measure the gold I sell you at a constant, "isojupiterpound" level. And even if you *do* think you still have grounds to complain, I'll remind you that there are other factors that will affect the value of the gold you're buying, not just the gravity I measure the pound against. Besides, you're buying by the pound, not the gram, and even if I get to choose the gravity, these measurements are all pounds, aren't they?
Both are right, but the previous point is, IMO, more right. The amount of flying you can do depends upon the mass of fuel loaded and then the mass burned. Even before the plan has built, the Specific Fueld Consumption of the engines is specified in thryust generated for mass flow of fuel.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
. . . I can tell you that the c-stores are much more interested in making sure they don't run out of gas. Fuel and cigarettes have become commoditized to such a point that retailers can't grow their business with the stuff anymore and are actually expanding through things like newer, larger store formats and food service programs. I never heard anyone making a big deal out of temperature fluctuations -- the retailers certainly don't gain / lose significant amounts of money because of it.
They are, however, very concerned with having a tank run out -- meaning they can't sell any gas, period. Typically, they already have in-tank sensors for fuel levels, even on moldy old pre-IP equipment. I was onsite at an install last December at a rather large store and this happened for about 15 minutes -- the forecourt controller went down and had to be rebooted -- and *everyone* in the store dropped what they were doing and attended to the problem. The retailers' margins are razor-thin with fuel so they have to make money by selling a ton of it -- and they can't do that when they don't have any or when the dispenser-related equipment is down.
because transporting 30kg of extra fuel around is free
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
And those people are typically idiots. Sorry, this is one of my pet peeves. I've seen lines at the grocery store across the street selling their gas for 3 cents cheaper. You save less than a dollar on a tank of gas. And they grab a 16oz Coke on the way out for $1.29. So not only did they have to wait for 10 minutes to fill the tank to save 75 cents, but they pissed the savings away in a Coke. Worse yet, a Starbucks coffee.
There's much more efficient ways to save money than shopping around for gas. [stepping down]
They didn't "piss away the savings" on a Coke, they made an additional, completely separate purchase with money they wouldn't have had otherwise. Just because it's not how you would choose to spend the money doesn't mean it was pissed away.
People rarely consider their own time when figuring the cost of things, so it's no surprise that the 10 minutes spent waiting is completely overlooked.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Which is precisely why stations with large shops have the cheapest gas. The margins on gas are razor thin, and most stations make their only real profit in the convenience stores. Some stations even price the gas as a loss-leader to get people into their store. (Which is also why I never buy anything at a gas station, unless I absolutely have to - like if I'm on the turnpike).
This phenomenon, got me thinking, on the east coast, many states only sell beer in liquor stores, whereas in the midwest damn near every store has a license to sell beer. I wonder how much we could decrease the cost of gas on the east coast simply by offering beer/wine liquor licenses to gas stations. In the end it is probably revenue neutral, but some politician could claim that he reduced gas prices a couple of cents.