current prices
DERV @83ish
Cherry @34ish
Makes me wonder if it wouldn’t be worth adding in a 2000l DERV tank
bald bloke:
Diesel is 97.9p in Costco but obviously you need to be a member and they don’t accept cash it’s card only.
Zb Costco, asda is the way forward lol
My local Phillips 66 Jet is 99.9 for both products, pretty much matching supermarket prices, go Jet.
Radar19:
Themoocher:
Was 99p in tesco yesterday.What will happen if the price drops much more?
Will the government need to drop the tax?
Surely there won’t be hardly any profit.
By the time u take transport costs and so on into factor.
Been on news big pay offs in North Sea.Government reduce the tax? You’re havin’ a 'augh!
As I said mate I don’t nothing about oil.
But surely something will need to give if it keeps dropping with the duty on the fuel.
It cost ■■■.■■ to buy Oil.
It cost ■■■.■■ to produce Fuel.
It cost ■■■.■■ Tax to buy fuel for a consumer.
So it is Oil price + manufacturing price + tax = Price at the pump.
So even if Oil was free, there manufacturing cost and tax to consider.
Dan ze Man:
It cost ■■■.■■ to buy Oil.It cost ■■■.■■ to produce Fuel.
It cost ■■■.■■ Tax to buy fuel for a consumer.
So it is Oil price + manufacturing price + tax = Price at the pump.
So even if Oil was free, there manufacturing cost and tax to consider.
I understand that.
But if duty is 70p a litre and it drops to 95p a litre it doesn’t give much scope for production, transport and profit for wholesalers at the pump.
Themoocher:
Dan ze Man:
It cost ■■■.■■ to buy Oil.It cost ■■■.■■ to produce Fuel.
It cost ■■■.■■ Tax to buy fuel for a consumer.
So it is Oil price + manufacturing price + tax = Price at the pump.
So even if Oil was free, there manufacturing cost and tax to consider.
I understand that.
But if duty is 70p a litre and it drops to 95p a litre it doesn’t give much scope for production, transport and profit for wholesalers at the pump.
Fuel duty is currently 57.95 pence per litre.
weeto:
Fuel duty is currently 57.95 pence per litre.
- VAT on the duty and VAT on the the product.Which is all part of the pump price.What’s left has to cover the whole production supply chain and profit margin at each point.Any form of tax that is levied at more than the value of the product is unsustainable.Especially when it’s on something which consumers can minimise consumption of.In which case demand collapses and tax revenues collapse with that demand.
It’s that downward spiral in demand caused by over taxation which is the problem in this case.Which defeats the object of the ( correct ) US idea of increasing production to create a better pre tax price environment to increase demand and leave more disposable incomes to grow the economy.Which is mostly a result of governments listening to the global warmist green nazis who want to leave the stuff in the ground rather than use it. 
With Brent Crude down to $29/barrell presumably resulting in near zero margins for the producers and as the oil companies have bought up the associated research and technology over the last few decades, could this be the stimulus that leads to an acceleration of the development of alternative fuels such as the hydrogen cell?
Im trying to get my head around this.
A manufacturer makes a product ( Fuel in this case ) he has his margins set up so that he makes some money. That can’t be affected no mater the price of an oil.
Biggest looses in this case will be oil producers. Future explorations might be canceled/suspended, until it becomes profitable again but that about it.
Dan ze Man:
Biggest looses in this case will be oil producers. Future explorations might be canceled/suspended, until it becomes profitable again but that about it.
Sounds like you’re onto something drive.
chicane:
With Brent Crude down to $29/barrell presumably resulting in near zero margins for the producers and as the oil companies have bought up the associated research and technology over the last few decades, could this be the stimulus that leads to an acceleration of the development of alternative fuels such as the hydrogen cell?
If hydrogen was a cost effective fuel v oil then it can be used in an internal combustion engine anyway.The answer is why would anyone want to use something that’s more expensive than oil in this case.While the oil companies have actually increased oil production in order to increase demand.It’s the stupid tax regime that’s defeating the object of that.
88c per litre or 42p a litre UK for regular petrol. still to expensive!
Dan ze Man:
Im trying to get my head around this.A manufacturer makes a product ( Fuel in this case ) he has his margins set up so that he makes some money. That can’t be affected no mater the price of an oil.
Biggest looses in this case will be oil producers. Future explorations might be canceled/suspended, until it becomes profitable again but that about it.
That’s about it, the ones that put in all the money and take all the risk producing the raw materials get what the market will bear while the processors and supermarkets all add on their costs+margin.
Basically in the modern western economy the primary producers get screwed while the middlemen laugh all the way to the bank.
Carryfast:
chicane:
With Brent Crude down to $29/barrell presumably resulting in near zero margins for the producers and as the oil companies have bought up the associated research and technology over the last few decades, could this be the stimulus that leads to an acceleration of the development of alternative fuels such as the hydrogen cell?If hydrogen was a cost effective fuel v oil then it can be used in an internal combustion engine anyway.The answer is why would anyone want to use something that’s more expensive than oil in this case.While the oil companies have actually increased oil production in order to increase demand.It’s the stupid tax regime that’s defeating the object of that.
Since when did producing more of anything lead to a rise in price? 
Who is going to keep producing something that’s making a loss, what I’m saying is that investment in off-shore exploration is being is being moved out of oil exploration.
As far the middle east producers are concerned it’s more about market share and driving the cost of crude below that which makes US fracking economically viable.
Meanwhile, putting aside the insane UK tax regime, we have the middle east increasing production to make up for the shortfall in price in an insane race to the bottom. Following the lifting of sanctions, Iran can now start selling it’s oil on the world market and the production of oil from fracking in the US is reducing their imports. All this is producing a huge glut on the world market and the turkeys are voting for Christmas
The truly scary bit is the effect the low crude price is having on the likes of the Russian economy which is almost entirely reliant on the sale of crude, which at some point is going to bring a lot of internal pressure on Putin.
chicane:
With Brent Crude down to $29/barrell presumably resulting in near zero margins for the producers and as the oil companies have bought up the associated research and technology over the last few decades, could this be the stimulus that leads to an acceleration of the development of alternative fuels such as the hydrogen cell?
quite the opposite I guess, why would anyone invest in other energy sources when oil is so plentiful and cheap! you sum up the situation well in your later post regarding market share. OPEC (or in particular Saudi) are attempting to nip any competition in the bud by keeping prices very low, (they will also be keen to keep Iran out of the trough, Sunnis and Shiites don’t get on too well). So as long as Saudi are prepared to run at a loss, there will be little investment in other forms of energy. Simple business plan, kill off the competition by running at a loss for a while, then when you have the bulk of market share put prices up and with everyone totally addicted and no where else to go, they will cash in big time.
It is a pity Europe couldn’t have compensated for the cheap oil with higher taxation on fuel to keep prices high, it is important for ecological reasons that we start using less of the stuff, higher prices would have also kept research into alternatives high, and all that extra taxation would have helped european governments with their ever increasing deficits.
The only positives I am seeing from the low oil prices is; thankfully it has stifled the exploration for oil in environmentally sensitive places like the Arctic and the deep sea, it has also shelved any plans for extracting oil from the likes of the Canadian Tar Sands, which could well have been the greatest environmental catastrophe of all time.
chicane:
Carryfast:
If hydrogen was a cost effective fuel v oil then it can be used in an internal combustion engine anyway.The answer is why would anyone want to use something that’s more expensive than oil in this case.While the oil companies have actually increased oil production in order to increase demand.It’s the stupid tax regime that’s defeating the object of that.Since when did producing more of anything lead to a rise in price?
Who is going to keep producing something that’s making a loss, what I’m saying is that investment in off-shore exploration is being is being moved out of oil exploration.
As far the middle east producers are concerned it’s more about market share and driving the cost of crude below that which makes US fracking economically viable.
Meanwhile, putting aside the insane UK tax regime, we have the middle east increasing production to make up for the shortfall in price in an insane race to the bottom. Following the lifting of sanctions, Iran can now start selling it’s oil on the world market and the production of oil from fracking in the US is reducing their imports. All this is producing a huge glut on the world market and the turkeys are voting for Christmas
The truly scary bit is the effect the low crude price is having on the likes of the Russian economy which is almost entirely reliant on the sale of crude, which at some point is going to bring a lot of internal pressure on Putin.
The unit cost of Hydrogen is more expensive than oil.Because it takes more energy to produce hydrogen that the energy contained within it.As I said if Hydrogen was cheaper to burn than oil we’d be burning hydrogen in our engines with no need for all the fuel cell bs.
It’s actually America that ( rightly ) intentionally kicked off the reduction in oil prices by adding loads of shale oil production into the market.That’s because expensive oil is no good to anyone.Because then consumers don’t burn so much of it which means it stays in the ground earning nothing for anyone and what they do burn leaves less disposable incomes to grow the economy.
Everything else is just green ■■■■ diversionary bs because the loony luddites want the stuff to be left in the ground.
The problem in this case being that the US oil producers’ plan isn’t working.Because of the greed and non mandated taxation policies of the governments in not reciprocating the oil producers supply increases with equivalent taxation reductions.On that note the oil producers had no problems with flooding the market with plenty of cheap oil during the 1950’s and 1960’s before the mad OPEC embargo and nothing has changed in that regard.
Bluey Circles:
It is a pity Europe couldn’t have compensated for the cheap oil with higher taxation on fuel to keep prices high, it is important for ecological reasons that we start using less of the stuff, higher prices would have also kept research into alternatives high, and all that extra taxation would have helped european governments with their ever increasing deficits.
Europe has already done enough damage in that regard by not reducing fuel taxation let alone adding to it.Where is all this supposed extra taxation coming from other than being dragged out of the economy thereby reducing economic growth even more and thereby adding to the deficit.
It’s a pity we don’t tell the greens to zb off at least until they’ve actually got an electoral mandate for their bonkers ideas.IE if we want green Party policy then we’d be stupid enough to vote for it. 
Hydrogen production would be as cheap as chips if the Electricity used to electrolyze sea water was practically free from Nuclear production.
Oxygen production would be cheap too, saving the NHS a bit of dosh as well.
The ramp up in Oil prices brought a lot of “new” Oil companies into the fray that had no clue how to run efficiently. They were probably on the sidelines when Oil was below $50 a barrel most of our lives, but started to think of how they could jump on the bandwagon once the long-term price went above $65 and stayed there for the first time.
Now the boot is on the other foot again, those inefficient companies are going to go under of course.
The companies already there in the first place - may well moan, but they were originally set up for producing per unit for a whole lot less, so will survive in spite of themselves.
People like Rockefeller a century ago made most of their money buying up on the cheap those firms going under during THIS stage of the cycle.
I would strongly recommend adding a halved-in-price Oil company’s shares that you’ve both heard of, and still pays it’s dividend.
BP and Exxon remain good long term prospects for one’s portfolio - providing you time your entry very carefully. There’s no point buying it just before the mainsteam flush-out that has hardly begun as yet.
See how Exxon’s price has hardly fallen during the same one year period that saw the underlying Oil price more than halve…
“Wait”…
BP’s price though has fallen somewhat further (thanks to the Gulf spill aftermath) - but it still isn’t cheap enough to buy yet in my mind. “Wait” here as well.
Most money is made or lost in stock market dabbling - on the timing of the entry. Any old git can sell after the price has gone up loads, but very few ever have the balls or the money at the right moment - to get in when the time is actually right, and buy in when the price is close to as low as it’s ever going to go.
You are trying to buy “Efficiency” here rather than “The Oil Price” after all. If you really want to do the latter, then consider opening an account with a commodities broker rather than a stockbroker. The two firms rarely step on each other’s feet with an “in house” operation covering both markets these days. 
I’ve traded in both markets, lost £3k shorting BP too early (the actual shares), made over $10k shorting Oil (commodity contract) when it was around the $100 mark at the time of Ghadaffi’s death.
My entry timing used to stink though - and only 1 in 24 of my trades would go “straight into the black” as it were. Usually what would happen is the thing would run against me a couple of grand before turning better later - thus giving me a “rough ride” and “plenty of stress” - but a profit in the end for nerving it out. I wouldn’t recommend trading for widows and orphans.
Pimpdaddy:
bald bloke:
Diesel is 97.9p in Costco but obviously you need to be a member and they don’t accept cash it’s card only.Zb Costco, asda is the way forward lol
My local Phillips 66 Jet is 99.9 for both products, pretty much matching supermarket prices, go Jet.
Nothing wrong with Costco, I was wrong it’s actually 96.9p I went down there yesterday afternoon.
Usually, Pioneering companies are the first ones to go bust on a grand scale.
I suggest here that those companies that take the plunge to set up a hydrogen production system from sea water - will benefit from the historically high price of gases at the START of this new market environment, but others attempting to come in later will fail, as by this point the price of the gases has already started to fall dramatically. BOC should survive the storm. British Gas might struggle though, as Hydrogen also threatens to replace the use of Natural Gas as a fuel outright…
The environmentalists will be creaming their collective pants… Hydrogen burns to form heat and water. Any fuel gas OTHER than hydrogen also produces CO2 as a by-product.
Thus, burning Hydrogen is the ultimate in “renewable” energy, as the end product is what you started with. One is merely being rewarded for producing huge amounts of practically free Nuclear-generated Electricity to begin with. To destroy/damage those reactors in such a way that we all die - requires the UK to be nuked out - which would kill us all anyways - so people should quit worrying and just bloody well get on with it, instead of being 20th century luddites on nuclear power.
FFS people didn’t worry much about mobile phone tumours in the end - did they? 