Petrol and diesel prices reach new record high

[BullDog]

There has been talk of rationing diesel so I would not be too complacent.

The "talk" came from sensationalist reporting of Amrita Sen's discussion with the Treasury Select committee - which was mostly about Germany. What she actually said was :

Particularly in terms of products, diesel is where we fear rationing could come as soon as the end of this month in Germany. You could absolutely see the repercussions of that in the UK as well.

It's different for Germany as they use more for winter heating.

It might become more economical to order an IBC of vegetable oil and hook that up to the central heating boiler!

[Mike4]

I went to Baston, near Spalding in Lincolnshire today to fix a boiler. Pretty much every fuel station I passed north of Oxford was £1.80 per litre for diesel.

[88V8]

There's now three filling stations in the town at supermarkets, no independent filling stations any more.

Which is why I never ever fill up at supermarkets.
In some areas one can go miles with no petrol stations, passing what used to be petrol stations that have been put out of business due to price gouging by supermarkets.

Petrol station numbers have fallen 36% since 2000. https://www.statista.com/statistics/312331/number-of-petrol-stations-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/

V8

[pje16]

If they petrol stations were more competitive pricewise not so many would have closed
It's not as if Shell (profits for 2021 rose to $19.3bn)or BP (up to $12.85 billion) couldn't afford to do so

price gouging, otherwise known as market forces

[Dod101]

If they petrol stations were more competitive pricewise not so many would have closed
It's not as if Shell (profits for 2021 rose to $19.3bn)or BP (up to $12.85 billion) couldn't afford to do so

price gouging, otherwise known as market forces

Shell and BP presumably operate at least some of the stations bearing their name but I am certain by no means all and probably not that many, so is it really Shell and BP that are causing the high prices at the pump? This morning, Tesco, my usual supplier were charging 162.9p for E10 Petrol so I filled up there. To my disappointment I later saw that Morrisons were charging only 160.9p. It did not matter as I was only topping but there is competition between supermarkets it would appear. Diesel was selling at 169.9p and 171.9p.

I hold shares in Shell so I get a little back that way.

Dod

[pje16]

save your disappointment, no matter how mild
https://app.petrolprices.com/map
you have to sign it but they don't email you

I couldn't be bothered to look up all the garages
but Esso (Exxonmobil) £23bn
so there is a trend
I have BP shares but I dont see that as helping my fuel costs

[pje16]

OUCH
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=33352#p480601
Costco a month ago diesel was 1.397
today 1.717
https://www.costco.co.uk/store-finder/Watford

[Dod101]

save your disappointment, no matter how mild
https://app.petrolprices.com/map
you have to sign it but they don't email you

I couldn't be bothered to look up all the garages
but Esso (Exxonmobil) £23bn
so there is a trend
I have BP shares but I dont see that as helping my fuel costs

Thanks. My point about holding Shell or BP is that if as some are suggesting, they are significantly benefiting from the hike in fuel prices then that ought to work its way through to increased dividends. I agree that there cannot be any direct correlation but still.........it makes me feel a bit better.

Dod

[pje16]

I do understand the point
My last BP dividend wasn't quite enough to fill up my car

[Hallucigenia]

My point about holding Shell or BP is that if as some are suggesting, they are significantly benefiting from the hike in fuel prices then that ought to work its way through to increased dividends.

The point about the majors is that they are internally hedged to a degree - when oil prices are high then their oil production side makes lots of money, but their refining side has to contend with high input costs, and vice versa. And obviously both BP and Shell won't be benefiting from their substantial operations in Russia in future.

Petrol retailing is a low-margin business - often they make more profit from you buying a coffee than for selling you the petrol. Not all the petrol stations carrying a brand will be owned by the oil company, only about half of all Shell-branded garages in the UK are actually run by Shell for instance.

If you want a better exposure to the oil price, you need to look at midcap production companies that don't run refineries. Someone around here did suggest buying a basket of 5-10 such companies two months ago - I guess that would have given you around a 30-40% return in that time, some of them have doubled.

[Dod101]

My point about holding Shell or BP is that if as some are suggesting, they are significantly benefiting from the hike in fuel prices then that ought to work its way through to increased dividends.

The point about the majors is that they are internally hedged to a degree - when oil prices are high then their oil production side makes lots of money, but their refining side has to contend with high input costs, and vice versa. And obviously both BP and Shell won't be benefiting from their substantial operations in Russia in future.

Petrol retailing is a low-margin business - often they make more profit from you buying a coffee than for selling you the petrol. Not all the petrol stations carrying a brand will be owned by the oil company, only about half of all Shell-branded garages in the UK are actually run by Shell for instance.

If you want a better exposure to the oil price, you need to look at midcap production companies that don't run refineries. Someone around here did suggest buying a basket of 5-10 such companies two months ago - I guess that would have given you around a 30-40% return in that time, some of them have doubled.

Yes I know and appreciate that. I am not concerned about ‘a better exposure to the oil price’. It is just a nice side benefit to hold the shares of the oil majors and was certainly not mentioned as the beginning of a major discussion point.

Dod

[Hallucigenia]

Interestingly my local supermarket took 2p off the price of unleaded today, taking it to +14p since I filled up about 2 weeks ago. And then the 5p duty cut comes in at 6pm today, plus the corresponding 1p in VAT which people tend to forget about. But with pump prices up 40p in the last year or so, the extra VAT pays for the cut in duty...

[Mike4]

Motorway services at Newbury (M4) this afternoon were selling diesel at 199p per litre.

It was only a week or two ago diesel breached 180p a litre around here and I wondered if/when I would see £2 a litre.

[pje16]

1.99 what a joke
I hope no-one need to visit the robbers

[absolutezero]

1.99 what a joke
I hope no-one need to visit the robbers

Of which, 54% is tax.
The government are indeed robbers.

[scrumpyjack]

Interestingly my local supermarket took 2p off the price of unleaded today, taking it to +14p since I filled up about 2 weeks ago. And then the 5p duty cut comes in at 6pm today, plus the corresponding 1p in VAT which people tend to forget about. But with pump prices up 40p in the last year or so, the extra VAT pays for the cut in duty...

Of course the Treasury takes the view that if people were not spending it on fuel they would be spending it on other VATable goods so they don't get anymore VAT overall from the increase in petrol prices.

But then they also take the view that all income and capital belongs to them anyway so anything they kindly let us keep is a 'cost' to the exchequer!

[didds]

Of course the Treasury takes the view that if people were not spending it on fuel they would be spending it on other VATable goods

which then rather illustrates that our governments don't understand the UK's demographics outside of conurbations. Because in rural areas one may need to use fuel in order to actually get anywhere to spend VAT on goods and services, rather than just stroll down to the corner, or jump on the plethora of public transport options...

[dealtn]

Of course the Treasury takes the view that if people were not spending it on fuel they would be spending it on other VATable goods

which then rather illustrates that our governments don't understand the UK's demographics outside of conurbations. Because in rural areas one may need to use fuel in order to actually get anywhere to spend VAT on goods and services, rather than just stroll down to the corner, or jump on the plethora of public transport options...

The Government and the Treasury are different things. The Treasury concerns itself with the macroeconomy and the fiscal position.

Besides those that live in those rural areas choose to in the main, accepting the pros and cons of doing so. In very few cases I imagine would the absence of shops, or plethora of public transport options have occurred overnight or by surprise.

[didds]

Besides those that live in those rural areas choose to in the main, accepting the pros and cons of doing so. In very few cases I imagine would the absence of shops, or plethora of public transport options have occurred overnight or by surprise.

that of course not being the point being made.

ie the treasury may take the line that lack of spending on fuel leads to spending elsewhere wi8th a net VAT take. That however falls apart when people cannot afford to buy fuel (loss of VAT) and thus cannot travel to buy other goods (loss of VAT).

[dealtn]

Besides those that live in those rural areas choose to in the main, accepting the pros and cons of doing so. In very few cases I imagine would the absence of shops, or plethora of public transport options have occurred overnight or by surprise.

that of course not being the point being made.

ie the treasury may take the line that lack of spending on fuel leads to spending elsewhere wi8th a net VAT take. That however falls apart when people cannot afford to buy fuel (loss of VAT) and thus cannot travel to buy other goods (loss of VAT).

And as explained the Treasury looks at this as a macroeconomic argument, and the fiscal position as a whole. The net effect of marginal expenditure by those in rural areas is miniscule. As I said those residents are already living there, with few shops and few transport options (though no doubt with access to the internet and other ways of consumption to do now they have spare time and income from not travelling or spending on fuel). There is simply no big economic change in consumption behaviour resulting from this that leads to a large change in VAT or customs revenue to the Treasury.