Why are petrol prices rising so much? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Why are petrol prices rising so much?

badgerrules Avatar
8y, 6m agoPosted 8 years, 6 months ago
As the title says why is the price of petrol going up so much recently. It has been predicted that it will rise to £1.50 a litre by 2009 and we are told it is just oil prices rising. Why? This is probably the main reason we are facing soaring food costs as it costs so much to transport goods. Is there going to be any decrease in oil prices in the future?
badgerrules Avatar
8y, 6m agoPosted 8 years, 6 months ago
Options

All Comments

(43) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
1 Like #1
The reason foos is increasing has little to do with fuel costs - the pound is week against the euro so importing from europe is expensive. Also certain countries are using land that was used to grow crops to grow crops for biofuel instead.

As for fuel costs - oil is a finite resource (ie it WILL run out one day). Its becoming harder and harder to find, plus alot of the countried where oil is found are war stricken making it harder / more dangerous to get the fuel.

We have no option but to put up with it until a cheaper alternative comes along.
#2
I'm just glad i don't have a gas gussler my little 1.3 car just seems to sip the petrol rather than drink it so that helps.
#3
well my fiesta 1.25 was very very thirsty, i now drive a 2.2 TD and get loads more mpg's doesn't make much sense to me
#4
Someone told me before, that they thought there was another way of fuelling a car, but as oil companies are massive and will have so much power and influence in the world, i bet they'd tried to stop this from happening until theres no choice.

Annoys me as well when the oil companies announce £3 billion profit in like 2 months, rising oil prices my F***ING ****.
#5
When i have a petrol car, diesel was cheaper than petrol, but nowadays diesel is about 10p more expensive than petrol? Just can't figure it out.
#6
I blame the bloosy government, Rising fuel prices, and low paid workings get more bloody tax, increasing food prices which we cant afford as paying more tax and more on petrol.

If youve seen the news this morning , they may be releasing Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe Abu Qatada and was charged with terror offences. How stupid can this Government get!!
#7
Becuase we live in rip - off - britain.
#8
homer_213
Someone told me before, that they thought there was another way of fuelling a car, but as oil companies are massive and will have so much power and influence in the world, i bet they'd tried to stop this from happening until theres no choice.

Annoys me as well when the oil companies announce £3 billion profit in like 2 months, rising oil prices my F***ING ****.


man , i imagine there is technology for various methods of fuelling a car all of which would be far far cheaper than petrol, but.....that technology will of probably been bought out at an early stage by the oil companies and shelved. Shady goings on i bet.
banned#9
Its Global warming partially to blame.....everythings more expensive since someone thought that one up!

OPEC causes the fuel prices to go up as there greedy *******s, every time a war starts etc, they use it as an excuse to put prices up, its all coming out of pipelines so why is it more dangerous?

its just the rich getting richer and yeah the cheaper, cleaner ways of fuelling did get bought and shelved the the very companies they will destroy
#10
We have a bulk tank in the garage and get diesel delivered by the tanker, can get diesel around 18ppl cheaper than forecourt prices I think. Can't be done with petrol though, too many restrictions.
#11
lastonline
When i have a petrol car, diesel was cheaper than petrol, but nowadays diesel is about 10p more expensive than petrol? Just can't figure it out.


I seem to remember that the Govt was encouraging motorists to change to the more efficient diesel engines and pledged to keep diesel 10p less per litre than petrol.

As you have pointed out, it is now 10p dearer than petrol. Why? Diesel is cheaper to refine and burns cleaner.

Typical Govt lie. :x
banned#12
michaelmakro
I seem to remember that the Govt was encouraging motorists to change to the more efficient diesel engines and pledged to keep diesel 10p less per litre than petrol.

As you have pointed out, it is now 10p dearer than petrol. Why? Diesel is cheaper to refine and burns cleaner.

Typical Govt lie. :x


The government lie? A politican lie? think your living in a dream world there mate, there all honest individuals! :p
#13
ODB_69
Its Global warming partially to blame.....everythings more expensive since someone thought that one up!


Human caused global warming is a myth. The earth has heated and cooled for millions of years. Why is it suddenly our fault that the earth's temperature has risen a bit?

It is a convenient excuse to tax the hell out of people. For example, by parking permit in London used to be £60 per year. It is now calculated on my car's carbon emissions, making it £130 per year! There are a handful of cars that now get a permit for £30, but the vast majority are now over £120. Easy way to double/treble revenue, by using the global warming excuse.

The media jump on this bandwagon too. There are now dedicated environmental reporters, who have to keep making up scare stories to sell papers. If there was no story, they would be out of a job. ANyone remember 10-15 years ago we were all going to burn to death because of the hole in the o-zone layer? where did that go? oh yea, it closed up on it's own!
banned#14
Ian182
Human caused global warming is a myth. The earth has heated and cooled for millions of years. Why is it suddenly our fault that the earth's temperature has risen a bit?

It is a convenient excuse to tax the hell out of people. For example, by parking permit in London used to be £60 per year. It is now calculated on my car's carbon emissions, making it £130 per year! There are a handful of cars that now get a permit for £30, but the vast majority are now over £120. Easy way to double/treble revenue, by using the global warming excuse.

The media jump on this bandwagon too. There are now dedicated environmental reporters, who have to keep making up scare stories to sell papers. If there was no story, they would be out of a job. ANyone remember 10-15 years ago we were all going to burn to death because of the hole in the o-zone layer? where did that go? oh yea, it closed up on it's own!


I agree, thats what I meant by someone thinking it up, its all bull, man wasn't around for the last ice age, so why did it happen? Answer: Ice Ages are natural things that happen every some many years, it all works in cycles
#15
Ian182
Human caused global warming is a myth. The earth has heated and cooled for millions of years. Why is it suddenly our fault that the earth's temperature has risen a bit?

It is a convenient excuse to tax the hell out of people. For example, by parking permit in London used to be £60 per year. It is now calculated on my car's carbon emissions, making it £130 per year! There are a handful of cars that now get a permit for £30, but the vast majority are now over £120. Easy way to double/treble revenue, by using the global warming excuse.

The media jump on this bandwagon too. There are now dedicated environmental reporters, who have to keep making up scare stories to sell papers. If there was no story, they would be out of a job. ANyone remember 10-15 years ago we were all going to burn to death because of the hole in the o-zone layer? where did that go? oh yea, it closed up on it's own!



I find it laughable when the average person on the street comments about something that scientists spend their lives working to understand. Imagine if they had such a simple insight the world would be fixed, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, people dedicate their lives to understanding such concepts, the factors and variables involve, probability modelling, atmospheric modelling and so on. The vast majority of people do not understand the issue remotely enough to have any sort of useful opinion.

The o-zone layer did not fix "on its own".

Diesel costs more due to simple supply and demand economics, demand went up in the UK for diesel, supply went down. Road hauliers have 1200+ litre tanks and can drive 3000 km+ on such an amount, if they go into Europe, they buy their fuel there, never here.

If we continue to see the same increase we have over the previous 8 years, in 10 years time, oil will be in the region of 350+ US$/barrel. If the same increase over the last 6 months, in 10 years time, the price will be disproportionately large. People are practically giving up forecasting as it's simply too difficult right now. My last forecasting work suggested naphtha would rise to 3000US$/tonne by 2017 (currently circa 800-900 US$/tonne which initially seems crazy (naphtha is a major oil feedstock for petrochem industry), but I imagine it could easily be realised.

Oil is a finite resource and it is coming to an end. Expect a slight drop over the summer as possible.

People attacking the oil industry's profits need to understand that forecourt prices do not directly have a huge impact on the bottom line, I personally think they could lower a small amount but this is business. People also need to understand the magnitudes of risk and investment in the oil industry, one needs billion dollar profits because the risks involved are billion dollar sizes, the bits of kit do not come cheap.
banned#16
pghstochaj
I find it laughable when the average person on the street comments about something that scientists spend their lives working to understand. Imagine if they had such a simple insight the world would be fixed, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, people dedicate their lives to understanding such concepts, the factors and variables involve, probability modelling, atmospheric modelling and so on. The vast majority of people do not understand the issue remotely enough to have any sort of useful opinion.

The o-zone layer did not fix "on its own".


ok, fair point, but if you find it laughable why do you comment as it contradicts your own statement?

Not all scientists agree that Global warming is 'man-made' depends on what you believe and what you see as the validity in each claim
#17
No no, I have commented on the fact that the average person has the inability to have a reasonable opinion on whether or not global warming exists. If you check, at no point have I said yes or no about global warming. I have simply suggested that the average person has negligible understanding of the matter and it's not like a lot of other subjects where you can get a basic 'understanding' without understanding it.

The vast majority of scientists involved do, and right now for me, that's enough to believe the chance of it is "more than likely", as annoying as it is.

I can however comment on oil, it's my masters, profession and career.
#18
if its you proffession would you be able to tell me how the hell they are making so much money, am i right in saying that they only make a couple of pence profit per litre of petrol. surely they cant be making billions off this. where does the rest of the money come from?
#19
Doesn't a lot of the profit come from forecourt shops and the like? I guess a lot of the profit is those expensive cups of coffee....
1 Like #20
Depends entirely on the company and I couldn't give you a breakdown on a particular one, well, not anymore than you wouldn't find on google.

A company like Shell makes only 10% of their profit in the UK though. Any money not from pumps comes from internal sales such as Shell's chemical sales, so that's refining to something like naphtha, producing chemicals (H2, CO etc.), this adds a massive amount of value. External sales of the similar bulk chemicals and then external sales of their refined products. See when you see the oil price today in the region of 120 US$/barrel, that's why Shell is making money, but they don't set that price, the market does. Shell (again used as an example) have "well to forecourt" processes but also "well to barrel" processes which when they sell at 120 US$/barrel is a nice income.

In their defence...
Now to find a new oil field and set it up for export to a refinery, refine and then export to the customer, costs billions (depending on the size of the field, a small field would use something like a floatable oil tanker, through to the dying North Sea with its huge infrastructure). With oil supply disappearing, this job gets a lot harder and more marginal supplies (i.e. high CO2, high H2S, heavy crude or very little crude) have to be tapped into, requiring a higher input of money per unit to be sold at the pump.

Then you have the problems with where the oil is, places like Nigeria where all the money has been spent and wasted due to the impossibility of producing there. This has to be written off somehow. Then there's the fact that people like me simply will not work in Iraq, Azerbajan or Siberia for any reasonable amount of money and a lack of education in the local area.

Also remember their bottom line has to include tax, which is significant on that sort of profit.

Even something "small" like a LNG gas import terminal costs serious money.

I haven't done it (I don't have access just now to my figures) but it would be interesting to compare the revenue per litre to shell (excluding forecourt paid tax) with the rises in crude oil prices and this will show whether they are abusing it or not, to an extent.
#21
Have you heard about the vegetable oil restrictions? Tesco has apparently restricted customers to buying no more than a certain amount of vegetable oil per customer as people are using it to thin their deisel!!

More about using vegetable oil here
http://www.vegetableoildiesel.co.uk/introduction.html
#22
cheers pghstochaj, that's exactly what i wanted to know, i don't think people realise that shell/bp etc do other things that are more profitable than producing petrol/diesel. what we really need is a reduction on the tax on petrol , but i dont think that will ever happen
#23
loveabargain
Have you heard about the vegetable oil restrictions? Tesco has apparently restricted customers to buying no more than a certain amount of vegetable oil per customer as people are using it to thin their deisel!!

More about using vegetable oil here
http://www.vegetableoildiesel.co.uk/introduction.html


ive thought about doing this, bit scared though, is there anywhere you can find outif it will damage a particular engine?
#24
guerilla
ive thought about doing this, bit scared though, is there anywhere you can find outif it will damage a particular engine?


The website lists all the makes of car that it is working on. Try looking into the website in more detail. I would def try it if I had a diesel car
#25
found the link on the sire after i wrote the reply, unfortunately they don't have my car.
#26
End story is, we live in a capitalist economy where the rich/ CEOs make the rule, They are the ones financing the political parties, they have ways of funnelling monies into the coffers of the politicians without us civilians knowing anything about it, so what happens at the end of the day, they only make laws to benefit "their friends" who sponsored their election. So its a case of scratch my back and I ll rub yours. We are just pawns in a very complex system, Look at banking, mortgages and Loans, isnt it ridiculous paying more than double the cost of the house because you are repaying a mortgage, nobody seem to care anymore because we are all traped inside this one sided system, which is all about the capitalist.
#27
All possible ways of currently fueling your car are bad. People always say electric cars are better, but they just mean burning more fossil fuels at power plants. And the thing i find most surprising is that biofuels are always said to be the way forward, and i have never heard a bad thing said about it on tv or in a newspaper, yet what other than oil takes millions of years to form? answer: soil.
#28
saayinla
End story is, we live in a capitalist economy where the rich/ CEOs make the rule, They are the ones financing the political parties, they have ways of funnelling monies into the coffers of the politicians without us civilians knowing anything about it, so what happens at the end of the day, they only make laws to benefit "their friends" who sponsored their election. So its a case of scratch my back and I ll rub yours. We are just pawns in a very complex system, Look at banking, mortgages and Loans, isnt it ridiculous paying more than double the cost of the house because you are repaying a mortgage, nobody seem to care anymore because we are all traped inside this one sided system, which is all about the capitalist.


well go and live in CUUUUUUBAAAAAAAAA:whistling:
#29
ants97
well go and live in CUUUUUUBAAAAAAAAA:whistling:


A tree does not make a forest.
#30
saayinla
A tree does not make a forest.


Indeed but from acorns the mighty oak shall grow.


CUUUUUUUBAAAAAAAAA:whistling:
1 Like #31
Biofuels are not "the" answer, LCAs (life cycle analysis) show how poor an option they actually are, I am bemused at the desire towards them. Of course this is before the potential devestation of the world's food supplies. I think as soon as political understanding catches up with the scientific facts, action will be taken to phase it back out.
#32
morris7
All possible ways of currently fueling your car are bad. People always say electric cars are better, but they just mean burning more fossil fuels at power plants. And the thing i find most surprising is that biofuels are always said to be the way forward, and i have never heard a bad thing said about it on tv or in a newspaper, yet what other than oil takes millions of years to form? answer: soil.


There is a total misunderstanding of the situation by the media, often I see hydrogen powered cars being labelled as "carbon neutral" and "emission free", absolute tosh. I saw similar mentions of such words about a Lotus released this week as being "better than a small hatchback" because it could use ethanol, again, what tosh.
#33
:whistling: Remember the TV advert for miller draught

http://www.weshow.com/us/p/31342/miller_draft_downhill

If we all lived on the down slope of a hill, we could just 'free wheel' from A to B.

They were able to do it in the Miller advert!
#34
pghstochaj
I find it laughable when the average person on the street comments about something that scientists spend their lives working to understand. Imagine if they had such a simple insight the world would be fixed, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, people dedicate their lives to understanding such concepts, the factors and variables involve, probability modelling, atmospheric modelling and so on. The vast majority of people do not understand the issue remotely enough to have any sort of useful opinion.


Many of the scientists that "spend their lives working to understand" don't agree that humans are causing global warming. There are hundreds out there that disagree! Why should we believe the ones that are employed by the government, and therefore have a vested interested to provide support to the government's arguement, above ones that aren't employed by the government?

pghstochaj
The o-zone layer did not fix "on its own".


How did it close up then?

Global warming caused by carbon emissions is just another hippy fad. Hippies need some environmental issue to protest against. Acid rain, hole in o-zone layer, global warming, blah blah blah. Once the novelty has worn off, they will move on to the next "crisis".
#35
Please get the facts right. The problem is, you don't work in the field and therefore your opinion is limited. I am not going to tell you who to believe, but I am certainly going to say you're wrong for stating either way, because you don't have any of the actual facts. Numerous huge organisations (some affiliated, some not) believe that global warming is likely to have been impacted by human behaviour (simple fact that we have output huge amounts of greenhouse gases, thus it will have an impact, question is, how much?). The IPCC (from WMO and UNEP) is the largest of these, perhaps, and should be believed over you, for example.

Are you serious? The holes were caused through free radical catalysis (NO, Cl, Br etc.). From the late 70s, nations have started to prevent the uses of CFCs causing the free radicals. It is now confirmed that following the complete banning of so called CFCs, the ozone depletion is slowing, although their long life (and not being banned everywhere) means that the fixing will take a century or more. This is pretty standard science and scientific fact. AGU has multiple satellites and ground stations monitoring this.

Sorry but you're way out of your depth if you think things such as acid rain and ozone depletion are fads, they are serious issues and facts. Acid rain is understood and its damage is also understood. Ozone depletion is well documented and understood.

Greenhouse emissions are also a fact, the question is whether or not this will caused sufficient additional (therefore man-made) global warming, or not. This is the problem with people without any sufficient knowledge commenting on such science and trying to pedal their "perceived" knowledge from reading wikipedia or similar. The scariest thing is that more people believe in a God (a ficticious, entirely man-made concept with no logic or science behind it) than man-made global warming, which at least has some scientific basis.

This is similar to comments of people who state: Why should the UK tighten up emissions when China do x, y and z. Well the problem is that those "x, y and z" are not Chinese sourced emissions but western sourced emissions as the west so happily build kit out there to make our domestic items. If the emissions from China are sourced back to the end user, it becomes clear who the worst culprits are. China is an easy target though.

Ian182
Many of the scientists that "spend their lives working to understand" don't agree that humans are causing global warming. There are hundreds out there that disagree! Why should we believe the ones that are employed by the government, and therefore have a vested interested to provide support to the government's arguement, above ones that aren't employed by the government?



How did it close up then?

Global warming caused by carbon emissions is just another hippy fad. Hippies need some environmental issue to protest against. Acid rain, hole in o-zone layer, global warming, blah blah blah. Once the novelty has worn off, they will move on to the next "crisis".
#36
Furthermore, the concept of global warming does not impact on the fuel prices, the supply vs. demand is the only cause at the present time. It will get a lot worse too, having worked in the gas industry (upstream) I have worked on trying to purify very poor gas supplies. There now have to be used due to a lack of better supplies and the fact that they are now financially feasible. This means many smaller fields which floatable equipment and temp well systems, enhanced recovery with gas or water reinjection and so on. When the situation gets even worse, oil and gas will stop becoming expensive and become commodities used only when necessary.

Currently there is no replacement, we can use other fossil fuels either for energy or conversion to gas or oil (Coal gasification is getting a bigger market just now - good for the UK as we worked on a lot of the technology in the 70s so BG Group and affilates are doing well. A further example is syngas production (H2 and CO from various feeds). Once that is depleted and simulataneously we can use limited renewable energies but these will only add a fraction (1 GW out of memory is currently generated in the UK from landfill, ~800 MW from wind) but tidal and wave power could be harnessed more. Then we have nuclear which is not a feasible source other than for conversion to electricity of chemical energy in the form of producing H2 fuel cells. I think the last one will be the choice we have to end up with so am pleased that the UK and France are working on a 3rd gen nuclear system.

It's a bleak future but full of interesting challenges, the world will either "roll with the punches" or go out in a big bang, in my opinion.
#37
vixygwim
"Oh no you didn't"



You must have time to burn, cause you're going to stir up trouble.

On that note I'm an atheist or agnostic, depending on the day I'm asked.


I don't mind, that's the fact of the matter, not much debate in it unless we drop down to not using evidence or facts. Probably an out of place comment for the thread though.
#38
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]The reality is none of us can say for sure why the earth’s temperature is rising. Is it human activity or natural environment cycles? [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]What is sure is that if scientists need funds to study a subject, they are more likely to receive funding if they can link a variable to Global warming. FACT![/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]E.g. A scientist wants to study the decline in the number of sea pirates. He’ll link it to Global Warming to gain funds to study pirates. And what’s the scientist’s reason for rising temperate? The decline in the number of pirates has caused the earth’s temperature to rise. Further evidence is that Somalia has one of the worlds largest number of pirates and one of the lowest CO2 emissions. :roll:[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]MOTWYW[/SIZE][/FONT]
#39
Which to a point is true (not so for many organisations), but if you understand peer review systems, a scientist would not fasley provide results for publication, so even if their idea is that global warming is true (to gain funding), the results would either prove or disprove their hypothesis.
#40
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]I have a degree in Statistical Analysis, and have worked as a statistician, I know how scientists work. I often find flaws in their results. They have statistically significant correlations, but the reality is that they often do not imply a causal relationship. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Also, they include unknown variables, which they often list as "unexplainable circumstances" and expect it to be credible. And like someone posted earlier, the journalists lap it up because its sells papers. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Which goes back to the statement you made about knowing the whole story to make a calculated opinion, but no-one knows the full story.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!