Still $3.49/gal here in WV, they do have higher taxes on fuel. It balances out, the overall tax burden is pretty low. Well, I guess unless you burn a lot of gas in WV.
You were looking at the average price for the city. Go to the maps view and zoom in to look at individual stations: USA National Gas Price Heat Map - GasBuddy.comThat site shows 3.033 for Shreveport, but it's selling for 2.93 - 2.95 all over town. Not sure what goes into compiling the numbers.
I always thought that was the case but it appears at the moment NY may be in the lead...CA has higher gas taxes - so we're always more expensive than other places.
I'll probably be shot for saying it, but I think gas prices should never go down!
Right now, at this price level, the economics of the tar sands are probably questionable. Some of the harder to get sources requiring steam and such, are also getting closer to being "not worth it". So those operations shut-down, go out of business, etc. Oh, then, of course, after the damage is done to those businesses, the price is manipulated by the producers later back up to higher than it was, and it takes time for those alternative sources to get back into gear.
What if there were a law that said for every penny petrolium goes down, the government would compel sellers to collect the difference between the world price and the highest historical world price. Whatever is collected goes to directly to reducing the national debt. So the price was $3.50 and it goes down to $2.75, then $0.75 goes into paying off the debt. If the price returns to $3.50, they collect nothing. If the price goes to $3.75 then returns to $3.50, they collect $0.25.
So if the price is predicably "always flat or up", then energy businesses can thrive. Investments can be made with much less risk, and a solid vector away from foreign oil can be established.
Glad to hear they're not shutting down!Unless I am misunderstanding you Seng, I don't see how collecting the difference to apply to debt would effect production. Since the company is not getting the money, they would still not be profitable. All that does in increase taxes on drivers. FWIW, some tar sand companies are profitable now. I own some Suncor and they are awash in the stuff and production cost is in low 30s per barrel.
I'll probably be shot for saying it, but I think gas prices should never go down!
Right now, at this price level, the economics of the tar sands are probably questionable. Some of the harder to get sources requiring steam and such, are also getting closer to being "not worth it". So those operations shut-down, go out of business, etc. Oh, then, of course, after the damage is done to those businesses, the price is manipulated by the producers later back up to higher than it was, and it takes time for those alternative sources to get back into gear.
What if there were a law that said for every penny petrolium goes down, the government would compel sellers to collect the difference between the world price and the highest historical world price. Whatever is collected goes to directly to reducing the national debt. So the price was $3.50 and it goes down to $2.75, then $0.75 goes into paying off the debt. If the price returns to $3.50, they collect nothing. If the price goes to $3.75 then returns to $3.50, they collect $0.25.
So if the price is predicably "always flat or up", then energy businesses can thrive. Investments can be made with much less risk, and a solid vector away from foreign oil can be established.
Do you live in a larger metropolitan area? There are those of us that do not have a choice burn fossile fuel or not. This area is very spread out; getting to a grocery store is at least a 3 mile walk and the nearest theater is about 10 miles away. There are a couple of bars within a few blocks but I don't like to spend much time in bars. When it's below 0 degrees no one wants to walk that far and for the elderly it would be dangerous. We have no choice but to burn fossil fuel either in our own or some other vehicle. Remember that the population density of North Dakota is less than 10 people per square mile. In this state you can't find enough people going the same direction at the same time to support mass transit. I can never support a disincentive to burn fossil fuels.You got it right: a tax on drivers. I'm not a fan of more taxes, but a disincentive to burn fossil fuels would be one place where I'd tax if I were king.