Oil at 12 month low

Wookster

chewmylegoff wrote: »

And I shed a silent tear...

If you read the post graham made he suggested that if oil prices held at below $100 a barrel the petrol should be 10-15p a litre cheaper at the pump. You then waded on saying he doesn't understand how the price of petrol works because the oil price is not he only only constituent part of the price of petrol. You are now suggesting that I can't do basic maths either (with some made up sneering about how I have apparently claimed to be a high flyer).

However you didn't take the time to think about it yourself, so desperate were you to automatically disagree with graham. 10-15p/litre represents a reduction in prices of 7-10%. Oil prices have come off about 25%. Therefore graham wasn't claiming that the price of fuel would move directly in step with the price of oil and did not therefore overlook the fixed cost elements (some of which are not, in fact fixed as you claim as the price of e.g. transportation is itself related to the price of oil). Further, Graham has now posted evidence that backs up exactly what he was saying.

Despite that you're still just looking or a fight and trying to be a nasty bully. You haven't actually produced any evidence that Graham's figures are wrong yet you're trying to take the moral high ground by claiming that you're the one who is talking about oil prices and others are attacking you. You haven't said anything meaningful about oil prices on this thread either, just doing your normal job of being a crappy troll.

Feel free to try to hurt my feelings with rubbish jibes about my job and my avatar. It is unlikely to get you anywhere but if it makes you feel better and you dont have anything better to do (like evidence your point or something like that) then be my guest. If you like I can pretend that I am offended by your next pathetic set of "insults".

Good post. No doubt chucky will reply with something abusive (again).

chewmylegoff

chucky wrote: »

I'm sure that you did because that's quite a long post trying to explain and justify your strange behaviour.

So let me let you try again.

The "variable" part of the pump price is the only real part that can be affected by the price of a barrel of oil, did you not think that the exchange rate or even the quality of the oil and where it's from may have an impact on the pump price. You did know that there are different types of crude and have different prices, probably related to quality I imagine. So less petrol would be produced for each barrel, right?

That wouldn't impact pump prices, or would it not?

Can you explain why any of this means that Graham's opening post is wrong?

ess0two

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/03/coryton-refinery-closure-canvey-island?newsfeed=true

Last couple of paragraphs sum up the UK refining situation.

chucky

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Can you explain why any of this means that Graham's opening post is wrong?

If you bothered to even read my post(s) you would have read that there are other factors that affect the pump price not just the oil price directly. It's not a linear relationship or are you saying it is a direct relationship?

A clever and good looking boy like you would have worked that out but that's not really been your agenda here has it...

chewmylegoff

chucky wrote: »

If you bothered to even read my post(s) you would have read that there are other factors that affect the pump price not just the oil price directly. It's not a linear relationship or are you saying it is a direct relationship?

A clever and good looking boy like you would have worked that out but that's not really been your agenda here has it...

That's the point though isn't it. Graham never said there was a direct linear relationship and neither did I. If you read my post rather than trying to get me to bite on your childish jibes you could have seen that for yourself. The estimate he suggested for the fall in price was 7-10% vs. a fall in the price of oil of 25%. He then followed it up with evidence which supported his figures ($2 off oil = 1p off at the pump).

Will you be posting some evidence to support the fact that the figures you said are wrong are wrong, or will you just keep making generic statements and waving around playground insults.

Silly little troll.

chucky

chewmylegoff wrote: »

That's the point though isn't it. Graham never said there was a direct linear relationship and neither did I.

It seems that you struggle with reading. According to you he never said the was a relationship but then again he did say in the very first post which disproves your fantasies.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Currently brent is at $99 a barrel. If it holds, petrol should be around 10-15p a litre cheaper.

Maybe try reading before you froth away before getting emotionally attached to an argument.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

If you read my post rather than trying to get me to bite

You're right, you haven't bitten but chomped away at trying to prove to other posters that your intelligent which I guess if you're comparing yourself to a 6 year old you must be. Those insecurities are showing in each of your posts now...

Silly little fantasist.

chewmylegoff

chucky wrote: »

It seems that you struggle with reading. According to you he never said the was a relationship but then again he did say in the very first post which disproves your fantasies.

Maybe try reading before you froth away before getting emotionally attached to an argument.


You're right, you haven't bitten but chomped away at trying to prove to other posters that your intelligent which I guess if you're comparing yourself to a 6 year old you must be. Those insecurities are showing in each of your posts now...

Silly little fantasist.

That post doesn't demonstrate him saying there is a direct linear relationship though does it. It doesn't say "oil is down by 25% so petrol will also fall by 25%".

Surely you're not going to argue that there is no relationship between the price of oil and the price of petrol?

What exactly is your position? That there will be no fall in the price at the pump if prices stay at their current level?

chucky

chewmylegoff wrote: »

That post doesn't demonstrate him saying there is a direct linear relationship though does it. It doesn't say "oil is down by 25% so petrol will also fall by 25%.

How about here then

Graham_Devon wrote: »

a $2 change in the oil price relates to a 1p change in the pump price.

That's pretty much a direct relationship or are you going to continue to do your Defender of Graham's Honour routine?

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Surely you're not going to argue that there is no relationship between the price of oil and the price of petrol?

No and I never did.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

What exactly is your position? That there will be no fall in the price at the pump if prices stay at their current level?

My position is that the oil price can fall $20 more and we won't see 40p or the equivalent change of the pump price (as Graham claimed), the pump price may drop less or even more. The pump price is dependent on many factors which you call generic but are real, storage/reserves is another one I could mention.

ess0two

Its doubtful it'll get much cheaper,with Coryton closing we are losing refinery capacity,coupled with imports of finished product.

chewmylegoff

chucky wrote: »

How about here then

That's pretty much a direct relationship or are you going to continue to do your Defender of Graham's Honour routine?

Well we can argue about semantics or we can address that point, which is supported in the link that graham posted which, for me at least, appears to be a reasonably reliable source. So, do you take issue with the suggestion that $2 on or off the price of crude has historically equated to a corresponding movement of 1p at the pump?

Are you saying the link is wrong?