WEATHER »

High Gas Prices Especially High in S.B.


Thursday, October 11, 2012
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

Santa Barbara’s gas prices are among the highest in the nation, thanks to a nationwide spike in that hit California harder than any other state. California’s average price per gallon of regular gas is $4.65; Santa Barbara’s is $4.71. As of press time, the cheapest fill-up in town is Goleta’s Valero station on Calle Real and Kingston ($4.49 per gallon), and the Hollister and Storke Chevron in Goleta is the priciest ($4.99 per gallon). While there are reports of gas prices falling overall statewide, Santa Barbara prices at the pumps are expected to keep climbing, according to gasbuddy.com.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

and this is breaking news....???

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
October 11, 2012 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I know.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
October 11, 2012 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gosh, let's continue to NOT develop greener and domestically procured natural gas so we can stay on this hamster wheel...but Boxer and Feinstein both called for "investigations" into the high fuel prices...that'll help...

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2012 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"but Boxer and Feinstein both called for "investigations" into the high fuel prices...that'll help..."

AB32 will double the cost of gas by 2020, brought to us by.. you guessed it Boxer and Feinstein

Please google search how much this is going to cost

dadof3 (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2012 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When Boxer and Feinstein complete their "investigations", we all know that it will be the evil Wall St. speculators that are entirely to blame. If it wasn't for them, gas would be 25¢ per gallon!

Botany (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2012 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Remember when Enron defrauded California to the tune of billions? And yes we do know that speculators are a huge part of the problem. Botany, you're becoming a flat-earther in your automatic dismissals.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2012 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mr. "dadof3," I did as you suggested, and Googled your statement regarding AB32 (passed in 2006).

From the Union of Concerned Scientist's website:

:: "In 2010 UCS commissioned the Brattle Group to update the 2009 report. Released in October of 2010, the update incorporates newly available energy market data and a new small business case study, using the Chula Vista-based grocery store Mercado International 2000.

:: - The Bottom Line - :
"Even if California’s small businesses do nothing to decrease their energy use through energy efficiency or other means over the next 10 years, they will likely experience only a small and manageable impact from the state’s policies to reduce global warming pollution. These policies would also enable California to benefit from the new technologies and jobs that characterize a low-carbon economy. [...snip...]

:: - What Most Small Businesses Can Expect -:
"The Brattle Group analysis shows that AB 32 would cause small increases in the price of electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels. The financial impact of these price increases on small businesses depends on the ratio of a business’s energy expenditures to its total revenues. This ratio can be affected by a business’s ability to respond to higher energy prices by conserving energy, investing in energy-saving equipment, or raising its prices.

:: "On average, California’s 700,000+ small businesses currently spend 1.4 percent of their revenues on energy. If AB 32 policies are implemented, that figure would rise to 1.7 percent by 2020. This projection assumes that small businesses do not pursue incentives, rebates, and other programs that would help lower their use of electricity, gas, and transportation fuel. By investing in energy efficiency, most small businesses could lower their energy costs significantly.

:: - What the Border Grill Can Expect-
"Under the same conservative assumptions, the Border Grill could completely absorb the small increase in energy costs related to AB 32 by raising the price of a $20 meal less than three cents in 2020. That pales in comparison to the effect of inflation over 10 years: a typical increase of 2 percent per year would add $4.38 to a $20 bill."
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/document...

As you can see, I missed the part about "the cost of gas will double..."

binky (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2012 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken - You can call me names when you have at least a rudimentary understanding of economics, until then, keep your drivel to yourself.

Botany (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2012 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"drivel" in my dictionary means "to talk stupidly" and Botany, Ken simply called you a flat-earther, and you do make highly automatic dismissals of many items in your tendentious posts...e.g. saying exactly the same illogical statements (I do not write drivel) in your hatred of aid for public education and other libertarian hogwash. YOU started the name-calling, Mr. Botany.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2012 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You make my point so excellently Dan. You make the assumption that I hate public education because I believe Sacramento is broken and needs to be fixed. Where is the logic in that? Is your only solution really to just throw more money at the problem. Pay first and ask questions later? Is that the way you handle your household finances?

The way our state government functions needs to be fixed. Just indiscriminately pouring more money into a broken system only perpetuates the problem. That's a solution that defies logic.

I love the poor and the children of this state. I wish the poor all had jobs and the children all had a great education. There needs to be an understanding of economics by our voters and our politicians before that can even come close to being achieved. Right now we get so little for all the money the people of this state pay in taxes. And we pay a lot! I will agree with you that not enough of what we pay goes to education. More should go to education, but that does NOT mean that Californians need to pay more in taxes to achieve that. We need better government in Sacramento. THAT'S the logical solution.

Botany (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2012 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, YOU make my point so well, Botany, when you write "There needs to be an understanding of economics by our voters..." -- they will be able to figure out economics and many another thing when they are well educated. I turn your telescope around and start with the specific issue: our public education system is broken, money alone is of course not the answer but it is the sine qua non, and where we start. First improve education so we can have well-informed voters who will understand the admitted mess in Sacramento. These educated voted will realize we need social democracy, and a much more efficient government.
Your first priority, in every post on this topic, is ALWAYS "all the money the people of this state pay in taxes. And we pay a lot!" And you need to pay more. Forget your pious platitudes like oh I love the poor and the children, it rings very hollow, put up the money.
Vote Yes on Prop 30 (and no on 38).

DrDan (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2012 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wish more Indy commentors were like Binky.

The majority of Indy commentors make claims or statements of opinion, but don't back them up with references (i.e. dadof3's above post).

But Binky usually let's us know where his/her talking points are coming from. This let's us better judge for ourselves his/her opinions, comments, and sources.

I hope more will strive to do the same.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2012 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You can rest assured if I say it, it's true.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2012 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wouldn't discount Wall Street's effect on pricing of commodities futures.

While I haven't looked into the current gas price increases, people have been worrying about the effect of all those commodities ETF's that have spring up the last few years. Examples include the oil and gasoline ETF's USO & UGA.

http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2...

I believe one of the larger oil commodities exchanges that has relatviely lax regulation is the London Exchange. London is outside the pervue of US regulators, but I thought some new oversight was to be put in place.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2012 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What if we drill from North America and not use any foreign oil?

Muggy (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2012 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ha, well, some require less fact checking than others.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2012 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Muggy, I will only try for partial credit ...

According to the US Energy Information Administration, here's where we get our crude oil from:

US 38.8%
Latin America 19.6%
Canada 15.1%
Persian Gulf 12.9%
Africa 10.3%
Other 3.1%

So foreign oil accounts for 61.2%

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/1504448...

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2012 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I must have missed the part where Botany claimed that Wall Street speculators had nothing to do with the cost of fuel. I still can't find it.
There seems to be 4 basic factors that lead to the price of gas not being driven by supply and demand:
Wall Street speculators;
Taxes, sometimes driven by simple government desire to tax it to the point that we stop using it(green social engineering) or to raise revenues;
Not increasing our domestic supply;
Not increasing our huge domestic supply of cleaner natural gas to drive oil prices down in a price war.

It seems kind of dishonest to discuss the issue from a single point of view since all of these factors span conservative to liberal ideology.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2012 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

IS - You're right, I have never made that claim. In fact, I do claim that speculation DOES influence the price of oil.

However, what many on the left claim is that if there were no speculation, the price would always be lower, maybe even a lot lower on a consistent basis.

That I don't agree with. Speculators sometimes bet the price will go up, sometime they bet it will go down. During a period of rising prices, speculators very likely contribute to an increase in the price of oil faster than it would otherwise. Conversely, speculation can also cause the price of oil to drop more precipitously than it would when prices are falling.

There are oil and gas futures contracts as well as ETF's like USO, DNO, DIG, DUG, OIH and many more. All are designed to follow oil (or oil stocks) higher or lower.

When oil prices are rising, politicians on the left are banging the table saying that speculation must stop! When prices drop precipitously, suddenly they are silent. Basically, these politicians are using speculation as a scapegoat for bad energy policy.

Botany (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2012 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: