You'll find the info here:
http://www.toptiergas.com/retailers.html

 

"Trust me, fellow gas users, the gas station owner isn't getting rich & unless they have digital signage ($10K - $30K per sign) changing the prices daily in this crappy weather is a job I wouldn't want to do!"

Ok, I may be dating myself here, but, I can remember when gasoline was 20 cents a gallon, a Service Station attendant actually came out, filled your tank with your choice of fuel, checked the air in the tires, pulled the dipstick, showed you the oil level on the stick and washed the windshield to boot ! And the guy prolly only knocked down a buck and a half an hour ! Should we feel sorry cause someone actually has to put out an effort to do their freakin job ?

People wonder why this country is in the shape it's in !
Sorry, that's another thread altogether !

My Dos Centavos !

 

AND... with a fill-up, you often got some incentive gift like a drinking glass.

When I first got my license in 1970, I used to get gas for about 30 cents a gallon.

 

Green Stamps !!! Wooo Hooo !

 

Indeed! Along with grocery stores. I remember sticking all those stamps to the books (what a pain!), going down to the green stamp store and redeeming them for all kinds of stuff.

 

Ah, yes, the good ole days...my first job was pumping gas; no wait, actually first job was gopher in hardware store...washed many a windshield, checked many an oil, got confused trying to find where they hid the gas caps, got to beat the crap out of tires and let me tell you, getting hosed with gas BURNS!
All long gone...that's why it's called nostalgia.

 

that was some funny phucking chit.

 

all the gas companies use gas piplines to transport gas to main hiub locations around the country. all the gas stations use the same pipeline, so your shell gas goes through the same pipeline as the bp, exxon, etc.. they don't clean the pipes between each use all the gas is the same

 

and one more thing, does anyone ask themselves what kind of gas is in the gas pipe at the pump where there is only on pipe for all three pipes.


but some stations have a seperate line for each type of gas.

i'll tell you what's in that single line the cheap crap that got pumped right before you got there, so you fill up for say the first gallon or so at 87 or 89 and very rarely 93. I know its only a gallon but the premium users get screwed and the guy/girl that comes to the pump after us gets a little boost to their cheap crap.

also the wal-marts here have fuel additives that you can add right at the pump, what a waste of money.

 

Mani, exactly correct. The same gas gets pumped up the same pipelines to the same distribution centers & is pulled from the same tanks. Here in Cent. & Eastern WI all of our gas gets pushed up from Chicago via the same pipeline. Hence the reason why ethanol will never be the solution. You cannot pump ethanol through the same pipelines; you have to create a whole new infrastructure just to ship it.Though there is some kinda bizarre allocation method the pipelines use essentially it's all the same gas.
Most stations do have at least 2 separate lines from the tanks to the pumps; one for regular, one for premium. The mid-grade stuff is mixed at the dispenser.

 

Yep, about 20 feet of hose from the selector valve to the nozzle with a 3/4" inside diameter. Someone did the math for me once (I don't have the formula) but I remember it was about 1 gallon. Not too bad although it does add up by the end of the year. But I will stay away from single nozzle pumps while on my Ducati. It requires premium also and only has a 4 gallon tank so I can't afford the dilution.

 

Here is an interesting story from the New York Times from less than two hours ago:
Setting aside all of the excuses and claimed rationalizations, wouldn't simple greed and "price gouging" seem to be the most likely explanations of this situation?

 

So you would propose some sort of limitation on how profitable our corporations can be?

 

They're still not making enough, so here's their latest bullshit story to make a few more billion. http://www.thebostonchannel.com/mone...67/detail.html

 

No, not at all. But a limit on the inventive excuses and mendacious misrepresentations of the oil industry would be refreshing for a change. I understand that the First Amendment protects liars (Enron and Countrywide and the tobacco companies come to mind), but a dose of brutal honesty the next time these greedy corporations complain about their business environment would serve a salient and sanitizing purpose. The endless dissembling practiced by oil company executives invites precisely the kind of over-reaction that you question. Wise businesses understand that, but these dinosaurs have done it for so long that they've concluded they're immune. People and companies whose partners are Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, the Saudi oil sheiks and the Iranian mullahs, though, might want to be a little more careful about picking the pockets of the American public. Two straight years of all-time record profits when the rest of the country is facing a probable recession is not a recipe for increasing public faith in the veracity of the groans, gripes and grumblings of the oil industry.

 

so you're ok if they do what you consider to be price gouging as long as they say that's what they're doing?

 

Once they make that admission, I suspect their behavior would change accordingly. Or run the rather significant risk of justifiable federal legislation and/or even greater public revulsion than already exists today. Take your choice.

Your comments can reasonably be construed to tolerate [i] intentional price gouging, and [ii] willful misrepresentations falsely denying those marketplace actions. Instead of more Socratic questions, perhaps you can now enlighten us with a convincing exegesis of the substantive legal, ethical, economic and political philosophies that underlie your apparent positions. That should be informative. Thanks.

 

I guess I should be thankfull, NJ does ONLY ONE THING right, premium 93 octane $2.95 a mile or 2 from my house...

 

The Times article (link) also noted that in addition to Exxon's record net profit of $41 billion, Shell's income was a paltry $31 billion and Chevron's was only $19 billion. These figures were surely and solely the result of the companies' sterling business acumen and had nothing whatsoever to do with greater market forces that effectively penalized ordinary consumers--right? As the article put it, "Exxon Mobil earned more than $1,287 of profit for every second of 2007." So, comparatively speaking, how did your company do in 2007? Perhaps you just didn't work as hard as the geniuses at the oil companies did, no doubt slaving day after day at their desks...

 

And also keep in mind that overall automobile sales in the United States (the world's largest auto market) actually declined by 2.5% in 2007. GM sales fell by 6%; Ford sales fell by 12%; and Chrysler lost 3%, all year to year over 2006. But oil company profits soared to world record heights during that same period of time. So let's see: fewer cars sold + more oil produced = much higher oil prices and oil profits. Now that's really classic economic logic, isn't it? After all, we know that the oil companies would never even dream of doing anything improper or unethical, would they?