Price Diff of Regular vs Premium Gas

[feet_]

Just wondering if there is a price diff between stations.

or is there a standard increase for prem. gas.

ie. Sunoco + 0.10 for 94
Shell +0.07 for 91

etc etc

[VorteC]

esso is + $0.12 i believe

[thecharlie]

On average you'll see gas stations price premium from $0.10 to $0.15 above regular gas. From what I noticed, Sunoco charges the most (for 91), followed by Esso, Shell, then Petro. But it does vary. I just stick with Shell because it's convenient, and they're usually around $0.09 - $0.11 cents above regular.

[scouzer]

Superstore (where I buy my gas) - $0.08
Shell - $0.12

[SkylineR34X]

In Scarborough

Sunoco = 0.11
Esso/Shell = 0.12
Petro Canada = 0.127

[techwiz]

Point Roberts, WA: Premium = Regular + 4 cents. :cheesygri

[feet_]

Point Roberts, WA: Premium = Regular + 4 cents. :cheesygri


nice i remember those days.
crossed down by abbotsford.

$9.99 case of cans too!

[Pete_Coach]

Point Roberts, WA: Premium = Regular + 4 cents. :cheesygri

In the US, premium is about 10 cents a gallon more (on average in the East anyway) while here in Canada (the process for refining gas is the same) it is 12 to 15 cents a liter more. Wouldn't it be nice if a campaign started that was equal to the uprising on car prices, except for gas? Gotta love the Canadian gasoline companies.

[feet_]

this is a good read.

The cover of a recent BusinessWeek about the runup in oil and gasoline prices framed the question of what's causing it nicely: "Speculation or Manipulation?" But the story was maddeningly evenhanded. By dodging its own question, the magazine raised another.

When it comes to the cost of gasoline, who should we believe? Here are some nominees and their viewpoints:

1. The oil companies: It's supply and demand at its most basic, just like your professor outlined in your freshman economics course.

2. The petro-toadies in Congress: All we have to do is open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the waters off Florida and California.

3. The Department of Energy: OPEC has to pump more, and we've got to allow more refineries by rolling back environmental restrictions.

4. King Abdullah: OPEC pumps plenty of crude but "despicable" oil-futures speculators in the West are driving up the prices due to their "selfishness."

5. Senator John McCain: Exxon Mobil has done such a good job of demonstrating the magic of the marketplace that it deserves another $1.2 billion in tax breaks.

6. Senator Barack Obama: Impose a windfall-profits tax to remind American oil executives that price gouging can backfire politically.

7. About 90 percent of the print and TV reporters in America: See No. 1. It really is that ol’ devil supply and demand.

8. The White House: Never mind. Nobody’s home.

For my money, a sounder answer as to whom to believe is Don Barlett and Jim Steele, the investigative reporting team that has won two Pulitzers and two National Magazine Awards for exposing government theft and corporate greed. Their 2003 series for Time magazine on oil economics remains required reading for anyone who wants a better understanding of how gas at $4 to $5 a gallon represents a carefully arranged screwing of consumers.

"The bottom line for the oil people is, 'How much can I make while spending the least I can get by with on refineries, synthetic fuels, and for exploration and drilling on the vast, unused acreage in existing oil leases?'" Barlett says. He notes that Canada has become the United States' No. 1 oil supplier by funding joint government- industry exploration of the tar-sand fields of Alberta. "The most chilling statistic is Exxon Mobil's. It spent twice as much last year to buy back stock as it did on exploration."

As for shallow journalism that helps Big Oil, Steele makes the point that the newsrooms that were once staffed by the redistributionist children of the New Deal and the A.F.L.-C.I.O. are now populated with the children of Reaganomics: "Younger reporters come out of a mind-set that the market rules, taxes are evil, and government ought to let these people in the oil industry go about their business."

As journalism has passed from a hungry to an elite profession, there's no shock value in the fact that Exxon Mobil paid only $5 billion in U.S. income taxes last year while it paid $25 billion to foreign governments. Even with Exxon Mobil making $76,000 a minute, the last thing that occurs to many assignment editors and reporters is to investigate whether a windfall-profits tax would drive Exxon Mobil, BP, and other oil companies to invest in the alternative-energy strategies they boast about in their television commercials.

Then there's the problem of letting general-assignment reporters, rather than energy specialists, cover gasoline prices mainly as a story of consumer suffering. About 40 percent of U.S. oil is produced domestically, and Washington has declined to regulate auto fuel as an essential commodity. That's where the vertical integration of a giant like Exxon Mobil creates market leverage. It owns oil fields, processing plants, and retail outlets, creating some monopoly-like advantages in controlling supply and fixing prices in the U.S. market. Then there is the remarkable job that the oil companies have done in persuading network-TV anchors and correspondents to depict them as they want to be seen: powerless victims of a supply-and-demand cycle that is as immutable as gravity and as random as lightning. Congress, responding to demands for tougher laws on oil speculation, would prefer to blame environmental regulations. Much of the context-free reporting about what the executives say, in Congress and on television, is marked by breathtaking gullibility.

Speaking of television, no one of any age can doubt that the industry's star performer in the public relations battle over gasoline prices is Rex Tillerson, chairman and C.E.O. of Exxon Mobil. His appearances on the Today show have become five-minute promos for price escalation, with Matt Lauer cast as the surrogate for a nation of consumers who don't fully understand their role—helpless and sacrificial—while the company maximizes shareholder value, "our reason for being."

This is a "demand-driven price run-up, no question about it," Tillerson drawls, fingers intertwined and as fidget-free as Chance the Gardener. Lauer gamely zeroes in on Exxon Mobil's dirty secret—that it spends only 5.3 percent of revenue on exploration at a time of record revenue. "If you're making $400 billion a year, should consumers expect you to pay or spend even more on exploration?" Lauer asks.

The unflappable Tillerson describes this modest expenditure as "very, very robust." He adds, with apparent conviction, "We would do more if we could gain access to more areas." In other words, give us ANWR, then we can talk price at the pump. In fact, no unbiased expert claims that exploiting the fields in the Alaskan wilderness would cause more than a bump in world supply or prices in the U.S.  By the way, Tillerson observes, the industry needs more refineries too.

Lauer, charmingly outpointed at every turn, finally blurts, "Mr. Tillerson, you're always nice with your time."

"My pleasure, Matt," the oil king rumbles, not a hair out of place on his salt-and-pepper corporate coif.

And it was, no doubt, a pleasure for him to slip out of Rockefeller Center, built with Standard Oil dollars accrued in an earlier era of rapacious pricing, without addressing the oil-company claims that are most easily disproved by that old-fashioned journalistic method called reporting. The plain truth is that the record profits cited by Lauer—$10.9 billion in the first quarter of this year for Exxon Mobil—reflect an industrywide decision to flow revenue directly to the bottom line rather than to capital expenditure. To buy Tillerson's story, you'd have to believe that profit is an accident, when it is, irrefutably, the result of a company strategy tailored to this unique moment of opportunity.

Oil executives generally believe in an updated version of the peak-oil theory, introduced in 1956 by geologist M. King Hubbert. It posits that because of oil-field depletion and the expense of production, American-oil-industry output will reach a maximum level and then start to decline. An updated version of Hubbert's bell curve—which factors in the number of wells being drilled and refinery capacity—sets the year that the peak will be reached at 2020. If you're getting a prime price for a product that will be harder to acquire in a few years and less valuable due to competition from other fuels, the smart play, obviously, is to divert every penny into profit while the Black Gold Casino is still open. To confuse the press and public, you set up several straw men to take the blame for the supply shortage that you’ve seen coming for a half-century: refinery capacity, environmental legislation, and the imaginary supply potential in undrilled portions of the continental shelf and ANWR.

But let's look at the Cheneyesque fantasy that drilling in ANWR is a major national-security priority that would make us less dependent on foreign oil. The fact is, the Trans-Alaska pipeline that is supposed to bring us that new ANWR oil probably couldn't handle it right now because lack of maintenance has left it in bad shape. (Business Journalism 101: You can reinvest revenue in infrastructure or pull the money out as profit.) Plus, there's not enough Alaskan oil to affect price. It would be gone in a few months if we could pump it at maximum capacity. From a national-security standpoint, the smart thing would be to leave it in the ground for use in case of some future civilization-threatening cataclysm.

[Spinoza]

Shell seems to be the most fair with premium Gas. Plus since their good enough for Ferrari I guess its more then good enough for my car. Whenever I pas a Sunoco I'll get their 94 but thats very uncommon considering there aren't anymore in Toronto.

[Frank_h]

this is a good read.

The cover of a recent BusinessWeek about the runup in oil and gasoline prices framed the question of what's causing it nicely: "Speculation or Manipulation?" But the story was maddeningly evenhanded. By dodging its own question, the magazine raised another.

When it comes to the cost of gasoline, who should we believe? Here are some nominees and their viewpoints:

1. The oil companies: It's supply and demand at its most basic, just like your professor outlined in your freshman economics course.

2. The petro-toadies in Congress: All we have to do is open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the waters off Florida and California.

3. The Department of Energy: OPEC has to pump more, and we've got to allow more refineries by rolling back environmental restrictions.

4. King Abdullah: OPEC pumps plenty of crude but "despicable" oil-futures speculators in the West are driving up the prices due to their "selfishness."

5. Senator John McCain: Exxon Mobil has done such a good job of demonstrating the magic of the marketplace that it deserves another $1.2 billion in tax breaks.

6. Senator Barack Obama: Impose a windfall-profits tax to remind American oil executives that price gouging can backfire politically.

7. About 90 percent of the print and TV reporters in America: See No. 1. It really is that ol’ devil supply and demand.

8. The White House: Never mind. Nobody’s home.

For my money, a sounder answer as to whom to believe is Don Barlett and Jim Steele, the investigative reporting team that has won two Pulitzers and two National Magazine Awards for exposing government theft and corporate greed. Their 2003 series for Time magazine on oil economics remains required reading for anyone who wants a better understanding of how gas at $4 to $5 a gallon represents a carefully arranged screwing of consumers.

"The bottom line for the oil people is, 'How much can I make while spending the least I can get by with on refineries, synthetic fuels, and for exploration and drilling on the vast, unused acreage in existing oil leases?'" Barlett says. He notes that Canada has become the United States' No. 1 oil supplier by funding joint government- industry exploration of the tar-sand fields of Alberta. "The most chilling statistic is Exxon Mobil's. It spent twice as much last year to buy back stock as it did on exploration."

As for shallow journalism that helps Big Oil, Steele makes the point that the newsrooms that were once staffed by the redistributionist children of the New Deal and the A.F.L.-C.I.O. are now populated with the children of Reaganomics: "Younger reporters come out of a mind-set that the market rules, taxes are evil, and government ought to let these people in the oil industry go about their business."

As journalism has passed from a hungry to an elite profession, there's no shock value in the fact that Exxon Mobil paid only $5 billion in U.S. income taxes last year while it paid $25 billion to foreign governments. Even with Exxon Mobil making $76,000 a minute, the last thing that occurs to many assignment editors and reporters is to investigate whether a windfall-profits tax would drive Exxon Mobil, BP, and other oil companies to invest in the alternative-energy strategies they boast about in their television commercials.

Then there's the problem of letting general-assignment reporters, rather than energy specialists, cover gasoline prices mainly as a story of consumer suffering. About 40 percent of U.S. oil is produced domestically, and Washington has declined to regulate auto fuel as an essential commodity. That's where the vertical integration of a giant like Exxon Mobil creates market leverage. It owns oil fields, processing plants, and retail outlets, creating some monopoly-like advantages in controlling supply and fixing prices in the U.S. market. Then there is the remarkable job that the oil companies have done in persuading network-TV anchors and correspondents to depict them as they want to be seen: powerless victims of a supply-and-demand cycle that is as immutable as gravity and as random as lightning. Congress, responding to demands for tougher laws on oil speculation, would prefer to blame environmental regulations. Much of the context-free reporting about what the executives say, in Congress and on television, is marked by breathtaking gullibility.

Speaking of television, no one of any age can doubt that the industry's star performer in the public relations battle over gasoline prices is Rex Tillerson, chairman and C.E.O. of Exxon Mobil. His appearances on the Today show have become five-minute promos for price escalation, with Matt Lauer cast as the surrogate for a nation of consumers who don't fully understand their role—helpless and sacrificial—while the company maximizes shareholder value, "our reason for being."

This is a "demand-driven price run-up, no question about it," Tillerson drawls, fingers intertwined and as fidget-free as Chance the Gardener. Lauer gamely zeroes in on Exxon Mobil's dirty secret—that it spends only 5.3 percent of revenue on exploration at a time of record revenue. "If you're making $400 billion a year, should consumers expect you to pay or spend even more on exploration?" Lauer asks.

The unflappable Tillerson describes this modest expenditure as "very, very robust." He adds, with apparent conviction, "We would do more if we could gain access to more areas." In other words, give us ANWR, then we can talk price at the pump. In fact, no unbiased expert claims that exploiting the fields in the Alaskan wilderness would cause more than a bump in world supply or prices in the U.S.  By the way, Tillerson observes, the industry needs more refineries too.

Lauer, charmingly outpointed at every turn, finally blurts, "Mr. Tillerson, you're always nice with your time."

"My pleasure, Matt," the oil king rumbles, not a hair out of place on his salt-and-pepper corporate coif.

And it was, no doubt, a pleasure for him to slip out of Rockefeller Center, built with Standard Oil dollars accrued in an earlier era of rapacious pricing, without addressing the oil-company claims that are most easily disproved by that old-fashioned journalistic method called reporting. The plain truth is that the record profits cited by Lauer—$10.9 billion in the first quarter of this year for Exxon Mobil—reflect an industrywide decision to flow revenue directly to the bottom line rather than to capital expenditure. To buy Tillerson's story, you'd have to believe that profit is an accident, when it is, irrefutably, the result of a company strategy tailored to this unique moment of opportunity.

Oil executives generally believe in an updated version of the peak-oil theory, introduced in 1956 by geologist M. King Hubbert. It posits that because of oil-field depletion and the expense of production, American-oil-industry output will reach a maximum level and then start to decline. An updated version of Hubbert's bell curve—which factors in the number of wells being drilled and refinery capacity—sets the year that the peak will be reached at 2020. If you're getting a prime price for a product that will be harder to acquire in a few years and less valuable due to competition from other fuels, the smart play, obviously, is to divert every penny into profit while the Black Gold Casino is still open. To confuse the press and public, you set up several straw men to take the blame for the supply shortage that you’ve seen coming for a half-century: refinery capacity, environmental legislation, and the imaginary supply potential in undrilled portions of the continental shelf and ANWR.

But let's look at the Cheneyesque fantasy that drilling in ANWR is a major national-security priority that would make us less dependent on foreign oil. The fact is, the Trans-Alaska pipeline that is supposed to bring us that new ANWR oil probably couldn't handle it right now because lack of maintenance has left it in bad shape. (Business Journalism 101: You can reinvest revenue in infrastructure or pull the money out as profit.) Plus, there's not enough Alaskan oil to affect price. It would be gone in a few months if we could pump it at maximum capacity. From a national-security standpoint, the smart thing would be to leave it in the ground for use in case of some future civilization-threatening cataclysm.

Yes an interesting read. Can you provide a link?
Thanks :)

[feet_]

Yes an interesting read. Can you provide a link?
Thanks :)

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2008/07/portfolio_0721

[Pete_Coach]

Shell seems to be the most fair with premium Gas. Plus since their good enough for Ferrari I guess its more then good enough for my car. Whenever I pas a Sunoco I'll get their 94 but thats very uncommon considering there aren't anymore in Toronto.

Kidding right? Ya think Shell may have paid a ton for that?

[gordholio]

From: http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/regular_vs_premium.html

REGULAR VERSUS PREMIUM GASOLINE
Regular Gasoline Has As Much Merit As Premium Gasoline

"Put a tiger in your tank," says a classic advertising tagline. In today's motoring world, what kind of fuel grade will have the power to place a beast in your gas tank?

The answer, according to experts who study fuel efficiency in detail, is both regular and premium gasoline. And it would be a waste of money to favor premium over regular, especially in these times when gasoline prices are high, according to the experts.

Virtually nothing is gained by filling up with a premium or more expensive grade of fuel than the vehicle manufacturer has recommended, the experts say. And many of the same experts explain that drivers may not lose much performance from their cars by using a lower grade of fuel than recommended by the car manufacturer.

There is little difference in energy content of regular versus premium gasoline. They both contain about 111,400 British Thermal Units of energy per gallon.

The price difference, however, between the fuel grades is anywhere from 20 cents to 40 cents, depending on where you live in the United States. The experts' consensus goes against the long-held belief by thousand of drivers who fill up with premium only, or on every third or fourth trip to the pump. The idea is to fill up with premium every so often to clean out the engines or rev up the performance of older engines.

But according to the experts, this practice is like tossing quarters in a wishing well, since most engines are designed to operate on relatively low-octane regular unleaded gasoline.

Octane is defined as a fuel's resistance to knocking. There is no benefit if the octane is higher than what the engine needs. Engine knock occurs when fuel in a combustion chamber ignites before it should. This disrupts the engine's operation. But electronic knock sensors are now common and have nearly eliminated engine disruption.

The American Petroleum Institute says if you find that your car runs fine on a lower grade, there is no sense switching to premium. The Institute recommends following manufacturer's recommendation, but even those manufacturers say that it is more of a suggestion than a command.

For more about this subject, see the excellent article "Fact or Fiction?: Premium Gasoline Delivers Premium Benefits to Your Car Exploding the myth that premium gasoline delivers better performance in the average automobile" by David Biello on Scientific American's website at: www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-premium-g

[georgek]

Resurrecting an old thread, I know, but was just thinking of this today. Here in Vancouver the difference used to be 12 cents between regular and premium; now it's up to $0.14. What is it where you are?

In Point Roberts the difference is still $USD 4 cents/litre.

[GunnerX]

Most places here in Toronto/GTA used to be 10 cents but now all gas stations have jumped to 12 cents.

87 Reg
89 + 7 cents
91 + 5 cents

However, I went to Buffalo on the weekend and filled up before I came back and it was 10 cents more for premium but was 93 octane.

[scouzer]

Resurrecting an old thread, I know, but was just thinking of this today. Here in Vancouver the difference used to be 12 cents between regular and premium; now it's up to $0.14. What is it where you are?

In Point Roberts the difference is still $USD 4 cents/litre.

Still 8 cents for me.

[Patman22]

Most places here in Toronto/GTA used to be 10 cents but now all gas stations have jumped to 12 cents.

87 Reg
89 + 7 cents
91 + 5 cents



None of the 4 most common gas stations in the GTA (Shell, Petro, Esso, Sunoco) are at +12 anymore, they all now charge +13 or more for premium over regular. Sunoco is at +15 for Ultra 94, and I know Esso, Shell and Petro are at +13 for their 91 octane. The only non independant station here that might be at less than +13 would be Pioneer, but those aren't as common in the GTA as the other 4. Independants are usually less than +13 for premium from what I've seen on torontogasprices.com though. But you never know what kind of quality you're getting there, and I certainly wouldn't put anything less than Sunoco 94 in my Corvette anyhow.

[nocash]

Most Ultramar locations in Ottawa are Reg + $0.07.

Ultramar also offers $0.03 discount for premium on Thursdays (Reg + $0.04).

[Tomy]

yea 103.X was what i filled up at last time, and the gas price was at 86-88 i think

grr... :(

[chileung]

which ultramar is this? i remember the one on hawthorne was atleat 10 cent difference..

i get my 91 octane gas at stinson in ottawa..the difference is only 8 cents..and 6 cents difference on tuesdays and wednesdays..

Most Ultramar locations in Ottawa are Reg + $0.07.

Ultramar also offers $0.03 discount for premium on Thursdays (Reg + $0.04).

[To Fly In]

The Husky on Dixie just north of the 401 has always had 90 octane as their regular, and it is usally .5-1 cent cheaper than surrounding stations anyway. Don't know why they do this or why they don't advertise it. Their premium is 91 octane and non of the workers know why. They say almost no one buys the premium.

I have driven an Audi A4 for 250K since new and use reg gas (not husky because I get 10 cents of at CT) almost exclusively. If I use 94 octane I can tell the diffence a bit if hotfooting it around town, but no difference on the highway.

[Patman22]

I stand corrected, I just bought gas at Sunoco a few minutes ago and even though their 94 octane is priced at +15 over regular, they also have 91 octane there and it's priced at +12 over regular, so it's one cent less than the 91 octane sold at the other big three here.

FWIW though, unless your vehicle calls for premium, you're wasting your money by using anything more than regular.