Follow up on How to Stop Paying So Much for Gas

New information is being released by the IAEA that is confirming the logic presented below.  To see those reports, read on to the bottom of the article where the links are provided.  

A reader recently questioned on a Facebook link exactly how the logic works that by filling up with less gasoline, that prices might be affected.  I am following up with this article, which copies the response to the question that was posted on Facebook.  Click the link to see the previous article titled "How to Stop Paying So Much for Gas" if you haven't read it already.

       

The logic is explained a bit more in a previous article linked in this one. The idea is maybe better explained this way. Imagine that your family currently purchases seven 2 liter bottles every week, one for each day, and you purchase them all in one day. Then imagine that this is common practice among everyone to do this. Stores and suppliers then would expect to meet specific demand, meaning production, logistics, and inventory management need to be timed well to meet the demand. Also, because large quantities (7 per customer) are purchased in blocks, stores would know that they can charge a bit more if demand were to ever outpace their supply for a day or two.

Now imagine that instead of buying seven 2 Liters all at once, instead you buy a 3 day supply, and then imagine almost everyone changes to do this. This does a number of things to the distribution model. One, it means that there will be a sudden oversupply of soda bottles at the stores. Due to this, stores will either discount the items, because they know a truck with more bottles are coming, or they will find a place to store them, which decreases the margin the store gets for selling the product. Also, because there are now 2.333 more transactions occurring to sell the same amount of bottles as before, the store will either try to normalize by lowering price (buy 3 get 3 free!), or will tell the supplier not to ship as much product.

The supplier then has a few options. Store the excess supply they are receiving from production, at their expense, or lower costs to their downstream to move product, or tell the producers to slow production.

Now, most producers have specific mathematical models on how much product they must create in order to maintain profitability. If they lower production, they will almost assuredly run at an operating loss because though they might be able to furlough employees on the production line, the mothballed equipment on the accounting books will be depreciating on the books regardless. So, producers have that option (which shareholders will not like because it means a decrease in shareholder equity), or the factory can store the excess at their own expense, or they can lower price and *increase* production to maintain revenue levels and profitability. Doing so reduces price for everyone downstream.

In effect, this is what the OPEC nations did for decades that made oil prices per barrel get into the low teens. They produced lots and lots of oil to meet specific revenue numbers, knowing that if they didn't produce as much oil, even though they could fetch a higher price for what they did produce, their revenues would in fact be lower because they would allow more competitors into the market (such as US competitors), who would jump on the prospect of producing oil at 60 per barrel, but would never even think to produce it at 20. 

It is the same thing that is causing the glut in natural gas prices, but even at historic lows, producers are producing more than ever. 

Whether at the beginning of the supply chain model or at the end, disruptions of the model can and do have impact on the bottom line: price. The article is proposing that now that OPEC producers are no longer able to flood the world in oil (there is too much demand), that we as consumers disrupt their demand models. Futures traders would be spooked (I don't want to be holding a futures contract in gasoline if there ends up being too much supply on hand in July), meaning prices would go down, and mid stream producers (refineries) would lower prices as well to entice buyers. Refineries wouldn't be able to "stop" producing gasoline, because it is a bi-product of oil feed stock that produces many other chemical products. Slowing production at the refinery would reduce output for all products, some of which carry higher margins than gasoline. Refineries have been known to loss lead on gasoline for that reason.

Lastly (whew), human behavior is to binge on supply. Take the soda example. When you buy lots of soda in advance, most of the time you go through it faster than intended. The same goes for gasoline. And you'll be able to take advantage of price fluctuations since on that chance you come across a station with a really low price, you'll have at least a half a tank of empty space to stock up on it.

But don't take my word for it. It is open for debate and discussion. Let's find holes in the logic to improve it.

The interesting thing is that just today, the IAEA is confirming that the US is putting a lot of oil on the market.  This increase in supply, along with reported "demand destruction" are going to hold prices lower.  Let's keep up the pressure on prices from both the demand side and the supply side.

How to Stop Paying So Much for Gas

Previously, I wrote a few blog posts on how to "short" sell the oil companies as prices of gasoline increase. If you haven't read them, you can take a look at them here for some economics backrground of why this idea works.

I am reviving this discussion again because prices typically start to ramp up in the late spring for summer driving, and because I've been seeing Facebook posts telling everyone to fill their tanks full, among other things, to save money. You can view that article text here. There are a few reasons I don't agree with filling a tank full if you are driving only relatively short routes (around 50 miles per day or less). The biggest reason is explained in more detail in my previous articles, but briefly it has to do with "just in time" distribution. Energy distribution models today are highly efficient, and the distributors are counting on meeting certain demand numbers on average. Meaning they are expecting most people to fill their tanks full at each fill up, and will work to meet that demand. But, what if we change the demand from what they expect it to be? Remember supply and demand curves from your Econ class? There will be too much supply, and the price will go down until the curve reaches equilibrium again.

So, how can we do this? By not storing gasoline for the oil companies by filling your tank full and getting a 500 mile range of driving before having to fill up again. Instead, fill to half full or to a dollar amount that gets you somewhere near the half tank mark. There are plenty of gas stations around these days along most driving routes that making 2 or 3 stops per week will not make you lose much time. It might even save you from wasting time and gas idling at a red light if you stop at a station on a corner.

Another reason I don't see a need to fill to full unless driving a very long distance is that many tanks these days are 17 to 20 gallons. That's a lot of flammable fuel, first of all, and it isn't weightless either (meaning it does take energy to haul it around. Whether it is negligible or not is debatable). More importantly, cars that were much less fuel efficient in the 1950's and 60's had tank sizes around 16 gallons. If a tank that size was fine for a car that got 10 mpg fuel efficiency, why do I need to fill up with 20 gallons in a car that gets well over double the mpg's? If anything, 8 gallons should be fine. Something tells me they want us to buy more product for more revenue... kind of like how restaraunts have increased portion sizes so they can charge more, without you feeling completely ripped off. Fill to half full, and they'll think twice about their pricing models.

Yet another reason is that most cars these days have fuel pumps that won't be affected by low fuel levels, as long as you don't run out of gas. And they have built in screens to keep out any debris or settled material (which would end up at the bottom of the tank whether half full or not, which goes against the claims of the Facebook posts), and even then most tanks are built with very good materials these days that won't corrode easily.

Do you really need more reasons? Another reason is the widely used rule in investing of dollar cost averaging. Everyone knows you want to buy low, sell high. But how do you time it just right? Even highly trained professional traders get it wrong. Dollar cost averaging theorizes that if you just buy at smaller, more frequent, but evenly placed intervals, your cost basis will be better than if you try to time the market, or buy in lump sums (i.e., filling to full). Gasoline prices are volatile, and that is where dollar cost averaging by buying 2 or 3 times a week and filling only half full will help. This means that because you'll be filling at quite a few different gas stations along your many routes, you'll be averaging a better price than you would otherwise. And chances are you'll be able to take advantage of a "dip" in prices when you drive by that gas station with a ridiculously low price and you only have an 1/8 of a tank left, further averaging down your overall cost of gasoline.

Lastly, we all know it is human nature to conserve, or at least to remind ourselves to be more economical with, our goods when we see a limited supply. Hoarding, or in this case filling to a full tank, can lead to an increase in consumption just because of feeing comfortable in our bounty. Who knows, you may save two or three percent off of your weekly gas cost just due to the fact that you are more aware and keeping yourself from making unneeded extra trips because in the back of your mind, you don't want to have to stop at a gas station sooner than usual.