Motorists Sue Over 'Hot' Fuel

i_like_spam writes "Motorists in 13 states have filed lawsuits against big oil companies and gas retailers alleging unfair pricing practices related to fuel-pumping temperatures. From an industry standard developed in the 1920's, the price for a gallon of gasoline is based on the density of the fuel at a temperature of 60 degress F. A gallon of gas at higher temperatures is less dense, and therefore contains less energy. The lawsuits claim additional costs of 3 to 9 cents per gallon without temperature adjustments. The fuel industry claims that the costs of installing temerature-adjustment sensors on every pump would be prohibitively high. These sensors are already installed in Canada, however, where the colder temperatures favor consumers."

Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

Recent congressional testimony on this topic: "Hot Fuels - The Impact on Commercial Transactions of the Thermal Expansion of Gasoline" [nist.gov]

A couple of interesting tidbits from the testimony:

In some states, compensating for the temperature of refined petroleum products being sold has taken place at the wholesale level -- but not at the retail gas pump (diesel included) or for deliveries of home heating fuel. Some states prohibit temperature compensation at retail and some states prohibit temperature compensation anywhere in the petroleum distribution chain. Most states require temperature compensation for certain products, such as for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) sales, or propane for home heating, but not necessarily for other products.

A review of the application of temperature compensation to petroleum volume data showing average fuel storage tank temperatures in the U.S. and possible effect on petroleum measurement. The data on storage tank temperatures, collected by a manufacturer of tank monitoring equipment, over a two year period indicated that the average temperature of product in below ground tanks across the U.S. was 64.7 degrees Fahrenheit.

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

It is not the average but the variation that is important. For example, temperatures are higher in the summer when prices are also higher. Refiners could arrange things to keep prices more even but if this effect is large enough, this could be an intentional thumb on the scale. I think ethanol, which is added in the summer is a larger effect. It costs less that gas and has less energy density so you have to fill up more often when the prices are higher.
--
Get more energy in the summer: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

In some intro engineering class, the professor asked a question to get us to think about the implications of selecting a unit system. The question was: "Crude and Gasoline are sold on a volume bases (gallon/liter/barrel). If gasoline is refined in Louisiana, and shipped to Michigan does who pays for the missing gasoline (and what are they buying)? Is the sale completed on an "as delivered basis", or an "as shipped" basis?

Of course the answer is that the consumer pays regardless, but it raises some interesting accounting issues...

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

The dirty little secret of Ethanol is ultimately less bang for your buck, particularly in vehicles that aren't programmed to compensate. It just doesn't supply the same Btu as gasoline does. A gallon of regular gasoline contains about 114,000 Btu, while a gallon of E85 contains only 82,000 Btu. Therefore, you'll get much less mileage from straight up E85 (85% ethanol fuel) than you will from standard gasoline. While the price of E85 is supposed to be ~30c cheaper, the lack of Btu cancels this out since you'll be making more trips to the pump, therefore costing the consumer the same, if not more, than gasoline.

The benefits of Ethanol are merely altruistic at this point and offer no real benefit to the consumer. Actually it has had a detrimental effect on some commodities already, as farmers switch to corn production strictly for Ethanol, it has the effect of raising prices for milk, beef, and other goods. Ultimately it will be nice to have a cleaner, renewable fuel source that can be generated domestically.

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

I find myself extremely skeptical. fuel tanks are usualy fairly far underground. buried tanks are going to be fairly near isothermal and the ambient temperature is not going to change the temp very much on it's short trip to the tank.

If anyone is getting ripped by this, it's the independent fuel stations. There a fuel truck that has been driving for days or dipped out of above-ground storage might indeed be warmer. So the station is buying hot fuel. But the consumer is probably buying fuel much closer to the underground temperature. It would not be hard to fix this since measuring the temperature of the fuel truck would be easy and infrequent.

Finally, were talking a couple of percent difference in energy per gallon here. Don't people suppose that their cars efficiency might also vary by a several percent with ambient temperature?

Finally, the station sells gas by the gallon not by the BTU. you are still getting a gallon. If anything you are getting more than a gallon since it's coming out of a cold tank and then expanding in your hot car tank. So actually you owe them more not less.

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

Finally, were talking a couple of percent difference in energy per gallon here. Don't people suppose that their cars efficiency might also vary by a several percent with ambient temperature?

People in the United States buy around 350,000,000 gallons of gas every day. Even if the temperature difference accounts for only one tenth of a percent, that's about 350,000 gallons a day. Or $1.1 million a day at $3.15 a gallon. Pocket change to an oil company, but most people would appreciate the slightly lower gas prices.

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

because transporting 30kg of extra fuel around is free

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

because transporting 30kg of extra fuel around is free

pretty much (lose more performance, than economy, since rolling resistance isn't changed much, just have to allow the extra momentum to carry you up the hills, avoid using brakes when possible.) But I figure it is our duty as free market consumers to reward stations for being competitive. IE if no one shopped around for the cheaper fuel, then their would be little incentive for their to be low cost stations that reduce their costs, and lower their prices.

The garmin GPS software on my PDA, downloads gas prices, and gives cheapest prices along my planed route. So I do that before I leave work, on days I need gas. Although on any given week it only saves maybe $2, I figure enough people do this that it keeps the prices down by double that amount.

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

And those people are typically idiots. Sorry, this is one of my pet peeves. I've seen lines at the grocery store across the street selling their gas for 3 cents cheaper. You save less than a dollar on a tank of gas. And they grab a 16oz Coke on the way out for $1.29. So not only did they have to wait for 10 minutes to fill the tank to save 75 cents, but they pissed the savings away in a Coke. Worse yet, a Starbucks coffee.

There's much more efficient ways to save money than shopping around for gas. [stepping down]

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

They didn't "piss away the savings" on a Coke, they made an additional, completely separate purchase with money they wouldn't have had otherwise. Just because it's not how you would choose to spend the money doesn't mean it was pissed away.

People rarely consider their own time when figuring the cost of things, so it's no surprise that the 10 minutes spent waiting is completely overlooked.

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

Just because it's not how you would choose to spend the money doesn't mean it was pissed away.

Actually, I can pretty much guaranty it was pissed away.

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

've seen lines at the grocery store across the street selling their gas for 3 cents cheaper. You save less than a dollar on a tank of gas. And they grab a 16oz Coke on the way out for $1.29

Which is precisely why stations with large shops have the cheapest gas. The margins on gas are razor thin, and most stations make their only real profit in the convenience stores. Some stations even price the gas as a loss-leader to get people into their store. (Which is also why I never buy anything at a gas station, unless I absolutely have to - like if I'm on the turnpike).

This phenomenon, got me thinking, on the east coast, many states only sell beer in liquor stores, whereas in the midwest damn near every store has a license to sell beer. I wonder how much we could decrease the cost of gas on the east coast simply by offering beer/wine liquor licenses to gas stations. In the end it is probably revenue neutral, but some politician could claim that he reduced gas prices a couple of cents.

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

You are probably spot-on here. I calculate that if the temperature of the fuel is 100 degrees Fahrenheit then we are talking about a 2.11% increase in volume. This is calculated by the following formula:

Vf = Vi x (1 + 950 x 10^-6 x (Tf - Ti))

Vf is final volume, Vi is initial volume, Tf is final temperature in Celsius, Ti is initial temperature in Celsius

However, as you said, the fuel is stored underground and in the time it takes for it to get pumped up and metered out it probably changes very little in temperature. The worst case is a 2.11% increase in volume but the reality is probably a minute fraction of that.

The best thing would be to have meters that measured by mass or by density and rate of flow instead of by volume. I'm not sure what sort of metering they are using for their measurement but it's probably a simple flow rate meter which assumes a certain density to calculate volume. That's one of the more simple and least costly designs to use.

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

I would point out that in aviation, especially military, navel, and commercial aviation, you never hear talk of gallons of fuel, but rather pounds, or kilos of fuel. This is precisely because the proper metric for the determination of the energy content of a fuel payload is the mass of the fuel rather than the volume of the fuel.

determination

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

This is precisely because the proper metric for the determination of the energy content of a fuel payload is the mass of the fuel rather than the volume of the fuel.

No, it's because the weight of the fuel is a significant factor in calculating the gross weight and the center of gravity of the aircraft.

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

Both are right, but the previous point is, IMO, more right. The amount of flying you can do depends upon the mass of fuel loaded and then the mass burned. Even before the plan has built, the Specific Fueld Consumption of the engines is specified in thryust generated for mass flow of fuel.

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

navel

I knew a navel aviator once. He could never manage to break the lint barrier.

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

However, as you said, the fuel is stored underground and in the time it takes for it to get pumped up and metered out it probably changes very little in temperature. The worst case is a 2.11% increase in volume but the reality is probably a minute fraction of that.

I've worked in tank gauge and dispenser engineering at two major petroleum equipment manufacturers. Although the gasoline is stored underground at the station, it's processed and distributed and shipped above ground at ambient temperatures. And the retailers prefer not to store too much for too long, since it's money tied up in inventory. So as you watch the fuel temperatures on the UST gauges around the country, you'll see the temperature of the product tracking pretty close to the daytime air temperatures.

The retailers, by the way, buy gasoline 'net' (temperature compensated). They require the delivery trucks to measure the temperature of the fuel they drop in the tanks, and they compare the temperature and volume change in the UST before and after the delivery when they reconcile the inventory.

I have to agree that it would be fairer to sell gasoline 'net', rather than 'gross', even though I doubt that it would affect the price consumers pay very much just due to the elasticity (or lack thereof) of demand for gas. One important note about metering retail gas 'net': you can fill an 18 gallon tank with more than 18 gallons worth of 'net' gas in the winter in cold areas. This can upset consumers, who assume they are being cheated by a dishonest dispenser. But it works OK in Canada, so we could probably adapt in the US, too.

The retailers' 'too expensive to install the equipment' argument is bogus. Gasoline pumping, metering and dispensing equipment is sold worldwide. Some places sell gas 'gross', some sell it 'net'. Some sell US Gallons, some Imperial Gallons, some litres. The same equipment is used in all these places, selecting the dispensing method is a configuration option on a modern dispenser.

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

"and the gas station will get an ~2.4% rebate for gas delivered at 100F, but still sell it at full price to the customers! That's what's wrong."

Not if the retailer sells it at 60F, that's the whole point of the wholesalers paying the rebate. The argument would seem to be about the tempateure of the underground storage.

As another post pointed out: Neglecting the vodka content, if the retailer sells it at 67.4F he will skim ~$0.20 profit for every $50.00 of gas sold. - I'm pretty sure you would loose more than that in vapour expelled from the tank when filling up on a hot day.

Off course the reasonable answer is that everyone in the chain either does or doesn't get the adjustment, OTOH: "reasonable" and "oil company" are rarely mentioned in the same breath.

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

I find myself extremely skeptical. fuel tanks are usualy fairly far underground. buried tanks are going to be fairly near isothermal and the ambient temperature is not going to change the temp very much on it's short trip to the tank.

The question isn't whether the temperature stays the same, but whether the temperature the gallon is measured at matches a reliable, established, standard, which TFA claims it doesn't.

If anyone is getting ripped by this, it's the independent fuel stations.

In other words: if someone else is getting ripped off worse, then the person getting ripped off less can't complain?

Finally, were talking a couple of percent difference in energy per gallon here. Don't people suppose that their cars efficiency might also vary by a several percent with ambient temperature?

So, then it's perfectly fine to be overcharged so long as something entirely separate affects efficiency after the sale?

Finally, the station sells gas by the gallon not by the BTU.

No one said it was. What is claimed is that it's sold by the gallon, with the gallon being defined as at a certain temperature. Or do you buy your produce "by the pound", but allow the grocer to define the gravity it's measured against?

Tell you what, if you *truly* believe your arguments are sound, I'll sell you pound of gold (based on Jupiter's gravity), measured at prices defined against Earth gravity. You shan't complain because I'll sell the same amount of gold to someone else at Moon-measured pounds. And just to be fair, I'll measure the gold I sell you at a constant, "isojupiterpound" level. And even if you *do* think you still have grounds to complain, I'll remind you that there are other factors that will affect the value of the gold you're buying, not just the gravity I measure the pound against. Besides, you're buying by the pound, not the gram, and even if I get to choose the gravity, these measurements are all pounds, aren't they?

Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels

This is absolutely correct. I used to own a small convenience store and gas station - independently operated - I could buy my fuel from whatever supplier would deliver to me at the best price. The suppliers were also for the most part independently operated - some would buy fuel from various depots, others were married to specific suppliers, however, they purchased the fuel in large quantities (typically 100,000 L increments) and stored the fuel in underground tanks at their distribution facility.

When I would call to order 10,000L of fuel each week, they would fill the 2 compartments in the truck to 80% of their capacity (2 x 6000L compartments filled to 80% = 9600 L) and head out on the highway to my location. After an hour in the sun on a hot day driving to my location, the usual delivery quantity that the register on the back of the delivery truck would read after emptying the 2 compartments was around 9750L - I had to pay for 9750L. The same truck on a cold day in November would often deliver me only 9500L - even though at the distribution terminal they had filled the truck to their set 80% - 9600L.

My tanks were underground and typically a thermometer dip in the fuel showed a temperature around 58F. So when I bought fuel in the summer - I was often cheated of almost 150L of fuel - I would pay for 9750L to put in my tank, and it would cool down and by the time I pumped it for the customers - I only had 9600L available to pump out. My mark-up was 3c/L - so on 10,000 L approx $300. The "missing" 150L cost me about $150. My profit margin was cut in half in the summer. I figure I somewhat made up for it in the colder months - but it would have been nice if the delivery trucks had been temperature compensating.

I'm out of that business now - $300 a week profit from selling gas just doesn't pay the bills. I'm surprised any small independent gas stations are still in operation.

Of course it would be prohibitively high

Because not only would they have to pay for the cost of the installation, but then they'd lose money due to the metering changes based on temperature. Then again, it's not like THEY pay for it. We do.

Well...

Business math 101: Their accountants looked at the money they'd lose after installing the sensors and prohibited the engineers from doing it. Ergo, the sensors are prohibitively expensive.

Prohibitively high

The fuel industry claims that the costs of installing temerature-adjustment sensors on every pump would be prohibitively high.

It might be the case where it really is prohibitively high, if it's the gas station owners that would be paying for it. They sell the gas at very thin margins, making more money on bags of chips and bottles of water.

Re:Prohibitively high

Or are the chips on fatty margins?
--
Solar power with maintenance included: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]

Evidence of efficient markets

Look on the bright side - the fact that the US companies do this sort thing to a greater extent than in other countries is evidence that they operate in more competitive and less regulated environment where a few cents is noticed. And while you may pay a few extra cents for you petrol, you probably pay less for other things because of this.

Should be quite easy to do

Gas is mainly stored underground in reasonably stable temperatures. A daily measurement should be good enough.

Sure there's a small amount of gas (probably less than half a gallon) above ground in the pump that will warm and cool relatively quickly but since it is only half a gallon who really cares?

Re:Should be quite easy to do

Yeah, it's stored in pressurized, insulated tanks underground, which will buffer the gas from temperature fluctuations. For this reason, I think that the lawsuits won't get too far.

But, the recent Congressional testimony [nist.gov] on this topic and the multiple lawsuits in many states (some of which are class action), makes me wonder if there's something more to the story.

Re:Should be quite easy to do

I know a guy who lifts the droop out of the hose when he's done pumping

that sounds so ... umm ... easy to misunderstand.

I bet this guy's wife is the sort that washes cling-wrap for reuse, gets two cups per tea-bag and uses BOTH sides of the toilet paper?

Coefficient of expansion

This site give the coefficient of thermal expaansion for gasoline: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Th ermal/ThermExpan.html [wwu.edu]. For a 20 C increase in temperature I get about a 2% increase in volume or a 6 cent difference for $3/gal gas. So the article seems about right.
--
Get solar power with no installation cost, pay for only what the system produces: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]

Re:Coefficient of expansion

I saw something about this a couple of weeks ago and blogged [billposer.org] about it because the numbers seemed off. The cited chart, which is the same one I used, gives the volumetric coefficient of thermal expansion for gasoline at 20C as 950e-6, which is 9.5e-4 per degree C. Dividing by 1.8 to convert degrees C to degrees F, we get a coefficient of 5.2e-4 per degree F. For an increase of 5F, that's an expansion of 2.6e-3. If gasoline is $3 per gallon, the difference is 7.8e-3 dollars per gallon, that is, about 3/4 of a cent. That's an order of magnitude less than the 3 to 9 cents per gallon that people are talking about. One or the other of us has got a decimal point in the wrong place.

Common Sense/Observation != Science

I grew up around big oil. Wells, refineries, etc. and I've heard this premise more than once. On the surface, it makes sense but it doesn't hold up in practice. There are really two problems with this theory:

1. (the most important) gasoline tanks are buried 10+ feet under ground. They don't experience the same temperature fluctuations that the surface does. The temperature of the tank can easily be 15-20 degree below ambient air temperature or more. Also, it doesn't fluctuate as much.

2. In the vast majority of the country, the *average* weather nullifies this. Even in Texas, where I grew up, a lot of the state averaged 40-50 for a few months out of the year. In New York, where I am now... the *average* daily temperature breaks 60 for a few months out of the year. Average is important. If it's only above 60, even 70, for a few hours out of the day that will have *no* effect on the tank which is sitting comfortably at 50 or so. So yes... a few months out of the year you're paying more for gas. But a few months out of the year your also paying *less* for gas and most of the time you're breaking even.

I can see this being a valid argument in AZ, Southern NV, AZ... places that are at 100+ right now. But everywhere else in the country it's just someone else trying to get something for nothing.

You also have to bear in mind that this is going to hurt the station owners, not the petroleum companies. In some cases the petroleum companies own your local gas station (usually only in high profit locations) but most of them are licensed by franchises (still private individuals) or independent owner/operators and they will end up eating the cost of the equipment. Not "big oil".

I'm not a shill and I actually don't care for big oil at all... but this is just a stupid lawsuit. Sue them for not pursuing alternative energy. Sue them for not upgrading to more efficient and clean refineries. Sue them for not managing their waste products.

This is just a petty waste of time and doomed to failure.

Re:Common Sense/Observation != Science

I think all you need to know about this is they went to the trouble to install them in Canada where the temp favors the consumer. That would seem to indicate the gas company believes in the phenomenon in question.

Re:Common Sense/Observation != Science

Not to be picky or anything, but the tanks often aren't 10+ feet under ground. Not at the retailer, anyway.

I know this because it was once part of my job to manually measure the levels of these tanks. The dip-stick was at most 6 feet long at the sites I worked.

In my experience the tank can be as little as 2 feet below the often hot concrete surface.

yeah, it's too expensive

Yeah, it's too expensive because it would cost the oil companies a lot of money.

What they did there is pretty clever, eh?

Always trust what a business says

The fuel industry claims that the costs of installing temperature-adjustment sensors on every pump would be prohibitively high. These sensors are already installed in Canada, however, where the colder temperatures favor consumers.

Nutrasweet is harmless! (i.e. cheaper than sugar!)

IE is an integral part of Windows! (wait.. it's not yet... wait.. wait.. wait.. aaahh! now it is. congrats!)

We can offer better price and services as a single huge telecom monopoly, don't split us up! (we'll kinda merge later anyway)

Piracy causes tremendous losses to our industry! (we know this, since whatever our profits, we think they should've been 4 times that!)

Get your local government to do the work for you.

Most states and even some cities have a 'department of weights and measures' that have a pretty good legal authority to conduct all sorts of testing in regards to the measurement of things sold. I looked up the local ordinances on mine, and they had some fairly nasty teeth to them.

These are exactly the people who you want to get involved to investigate this kind of thing.

"Motorists" in 13 states means "Lawyers"

Great, so as a motorist, if I win as a member of this class action lawsuit, I'll maybe get a coupon for $5 of gas, while the lawyers will get tens of millions. I can't wait.

Go Higher Gas Prices!

I'm I the only American on the planet rooting for higher gas prices in the US? Higher gas equals less SUVs and trucks which equals less congestion. I live in England now, and $7.50 gallon gas is the norm. Get over yourselves already America.

Re:Go Higher Gas Prices!

I used to root for the higher prices to put the pinch on those soccer moms and other idiots tht think they NEED a 7 foot wide 14 foot long vehicle to drive alone in.

But a reality kicked in. The poor only can afford the throw away from the rich. Right now the poor are sucking up the SUV's because they are all over the place at the $1500-$3900 price tag, which is all the car they can afford. The efficient cars like the older GEO metro the VW TDI and others are not selling for such low prices (I just sold a 3cyl Geo metro on Ebay for $6500.00 Bluebook is $3500) as the middle class are sucking them up off the used market.

So if Gas goes up it only punishes the poor. The rich and middle class like to bitch about it but it really does not affect them one tiny bit. The poor and working poor are those it hits incredibly hard as they cant afford a car that get's > 20mpg cant afford to have their car's in perfect running condition, and cant afford things like Low rolling resistance tires to beef up their cars economy (I have a 2001 Aztek, after a few modifications I am getting 28mpg.).

Soaring gas prices are simply extending the gully between rich and poor. Rich dont care, middle class bitch but really dont care as they are not selling their H2's or Surburbans to get smaller cars...

It's the poor that care. if the price were to increase enough it will make the difference between eating meat and dairy this week so daddy and mommy can get to work.

Re:Don't count your chickens too soon.

Own a home and loading garden supplies into your civic isn't going to cut it.

Homeowner here. I regularly load garden supplies into my Mazda Protege or my wife's Pontiac Vibe. I also haul 12' pieces of lumber and furniture in these vehicles. They're a lot more capable than most people think. There have been two occasions in the past two years where I needed to haul something that wouldn't fit in either of them, so I rented a truck. Seems to make a lot more sense than owning a truck just for those couple times where it's actually useful and paying hundreds of dollars more for gas.

Want to pull a boat or trailer (we are allowed to go on vacations aren't we???) and your little car won't cut it.

My dad owns a 14' sailboat that he tows with a VW Passat Wagon with a 1.8L turbocharged engine.

So the wife/husband drives the SUV to work by themselves, when they get home its hauling kids, the dog, going on camping trips, taking the neighbors kids to the ball game, etc.

A long time ago there were these things called station wagons and minivans. They were capable of doing all these things and still managed to get over 25mpg. Really, the only reason you don't see more of them is the stigma of parenthood. They're not seen as "hip." Most people who own SUVs could get by with one of these vehicles because the only real difference is that in most cases they lack four wheel drive. In fact, I remember my wife watching an old Lucille Ball movie where she and Desi were towing a huge Airstream trailer behind their convertible!

They know their needs you do not.

They might think they know their needs, but if they sat down and looked at what they used their vehicles for they would probably find they could downsize without losing any functional capability.

Re:Go Higher Gas Prices!

Well, I drive a sports car that gets 18 miles to the gallon, so you have obviously mislabeled me. Perhaps you missed my entire point: quit griping about high gas prices if you drive an irresponsible vehicle, like stupid oversized trucks that serve no purpose. I drive an irresponsible sports car, but at the same time, I don't bitch about prices. Mabye I'm insensitive to the plight of the poor, but if higher toilet prices would cause just 1000 rancher-wives in Texas to stop driving full sized pickups to the grocery store, then I'm all for higher prices on everything. I'd give tax subsidies to poor people who drive sensible cars, and tax the living sh$t out of cars like my own. You see, I'm anti big-truck-for-no-reason, and other than taxing the sh$t out of big trucks, what else can I do?

I got over myself years ago, but nice try anyway.

Dipsticks

... And I say with with vehement disgust in lieu of stronger words. I like stronger words, but those to whom they'd refer have their heads someplace where they couldn't hear them clearly, so I'll save them.

When I was crawling in and out of underground fuel tanks in a space suit (not really, but we called it that; the air supply was via a hose, not an air tank) I picked up more than a couple pertinent details. And after reading this article I went and looked up a couple more.

The underground temperature at the depth most tanks must reside is between 54 and 58 F depending on location (and varying 1 to 2 F over a year), not 64.7. That figured was arrived at by a company that sells the same kind of equipment this article talks about. They have a vested interest in the data. Not stated is when the measurement is taken -- just after a 5,000 gal. tanker dumps its load into a 20,000 gal tank?

Tanks need to be more than just under the surface. They need to have enough ground covering them so they don't float up out of the ground through bouyancy. Many are tied down by steel straps to a concrete cradle for this reason, but the depth underground is a fail-safe and still adhered to. They also have to be well underground anywhere a vehicle has to drive over them, or a concrete apron will cover them, so the weight above will be spread out and not collapse the tank. Thus, they're almost invariably below the level where variations will be more than a degree or two.

The average annual temperature temperature where I am, Dallas-Fort Worth, is 64.5 F. The expansion of gasoline from 60 to 64.5 is ~0.3% (0.00069 per degree F; diesel is less, 0.00050 per). The amount of gas above the ground in a piping and pump system is the only part of a fill up that'll be affected by air temperature, and then only if it sits long enough to equalize. The volume involved is from 0.5 to 1.5 gallons depending on distance from riser and style of pump+hose. The rest of what's pumped will come right from underground and will be at or less than 60 F.

If this passes, the average US driver will lose the benefit they're already getting due to the average temperature being less than 60 F. The average temperature from 1900 to 2000 is less than 60 over almost all the US (according to plots from data at NOAA's Earth Systems Research Lab http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/USclimate/USclimdivs.html [noaa.gov]) . The expansion of the small portion of gas above the riser will be negative for more people than not, more of the time than not. It'll be a contraction.

They'll also pay even more because they'll foot the bill for these devices and their installation; the big oil producers will just plow these costs into the price, and it'll never be noticed, because they can raise the price 10 times that amount, then drop it 9 of that 10, and people will think the price is so close to what it started at that they won't think about it twice.

I had more than a passing familiarity with the issue. Besides going into tanks to inspect them, I also did the annual volumetric testing of gas pumps. I had to apply the correction factor. Where I was, the upper peninsula of Michigan, the average air temperature was very much less than 60. It was 32 F when I moved there in 1976. However, we applied the correction, or rather tried to, based on measuring the temperature of the fuel in the testing can. There was a thermometer built into the glass tube on the side of the can's neck where we also measured the gas level in 0.1 in^3 increments (one part on over 10,000 for the 5 gallon testing can). The temperature was never, as far as I can recall, ever outside the 50s F range.

I'd like to hear from someone up in the Great White as to exactly why they have those temperature sensing devices installed. Whose idea was it, the gas companies' or the peoples'? The article(s; I've looked at several elsewhere) seems to imply the former, but I can't find anything explicit on it.

Interesting .. may change affairs in Oz eventually

The Australian CSIRO studied this problem about 10 years ago, at a cost of around $3million AU.

(The paper with the results can be found here :)
http://www.aip.com.au/issues/temperature.htm [aip.com.au]

"On the basis of the CSIRO study, Federal and State Consumer Affairs Ministers decided in 1996 that the costs, both capital and ongoing, of temperature correction outweighed any potential benefits.

The extra costs involved in temperature correction would put additional upward pressure on petrol prices.

All the oil companies have in place procedures for addressing claims of fuel losses by service station operators."

However, this was based on adding temp compensation equipment to the price of each fuel bowser, which at the time cost around $2000 US to add to each fuel bowser. (A fuel bowser typically costs around $10000-20000 each), and based on the price of petrol in 1996 terms.

Given the dramatic increases in the cost of fuel, AND the newer (cheaper) technology available in fuel metering -- we might see this whole situation be reviewed in Australia, especially if this lawsuit grows legs and takes off in the US.

As it stands, petrol stations and fuel deliveries in Oz are already heavily regulated to take temperature into account whenever fuel is loaded from a road tanker into a petrol station tank .. so the commercial dealings between retailers and oil companies already take this into account.

Disclaimer: My major customer is an Australian linux-loving company that makes fuel bowsers and all the electro-techno stuff that connects to them. IF a new law was introduced here that suddenly demanded Temp Compensation inside each fuel bowser, then we would all become insanely rich overnight, at the expense of the average joe consumer who would pay WAY MORE at the pump .. but really, there is a lot of good science and logic and economics in the way of that sort of law being introduced here. Anyway - Here is to hoping that they defy logic and introduce such a law in Oz !!

I think that Alaska and Hawaii have regulations in place that require temp compensation metering devices in fuel bowsers though.

Shhhh! Don't tell the oil companies...

... but it is COLDER than 60 degrees for 8 months a year here in MINNESOTA.

Please, we like it that way!!!!!

As a Former Service Station Owner...

I can tell you we received the "correction" and it went both ways. We'd break about even spring/fall (very little correction)with summer/winter( making a little more in summer vs. winter) giving us an small overall gain. For the whole year it was on the order of about $.005 US/gallon. Our market would have have adjusted retail prices to compensate had we not received the correction. When one makes 5 cents per gallon 1/2 cent can be the difference between staying in business or not. This is a non issue.

Steve

As some who used to sell software to retailers . .

. . . I can tell you that the c-stores are much more interested in making sure they don't run out of gas. Fuel and cigarettes have become commoditized to such a point that retailers can't grow their business with the stuff anymore and are actually expanding through things like newer, larger store formats and food service programs. I never heard anyone making a big deal out of temperature fluctuations -- the retailers certainly don't gain / lose significant amounts of money because of it.

They are, however, very concerned with having a tank run out -- meaning they can't sell any gas, period. Typically, they already have in-tank sensors for fuel levels, even on moldy old pre-IP equipment. I was onsite at an install last December at a rather large store and this happened for about 15 minutes -- the forecourt controller went down and had to be rebooted -- and *everyone* in the store dropped what they were doing and attended to the problem. The retailers' margins are razor-thin with fuel so they have to make money by selling a ton of it -- and they can't do that when they don't have any or when the dispenser-related equipment is down.

Anyone know about the hose?

I have always thought that I was getting ripped off by the person before me that used regular gas, when I pumped premium. Are there several hoses in that pipe, or do I get a hose length of 10 cent cheaper gas in my car everytime that I fill up? If the latter is true... someone start up a class action lawsuit... I have a job that keeps me too busy.

Re:Easy Fix

Just make the standard at 100F instead of 60F, then temperature sensors will be all the rage, as they apparently are in canada.

The oil companies would respond by trying to accelerate global warming and push the average temperature over 100F so they can start saving money again.

Re:Competition

No. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion [wikipedia.org]. There is no competition amongst oil producers, because OPEC controls a good 80+% of the supply. The competition only exists between different gas stations (although most of those are owned by OPEC puppets as well) where the small family owned gas stations (there are a couple out there) get squeezed for every last penny.