Would love to know the reasoning if you have a favourite one!
Which Petrol Company Do You Fuel up with?
pingualien on 20/04/2018 - 14:30
Last edited 20/04/2018 - 14:47 by 1 other user
Last edited 20/04/2018 - 14:47 by 1 other user
Poll Options
- 48Shell
- 173BP
- 15United
- 89Caltex
- 1177-Eleven
- 480Whatever is cheapest
- 35Other
Comments
You are right. Same refinery in Singapore. Imagine if Chinese of Russian interests had a majority sharehold. The current Chinese "displeasure" with OZ could have all sorts of ramifications….
So-can I have a voting button that says Singapore? :-)I dont understand why this is down voted?
Fuel security is a big issue in australia and we are well behind our agreement. Currently our dependency means after 40 days our stock is finished. strategically vulnerable
I accept that it a little off topic for some, and still find it amusing that people think that it still comes from different sources.
I agree that our vulnerability is a really important issue, both as users, but also as a nation. Our pollies are a big fail on this. OZBs clearly not into thinking about this either. That's cool. :-)
So many downvotes on saltypete's comment, when it's absolutely true.
Maybe we have a lot of Motherland Loyalists showing their dissaproval at anything negative to their country. Yes this is a thing, discredit anything that portrays their countries in poor light.All leads to one thing. Divide and conquer by isolating countries with disinformation, fostering fear and protectionism through social media efforts (Brexit and America First, check!), test the effectiveness of crippling technology (Woolworths and ANZ are latest big ones but there has been many more, check!), openly take sovereignty of other nations to test international response and secure strategic strongholds (Separatist Crimea openly supporting Europe and USA, and South China Sea access to Australia, check!), infiltrate the political space to garner Government support for appropriate causes (and most importantly publicly disapprove of anything anti China, check!), spread more disinformation and plausible deniability when openly killing citizens of other countries (shoot down commercial aircraft and poison people, again completely ignoring other countries sovereignty, check!). Russia went completely unpunished for killing 27 Australians on that aircraft. Video proof of the actual missile launcher hightailing back to Russia, and still nothing. Our new normal acceptable behaviour is so off kilt at the moment its scary.
This is like a Golden Book step by step guide of how to change the world order of things.
Next step is create confusion and panic by a rogue nation/outfit accomplishing a major terrorist incident (chemical/nuclear), continuing the plausible deniability garbage train that's been delivered already (just like a frog in a boiling pot, condition it to a new 'normal' until it dies). Then, when assets are mobilised in one area, cut supply lines, cut fuel lines, and launch multiple coordinated attacks. They won't invade the USA by traditional means. Far too powerful. But a full scale assault on a huge resource rich country like Australia (we are almost as big as the USA in land mass, and places like India with over 1 billion people could fit in Western Australia alone). We are a HUGE carrot to China in particular. And the only one preventing China doing so is the USA. However keep USA busy on multiple fronts elsewhere, and then no one has our back. We have no manufacturing, no fuel prouduction, nothing. You could just siege us by a naval embargo and have us handed over on a platter. What- a couple of submarines for defence? Oooooo. Scary. Once USA is preoccupied elsewhere, we are sitting ducks folks.
Cyber warfare isn't just done for laughs. It's a prequel to something far more sinister and the signs are everywhere.
Cue negs from Loyalists….@UFO:
UFO: openly take sovereignty of other nations to test international response and secure strategic strongholds (Separatist Crimea openly supporting Europe and USA, and South China Sea access to Australia, check!),
M: you might want to check your history books. For starters crimea was russian for over a hundred years. It was only recently given by Nikita K who transferred it from Russia to Ukraine, because well he could and he was Ukrainian himself.
Crimea remains to this day overwhelming Russia.
Feel free to call Putin names, but at least be honest about it.
~
UFO: And the only one preventing China doing so is the USA. However keep USA busy on multiple fronts elsewhere, and then no one has our back.
M: China is a relatively good neighbour and has been for a long time.
If you are going to claim bad things about a country or person then provide real proof rather than making things up.
THe US makes us a target, it doesnt "help" us, just look at how they basically ignored Australia in our military intervention in Timor.
@UFO:
Wow you must be an intellectual, concentrating on the messenger and not the message.
SHow some class, 5 yo.
Ohhh believe me, the message is loud and clear.
"The USA makes us a target"… wow. That's an absurd line of thinking. Without the USA, states like China and Russia would do whatever they like, to whoever they like.
"Crimea was Russian for over a hundred years"… so once part of the Soviet Union, there's no going back then huh? The Ukraine voted for independence of their own accord- which included Crimera. It wasn't just handed over as you suggest. What a ridiculous notion. They are and have always been an independent people. Russia doesn't like that because oil supply runs through there. It has nothing to do with "always been Russian", its got to do with strategic and fiscal importance nothing more. But no worries, you keep towing the line. Your version of history is very slated mate.
And you asked for proof, but I'm not about to type out an entire essay for you. Russian's think the whole world is against them unfairly like some big conspiracy, because that's what the state media is pumping into them. Actual reality is far different… and all I hear every day in the media is Russia and Russians screaming for "proof" of the bleeding obvious. Plausible deniability. Putin's playing that card as long as he can.
@UFO:
UFO: "The USA makes us a target"… wow.
99: Thats a fact, actions by and supported by the US helped grow islamic fundamentalism and primarily al qaeda and its off shoots.
The terrorist attacks in Australia at Martin Place and Parramatta are a direct consequence of growing Al Q to fight the Soviets in the 80s.
UFO: "Crimea was Russian for over a hundred years"… so once part of the Soviet Union, there's no going back then huh?
99: Crimea was a part of Russia until the mid 1950s. GO read your history books of what Nikita Krsuschev did.
UFO: The Ukraine voted for independence of their own accord- which included Crimera.
99: The UN states in its human rights, state that people have the right to self determination, given that Crimea is mostly Russians and they voted to rejoin Russia.
Thats a fact, again go read about ukraine before you talk nonsense about history you know very little about.
UFO: It wasn't just handed over as you suggest. What a ridiculous notion. They are and have always been an independent people.
99: yes it was…
Crimea WAS always a part of Russia. The tsar built it up as his black sea fleet base, thats why its filled with Russians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea
In 1783, Crimea became a part of the Russian Empire as the result of Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774). Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, Crimea became an autonomous republic within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in the USSR. During World War II, Crimea was downgraded to the Crimean Oblast and then, in 1954, it was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR from the Russian SFSR by Nikita Khrushchev.[3]
UFO: And you asked for proof, but I'm not about to type out an entire essay for you
99: You cant even get the basics right about Crimea and its relationship and history about Ukraine and Russia.
@UFO: I agree, and I think ASIO agrees, which why they went to such lengths to screw over East Timor for control of the oil reserves under the sea between our nations (full on espionage, bugging their parliament!). Kind of broadcasts to China and Indonesia how desperate we are for fuel security…
@UFO:
UFO: "Crimea was Russian for over a hundred years"… so once part of the Soviet Union, there's no going back then huh?
99: Again you have no idea what the UN charter for these matters states.
Past history is important, but thats not the final arbitrator. I was simply trying to show you that crimea is filled with 90% Russians and in recent times they voted to rejion Russia.
Countries break up all the time, take Yugoslavia, different peples within its lands "left" the mother land, Yugoslavia and made their own countries, thats why we have kosovo. Kosovo was a part of Yugoslavia and in those times it was a part of Serbia.
But the UN charter states that ultimately people have the final say, and in crimea the people did just that a few years back.
Are you going to tell me that 90% of Russian people in crimea didnt vote to rejoin Russia ?
Crimea was already a Russian administered land under lease, it had russian laws, etc, it was just officially on paper a part of Ukraine. The election on changed the sovereignty part, to match the wishes of the local people.
After reading all that - I suddenly realized that this thread was about choice of fuel
@bohdud: How does that work?
Traditional markets for crude condensates and LNG from East Timor and Northern Australia have been North and Southeast Asia. Why are reserves in East Timor of any strategic value in your scenario when China can simply send its Navy across International waters to re-route the tankers to their chosen destinations?
Also, if the spooks were bolstering our fuel security while the Oz government was closing down internal refineries and selling strategically valuable ports to Chinese controlled interests, wouldn't they have a bigger problem to be working on?
The reality is that ASIO's actions abroad were driven by very different imperatives, in this instance.
R: Why are reserves in East Timor of any strategic value in your scenario when China can simply send its Navy across International waters to re-route the tankers to their chosen destinations?
99: Why only list china ? In case you didnt realise there was nothing stopping all other countries from doing the same.
THats calld international law. The UK did the same about 20 years ago when they grabbed Rockall.
@ninetyNineCents: Indeed. I only mentioned PRC because of current events. Based on current allegiances, this is a credible scenario. All the others are a longer stretch: IIRC the last time our troops faced Chinese-born troops was perhaps in the 1970s (Vietnam), and before that in the 1950s (Korea). Since then we've been busy trading China vast amounts of resources in return for bling things we don't actually need. What you think it will do with all its new-found global power (esp. in the vacuum left by Trump in SE Asia) really just depends on whether you are bullish or bearish about what the newly pimped panda will do if everybody's favourite President (Xi) chooses to grab it by the ears. He may not, after all. And right now, there is nowhere near the necessary amount of domestic sentiment to support such a thing.
RTU: I only mentioned PRC because of current events. Based on current allegiances, this is a credible scenario.
99: No you only mentioned because you fell for the china is trying to take over the world nonsense the news is throwing about.
~
RTU: What you think it will do with all its new-found global power (esp. in the vacuum left by Trump in SE Asia) really just depends on whether you are bullish or bearish about what the newly pimped panda will do if everybody's favourite President (Xi) chooses to grab it by the ears.
99: "pimped" ?
Pretty obvious you have formed an opinion…
China doesnt care about trump, they look at the big picture not for today but for the next hundred years. They dont care about trump because they know he will be gone. America is dying, its just a waiting game.
~
RTU: He may not, after all. And right now, there is nowhere near the necessary amount of domestic sentiment to support such a thing.
99: Irrelevant, its just pathetic to call china games when they are simply following international law. They havent done anything underhanded or illegal.
~
RTU: the last time our troops faced Chinese-born troops was perhaps in the 1970s (Vietnam), and before that in the 1950s (Korea)
99: Perhaps ?
Are you sure or are you just making stuff up ?
Whats worse your "perhaps" or actual proof that what america actually did regarding the taliban ?
Remember the taliban was armed, trained, financed etc by America. No america, the taliban would have been far less of a threat. That has costed our dozens of diggers.
Maybe you should question why "your friends" continue to support/arm/keep in power the worlds biggest terrorist support(s) like the Sauds.
RTU: I only mentioned PRC because of current events. Based on current allegiances, this is a credible scenario.
99: No you only mentioned because you fell for the china is trying to take over the world nonsense the news is throwing about.
I get all the inferences around that. But what if everyone IS trying to take over your world? It is possible: China already dominates (or aims to) dominate entire industries, institutions, markets at global scale. It isn't just Corporations doing this, eg. Faecebook and Google. Remember actual countries with power-hungry hordes comprising their governments and directing Armies against others have been doing it for generations, so it is possible. Dictators and illegitimate regimes make it far more likely. And Prez Xi has a lot more power now, than any to date since Mao.
At the same time, conflict indexes point towards efforts like these, (as well as corporate/financial influence) being used to drive cave-man solutions to perceived problems as being the way of the future. Are they not the norm again, already? Age-old conflicts have re-activated everywhere (with real resources behind them), and each take on more and more global significance, not just because of the actions/inaction of others, or modern communications, but because of the widening impacts, not least of which are long-term environmental/existential. Familiar territories are being disputed East-West again, the NNPT is being shredded, the Kremlin is actively undermining the UN. US is busy as ever. Is China not acting also? Not just with the Spratlys, but in supporting NK despite international trade embargoes, illicit drugs, and state-sponsored online malfeasance. Attribution is never 100%, but if not China, executing this amount of activity would require a lot of resources- not many others could be doing so much incognito.
99: Perhaps…
Making stuff up? Did you not know we were fully subscribed to fighting communism forcefully, and may well still be? I may not have been there, but was pretty sure that our diggers ended up fighting Chinese troops during our support of North Korean and Vietnamese forces.99: Taliban,
Nothing excuses what has been done in the name of WMDs, oil and other interests. Our country never finished building its democracy, and refuses to rise beyond its own apathy to finish the job or even patch up problems. Instead we just throw money at our political problems, head down the pub and hope for the best.~~
None of what you say makes a decent case for China not being increasingly aggressive. It may not be any worse than normal, but with rising power comes wider impacts. Have a look at the source of all the inappropriate requests hitting your firewall log from 2010 onwards, this gives as good an idea as most about who is making a real effort to establish future territories.
RTU: I only mentioned PRC because of current events. Based on current allegiances, this is a credible scenario.
99: No you only mentioned because you fell for the china is trying to take over the world nonsense the news is throwing about.
RTU: I get all the inferences around that. But what if everyone IS trying to take over your world? It is possible: China already dominates (or aims to) dominate entire industries, institutions, markets at global scale
99:
Theres a big difference between working hard and being industrious and your claims of china acting illegally and using aggression in the south china sea.~
RTU: Dictators and illegitimate regimes make it far more likely. And Prez Xi has a lot more power now, than any to date since Mao.
99: That may be true but we werent discussing that, and we were clearly discussing as Australians living in Australia. Thats a completely different discussion.
~RTU: At the same time, conflict indexes point towards efforts like these, (as well as corporate/financial influence) being used to drive cave-man solutions to perceived problems as being the way of the future. Are they not the norm again, already? Age-old conflicts have re-activated everywhere (with real resources behind them), and each take on more and more global significance, not just because of the actions/inaction of others, or modern communications, but because of the widening impacts, not least of which are long-term environmental/existential.
99: What exactly is your point ?
Thats all true, everybody is greedy for resources, but thers a big difference between wanting and being militarily aggresive to acheive your needs/wants.
~~
RTU: None of what you say makes a decent case for China not being increasingly aggressive. It may not be any worse than normal, but with rising power comes wider impacts
99: You are the one making the claim that china is "aggressive" thats your job to make the case.
My mentioning of the islamic fundamentalism is a real issue for the world, and yet you completely skip it and continue to acknowledge how reckless it was for America to start the damn thing and continue to SAVE the saudi gov today.
~
RTU: Not just with the Spratlys,
99: China has done nothing illegal with the Spratlys, how many times do i have to repeat myself ?
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense, when you have been proven completely wrong ?
~
RTU: but in supporting NK despite international trade embargoes, illicit drugs, and state-sponsored online malfeasance
99: What do you call Saudi sponsorship of islamic fundamentalism for the past 50 years ?
Are you aware tht the Saudis have spent about ONE HUNDRED BILLION to fund this ? Thats a bigger number than the soviets ever spent sponsoring WORLD COMMUNISM.
Guess who keeps the saudis in power today ?
Do you have any idea who funds the drugs like captogen that make people like ISIS do the things they do ?
You mention nukes but you fail to mention who helped and allows Pakistan another fundamentlist country to have MORE nukes than the NK.
WHy is it you always fail to significantly WORSE friends like the SAUDIs, and PAKIS ?
RTU: None of what you say makes a decent case for China not being increasingly aggressive.
99: Thats right, but you LIED with your hyperbole in your previous comments.
RTU: It may not be any worse than normal, but with rising power comes wider impacts. Have a look at the source of all the inappropriate requests hitting your firewall log from 2010 onwards, this gives as good an idea as most about who is making a real effort to establish future territories.
99: Lets pretend that china do sponsor state internet attacks….
THe scale of FB and G tracking and spying on EVERYONE is far greater than CHINA …
lets compare the scale of the two…
RTU: Familiar territories are being disputed East-West again, the NNPT is being shredded, the Kremlin is actively undermining the UN.
99: Really, in what way ?
Dont give me that they bought facebook ad rubbish, only an idiot believes the millions of ads bought by "Russians" somehow is more effective than the BILLIONs the american political parties spent.
@ninetyNineCents: The interests influencing outcomes via Faecesbook AND Orkut, WeChat, QQ, etc. (Eastern social media), let alone the UN are not dissimilar people/entities. It isn't so much about nationality, everything advertising (and subterfuge) is proportionate to Reach, cost and outcome. The actors in control operate at global scale- they cannot do so if they only have local resources to apply. Any way to spend more than has to be declared publicly is being explored if excuses can be found/and/or efforts hidden.
RTU: The interests influencing outcomes via Faecesbook AND Orkut, WeChat, QQ, etc. (Eastern social media), let alone the UN are not dissimilar people/entities.
99: Hang on a few comments previously you were making outstanding claims about Russia and China claiming they were almost brainwashing people.
Firstly you need to compare the scale of the russian advertising, as i mentioned before it was a tiny fraction compared to the budgets of the R and D parties. That in itself makes any claims that it is so damn influencing a joke. The R and D parties spent billions, russians spent millions and you want me to believe only the Russians are evil for using advertising ?
~
RTU: Any way to spend more than has to be declared publicly is being explored if excuses can be found/and/or efforts hidden.
99: Yet again you are introducing a fallacy that is complete nonsense. Nobody declares advertising budgets.
I mentioned the Saudis spending $100 BILLION on islamic fundamentalism, and you completely ignore that and believe that the small millions that Russia spent on FB are somehow the biggest advertising mind control crime of the past century ?
RTU: The interests influencing outcomes via Faecesbook AND Orkut, WeChat, QQ, etc. (Eastern social media), let alone the UN are not dissimilar people/entitie
99: If the budget of those russian ads which amounts to a few million really influenced the american election, then the real problem is there are too many idiots on fb believing any nonsense someone tells them.
The problem is FB is a magnet for fools.
@ninetyNineCents: I was only referring to political parties needing to declare donations, not ad budgets.
Your point is well made about the Sheiks, the impact on Qatar and Yemen, let alone the wider region is ominous. Saudis spending 100B is their response to the actions of USA & USSR in their region, as well as Israel and Iran, and others etc. and also to the opportunities and threats they perceive. In the space that I inhabit, USSR by far the most active regions, and this does not happen by accident. I suspect that if I resided in a Soviet address block, I would be saying the same about Uncle Sam.
We all know the Soviets have nowhere near the resources (Trillions of taxpayer funds) (and debt) to spend facing off with the West, but online they hit a long way above their weight.
RTU: In the space that I inhabit, USSR by far the most active regions, and this does not happen by accident.
99: Except you would be wrong, because the Saudis outspent promoting and supporting fundamentalism on the international stage than the Soviets ever did on Communism.
Im not condemning or judging or taking sides im only sharing the facts. Feel free to condemn the soviets, but remember the Saudis have done far more.
@ninetyNineCents: The trouble with attribution is that following the money doesn't always takes you right to the source. You get to a source, but what motivates that source?
And who supplies Saudi all these Saudi accounts? Are they (we) 'just innocent' consumers?
In politics, esp. the middle east, nothing is as it seems. And now, perhaps there are more than a few Actors in the west (and the east), right there at the table with the Sheikhs.
@UFO:
QED
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-07/australia-has-limited-…
Answer to the question may soon be, whatever queue is shortest……
Most of Australia's fuel imports used to come from Singapore, but due to the recent Oz refinery closures, the majority of Petrol & Diesel now comes from South Korea & Japan. I agree Saltypete, and as a double whammy, both Japan & South Korea are energy poor, meaning they import their crude oil to refine by ship through the South China Sea.
often but not always. The additives are different as well.
Even if this were true, the additives (which they add at the local terminal), testing procedures and thresholds for accepting the fuel are all different. I have a friend who works for BP and they have to reject deliveries from ships sometimes. Who knows at what point each company does this.
Myself and my mates have all had bad batches of 98 from shell and liberty so stick with BP for 98.
But the daily gets whatever's cheapest
Actually, I filled up 98 using Metro last year (can only use premium for my car), I usually use Shell or BP. It was pretty cheap and thought "eh why not im already here and its 40 cents cheaper" (which was suspicious to begin with). It was 1.25 or something for the 98 at Metro, BP and shell were around 1.60-1.55.
I fill up, start driving my car, doesn't have the usual kick to it, turbos spooling hard, hitting the 5k-6k range, not much power. I noticed that while having the Metro fuel in my car.
I waited till It was almost empty and went to fill up BP 98, I put that in, go to start my car, engine comes to life then dies. Scared the crap outta me. I wait for a bit, turn the car on, sputters to life and it works fine. about 2 weeks later, I hear a metallic clicking noise coming from my car, specifically, below my gear selector, I thought it was my transmission and that bummed me out as it would be super expensive to replace or repair a dual clutch, worried me especially as I didn't hear a noise my car makes whenever it changes gears, due to the dual clutch (unofficially it's called a DSG fart), thankfully it wasn't the transmission.
I eventually realised this was coming from my catalytic converter, took it to an exhaust shop, the guy examines it and tells me that the inside of the catalytic converter is basically broken, can hear stuff moving around inside, had that replaced and my cars been fine ever since, can hear the DSG fart, power is all there.
I'm not sure whether the catalytic converter problem was from the Metro 98 fuel, but my car was smooth as butter and working fine before I used that garbage. The insane reduction in power output was also noticeable. Going through all of that, I now stick specifically to BP or Shell, Occasionally I'll use 7/11 (Think the fuel is from Mobile in the 7/11 service stations) or Caltex. Just stick to reputable companies and you don't have to worry about messing up your injectors, fuel pump, fuel filter etc due to crappy and low quality fuel.
I can confirm that on Metro they usually have larger figure on display than actually filled to my tank. Last time I was able to fill 70L to my Mitsu Outlander with 66L tank! No need to say that I had few litres when I stopped at this petrol station. So Metro just pushing the boundaries of this reality.
If anyone experiences such an inaccurate reading, they should report it: http://measurement.gov.au/Pages/Is-the-Petrol-Pump-Displayin…
The Metro I go to uses the same bowsers as the major chains, which are normally serviced by a rep from the manufacturer, so I would be surprised if they were non-compliant.
If you think that fuel is a commodity product, then is the option: Whatever is cheapest?
Who thinks otherwise, and why?
There’s location as well. If it’s cheapest in the suburb 10 kms away, would you still go there? Some would but I expect most wouldn’t.
I think when people talk about cheapest, they mean net cheapest, net of incentives and so on, including common sense.
I think when people talk about cheapest but sadly fail at math
Fixed
People here in Perth seem to be lacking that common sense bit. On a Monday night many people seem happy to sit with their car idling for 20+ minutes to save a few $ on fuel. Strange thing is I fill up for the same price on a Monday morning and no one else is there.
I do mine is 15km but on way mum and dad house plan my km around that.
if the cheapest involves waiting for 20 mins to save $3 or $4, then nah that is not worth it. (although plenty of people think it is)
If the cheapest involves driving to get there, the cost may be $4 in petrol to get there and back, plus time. Then it’s just not worth it anymore.
3 - 4 by 10 = 30 - 40… might be worth your time :)
Not for me if it's $30-40 saved by waiting >3 hrs in a queue to fuel up. That quality of that time spent is one of the worst imo
I buy cheapest, but only from sites I know pay their employees at least their award's minimum wage.
I avoid sites that regularly have 'water in the fuel' claims against them.
No option for Woolworths? They are the cheapest for me after the 4c discount and 5% off Wish cards.
Caltex / Woolworths
Some Caltex don't accept egiftcards. I don't go to those ones.
True, only some of them now are Woolworths minimarts. They still have heaps that are just plain Caltex that won't accept vouchers.
@RockyRaccoon: my apologies. They tried and got blocked by ACCC. Not exactly completely off the ballpark
@elgrande: Woolies does not own Caltex nor visa versa. They are in a joint business. Woolies wanted to swap and similarly partner with BP, but ACCC has said no.
There are/were a mix of operating models, from Woolies minimarts (with no Caltex branding selling Caltex petrol), to co-branded Caltex/Woolies servos also selling Caltex petrol. Caltex also had its own Starmarts. As well as franchised owners, all of whom struggled and underpaid staff (recent news). Caltex has been buying many/all those franchisees back. Lots of bad PR involved. Lots of underpaid franchise workers too.
Coles doesn't own Shell either. Again just a partnership.
This same jpoint business model operates widely in Europe.
From who do you think these joint servos get their food from?
PS I made no up or down votes here - just correcting the business relationship understandings…
You are incorrect.
Woolworths has over 800 Woolworths owned petrol stations. Woolworths had a joint venture with Caltex, but it expired and was replaced with a supply agreement with Caltex.
BP did intend to BUY Woolworths Petrol outlets, not enter into a supply agreement or joint venture.
In return, Woolworths were looking to trial a "Metro" convenience solution in BP sites.
I was not incorrect.
Woolies partnership with Caltex would have to transition is some way so a partnership would shift to a supply agreement.
So it just comes down to who was was more right. I was certainly not incorrect! You should be more circumspect when behind banging away on your keyboard!
yep, plus 1
do you really run around with wish gift card pay for stuff?
Some people have half their salaries in Wish gift cards and base half their life in running around getting an extra 5% off on consumer staples.
This is OzBargain. He would probably donate blood right there at the checkout if it reduced the price.
Use the money app to keep your card
And i get milk from there too..(to make $5.00 ) and get extra 4c …they are same price is supermaket anyways…
Same here.
This. I check prices on the Fuel Check app first, but this can rarely be beaten.
I'm usually putting in over 125L, so I can also pick something up for $5 to get an extra 4c/L off, and that item is effectively free.
7-11 Price lock.
Generally 7/11 price lock.
Do you have to know the exact amount of litres you are going to put into your car to use price lock? I looked at it once and was turned off because it seemed this way and I like to just fill my car up every time rather than put some exact weekly amount into my car.
No, this is how it works:
1) Load some money onto your 7/11 account. I have $80 just sitting in there.
2) Lock in a price, as high as you can up to your balance. Depending on the price, that will be about 50-60 L.
3) When you fill up, you can fill up anywhere up to the litres you have locked in. Or less. Or more (but you pay full price for any extra).
4) When you go to pay, scan the fuel lock voucher, but then you can pay with cash or card. You leave your balance untouched.Rinse, repeat.
Just make sure to use your "gift card balance" at least once every 24 months, otherwise it expires and disappears.
If you don't use your voucher, it expires after 7 days.
If you see a better price, there is no way to clear the voucher from your account. Either have to fill up the minimum amount, which obviously gets rid of the voucher, or wait until it expires.Where does it say your balance expires after 24 months?
Is there anywhere that will let me find the cheapest prices around Australia for 7/11's so I can spoof my location there?
It's not like you need to top it all the way up to a full tank but you should at least have a rough idea of your car's fuel tank capacity - I lock in about 40L when the price is about to rise - and the tank is low or will be low.
Did 39L most recently to hit as close to that round $50 as the 7-Eleven app only does $10 increments and a Mazda 3's fuel capacity is 51L.
BP regular 91 ron.
I don't have a technical reason for using BP, it's just that the two petrol stations I buy from most of the time are convenient to me, and, as in most things, I like to stay with the retailers I go to unless there's a reason to change.
When I'm away from home, I see no reason to put a different brand in my car, so I usually use BP then too.
Having said that, the BP station directly across the road from work is always the first to put up their prices, and the last to drop them, so I'll never buy petrol from them.
Do you even look at the price?
Of course. The stations I go to are the same price as everyone else. If they weren't, I'd go somewhere else.
7/11 price lock most of the time to get the cheapest price.
Other - I go past 2 independents on the trip home from work, and both of them are always cheaper than the big names.
Shell - closest to home, couple of bucks off with the voucher, earn flybuys.
and you can use amex with no surcharge for more credit card reward points.
Shell is being bit expensive lately..they were competitive before couple of months
I like BP but I usually buy from 7/11 due to price lock
Costco
Thankful I live 5 minutes drive from one. 30c per litre cheaper today than any other stations I saw driving around.
I've used Costco twice.
Each time I said to myself it's not worth the 15+ mins wait to save a few dollars- I'm only ever there on a weekend, so peak time.
Haven't been back after learning my lesson twice.
Costco; it's only a couple stops down the freeway so it's "on the way" most of the time.
Wow/CTX for 5% off most of the time, sometimes Costco. I use diesel and have never noticed a consistent difference in economy between the allegedly premium brands and whatever is cheapest.
I choose between cheapest and most convenient each time. The cheapest might be a few km out of the way, but it needs to be significantly cheaper to detour and still save.
I remember years ago my neighbour told me it cost pretty much $1/km to run a car. Based on that I did some calcs figuring in simple factors eg fuel, tyres, rego etc. and came up with it not being worth driving out of your way to buy cheap fuel unless it got to like 10c/L discount, and that was back when fuel was under $1/L.
$1 per km? So for my 20km drive to work it would cost me $40 each day for a round trip?
Even including rego, tyres, servicing etc that's way off.I've been keeping track of fuel, rego, tyres, servicing in the iOS Road Trip app.
On my current car based on the last 2 years of figures:
Fuel: $3.73/day ($0.099/km)
Expenses (prorated): $2.73/day ($0.077/km)Loan, depreciation, insurance?
Like I said, that was a long time ago but he didn't provide any figures. When I did my calcs based on all the factors I could think of it wasn't worth going out of my way to by fuel. I haven't repeated the exercise since so don't know what the current rates are.
The complication is that some those are sunken costs. E.g. you've already paid for the rego so driving a bit more incurs only incremental costs.
@Euphemistic: Not quite. Say the incremental cost is 50¢ per km. Then if you drive 0.5 km out of your way to save $2, you're ahead by $1.75. The sunken costs don't matter here.
Still getting my head around it!
0.5km isn’t far, most people wouldn’t consider this out of the way! $2 for 50l is 4c/l. That is a reasonable saving I guess, and equivalent to shopper dockets saving. At 1c/l you would only save 50c. Make it 5km ($2.50) and the difference is in the red. Makes you think about driving across town to buy cheap fuel though.
@Euphemistic: It's probably more worthwhile to fill up, even if not close to empty, when going through lower cost suburbs, as the differences can be large. But going cross-town is just silly.
@greenpossum: then if you really want to get into saving, driving with a full tank is extra weight to move which costs you in economy!
@Euphemistic: Also remember to refuse to give rides to anybody, even family, because they might increase the weight. ;)
@Euphemistic:
Taking that a step further, having an emptier tank can result in less traction between the tires and road.If you wanted to, you could do the math as there will be a sweet spot between the "cost" of having to transport the weight of the fuel vs the performance benefits that the weight gives.
Of course that would naturally differ between each car model, and even the state of that individual car (tire pressure, maintenance, etc).
I actually agree on this point. I normally follow a couple of cents on Monday. Normally 3 cent. However l do find on the weekend you can still find this second best price but its only one Petrol Station. And the rest are super expensive.
For 50 litres. 4 cents is 2 dollars and 10 cent is 10 dollars.
It all comes from the same refineries.