Monday, November 03, 2008
Price at pump lags behind crude oil
Tom Angleberger
The New River Valley-based reporter answers your questions Mondays in his column, What's on Your Mind?
Recent columns
Q: The price of crude [oil] dropped back down, but the price at the pump didn't seem to drop in a relative manner. What was the average gas price the last time crude was this amount, about $88 a barrel?
-- John Woodsell, Covington
A: Despite looking a gift horse in the mouth, you've raised a good point here. And, furthermore, your suspicions are correct. But don't storm your local gas station with a barrel of tar and a bag of feathers just yet. There are going to be a few caveats before we're done.
First, let's look at some numbers from the U.S. Department of Energy.
On Oct. 10, the price of crude oil was $86.24. That was a Friday. The following Monday, the average price of gas in our region was $3.18. (We'll ignore the tenths of a cent, because this is already confusing enough.)
Now, we'll go back in time looking for similar crude oil prices.
On Feb. 2, 2008, crude oil was a little higher at $89.08, but the following Monday gas only $3.01 at the pump.
Two months earlier, in December 2007, crude had been $88.71 and gas was $3.08. And two months before that, in October 2007, crude was $87.80 and gas was just $2.79.
So there you have it: with crude costing about the same amount the pump price fluctuated all the way from $2.79 to $3.18. That's a 39-cent gap.
I found a similar gap -- 24 cents -- when I compared a more recent crude oil price.
But here come the caveats:
It takes time to get a barrel of crude refined and delivered to your local gas station. The gas that they bought for their big underground tank may have come from a barrel of crude that cost considerably more than today's price. This time lag is exaggerated when crude drops as fast as it has lately.
On top of that, there are other costs involved beyond the crude price -- everything from the salary of the delivery man to the credit card company fees to the windshield cleaning fluid and squeegees.
Q: Why is "monies" the plural of "money?"
-- Barbara Roberson, Pulaski
A: Money does not have a plural. But money does. In fact it has two. Doesn't make any sense does it?
According to the Columbia Guide to Standard American English, there are two different, er, "monies."
First, money is a mass noun. "A mass noun denotes something uncountable or abstract, a substance like sugar or iron." When we say "Money is the root of all evil," we don't mean a specific amount, but just the existence of it. As such it has no plural.
But money can also be a count noun, according to the Columbia Guide. Whereas you don't count a mass noun, you can count a count noun. A dollar is a count noun. "I have a dollar, you have two dollars." (Because "money" doesn't really work with a number -- "I have five monies?" -- it seems like a rather runty count noun, but I guess we've got to call it something.)
And whatever you call it, the Columbia Guide says it has two plurals: monies and moneys.
Neither one is very useful in day-to-day conversation. As the Oxford English Dictionary notes, nowadays it is used "chiefly in legal and quasi-legal parlance."
The OED also tells us that there was some experimentation as to the spelling of "monies." It's first appearance in 1384 was "moneys," but Shakespeare wrote "moneyes" as did others about 1600. "But then again, when Shakespeare wrote the phrase "money's worth," he wrote "monies worth."
So, to answer your question: Why is it that way? Because English is a messy, messy language.
Got a question? Got an answer? Call Tom Angleberger at 777-6476 or send an e-mail to woym@yahoo.com. Don't forget to provide your full name, its proper spelling and your hometown.
Look for Tom Angleberger's column on Mondays.
