Daylight highway robbery on fuel

BOWSER prices are affected by variations in Australian dollar and the barrel price of crude oil. But are motorists now being fleeced by oil companies?

A reader has come forward with a formula showing oil companies are fleecing motorists at the bowser. Picture: Trevor Veale

BOWSER prices have always been directly affected by variations in the values of the Australian dollar and the barrel price of crude oil.

Approximately 10 years ago the U/L bowser price in Coffs Harbour reached a record (still is but not for long) high of $1.70/litre.

At that time the Aussie was 93 cents US and the crude barrel price was (wait for it) $145US.

An explanation given by experts was that a 1 cent/litre decrease in the Aussie reflected a 1 cent decrease/rise at the bowser.

Also a $1US rise/decrease in crude oil reflected in a 1 cent rise/decrease at the bowser.

Recently motorists in Coffs Harbour have been shocked when confronted with a U/L bowser price of $1.45.

Coinciding with the recent drop in the Aussie to 72 cents US and a rise in crude to $55US.

Something doesn't add up. Let's apply the 1 cent/1 cent rule of thumb here and compare.

The current situation with that of 10 years ago when the bowser price peaked at a record high of $1.70/l.

Consequently the current u/l bowser price should approximately be $1.70 - 90c crude, +21 cents Aussie = $1.01/litre.

If this daylight robbery continues then we can expect to be paying over $2/litre before too long.

Jon Wyatt,

Sawtell

Residents facing the reality

In response to the article "Will the coastal changes effect you?"

I find it bewildering that the NSW Coastal Alliance- CH believes that the Coastal Management Policy is actually a "land grab" and expects that they should be "compensated" because the NSW Government is trying to protect our community from the cost and threat of sea level rise.

It must be absolutely devastating to own property that is under threat from climate change but being angry at the council for trying to protect themselves and therefore all rate payers from the liability of bad strategic planning is unfair.

The sad reality is that low lying coastal properties are already not insurable for sea water inundation. It is estimated and also part of the NSW Governments planning that we will see a .9m rise by 2100.

This is based on conservative rigorous scientific evidence. As carbon emissions continue to climb (we are at 405ppm and we need to be at 250ppm for a safe climate) there is an ongoing debate within the climate science community that it could be much much worse. Anywhere between 2.5 and 7m by 2100.

As a global community we are failing to curtail the worst of this unfolding climate emergency. While our leaders talk of "clean coal" providing a 40% reduction in carbon emissions, all I can think is: what about the other 60%. We need to be drawing down emissions out of the atmosphere to return to a safe climate. We need to transition to 100% clean energy, transport, agriculture ASAP.

We can choose to look after our community with better planning or we can ignore the realities. Allowing people to build and renovate their coastal properties despite the rising sea levels is likely to lead to liability claims against the government for failing to act with due diligence.

Marnie Cotton

Coffs Harbour

Online for insurance and you'll be broker

FOR those among us who believe we can get a more reasonable price by purchasing insurances on the net, I offer the following caution: By accepting the particular company's premiums and its conditions by email, I was not aware that I was agreeing to our credit card being accessed on an annual basis, without our approval.

Although sending cancellation advice 10 days ahead of the policy's renewal, the company in question disregarded our cancellation notice, and still debited our credit card.

Furthermore, because of the cancellation, they then removed an additional cancellation sum.

As it turned out their premiums were then higher than others, anyhow.

When you have to print off 60-70 pages of conditions, it's so easy to glibly overlook the most important parts.

Be careful: because over the net and its features, they may so easily "get you" and your money.

With persistence, we retrieved our money.

How good it is to deal with a local, proven, face to face service provider.

Ken Palmer

Coffs Harbour

Trump 'unelectable' here in Australia

WOULD we elect as PM a man who was so inept in the only job he ever had that he went broke six times, who used the bankruptcy laws to protect his wealth, who let his creditors lose heavily, who thought evading tax was "being smart"? I don't think so.

The Americans would, and did. Donald Trump ticked all of these boxes and is now their president. Why would the Americans vote for a man with this history and we wouldn't?

There are two reasons. First, we don't allow a bankrupt to stand for federal parliament for three to eight years after being liquidated, nor are they allowed to begin a new business for this period. We don't believe that people who have failed in business should be trusted with running the country.

In the US a business can file for bankruptcy, be liquidated and launch a new business the next day. And the bankrupt can run for office any time after being liquidated. Trump is a good example. Had he been in Australia he would have been declared bankrupt from 1991 to 2015. He could not have run for office here.

Dr Michael Blockey

Scotts Head