If I may be so rude as to correct you Kari. This nation does not have a free market in much of anything especially oil. OPEC learned its lessons from the Texas Railroad Commission which set the amount of oil companies could produce for the market beginning years ago. We have a highly well developed mercantile system in America. And it sure as hell ain't free. M.W.

Here in Texas Wal-Mart most definitely does sell gas. Every Wal-Mart parking lot has a big row of pumps. Their signs say MURPHY-USA but it is Wal-Mart and you get a 3-cent discount by using a Wal-Mart credit card or shopping card at the pump.

As with many other things, Wal-Mart (and Sam's Club) gas is usually the cheapest around. The only close competitors are the pumps at the HEB Grocery stores (big Texas grocery chain) and the pumps at Costco. I know people who buy Wal-Mart shopping cards just to get gas with so they can get the discount. Right now the pumps on the closest Wal-Mart here in Waco say $2.01 for Regular Unleaded. Don't know how that compares to Oregon.

Perhaps the no self-serve rule in Oregon is what keeps Wal-Mart from putting pumps in at its local stores. I don't know. But they are everywhere else in the US.

My two cents, perhaps big oil is driving out the independents so they are able to charge big prices when all the little guys are gone. Seem to make perfect sense to me, these big oil companies realized $90 billion in PROFIT during the past year while we have continued to pay all time high prices. They can afford to subsidize the losses from their stations while forcing all the locally owned stations out of business and into bankruptcy...hence, small owners cannot rebuild when their credit is screwed and they turn to other employment avenues to rebuild their lives. Once the little guys, the guys only charging 10 cents over their cost per gallon are out of the field, big oil can than realize the true profits of the four largest companies controlling the majority of refineries, distribution, and pump stations...you think prices are high now...

Another interesting note, since I can't remember which outlet I read it on (although I think it was the Drudge report) I can't site it, but I did read somewhere yesterday that the big four oil companies cut production by some 500,000 barrels a day the same time Bush strong-armed OPEC into increasing production by 500,000 barrels. I guess they don't want to flood the market with...I was going to say oversupply, but more approriately I guess I should say, adequate supply.

After looking over the web site referenced in this article, I'm curious about a few details that may have been uncovered during this interview but not actually documented on the site.

Is Shell selling gas at its own stations below its own cost? Or just below the cost to Mr. DeHart?

The web site states that when Mr. DeHart tried to terminate his contract with Shell and rebrand with a different supplier, the "effort was quashed by [his] Shell distributor." Meaning what, exactly? Is there some sort of exclusivity clause in his contract with Shell? Some sort of onerous penalty for termination?

I think these are important questions to answer before determining how "wrong" Shell's actions have been.

What is ironic is that Shell and all are making a killing by exploiting the largest public subsidy in the history of the US, the interstate road system. We made it possible for them to operate with no competition from any other form of transit and now we bitch about them exploiting us. We willingly created this monster, deal with it.

Kent,

Gas prices in Oregon are among the highest in the nation, right now (according to OregonGasPrices.com) averaging about $2.42 for regular unleaded. I understand that Texas, being much closer to refineries, has some of the lowest-priced gas in the country. How does that $2.01 at Wal-Mart compare with other local stations?

Also, state gas tax in Oregon is a few cents higher than in Texas ($0.24 in OR, $0.20 in TX).

A lot of Republicans need to understand that regulated capitalism does not equate to socialism. Regulated capitalism is a form of capitalism which ultimately saves capitalism from turning into cartel-ism.

Gas prices in Oregon are among the highest in the nation, right now (according to OregonGasPrices.com) averaging about $2.42 for regular unleaded. I understand that Texas, being much closer to refineries, has some of the lowest-priced gas in the country. How does that $2.01 at Wal-Mart compare with other local stations

Was just out doing some shopping this morning. Wal-Mart was $2.01 if you use a Wal-Mart credit card or Wal-Mart cash card. It is $2.04 if you just want to swipe your regular credit card. Sam's Club (Wal-Mart's carbon copy of Costco) was $1.99 for members and $2.04 for non-members. HEB Grocery was $2.03 and the various branded gas stations ranged from $2.05 to $2.10 depending on how close they were to the freeway. The gas stations that are right at the I-35 exits tended to be higher because I guess they get transient travelers who are just exiting for gas.

I tend to see the most cars getting gas at HEB than any other station. I think that's for three reasons. First HEB is the premier grocery chain in Texas so they get heavy traffic. Second, here in Waco they are in more convenient locations than Wal-Mart which are located more on the fringe. Third, HEB has these loyalty points cards that you can swipe at the pump as well as at the grocery register. Your points generate quarterly coupons and discounts that can be substantial and probably more than make up for the extra $0.02 price difference.

Keynes has something in common with our friendly neighborhood gasman: he thought the markets would work to eliminate such occurrences like Brent is facing--but only if the markets were efficient. Which they aren't.

Thus, the ideological crisis that many people like Brent will have to confront in their life or just painfully endure: whether or not a truly free (which should then be fair as well) market actually exists, and if it doesn't, do the facts of their lives serve as markers that they should alter their ideals to fit the realities they face? Hell, I'm only 21 and I've been see-sawing between Keynes and Friedman (Milton), Keynes and Hayek, Keynes and Harry Dexter White (of the US, who set the agenda for international economic organization creation post-WWII), all in the last year, because what I like to think doesn't fit what I see.

Transnationals like Shell need to be regulated precisely because their actions are no more efficient than the market as a whole, and there does and will always exist a role for government (and despite what Kenichi Ohmae thinks, this is not becoming a borderless world) to protect its constituents from oligopolistic pursuits like Shell's predatory pricing. Shell may benefit from economy of scale, but that doesn't mean the state should always stand back while locals are stuck in a lose-lose situation not of their own making.

Did I just rant? Pardon me, it must be the Scottish air. It's full of fumes...mostly the whiskey everyone around here quaffs.

Something I thought I would add. Even if, in general, corporate retailers are not selling below cost to run independents out of business, as Wal-Mart claims, for example, in New Hampshire (NHPR), the largest divide between a conservative view of how government policy works, like DeHart possesses, and a liberal's, is the role of the government in affecting the composition and nature of the area and society it governs. In states like Minnesota, there exists minimum markup laws that force retailers to sell for a certain price above wholesale costs, and for wholesalers to sell at a certain price as well. While these laws are contested by those who feel that it is most important to provide cheap gas to consumers (a bill to overturn the markup law in Wisconsin is being debated), the laws exist to protect local business owners from predatory pricing.

Two sides of the coin: lower-priced gas v. local business owners being able to compete. Both are important, but I think that I would argue in the end that corporate institutions more than make up for their low costs by their lack of tax revenues, lack of loyalty to location, and ability to take a loss in a certain area and not wince.

Roles for government intervention are often misinterpreted as inefficient attempts to "fix" the markets, when they are nothing of the sort. Instead, like Alfred Beveridge's design of the British welfare state post-WWII, gov't intervention was intended to alleviate end results from the market, not fix the market itself, which is a much more impossible goal. Hopefully, DeHart's experiences will make him more open to the positive effects that well-meant and informed government intervention can have in protecting constituents from the not-so-free market.

Interesting conversation. Thanks for discussing it on your site. I have a couple answers and clarifications from the horse's mouth. My comment on Wal-Mart was completely misread. It was more like a "Sure, it's great now for those who flock in and get it cheap. Wait until that's the only place to get it" warning. Predatory pricing is design to remove competition. Lack of competition is bad for the consumer. The intent of my protest was not to ask for or seek government action. 1 I wanted to speak up against large corporate unethical behavior, hurting the little guy, and 2) communicate to the public that we are not all Big Oil- we are local, they are not. I have always urged people to buy local in their shopping. Shell has sold to the public cheaper than it was being delivered to me. I do not know how that relates to their actual "cost." My voice is raised louder now, because they have begun charging me more than all other dealers like me, on the same pricing program. They offer no explanation, even to my distributor. As a Oregon Gasoline Dealers Association board member, I did support a below-cost selling ban, as many states already have, as referenced above. I am certainly not the only dealer that has suffered at the hands of Shell, or other oil companies. I will speak up for all of us, and allow their stories to be told on the web site. * I in no way feel I have an ideological conflict. Those who see one should not start by assuming anything about my ideology. That being said, I thought the article was fair and and not hostile, and I appreciate it.

Brent DeHart

*Yes, there is an onerous early termination clause that my supplier exercised, despite repeated assurances they would take a buy-out check instead. It was after I informed all that we wished to re-brand that my price surcharge showed up.

The intent of my protest was not to ask for or seek government action. 1 I wanted to speak up against large corporate unethical behavior, hurting the little guy, and 2) communicate to the public that we are not all Big Oil- we are local, they are not. I have always urged people to buy local in their shopping.

Brent- If the government does not regulate predatory pricing, then people like you are screwed. I'm sorry to say it like that, but it's true. Most Americans are strapped right now. They're going to go get gas at the cheapest place (period.) Creating public awareness is a nice thing, and maybe it will get your friends and neighbors to buy gas from you, but face it, you're up against Shell and you're not going to win unless there are laws in place that protect you.

As far as the market goes Shell has done nothing wrong. If you support unbridled capitalism, then this experience you're having is just part of the pie. Ethics don't play into this kind of capitalism. You can protest as much as you want, but the fact is Shell wants to put you out of business and they will.

If there is not a law that protects you from Shell's practices, then you need to close shop and find something else to support your family.

Don't mean to be a downer, but like Kari said, Welcome to the free market, owned and operated by Big Business.

Study the history of Teddy Roosevelt. He was not a supporter of unbridled capitalism. Some seem to forget he was a Republican president.

LT-

Teddy Roosevelt's Republicanism is so passe, especially his environmentalism.

The intent of my protest was not to ask for or seek government action. 1 I wanted to speak up against large corporate unethical behavior...

Brent- I know I've already commented on your comment, but I want to point something else out in the first part of your comment: If the intent of your protest is not to seek government intervention, but to point out "large corporate unethical behaviour" then do your support laws that allow for unethical behaviour from corporations?

In pointing out such behaviour, are you not hoping that you can somehow affect the system? Or are you simply pointing it out just because? I'm not sure I understand your end goal here. In pointing this out, what do you want people to do?

I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, I'm just trying to understand your motive.

"In an interview today with BlueOregon,"

So now you're going to be doing interviews? Reporting? Blog-reporting?

Interesting, interesting.

What we are seeing is what has been already declared by this Adminstration. They intend to create an Ownership Society, and if we do not take ownership of this country founded "of the people, by the people and for the people", the corporatists will. They are.

Mr. DeHart is being sent notice. He was a Shell man, and since he dared to defy them and be disloyal, Shell will destroy him, because he is their's and that is their prerogative. Bummer for you, Mr. DeHart. The Republican Party is not what it once was, and I'm sorry for your loss, but you're reaping the rewards of thinking you were ever even a player in their game. Even on the Board, what decisions could you make and what decisions were already made for you?

Government is needed to make a fair market, and that fact has been played out numerous times, no matter how often the talking heads declare it otherwise.