LETTERS: Many factors affect cost of gas in Las Vegas

Regarding Bill Golas' letter on gas prices ("Highway robbery," Sept. 16 Review-Journal), the national average of $2.49 per gallon is a weighted figure, somewhere between the lowest and the highest price. It is not intended to be the figure at which everybody must sell their gas. Included in the $3.15 that he just paid here is Clark County's new, higher fuel tax. Other parts of Nevada have lower rates. Some states have still lower taxes.

Additionally, Clark County charges an extra 33 cents per gallon in state and county taxes. So, all other things being equal, of course other areas are going to be cheaper than Las Vegas. The only thing that is consistent is the federal tax of 18 cents per gallon. That means that out of the $3.15 that you paid, the station owner only gets $2.60 or so with which to pay the wholesale cost of the gas, plus all other expenses.

But in reality, all other things are never equal. The cost of renting a gas pad, along with the insurance, taxes, maintenance, payroll and a hundred other expenses, is going to be higher in some places. Then there is the transportation cost, which is included in the wholesale cost to the station. A station that is fairly close to a refinery or a pipeline is going to pay a much lower transportation cost than a station 100 or so miles away.

The retail price of gasoline is not determined by the wholesale cost of gas alone. The aforementioned costs are an answer to those who complain that when the price of a barrel of oil falls by, for example, 20 percent, that the price of gas doesn't also fall by 20 percent. Sorry, but all of the above taxes and expenses remain the same, regardless of the price of a barrel of oil.

By the way, Exxon reports it made a profit of 5.6 percent in the last quarter. That works out to a profit of 5 cents on every one dollar in sales. By comparison, the American Enterprise Institute reports that the average profit margin across 212 industry categories is 7.5 percent. So Mr. Golas' opinion of the oil industry notwithstanding, gas and oil companies are on the lower end of the profit scale.

Richard Pulsifer

Henderson

Nevada water woes

Would you please help me understand what the Southern Nevada Water Authority is trying to accomplish? On one hand, folks in the Las Vegas Valley are being directed and encouraged to conserve as much water as possible, by taking shorter showers, installing desert landscaping, etc. On the other hand, the water authority wants to lease 150,000 acre-feet, half of our annual share of the declining Colorado River, to California ("Authority might lease water to dry California," Sept. 16 Review-Journal).

If we have that much to lease, why is the authority pushing conservation? If it's a humanitarian gesture, why make California pay for it? Just let California promise to return the amount they use. It would be impossible for them to do that in the next hundred years.

I feel that we should hold on to all the water we have. We can't drink dollars or unkept promises.

Thomas C. Malich Sr.

Las Vegas

Nuclear deal a joke

I want to thank letter writer Susan Rand for giving me a good laugh ("Support the Iran deal," Monday Review-Journal). She really believes the Iran nuclear deal is a great idea because it will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon of any kind.

What does Ms. Rand think Iranian officials are going to do with the $150 billion the United States gave them in released assets? It'll be Jimmy Carter all over again, when he couldn't believe the Russians lied to him.

The Iranians hate us, and those who believe the Iranians won't pursue a nuclear weapon are about as naive as they come. One of the aspects of the deal is that the Iranians can inspect themselves.

I'm a 70-year-old libertarian, and I try to look at both sides, but this deal is so bad that I can't believe the United States could be so gullible as to believe the Iranians. Thanks for looking out for us, again, Sen. Harry Reid.

Rodney T. Elkins

Las Vegas

The cost of carbon

Regarding Richard Rychtarik's letter ("Rooftop solar viability, Sept. 12 Review-Journal), I would like to offer the following: If carbon-based generating systems had to truly clean up the residue they leave on the ground, in the water and in the air — a cost currently left to all taxpayers — then solar would by far be a much less costly alternative than carbon-based power generation.

Charles Parrish

Las Vegas