Damn greedy Oil Companies

[Feeblemind 1]

Why is that the price goes up instantly and comes down EVER SO SLOW?.... Oh yea, because it can!

Light Crude (NYM)
April 06 ($US per bbl.) 61.40 -1.01 3/7 2:05pm
Brent Crude (NYM)
April 06 ($US per bbl.) 61.25 -1.09 63/7 1:42pm
Heating Oil (NYM)
April 06 ($US per gal.) 1.71 -0.05 3/7 2:05pm
Natural Gas (NYM)
April 06 ($US per mmbtu.) 6.65 +0.10 3/7 2:04pm
Unleaded Gas (NYM)
April 06 ($US per gal.) 1.59 -0.07

Fire Safety Tip: Don't fry bacon while naked

[billvon 2,463]

> Why is that the price goes up instantly and comes down EVER SO SLOW?

Cause we live in a capitalist society. If companies could charge $1000 per barrel, they would.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

> Why is that the price goes up instantly and comes down EVER SO SLOW?

Cause we live in a capitalist society. If companies could charge $1000 per barrel, they would.

Companies can charge $1000 per barrel if they want. I don't think today they'd stay in business long.

You mean - if people would pay $1000 per barrel, then companies would charge it.

That's a capitalist society. Yours is more socialistic where unreasonable price fixing is the norm. And unnatural (vs the market) pricing, high or low, is unhealthy for the economy.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

the question is more about why it rises so much faster than it sinks.

we see a lot of that in California, where gas supplies are tighter due to the specific blend we use not being available out of state.

Tosco refinery blows up (again) - 40 cent spike in gas
War threatens in the world again - 30 cent spike
Cloud appears - 10 cent.

Anything that does or appears to threaten supply leads to a rampage of a rather speculative nature. Even if the problem proves to be non existent, it takes a while for equilibrium to return.

so maybe it's innocent - there are no sudden events that would cause a major drop in prices. Then again, many think these refinery breakdowns aren't quite accidental.

[billvon 2,463]

>You mean - if people would pay $1000 per barrel, then companies would charge it.

Right. If they could charge $1000 and actually get it, they'd be fools not to do that.

> Yours is more socialistic where unreasonable price fixing is the norm.

Nope. I think a _real_ costing strategy, where the true costs of the commodity are factored into the market price (i.e. wars to protect it, cleanup efforts to mitigate its effects) would result in a more sustainable, more sane economy. As it is, we tax people involuntarily to support oil companies and their effects. I'd prefer that people be able to choose whether or not they want to pay for a product.

I mean, it's a great deal if you can swing it. Defense contractors do it all the time, and oil companies have learned to play the game and reap the rewards. But that's socialism, not capitalism.

[MC208B 0]

Quote

Quote

> Why is that the price goes up instantly and comes down EVER SO SLOW?

Cause we live in a capitalist society. If companies could charge $1000 per barrel, they would.

Companies can charge $1000 per barrel if they want. I don't think today they'd stay in business long.

You mean - if people would pay $1000 per barrel, then companies would charge it.

That's a capitalist society. Yours is more socialistic where unreasonable price fixing is the norm. And unnatural (vs the market) pricing, high or low, is unhealthy for the economy.

Hawaii began a price cap on the wholesale cost of fuel Sept. 1st. pegged to the cost on the east, west and gulf coast.

Fuel went from a bit under 3 bucks a gallon to over 4 during Sept!!!!

Of course, hurricane Katrina played a part in that.

It's still about .20 a gallon higher than it was in August.

The state legislature is going to set aside the gas cap price law soon it looks like
So much for price controls......

[purnell 0]

Quote

Nope. I think a _real_ costing strategy, where the true costs of the commodity are factored into the market price (i.e. wars to protect it, cleanup efforts to mitigate its effects) would result in a more sustainable, more sane economy. As it is, we tax people involuntarily to support oil companies and their effects. I'd prefer that people be able to choose whether or not they want to pay for a product.

Now that's an interesting approach. I would have assumed that oil companies would have paid for their own cleanups, but the more interesting argument is costs like a war to preserve access to oil. How would those costs be allocated? Who would decide upon the allocation methodology? What about foreign companies (BP, TotalFinaElf...)?

Shouldn't we vote for oil companies at the pump and wars at the ballot box?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

the question is more about why it rises so much faster than it sinks.

exactly. My statement is that consumers show they are willing to pay the higher price, so decreases are slow and unstable while increases trigger rather easily. In the US, this is set up by our low cost relative the rest of the world market. If the oil companies could get that extra revenue instead of governmetns (the high cost is artificial due to taxing, not market forces) then we have less supply in the US.

BV's point that all the costs aren't factored in the equation is very close to correct - for the US side and those that protect oil prices. But he'd overdo it and the pendulum would swing to a Euro model which is the overreaction and gas sales are used as revenue collection (like we use cigarettes and alcohol)

Direct price fixing (like Hawaii, or California energy) are the obtuse protection examples and you see the horrible results from it even if you aren't looking at it.

The gas price fixing is more subtle and at a national level - thus the effect is a bit more difficult to spot - like the slow decrease, fast increase behavior - because it's still subject to consumer utility, just not fully. But the real price isn't the far out effects that enviromentalists want to force onto the price of gas, that's just more of the Hawaii/Cali thing, only on the expensive side rather than the protective side - like a lot of Euro country policies causing unnaturally high gas prices. The real issue is that's it's not driven by a truly free market.

That would provide parity amongst all the nations. But you won't get the governments (e.g. some Euro nations) that overtax the resource to guve up their revenue, and you won't get the people from countries that protect the oil price (e.g., US) to approve radical price increases to look like the Euro model.

So the disconnect will remain.

I think the oil companies will follow the market, the governments are the real ones screwing it up.

If the Euro nations would give up the 'special' tax structures, and let gasoline price follow the market, companies would focus on selling in Europe because the buyers are willing to pay more because their price expectations are higher. This would drive the price in the US (and similar) up (we could NOT execute a price protection strategy in a free market environment - sellers just go elsewhere), the higher prices in the EU would come down, and the cost would stabilize worldwide.

High taxing governments are causing the problem mainly. But so are the price protecting countries to a lesser extent because they are taking advantage of the bad decision of the first. But the second is only enabled as long as the first is in place.

People can claim all sorts of political pressure (costs of war, etc), but it's really just governments mucking about with the cost line on supply and demand.

If those in the EU think we have it so good on gas prices, all they have to do is disable the greedy taxes on gas they have in place. Things would stabilize pretty quickly.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Channman 2]

> As it is, we tax people involuntarily to support oil companies and their effects. I'd prefer that people be able to choose whether or not they want to pay for a product.

Now, this I can put my arms around, like city government taxing it's citizens to build a Billion dollar statium for a billionair. After we pickup the bill, we are charged 10.00 for parking, 4.50 for a hot dog, and as much or more for a drink, not to mention the cost of a ticket.

It truely is a great deal for the billionair and cities through out the country. I'm trying to think of a time about 80 years ago or longer if we ever taxed citizens to benifit a business owner.

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

> As it is, we tax people involuntarily to support oil companies and their effects. I'd prefer that people be able to choose whether or not they want to pay for a product.

Now, this I can put my arms around, like city government taxing it's citizens to build a Billion dollar statium for a billionair. After we pickup the bill, we are charged 10.00 for parking, 4.50 for a hot dog, and as much or more for a drink, not to mention the cost of a ticket.

It truely is a great deal for the billionair and cities through out the country. I'm trying to think of a time about 80 years ago or longer if we ever taxed citizens to benifit a business owner.

Railroads were hugely subsidized by land grants from the government in the 19th century.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Railroads were hugely subsidized ....

ahh, railroads, the airlines of the past

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,463]

>I'm trying to think of a time about 80 years ago or longer if we ever
>taxed citizens to benifit a business owner.

I never know if people are joking here or not . . .

If you really think that, google how the US railroad lines, power companies, mail services and phone services got started.

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

Quote

Railroads were hugely subsidized ....

ahh, railroads, the airlines of the past

Mining too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Direct price fixing (like Hawaii, or California energy) are the obtuse protection examples and you see the horrible results from it even if you aren't looking at it.
[/replly]

uh, it's been clearly established that the California energy crisis was caused by companies gaming the system. We knew it then, and it clearly proven later.

As for gasoline, there's no getting around the state's need for cleaner gas then most other states. Clean Air Act requires it. And our attempts to stop using ethanol, which might result in a more common fuel, were rebuffed by the corn toting Bush Administration as part of his 'Fuck California' platform that probably cost the GOP the state for the next 3 decades.

• Quote

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

uh, it's been clearly established that the California energy crisis was caused by companies gaming the system. We knew it then, and it clearly proven later.

I agree that it is pretty clear - the "system" did unnecessarily set up the conditions

I'm talking about world economy and unnecessary government intervention, and you try to refute that with examples of how government intervention causes bad company policy (California overcontrol), you respond with another example of government intervention causing further issue (ethanol interference).

where exactly do we disagree? In fact, you give a great examples of how each party screwed up the system.

I appreciate the support. The attempt to make it partisan is cute too.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[cumplidor 0]

Quote

uh, it's been clearly established that the California energy crisis was caused by companies gaming the system. We knew it then, and it clearly proven later.

The entire economic system of the US is a game. Everything is about corporate profit, and ways to maximize that profit. Not too long ago, many independently owned oil refineries were 'Wal-Mart'-ed out of business by the Big OilCos pricing their refined products so cheaply (remember the 69 cent gallon gas a few years ago???, the independent refineries couldn't compete). After the indies folded, the assets were bought at a bargin and mothballed, until a 'need' for higher capacity existed. This way they can control supply, thus dictating demand in a way, in turn maximizing profits...

How come average MPG today is less then when Henry Ford invented the car? (Model T got 25 MPG) With all the incredible technological advancements of almost every known industry (medical, computers, ...), one would think we would be able to power our cars using electromagnetism, or something else. But we are still using 100 year old technology for locomotion.

Do any of you folks ever remember hearding about 60mpg breakthroughs? 80-100mpg? I have heard these announcements many times over the years then never anything else. Why is that?

Did you know you can convert you car to run on used cooking oil for about $3500 and never have to buy gasoline again?

I have heard of personal portable power generators that produce ENDLESS energy. But that would eliminate multiple industries, not to mention all the investment in those industries up to that point, which isn't going to happen. From a corporate standpoint, buy the technology and shelve it until it becomes 'cost-effective' or ROI (return on investment) is greater than the losses.

Unfortunately, this is the face of global business today in Amerika. Eliminate the middle class, transfer all that wealth to the top 2% of the population, and shop around for the cheapest labor. I beleive that both Parties have succeded in depressing wages in the US by allowing so many illegals to come in, an US born person can't get a decent wage anymore. That is not Dem or Repub, that is the plantation owners simply securing the cheapest serfs, slaves and sharecroppers.

*just another sharecropper*

[billvon 2,463]

>How come average MPG today is less then when Henry Ford invented
> the car? (Model T got 25 MPG)

And went 45mph, tops. Average MPG at a given speed is much higher today.

>one would think we would be able to power our cars using
> electromagnetism, or something else.

We do that. I have one of those cars. I can drive home using nothing but electromagnetism as a driving force.

>Do any of you folks ever remember hearding about 60mpg
>breakthroughs?

We have one. It's called the Insight. You can buy one if you want. They're actually pretty cheap compared to an SUV.

>80-100mpg? I have heard these announcements many times
>over the years then never anything else. Why is that?

Because they develop them and then no one buys them.

>Did you know you can convert you car to run on used cooking oil for
>about $3500 and never have to buy gasoline again?

You don't even have to convert it. You can get a biodiesel processor that fits in your garage and convert used cooking oil to biodiesel that will run in _any_ diesel vehicle. Why didn't you do that?

>I have heard of personal portable power generators that produce
>ENDLESS energy.

I have one of those systems, too. I generate about 25kwhr/day from the sun, and it will work forever. (Well, as long as the sun's out, that is.) Why don't you have one of these?

We have the technology, today. You can go into Home Depot and get a solar power system. You can walk into your Honda dealership and get a 67mpg car. You can pick up Home Power magazine and order a biodiesel processor. If your question is "why isn't anyone doing it?" ask yourself why YOU didn't do it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

uh, it's been clearly established that the California energy crisis was caused by companies gaming the system. We knew it then, and it clearly proven later.

I agree that it is pretty clear - the "system" did unnecessarily set up the conditions

umm no, it was the illegal activity of companies that caused the problem. We can try to pretend that it's not their fault that desire for profit made them behave badly, but that seems like a justification for armed robbery too.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Do any of you folks ever remember hearding about 60mpg breakthroughs? 80-100mpg? I have heard these announcements many times over the years then never anything else. Why is that?

fuel economy is usually at odds with 'performance,' as measured by ability to accelerate, and top speed. People want to be able to drag from the line, and to pass on the freeway without downshifting. Many will claim a safety component, which has some truth, but mostly people just like the feeling of their back pressing into the seat.

Motorcycles give you 40-70mpg with performance, but then with a real safety issue, and limited carrying capacity. I've read of diesel bikes that will do 240mpg, but again the usual problems - top speed of 50, and I bet it takes an eternity to get to that speed. I'd settle for a 100mpg model that could do 80.

[billvon 2,463]

>umm no, it was the illegal activity of companies that caused the problem.

Nope. The problem was caused by how the system was pre-gamed. Several companies then took further advantage, and got caught. But had they just used the system as designed they could have made almost as much money, driven up power prices almost as high - and been completely within the law.

Here's a thought experiment. Assume you run a dairy. Let's say the government passes a law that says a) stores have to sell milk to consumers at $.50 a gallon and b) if you are a store, and you stop selling milk, or you run out, you pay massive penalties. There's a run on milk and stores call you, desperate for milk. The supply will not meet the demand.

What price will you charge?

[kelpdiver 2]

sorry, Bill, that's not an explanation for the practices the power concerns used - like the shutting down of supply at key moments, or the sending power out of and then back into the state.

So unless your grocery is fucking with the milk at the source, it's irrelevent to the discussion.

[billvon 2,463]

>sorry, Bill, that's not an explanation for the practices the power concerns used . . .

I think you may not understand how the system really worked, then.

During times of high demand, the power generators could charge whatever they wanted, and it was legal. PG+E and SCE could NOT raise customer rates and they had to supply power to them (or face legal action/fines.) If supply equaled demand, then they were required to pay whatever the power generators asked. (If supply exceeded demand, then they paid for power via an auction system, generally from the lowest bidder.)

Now, power generators MUST take their equipment off-line for service occasionally. Normally they do this during off-peak hours, since they lose the money they would otherwise make generating power if there's a high demand. But in this system, if taking their equipment off-line meant that supply dropped to meet demand, then they could charge (legally) whatever they wanted, and be assured of selling the power. Suddenly it was in their economic interest to do maintenance during peak hours. And, since they were capitalists, that is precisely what they did. And it was all 100% legal.

Some then went further, idling good plants for no reason during peak times. These people ended up being prosecuted.

But the system itself was set up to encourage reduction of supply. The system, not a nefarious criminal.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>sorry, Bill, that's not an explanation for the practices the power concerns used . . .

I think you may not understand how the system really worked, then.

no, the problem is you're quibbling over who or what is at fault.

like I said, this sort of BS reasoning can justify me robbing people with a gun.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

no, the problem is you're quibbling over who or what is at fault.

like I said, this sort of BS reasoning can justify me robbing people with a gun.

You're not getting it - read what he wrote without the pre-bias. The system screwed too much with the industry and the economy. The system is at fault for that.

Some company's crossed the line in playing with the crappy system put in place. They are responsible for their bad and immoral decisions also. I did note that the companies also made bad policy decisions too in my post which prompted your quaint little "ummmm, no" response.

Both are at fault for entirely different things. The fundamental fix still lies with the system. The huge relative differences in the ways major governments treat energy consumption causes natural economic imbalances.

I'll simplify - the freaking nations of the world are tweaking economic dials too freakin' much. It causes glitches in the markets.

But it is so much more trendy to go with your view. And simpler.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,463]

>no, the problem is you're quibbling over who or what is at fault.

I did not bring fault into this. The system is set up to reward generators who take their equipment off-line during peak times. No fault implied or expressed. If they did that (and many of them did) then it was no one's fault - the system was working as designed, even if a lot of people did not like the result.

Some unscrupulous power companies went further than that, and did some illegal stuff. They were caught and have been prosecuted for it.

Now, your argument _might_ be that they should do what's best for their customers, instead of what's best for them. But that's a different argument - social responsibility vs capitalism.

>like I said, this sort of BS reasoning can justify me robbing people with a gun.

We have laws against that. We don't have laws against making money via legal means.