Peak Oil

[2pac Shakur]

Originally Posted by O. Hannah

So you are telling me there are two gas stations across the street from one another with continous significant price differences? (Or did you drive by while one was changing their numbers and derive this conclusion.)

No, I'm saying they are the same price. Hence, a sign of price fixing.

Originally Posted by O. Hannah

Hmmmmm......let me guess which one you buy your gas at.

The one on the right hand side of the street.
It's easier, and costs the same.

Originally Posted by O. Hannah

Why would it be a bad thing? Wouldn't most folks shop at the cheaper station? Does this in any way fly in the face of price fixing?

Yes, most folks would go to the cheaper station. That's called competition. But both stations have the same price (fixing).

Originally Posted by O. Hannah

FYI- I see you've abandoned your original position and are now flailing wildy about gas stations charging different prices etc. How does it feel to know that pretty much every person on this forum reading this thread is either laughing at your stupidity or just flat out feeling sorry for you? I challenge you to find even one (non-troll) persona to back up any of your assertions....go get Titania...she actually seems to like you for some reason.

I guess I wish I could be as popular as O Hannah.
So special. Everybody on the actuary internet board loves him.
I'll get by somehow. One day at a time, I guess.

[MountainHawk]

It's not price fixing. It's called 'there is a gas station right across the street from me, so if he he lowers his prices, I have to match immediately." At some point, we'll hit the point where the lower cost structure station is barely making a profit (and presumably, the higher cost structure station is losing money or breaking even), so the price drops end and the price stabilizes.

[O. Hannah]

Thanks for the laugh 2yak. I rest my case when you have an entire forum of actuaries that are reading your ahem *economic theories* and no one is supporting your "conclusions".

Now if we were debating that Bush was the worst president ever and Shekky said he wasn't and you said he was...I'm sure there would be at least 5-6 folks on this forum that would agree with you.

It's pretty common around here to you see entire threads of you stumbling over basic economic concepts.....you'd think you'd get the hint when there isn't a single soul in the place supporting your laughable conclusions.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

O.H., please tell me a scary story in the other thread, the thread about Richard Foster.
Sorry, for the tangent, folks, but this is where O.H. is.

[4sigma]

Originally Posted by 2Pac Shakur

[silence]

Nothing to say on this? = Admitting that this point you brought up was irrelevant. Q.E.D.

Originally Posted by 2Pac Shakur

[silence]

Um, where's your explanation for why CA prices jumped 30-40 cents compared to less than 10 cents nationwide? The source you quote below even confirms it.

The increase happened in California at the start of 2004 because there's something different about California It's the rule that went into effect on Jan 1 2004 here in California. Signed by Gray Davis. Not Pete Wilson. Not GWB. Q.E.D.

Originally Posted by 2Pac Shakur

(lenghty quote omitted -- read it above if you missed it.)

OK, there's not enough refinery capacity here in CA. Similar problems in Chicago and Phoenix. Your solution is .. file antitrust lawsuits against the companies that aren't building more refineries? Yeah right. State of California vs. Texaco. For failing to build oil refineries.

Go ahead now and post something utterly irrelevant about Ken Lay and Haliburton.

[2pac Shakur]

Originally Posted by 4sigma

Nothing to say on this? = Admitting that this point you brought up was irrelevant. Q.E.D.

I never said MTBE didn't cause smog. D.E.Q.
Haven't researched it.
But something does have to be done about CA smog, you agree.
Q.E.D.

Originally Posted by 4sigma

Um, where's your explanation for why CA prices jumped 30-40 cents compared to less than 10 cents nationwide? The source you quote below even confirms it.

MTBE is part of the problem, but so are refineries.
Having to have 3 grades of gasoline is as much a problem as the MTBE additive.
And didn't Davis try to repeal the MTBE law, but Bush wouldn't let him?

BINGO!

“After more than two years of uncertainty on this issue, NCGA applauds the Bush administration for reaching the correct decision on the waiver,” said National Corn Growers Association President-elect Tim Hume, a grower from Walsh, Colo.

The administration's decision to deny the waiver is being hailed as a milestone victory for the ethanol industry and for grain producers. NCGA says the “technical arguments” it has provided to the EPA during the last 18 months validates NCGA's analysis, which determined that adding ethanol to California's gasoline would improve air quality and protect water resources.

http://southeastfarmpress.com/ar/far...waiver_denied/

A Think of our state as an island. When supplies run short, our special blend of gas makes it difficult to import gasoline from other states with different formulations. On Thursday, Attorney General Bill Lockyer e-mailed a copy of a 1999 state study that holds true today:

• California's gas market remains more concentrated and less competitive than key refining areas east of the Rocky Mountains that supply the rest of the United States. Seven oil companies now control 98 percent of California's refining capacity, and market 90 percent of the gas through their own retail networks.

• Short-term supply problems make California very vulnerable to price spikes. West Coast refiners maintain lower inventory levels than refiners in the rest of the United States.

• The changeover from MTBE to ethanol has reduced California's gas supply by as much as 10 percent. Supplies also can decrease as refiners switch to their ``summer blend'' of smog-reducing gas. The national average now stands at $1.728, according to the American automobile club, a dime higher than a month ago and a penny less than the record set last August.

Q If you really believe that there is no collusion between oil companies, then I have a bridge you'll be interested in buying. The fact that investigations haven't proved collusion doesn't mean that it does not exist. If free competition exists in the gas business, why isn't anyone building new refineries to meet the obvious demand? The answer: Why should the oil companies spend money to build refineries when the current situation is so advantageous for them?

Bob Malte

A Many believe that to be true. But in the early to mid-'90s, when gas prices hovered around $1.10 a gallon, low profit margins would not cover the cost of a new refinery.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...al/8168360.htm

(that last answer is a good argument for regulation of these refineries)

[11pecans]

Its already over regulated. A new refinery isn't as profitable as an old one cause of all the new regulations that need to be built into the new refinery.

Also, you want refineries to exist close to the source. Long term there aren't going to be new discoveries or new production in the US. Regulation is again part of the problem.

If California opened up to offshore drilling, I'm sure new refineries would be built to handle the capacity.

Given that most production is moving overseas, price spikes will occur whenever supply-demand becomes unbalanced. The tranportation creates a lag time so the imbalance can't be restored as quickly by increased supply.

[2pac Shakur]

Originally Posted by 12pack

Its already over regulated. A new refinery isn't as profitable as an old one cause of all the new regulations that need to be built into the new refinery.

Also, you want refineries to exist close to the source. Long term there aren't going to be new discoveries or new production in the US. Regulation is again part of the problem.

With refineries, you need enough capacity to deal with peak demand. The market dictates capacity will be closer to average demand. That's why prices spike during holidays, or with a single fire/breakdown (which always seem to coincide). It's similar to what happened with the CA energy crisis AND the NE blackouts.

[MountainHawk]

Uhhh ... the NE blackout were caused by a faulty power line that failed and sent a surge through the system, triggering auto-shutdowns across the power grid. It wasn't a lack of generated electricity.

[11pecans]

Originally Posted by MountainHawk

Uhhh ... the NE blackout were caused by a faulty power line that failed and sent a surge through the system, triggering auto-shutdowns across the power grid. It wasn't a lack of generated electricity.

2pac cant argue if you are going to rely on facts.