Text 3772, 123 rader
Skriven 2007-03-19 13:01:48 av Roy Witt (1:123/789.0)
     Kommentar till en text av Bob Klahn
Ärende: Business Logic 101
==========================
"Bob Klahn -> Roy Witt" <1:275/311> wrote in message
news:20391$POL_INC@JamNNTPd...

 BK>   ...

 DC>>> It's a matter of the oil companies getting their customers
 DC>>> used to paying the higher prices.  They figured that out
 DC>>> in 1975.  They created a 'shortage' and raised the prices very high.

 RW>> They got the idea from the 1973 oil shortage, but they
 RW>> didn't raise the price high enough then, so they took the
 RW>> next opportunity to do so later.

 DC>>> The public was happy when the proces settled about halfway
 DC>>> inbetween.  IIRC, it went from $0.50 to $1.50 and then ended
 DC>>> ut at about $1.00

 RW>> And it was there for a long time. Of course, the oil
 RW>> companies don't drive the price of fuel, consumers do.

 BK>   Not as long as there is no real shortage. When was the last time
 BK>   you waited in line for gas? The oil industry controls the
 BK>   availability of oil. Sometimes they miscalculate, but over all
 BK>   they aren't making record profits for no good reason.

 RW>> The price comes down quickly when there's a glut, but when

 BK>   They seem to go up even more quickly.

 RW>> the refineries shut down for their annual formula change
 RW>> from winter to spring, it creates a shortage. Which is what

 BK>   Which is of doubtful honesty. There is no good reason for enough
 BK>   refineries to shut down enough production at one time to cause
 BK>   any shortage.

California's Air Resources Board requires a gasoline formula change in the
spring and fall, throughout the state. Plus their exhorbitant taxes on a gallon
of gas drives up the price. Last I checked, California gasoline prices were
$1.30 more than they are here in Texas.

 RW>> you're seeing now. If it weren't for state laws requiring
 RW>> refiners to comply with emissions from their plants, they'd

 BK>   Those are mostly federal laws, not state.

Not in California. California's Air Resources Board is the model used to create
the EPA's laws that the other 49 must adhere too.

 RW>> build more refineries, but when the epa and states demand
 RW>> compliance no matter what, why should they?

 BK>   Because they don't make a profit if they don't sell petroleum
 BK>   products. They just figure in the cost of compliance. As long as
 BK>   all producers have to meet the same standards there's no problem
 BK>   with adjusting prices to compensate.

That's the dig. All producers don't have to be in compliance with CARB's
standards. Texas, AFAIK, doesn't add MTBE to gasoline here. But they still do
in
California. Even though MTBE is known to contaminate ground water, CARB still
requires it to be used.

 RW>> Oil refineries in California can't be built because of the
 RW>> state pollution laws are worse than what the EPA mandates.
 RW>> So they're stuck with the old refineries and there hasn't
 RW>> been a new one built in decades there.

 BK>   So build one next door.

Gasoline from boardering states isn't allowed to be sold in California. It
doesn't meet their stricter standards.

 BK>   And how many of the old ones have they  shut down? There hasn't actuall
been
any increase in the
 > number
 BK>   of refineries in a long time. It's all been improved efficiency.

Like hell. Again, CARB regulates every envioronmental emmision in California.
The existing refineries have to comply with tighter regulations, which drives
efficency down.


 DC>>> BTW, I'm not sure if it still holds now, but a study I made a
 DC>>> while back showed a close correlation of gas prices in regard
 DC>>> to whether a state was a Red or Blue state.

 RW>> That's ludricrous. California is a Blue state and has the
 RW>> highest gas prices in
 RW>> all of the western states. They don't buy their oil from
 RW>> the same source as say;
 RW>> Louisiana, which is a Blue state and their gas prices are
 RW>> commenserate with Texas prices, a red state. California

 BK>   Which doesn't mean there isn't an overall correlation. The oil
 BK>   industry would tend to take care of the states that are in their
 BK>   pocket, like those with major oil investment. Like Texas and
 BK>   Louisiana.

They're not necessarily in anyones pocket. Tx and La have less restrictive
enviornmental laws, compared to the overly restrictive laws of California.
Everyone must comply with the Federal EPA requirments.


 RW>> could alleviate their high prices by allowing oil companies
 RW>> to drill offshore, but that won't happen as long as it's a
 RW>> blue state.

 BK>   Or could they? Well, if they were in the pocket of the oil
 BK>   industry, maybe.

Whacko lefties is the real reason. Environmentalists whackos makes the entire
state pay the price.

A friend of mine told me the other day that the city of San Diego, which btw is
on the verge of bankruptcy, has increased the price of water service over and
above that which they gouged people with when I lived there. So, in comparison
to the oil companies, how does the 'water company', which is a government run
entity, get away with gouging people at the faucet?

--- Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
 * Origin: The Eastern Star - Fidonet Via Your Newsreader (1:123/789.0)