Slashdot Mirror


Getting Better Transparency From Oil Refineries

Hugh Pickens writes "Gregg Laskoski reports in U.S. News and World Report that virtually all of the retail gasoline price volatility that Americans experienced this past year was connected to significant problems at refineries. It was those refineries' vulnerability that subjected U.S. consumers to the year's highest average price ever, $3.63 per gallon. February delivered the BP refinery fire in Cherry Point, Washington that led to gasoline price spikes all along the Pacific coast, refinery problems in the Great Lakes region pushed Chicago gas prices to an all-time high of $4.56 per gallon, and over the summer, west coast refineries incurred outages, and California saw record highs in most markets, with Los Angeles gasoline's average price peaking at $4.72/gallon in October. Finally after Reuters reported that some 7,700 gallons of fuel spilled from Phillips 66's Bayway refinery in Linden, NJ, after Hurricane Sandy, New Jersey environmental protection officials said they were not made aware of a major spill at the Bayway plant, and the refinery failed to respond to inquiries from Reuters reporters. 'Too many times, history has shown us, the Phillips 66 response or lack thereof characterizes the standard practice of the oil industry. Refineries often fail or are slow to communicate problems that create significant disruptions to fuel supplies and spikes in retail gasoline prices. More often than not, scant information is provided reluctantly, if at all,' writes Laskoski. 'When such things occur is silence from refineries acceptable? Or does our government and the electorate who put them there have a right to know what's really going on?'"

128 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. Speculators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Speculators demand more transparency so they can jack the price of futures every time a breaker trips at a refinery.

    1. Re:Speculators by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2

      Speculators demand more transparency so they can jack the price of futures every time a breaker trips at a refinery.

      RSS feeds like ASM's process safety incidents list are available and useful for keeping track of what's happening at refineries (of all types) around the world. That sort of transparency is valuable to far more people than just speculators.

      Reporting to a public-facing list like this should be mandatory for all significant process industries. Transparency should be the norm, not the exception.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    2. Re: Speculators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The oil futures market is too big for a speculator to corner. They don't care if price is going up or down because they can profit either way. Also remember this is a zero sum game.

  2. Yes, better transparency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why don't fuel pumps mention the $0.18/gallon federal gasoline tax? Or the $0.38/gallon (California) state gasoline tax? Both are greater profit margin than the "greedy" store, the "greedy" refiner, or the "greedy" oil company.

    1. Re:Yes, better transparency! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why don't fuel pumps mention the $0.18/gallon federal gasoline tax? Or the $0.38/gallon (California) state gasoline tax? Both are greater profit margin than the "greedy" store, the "greedy" refiner, or the "greedy" oil company.

      The state and federal gas tax pays for things like roads. You do like to drive on roads, yes? Well, they don't just pop up and maintain themselves...

      By the way, what where Exxon and BP's reported profits last year?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Yes, better transparency! by Todd+Palin · · Score: 1

      I often see that information on gas pumps in Oregon and other places. I don't know if it is required, or out there as an FYI. Also, remember that these gas taxes were mostly established before the price went up to $3+ per gallon. If the taxes were as a percentage of the price, they would be far higher than they are now. Finally, gas taxes are one of the few taxes where the benefits seem obvious to most people. Imagine what life would be like without safe bridges, road resurfacing, and the other things that fuel taxes pay for. Our road taxes are a pretty good investment.

    3. Re:Yes, better transparency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What about the overhead that goes into military power to "secure" (install friendly governments) in places that have oil? Why isn't that included in the price of gasoline? What about the massive subsidies that oil companies receive? How come that isn't listed at the pump?

    4. Re:Yes, better transparency! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The state and federal gas tax pays for things like roads. You do like to drive on roads, yes? Well, they don't just pop up and maintain themselves...

      Last I checked, the price to pay for things like roads doesn't scale proportionally with the price of gas. The fact that gas went from $1.50 to $3 a gallon on some day , doesn't now mean the roads require twice as much money to pay for them.

      The states get a proportional increase in tax; which is a mass 'hidden' tax increase, that they get to blame the oil companies on.

    5. Re:Yes, better transparency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why don't fuel pumps mention the $0.18/gallon federal gasoline tax? Or the $0.38/gallon (California) state gasoline tax?

      Because you aren't looking for it? It's printed on every pump (in California, at least), usually above the screen, or on the side of the pump.

      The tax is also counted on the advertised price of gasoline, like it should be.

      The price you see is the price you pay, unlike practically everything else in the United States.

    6. Re:Yes, better transparency! by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      Which subsidies are those? Surely you can point out some specific ones.

      Surely.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-obama-energy-idUSBRE82S11P20120329

    7. Re:Yes, better transparency! by wallsg · · Score: 5, Informative

      By the way, what where Exxon and BP's reported profits last year?

      Annual 2012 reports not out yet in most part so these are quarterlies.

      * signifies Dow Jones Industrial Average component.

      Apple's profit margin was 26.67%.
      Google's was 22.20%.
      *Intel's was 22.13%.
      *JPMorgan Chase's was 21.97%.
      *McDonald's was 19.85%.
      *Coca-Cola's was 18.48%.
      *Cisco's was 17.90%.
      *American Express' was 17.12%.
      *Pfizer's was 15.58%.
      *IBM's was 15.53%.
      *3M's was 14.89%
      *Microsoft's was 14.21%.
      *Walt Disney's was 13.44%.
      Ford's 3rd quarter profit margin was 13.35%.
      *Johnson & Johnson's was 12.90%.
      *Proctor & Gamble's was 12.72%.
      *Travelers' was 10.87%.
      *Chevron's was 10.70%.
      *Exxon's 3rd quarter profit margin was 10.40%.
      *Catapillar's was 9.74%.
      *GE's was 9.39%.
      *United Technologies Corp's was 7.57%.
      *Bank of America's was 6.75%.
      *Merck's was 6.58%.
      *DuPont's was 6.07%.
      *Home Depot's was 5.91%.
      *Boeing's 3rd quarter profit margin was 5.47%
      *UnitedHealth Group's was 5.14%.
      BP's 3rd quarter profit margin was 4.75%.
      *Wal-Mart's was 3.57%.
      Pulte Homes' was 3.57%.
      *AT&T's was 3.49%.
      *Verizon's was 2.70%.
      *Alcoa's was 0.81%.
      *Hewlett-Packards was -10.51%.

      This a long line because for some reason SlashDot is saying that "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 20.4)" but I don't know the minimum and why is there a minimum require when a person may be wanting to report facts and I have to keep typing because now it's 25.7 per line which still isn't enough nor is 27.3 characters per line so I must keep typing yet more meaningless stuff here in an attempt to get even more characters per line because even 30.4 characters per line are not enough so even more typing typing typing (where are the infinite number of monkeys when you need them?) because 33.1 characters per line still isn't enough so row, row, row your boat while buying the stairway to heaven as 35.5 characters per line are still not enough and "you seem a decent fellow I hate to kill you" " you seem a decent fellow I hate to die" and 38.2 characters per line are still not enough "we'll never survive" "nonsense. you only say that because no one ever has" and finally

    8. Re:Yes, better transparency! by Tagged_84 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the increase in price result in a decrease in demand? Resulting in the government requiring a greater percent of revenue to offset the drop in fuel consumption? Roads don't just degrade from usage you know, and because first world countries were stupid enough to plan and build for personal vehicles rather than mass transport we all require excess costs to compensate those drivers.

      I'm 28 and have never driven in my life, the cost doesn't appeal to me and Australia has a semi-decent public transport system to get by on. Failing that I've got tree trunks for legs to cycle/run at *most* other times, I ran a short 4k last week during the heat wave and found it a little uncomfortable!

    9. Re:Yes, better transparency! by JDevers · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, the price to pay for things like roads doesn't scale proportionally with the price of gas.
      The fact that gas went from $1.50 to $3 a gallon on some day , doesn't now mean the roads require twice as much money to pay for them.

      The states get a proportional increase in tax; which is a mass 'hidden' tax increase, that they get to blame the oil companies on.

      Why would a per gallon charge scale up when the cost of gasoline rises? 15 gallons is 15 gallons whether it costs 1 dollar or 100 to purchase.

      If anything, as fuel efficiency increases the amount of money states are collecting via the fuel tax is shrinking, not rising.

    10. Re:Yes, better transparency! by cffrost · · Score: 1

      My state government isn't putting citizens on "kill lists" or making secret "no fly lists".

      I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's not necessarily true. Collusion between US federal and state governments against Americans is generally increasing.

      For a few examples of what I'm talking about, please see some of the incidents of abuse listed under criticisms of fusion centers on Wikipedia.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    11. Re:Yes, better transparency! by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      As far as I know fuel taxes are fixed and don't vary with the price of fuel. That's certainly true in my state and for federal gas taxes. Do you know of any state(s) where the fuel tax is a percentage of the price? So for your example if the per gallon tax is $0.50 that's what is collected whether you pay $1.50 or $3.00.

    12. Re:Yes, better transparency! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      And you have "governmental" interference in MMO economies, too. Namely:

      - Artificial price supports by vendors offering to buy things, giving a floor to the minimum auction house price.

      - Artificial restriction by bind-on-pickup or equip, causing artificial scarcity to...prevent the capitalist market from finding the natural price, which would be significantly lower.

      - How hard would you grind if 30-50% of your stuff was taken and distributed to others who didn't grind?

      -
      -

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    13. Re:Yes, better transparency! by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Our road taxes are a pretty good investment.

      This video shows otherwise.

      So does this one. Well, sorta... but mine's more fun to watch.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    14. Re:Yes, better transparency! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So you are opposed to transparency when it might hurt something you approve of. Interesting.

      I'm not at all opposed to "transparency" with how oil companies operate. As well, I don't have a problem with gas tax that pays for roads and transportation that we all use.

      I am, however, opposed to people who pontificate as "Anonymous Cowards" and expect to be taken seriously. Man, if you believe it, log in to your account and post. Posting as as an "Anonymous Cowards" is the sure sign of a Karma Whore - learn to take your "Flamebait" and "Troll" along with your Interesting" and "Insightful".

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    15. Re:Yes, better transparency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The state and federal gas tax pays for things like roads.

      LOL Yeah right, what universe are you living in? In this universe, gas taxes are used to subsidize general funds and our roads are crumbling...

    16. Re:Yes, better transparency! by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      It's not proportional to $/gallon, but to number of gallons. Also, cars that are less efficient tend to be heavier, which is exponentially more wear on the road.

    17. Re:Yes, better transparency! by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      You don't know enough then.

      There is a fixed tax per gallon, and then the normal scaling sales tax, now at 8.75%.

      So they do rake in more at the state level when prices go up.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    18. Re:Yes, better transparency! by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Stop calling me Shirly.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    19. Re:Yes, better transparency! by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Informative

      They are perfectly transparent. I can find the taxes on gasoline easily online. I can't find the details about the refinery's operations online.

    20. Re:Yes, better transparency! by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      You pay sales tax on gasoline purchases in addition to the gas tax? I've never run into that in my travels around the western US. In Oregon where I live we don't have sales tax at all so it's not an issue.

    21. Re:Yes, better transparency! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      There are typically both proportional AND fixed components. The proportional component is determined according to average fuel prices based on some schedule (protects the tax revenue against price volatility/sudden decrease in price), and provides the state a certain percentage of the fuel revenue, and then there's a fixed component assessment that sets a guaranteed tax -- so in other words, it's in a sense a fixed gallon amount, but not really.

      Example: Vermont: The Vermont Gas Tax rate is $0.20 per gallon & 2% of the average quarterly retail price. A (per gallon) Motor Fuel Transportation Infrastructure Assessment (MFTIA) fee must be added to the gasoline tax rate. The MFTIA is subject to change on a quarterly basis. Please refer to the table of MFTIA rates on the right side of the Commercial Trucking pages for specific MFTIA rate information.

      To be collected for: First Quarter 2013 $0.0668

    22. Re:Yes, better transparency! by techdolphin · · Score: 1

      By the way, what where Exxon and BP's reported profits last year?

      And how much did Exxon and BP pay in federal income taxes and how much did they get in subsidies?

    23. Re: Yes, better transparency! by fortfive · · Score: 1

      Yes, taxes are important. But gas tax, like all sales tax, is regressive. It hits poor people harder

    24. Re:Yes, better transparency! by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      Lastly, if gas tax money is supposed to fix roads...why are all the roads that aren't toll or interstate in such poor shape?

      Because 20 cents a gallon doesn't buy what it did the last time Texas gas taxes were raised... in 1991!

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    25. Re:Yes, better transparency! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      > Because Gas Taxes are spent on Caviar and Hookers, right?

      Ha Ha. Money spent on Caviar and Hookers is marketing expense. As such it isn't profit.

      Profit goes into dividends which generally get paid out to pension funds and individual investors, or is retained for future investments, or is paid to governments in the form of taxes.

    26. Re:Yes, better transparency! by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Somebody works for BP.

    27. Re:Yes, better transparency! by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Troll alert.

    28. Re:Yes, better transparency! by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Right because you have facts to back this up? Do you know maintenance cost for road repair.....

    29. Re:Yes, better transparency! by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      Your post doesn't have enough pieces of flair, apparently.

    30. Re:Yes, better transparency! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Why don't fuel pumps mention the $0.18/gallon federal gasoline tax?

      They do. It is listed on the pump.

      Or the $0.38/gallon (California) state gasoline tax?

      Yup, the state tax is also listed on the pump.

      Here is a photo of the notice on a pump.

    31. Re:Yes, better transparency! by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      You're right about Vermont, and some other states using a dual system like that. I'm from New Jersey, where it's just a flat rate. I didn't realize that it was taxed this way, although I'd be hesitant to say most states operate like this. In addition, the federal rate is per gallon. Here's some info for every state; it seems about 10 states have taxes proportional to price for fuel, with a few being diesel only. http://www.newjerseygasprices.com/Tax_Info.aspx

    32. Re:Yes, better transparency! by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Head south to California, you will pay it there, unless it is for a business.

      Head north, you will pay it there:

      http://dor.wa.gov/Content/FindTaxesAndRates/RetailSalesTax/Exemptions.aspx#producer

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  3. Blame Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Regulators (state & federal) have forced refineries to shut down or prevented them from being built in the first place.

    NIMBY'ism is also a factor.

    Then there is the problem of too many different fuel blends. Dozens across the US, with a small number of refineries servicing each area.

    The result of all this, combined, is that a single refinery going down causes huge issues.

    Reduce the number of fuel blends across the country. Dont make it take 10+ years just for the possibility to build a new refinery because of all the hoops. More supply == less volatility.

    1. Re:Blame Regulation by riverat1 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Whatta ya mean! The US was a net exporter of gasoline last year. We have plenty of refineries but the oil companies don't want to carry a lot of extra capacity because it costs money to maintain it. The most cost effective way for them to process petroleum is with fewer bigger refineries with minimal extra capacity. So yes, if a significant disruption like a refinery fire occurs it echos through the system. But don't think anyone wants to build new refineries. Perhaps you could give some examples of refineries that have been turned down. Not only that but with increasing fuel efficiency standards and the advent of cars that use little or no gasoline like the Volt and the Leaf there probably isn't a need for new refineries anyway.

    2. Re:Blame Regulation by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't saying that the Volt and Leaf were making a difference now. But their sales curve so far is similar to the Prius when it first came out. There will be enough sales in the future to make a difference. It takes time to build out the infrastructure but it will happen.

    3. Re:Blame Regulation by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Yeah... Refineries aren't the best neighbors. Within a mile, you get a a grease build up on everything, even out of the prevailing wind. The particulate emissions (I think it is the particulate at least) cause all kinds of respiratory joy.

      I moved from about 3/4 mile to ~1.1 miles from our local refinery, and the number of sick days and doctor's visits I had to take have dramatically dropped. (And people pay millions of dollars to live in the neighborhood...)

    4. Re:Blame Regulation by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Regulators (state & federal) have forced refineries to shut down

      Which one? Did it ever exist in the first place?
      I think you'll find bulk transport issues and economies of scale are the reasons why there are so few refineries in the USA. That may change with increasing amounts of shale oil since it arrives by land instead of by supertanker.

    5. Re:Blame Regulation by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      Regulators (state & federal) have forced refineries to shut down or prevented them from being built in the first place.

      It seems correct, but it's categorically false. Since the mid 1970's there has been exactly ONE request for a new refinery of significant size, and it was granted. Refineries are very expensive to build and it's cheaper to expand the existing ones. It also makes no sense for them to expand refinery capacity past what exactly what the market demands, since that would lower prices (and margins)

      Because we have very few players in the market, collusion is going to happen...and market speculation is just as bad if not worse. If you buy oil futures IMO you should expect tanker trucks to show up at your investment firm, but that's not how the game is played.

  4. Willfull ignorance certainly a factor by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They suffer from "political myopia." They can't really be bothered to notice occurrences in the physical world. Only politics is real to them. So, like the Roman emperors who couldn't be bothered to attend to their water systems or roads, our government can't be bothered to look at refineries, or how net energy from hydrocarbons is declining even as supplies increase, or what happens when the potash is all mined out, or what happens when a few more major aquifers are completely drained. They won't be in office by then, they figure. It'll be someone else's problem.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  5. Thin margins by Jungle+guy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Contrary to what some might expect, not everycompany in the oil industry is making a lot of money these days. With the spike in the Brent crude price, the refineries have, in fact, seen their margins getting thinner every day. As some refineries are in the brink of losing money, dont expext much investment on security or enviroment from them. The only possible solution? The regulator could tighten security requirements, forcing the bad refineries out of business and making the others have a better security performance. The downside? Gasoline prices will go out, as the gasoline from the old refineries will no longer go to the market. I don't know if the american government is willing to pay this price.

    1. Re:Thin margins by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Just think about this. Those oil refineries with thin margins wanted the tax payers to build a pipeline from Canada for them.

      I have done the math and have seen just how thin their margins are(5% is typical profit)

      the other trick is those same refineries are shipping the refined gasses overseas for higher margins(good business).

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Thin margins by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1, Informative

      1. Taxpayers are not funding this.

      2. The reason for the pipeline is to reduce costs. It's much cheaper than rail or trucking. That will translate to a mix of several positive effects.

      a. lower prices
      b. less oil imports
      c. better profits
      d. more exports of finished products

    3. Re:Thin margins by peragrin · · Score: 2

      ah no
      only C and D. Not one part of it would stay in the USA. As it sits now the oil companies are exporting refined gasoline as they get better prices for it over seas instead of using it to lower prices in the states.

      Incase you weren't aware but CANADA is a foreign country. you have to IMPORT oil FROM Canada.

      Of course you realized that right?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:Thin margins by Klaxton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sorry but the proposed pipeline would not reduce gasoline prices in any way, it would carry tar sand sludge to Texas refineries on the Gulf coast which will then produce fuels that go on the open international market. Yes I said sludge, it isn't even oil, it is a bitumen hydrocarbon 'product' called dilbit. A bizarre highly corrosive and sticky pipeline fluid that sinks in water. Want that pipeline pumping the stuff through your state at 1400 PSI?

    5. Re:Thin margins by pepty · · Score: 2

      The dirty little secret is that the big bad oil companies are not taking in oddles of tax payer subsidies... the big boys were exempted from many of the tax advantages which are being vilified... or are things which are available to nearly all companies in nearly all industries.

      "Among the top 10 most profitable companies, energy companies ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP), Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM) and Chevron Corp. (NYSE: CVX) were on the low end of the list, paying 8 percent, 4 percent and 2 percent, respectively, of their total earnings to the U.S. federal government."

      http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2012/08/06/conocophillips-exxon-chevron-paid.html?page=all

      Doesn't look like they were exempted from much.

    6. Re:Thin margins by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      True true... But then they fund panty raids, not suicide bombers with the profits.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    7. Re:Thin margins by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure the prices they get over here on the other side of the big pond is that much higher, sure the current price at the pump is roughly 8,50 $/gallon but a really significant(40-60%) part of that is taxes, then there's also the cost of shipping it here.

    8. Re:Thin margins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Diluted bitumen, or "dilbit" for short, isn't particularly nastier than any other petroleum pipeline in terms of risk. It's nasty stuff, but it's like saying there's a huge difference between a tanker truck spilling gasoline into the local creek as a result of an accident versus spilling motor oil. Yeah, the gasoline is somewhat easier to clean up (a lot of it evaporates), so there is a real difference there, but it's still a disaster either way. Best not to spill either product in the first place. Both will be bad, even if not equally bad.

      Chances are you've already got a pipeline pumping somewhat less noxious stuff through your state, and if you want to have access to Canadian exports, I'm afraid diluted bitumen is going to increasingly be your main option, because conventional oil production has been in decline in Canada for decades and is less and less available. If it weren't for bitumen, you might get nothing soon.

      I'm sure the US will find plenty of countries right next door from which they can import supplies. Oh, wait, that's right. Mexico is also in production decline. Guess you'll have to import it by tanker. And we know those don't have any risks compared to pipelines.

    9. Re:Thin margins by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      You really don't understand economics, do you?

      This is a world market and any increase in supply is going to reduce prices.

      And as far as safety, I'll take a pipeline over a fleet of rail cars or tank trucks every day and twice on Sunday.

      And as far as imports, oil would enter the pipeline from not only Canada but also crude oil would enter at Baker, Montana and Cushing, Oklahoma.

  6. Speculation is already in play ... by DavidClarkeHR · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Speculators demand more transparency so they can jack the price of futures every time a breaker trips at a refinery.

    One of the reasons that gas prices fluctuate overnight is due to speculation - this is just another way of attempting to democratize the "open" market.

    As I understand it, the price of crude changes quicker due to speculation than to any other factors - can you think of another item where demand and/or supply will affect the prices on the same level (not due to speculation)?

    --
    - Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
    1. Re:Speculation is already in play ... by jhoegl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I speculate I want more money.
      Now who is laughing all the way to the bank?
      Speculation is bullshit, it is simply a form of legalized gambling.

    2. Re:Speculation is already in play ... by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      April 17, 2012
      http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/17/markets/obama-oil-speculators/index.htm

      The new proposals require oil traders to put up more of their own money for transactions, ask for more money for market enforcement and monitoring activities, and call for higher penalties for market manipulation.

      "None of these will bring gas prices down overnight," Obama said at a White House press. "But they will prevent market manipulation, and help protect consumers."

      I think we should just kick speculators out completely, but then again,
      I also think that fair, competitive, and transparent markets are better than "free" markets.

      The numbers I've seen quoted are that the oil market is 70% speculators and 30% producers/users.
      Historically, that number has been the opposite, with producers/users makeing up 70% of the market.

      I'm not disputing that refinery problems are responsible for localized price spikes, but overall prices have gone up because speculators are moving the market towards higher prices.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:Speculation is already in play ... by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      Goldman Sachs et al would beg to differ, considering they would be the casino.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    4. Re:Speculation is already in play ... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Same with food "futures"...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:Speculation is already in play ... by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      Actually, we are the Casino, since we are the ones paying out their bets.
      THe problem is the game is rigged for the players.
      The only way we can fix this is through law.

    6. Re:Speculation is already in play ... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      You can fix a broken game by playing the game? Nonsense. The game is broken, whether you happen to be a winner or a loser. The problem being pointed out is, currently everyone loses except those few players who happen to own a few congress critters.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:Speculation is already in play ... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Actually, oil prices have gone up primarily because the US Dollar has been devalued. Compare the value of the 1970 dollar to the value of gold, oil, the yen, the yuan, or any foreign currency. Then, compare the value of the 2012 dollar to all those same items.

      The dollar has been devalued, oil has increased in price very little. Several cents a barrel, in fact, not dollars.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    8. Re:Speculation is already in play ... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Oil Speculators were were originally banned from the futures market then in '92, Goldman Sachs got an exemption that allowed oil speculation. So yes, banning them again would be the right thing to do.

    9. Re:Speculation is already in play ... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      No it hasn't. Oil prices have gone up primary do to speculation. Research by the CFTC has shown this.

    10. Re:Speculation is already in play ... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      What fucking demand? Since 2008 demand has been in the toilet do to the global economic recession. Oil reserves and gas reserves have been through the roof. People have been driving less but oil prices remain high. Energy Analysts said oil prices should have hit $60/barrel but they never did.

      Moron.

    11. Re:Speculation is already in play ... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      They can move the markets it called buying futures contracts. This is well documented.

      Idiot.

    12. Re:Speculation is already in play ... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I'll repeat: the value of oil, based on the value of gold, has remained very stable since 1950.

      http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/energy-harnassed/2012/jul/17/does-gold-set-price-oil/
      http://pricedingold.com/crude-oil/

      Talking heads, and the latest generations of "economists" would have you believe that the dollar is stable, while all other commodities fluctuate. The prices you see at the pump reflect, instead, the relative strength of the dollar.

      Speculation does have a short transitory effect on the price of oil, or gold, or any other commodity. Thus, the spikes in the charts reflect speculation.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    13. Re:Speculation is already in play ... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      So your saying it's gold speculation, not oil speculation.

      waiting for that bubble to pop...

  7. You mean reduced supply increases the price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let's summarize:

    Lack of diversity increases the risk of supply disruption.
    Decreased supply increases the price.

    In other words, more refineries would increase the supply and reduce the disruption risk.

  8. Too Much Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I spend 10 years working in the oil and gas refining industry, and I can say first hand that most of these problems and prolonged reductions in output are tied directly and wholly to excessive, brutal, inflexible, and sluggish government red tape.

    At one refinery we were doing a new control system for, the refiner discovered a bad gas overpressure valve that was leaking slightly. The process for handling such an event is to immediately scram the refinery, and file 12 different applications with EPA, OSHA, and other government agencies to beg for permission to fix it. In that particular case that whole section of the refinery was down for 9 weeks.

    Most people have no idea just how difficult it is to deal with the administration, and this one especially, when it comes to oil and gas production. This administration is not at all interested in a steady and cheap supply of oil and gas products - and I say that with firsthand experience.

    1. Re:Too Much Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LOL. Condemning one dogma while lamenting another.

      Here's what really happens with the valve leaks slightly.

      Somebody says to ignore the problem as long as they can. Then they band-aid it.

    2. Re:Too Much Regulation by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      Ok so what replacement do you suggest? The truth is that we don't have anything that can replace oil derivatives on any sort of large industrial scale.
      Pumping the black stuff out of the ground is convenient and currently the only reasonable alternative. Replacing oil derivatives with fuels derived from grown crops will simply take up too much of the available arable land on the planet for it to be a reasonable large scale replacement(unless we accept massive starvation is an acceptable cost, and even then we'll eventually run into other problems such as diminishing sources of fertilizers, currently known sources of phosphate rock is expected to last no more than 75 years at the current consumption rate(and is located mainly in China...) and phosphate fertilizers is necessary for modern high efficiency crop production).

      Same thing goes for electric cars, there are simply not enough of the metals and other materials(in currently known or estimated deposits) required for high energy density batteries to replace even 10% of the global car park.

    3. Re:Too Much Regulation by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      Somebody says to ignore the problem as long as they can. Then they band-aid it.

      Then senior management looks at how much the band-aids cost, and targets a 10% across-the-board cost reduction next year.

      See: BP Texas City refinery fire.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    4. Re:Too Much Regulation by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

      The United States does not have the cheapest gas on the planet, merely some of the cheapest gas in the Western/Industrialized world. Many nations in the Middle East and developing world actually have cheaper gas as its heavily subsidized by their national governments to keep the masses content. US gas is cheap compared to its economic peers however because we tax it less than other places like Japan or Europe.

    5. Re:Too Much Regulation by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      Well to be honest I am one of those commie pinko lefty Europeans, and I do think we should invest time and research money into finding viable alternatives to oil derivatives and I do think we should move away from fossil fuels to whatever reasonable extent and pace we can. But I just happen to be quite aware that at the moment there exists no large scale replacement so we can't just go about tossing fossil fuels out the door before we have something that can on a long-term actually replace it on the massive scale necessary.

    6. Re:Too Much Regulation by khallow · · Score: 1

      What would be the point of doing so? Pollution, especially with the recent fad of ignoring the actual harm of pollution, is not a good reason in itself of discontinuing an activity. One needs to compare costs and benefits.

      It remains that oil has a lot of benefits when it's in our fuel tanks or in our plastics. But not so when it's in the ground.

  9. $3.63/gallon?!? by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 5, Informative

    $3.63/gallon? $3.63/GALLON?!? If your northern neighbours saw those prices there would be a line up 3 blocks down the fucking road!!! We haven't seen prices that low since at least 2002. Americans need to stop bitching about having some of the lowest gas prices in the world.

    1. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Funny

      They get free health care up north and other things we don't.

      No, we don't. We pay for it in taxes, and the next imbecile that says we get "free health care" will get smacked with Lake Erie....before it was cleaned up.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is exactly my point. Thnak you!

    3. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 2

      The difference is most of what you pay is tax, that gives you a lot of benefits in return. In the US, it goes into the pockets of Big Oil, never be seen again.

    4. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      yes!! in australia, the other day i filled up at AUD$1.63/L

      the above "highest ever OMG" equates to AUD$0.91/L

      fuck you, americans. you'll start wars to keep the price so low that even the poorest of you can drive F-350s? running a car is a privilege, not a right!

    5. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      That's why I own oil company stocks. The dividends are nice.

    6. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by nuonguy · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand how it works down here. Down here people live their lives knowing that corporations have more rights than everyone else the same way that the aristocracy had rights that commoners and peasants did not have in olden times. Your Canadian values are not welcome down here. :-)

    7. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by Swampash · · Score: 1

      Sweet jesus, that's less than a dollar per litre. I haven't seen prices like that since the twentieth century.

      Seriously America, you're a guy complaining that his imported Perrier is less fizzy than it used to be to an audience of people who are getting used to drinking rainwater. STFU.

    8. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by Swampash · · Score: 2

      Here in Australia the other day I took my kid to the dentist. Kid spent half an hour in the chair while a dentist and a nurse hovered over him making sure everything was as it should be. Poking and prodding, a bit of plaque removal, fluoride gel, etc. When he got up they handed him a bag with toothbrushes and floss.

      Cost to me: zero. Walked out without paying a cent. Because socialism works.

      The USA can keep its cheap gas. I'll take a society that looks after its citizens every time.

    9. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      We pay for it in taxes too, but the paycheck calls is a payroll deduction.

    10. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      Well a big part of those taxes comes from taxes on fuel, or at least it does here in Sweden where the current gas price is roughly 8.5 $/gallon mostly thanks to the 40-60% tax on gasoline and diesel.

    11. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      One of the big reasons we pay so much is that the Americans charge us a lot and our government discourages Canadian refineries. The attitude of our current governments is sell the raw materials, get dividends to replace the lack of taxes from lack of good jobs (every oil job is balanced by 30 manufacturing jobs lost) and screw most Canadians as they only need 1/3 of voters to vote them a 5yr dictatorship.
      At least in BC, we have to pay for medical unless poor and that has been going up like crazy so income taxes on the rich and business can go down. It is still much cheaper then in America due to it being run by the government rather then multiple businesses that have huge administrative costs and need to make a good profit. It is also amazing the savings from removing most of the lawyers from the equation.
      We are getting some new businesses, coal mines and such being run by Chinese and Indonesian companies but of course they claim that no-one in N. America knows how to mine so they're importing Chinese workers. Seems not only do the Chinese workers work cheap but they'll also pay quite a bit of money to work in Canada. Back to the 19th century where the workers pay for the chance to live in the company town and make less then they pay.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    12. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by egr · · Score: 1

      on a good day we have about $9.60/gallon including taxes.

    13. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      fuck you, americans. you'll start wars to keep the price so low that even the poorest of you can drive F-350s? running a car is a privilege, not a right!

      Absolutely. In fact, in honor of your lovely attitude and communications skills, I think I shall drive mine without using the overdrive for the next week, just to spew a little more pollution into the atmosphere.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    14. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      I think such behaviour is called "cutting the nose to spite the face".

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    15. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by N!k0N · · Score: 1

      They get free health care up north and other things we don't.

      No, we don't. We pay for it in taxes, and the next imbecile that says we get "free health care" will get smacked with Lake Erie....before it was cleaned up.

      smack them with the Cuyahoga River (before getting cleaned up) ... you could even set it on fire for proper effect if necessary.

    16. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      fuck you, americans. you'll start wars to keep the price so low ....

      Don't kid yourself. We started that war to keep prices high. At what time did prices ever drop to near prewar levels? If we wanted cheap oil, we would have just cut a deal with Iraq like France, Germany, and Russia did. The US is an oil producing country with lots of the oil companies and their refineries. If there was an ulterior motive to that war it was to jack the prices up.

    17. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      The USA can keep its cheap gas. I'll take a society that looks after its citizens every time.

      The abo's might object to your insinuation that the Aussies take care of their citizens.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    18. Re:$3.63/gallon?!? by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      I'll let the supreme dictatorship of Supreme Chancellor Harper know how upset I am when he's done raping us with copyright laws.

  10. Major spill? by MavenW · · Score: 2

    7,700 gallons is a MAJOR spill? Isn't that about what one semi hauls?

    1. Re:Major spill? by PPH · · Score: 1

      OK. We'll cry for the little fishies. But in the grand scheme of supply and demand, its nothing.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  11. Re:You voted for it by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    Cut
    Kill
    Dig
    Drill

    Love, Sarah P.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  12. Re:You voted for it by sjames · · Score: 2

    There is nothing inherently hostile about demanding transparency.

  13. The Book by decora · · Score: 2

    Leah McGrath Goodman, a financial reporter, wrote a book about Nymex and the transition to electronic trading in the early 2000s. It's called "The Asylum" and verifies a lot of what you guys are saying.

    Except that the regulators in the government are kind of... on the 'same team' . . . the head of the CFTC left and to work for the New York Mercantile Exchange. She documented the whole thing. Hell of a story.

  14. Re:Capacity by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wrong. There is excess capacity.

    What really happens is that excess refinery capacity is either mothballed or used to manufacture products for export.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/21/valero-klesse-idUSWEN981620110321

    With the crappy worldwide economy and high prices of crude demand for gasoline is decreasing.

  15. How would it help? by fermion · · Score: 3, Interesting
    What you are talking about is fluctuation in supply caused by reasonable issue with capacity. If a freeze cause produce prices to skyrocket, there is a national day of mourning that produce costs more. No. We complain but we either choose to pay the price, perhaps buy canned or frozen, or do without. As participants in the free market, the choice is ours.

    The problem is that for the most part people did not respond appropriately to those price signals. Rather they went to the government to complain, went to their churches to hear conspiracy theories about how the liberals wanted to destroy the christian way of life, blaming regulation, speculators, evil oil people gouging the common people. All these are partly true, and gouging people who are too stupid to make adjustments so they don't get gouged is fun and profitable, but it does come down to choices.

    If a single shut down can raise prices, then we are at capacity and there are only two choices. The first is to raise the price of the commodity, i.e. refined petroleum, so the refiners will have an incentive to build more capacity. Regulation will raise this costs, but so will the need of refiners to pay the expected huge salaries(sometimes well over 100K to a college grad).

    The other is to use less so that current capacity is sufficient, reserves can be built, or older plants can be shut down and maybe updated.

    The problem is that neither of these are acceptable to the whiners who expect the government to give them everything for nothing. Who expect to live in suburbs and have the city people subsidies their lifestyle. For those that will not drive their cars so they can approach 30 mph instead os 20 mph

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:How would it help? by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      If a single shut down can raise prices, then we are at capacity

      Actually you're missing one very key market force. Time.

      There is an absolute glut worldwide in refining capacity. In many countries refineries are closing down. Margins are razor thin that many refineries are run at a loss and the profits are made up by retail sales. What would happen if Cherry Point burnt to the ground completely? Nothing different than what happened when they burnt through their crude unit and were taken offline for a month.

      Your problem is time. It takes about 12 weeks for oil to get from the ground to the bowser. Most of that time the products are in transit or in terminals. Refineries purchase crude oil months in advance to seal in contracts. The stuff is on ships many weeks before it gets used and gets blended in tanks thereafter. What happens when a refinery is suddenly taken offline is that for a period of 1-3 weeks there's a major upset in the supply chain. Not a lack of total production, but a lack of deliveries in a timely fashion. The only way to get around this is to ensure your entire country is a net exporter of petroleum products.

      Even then, if you're a net exporter, and you have a glut of capacity, all of your products are likely under a retail contract. The sudden loss of a refinery will still upset the market as one needs to weigh the possibility of being blacklisted as a supplier due to failure of meeting existing contracts in favour of handling a local emergency.

      We see very similar things in my country which a net importer of gasoline by a massive margin. The refineries are small but our net import shields us from such problems to some degree. When the only refinery in our city shutdown due to an explosion in their cracker it was down for 3 months, the price spiked for a week then returned to normal. The net import meant we had a lot of supply already on the way and didn't need to rely on local production.

      There's really no way to win this.

    2. Re:How would it help? by volmtech · · Score: 1

      You and few million of your neighbors form a co-op, build a tank farm and fill the tanks with gasoline when prices are low. When prices spike, just pump from your tanks until prices go back down.

    3. Re:How would it help? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So you're suggesting we spend money to buy products which form dead working capital in the form of products that just sit there waiting for a disaster?

      Sounds like something an economics student would suggest, and something that an MBA would shut down and try to sell off to some poor sucker.

    4. Re:How would it help? by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Many grain farmers invest in silos to store their crop to avoid selling during harvest time when prices are lowest. Some rent space at co-op owned silos. Having your own fuel supply is just the reciprocal of this. I know first hand that regulations for fuel storage are quite onerous. You would almost think Big Oil paid someone to make sure they controlled the fuel supply.

    5. Re:How would it help? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That system only works in a market where supply is constrained. I.e. throttling oil production at the well like OPEC already do to influence the crude oil price.

      It doesn't work in a market where supply is both constant and saturated. There's never a shortage of ways to sell fuel at a profit and there's never a shortage of upstream supply. The end result is to maximise profit you run your refinery as hard as it can go during the good times, and you run it as hard as it can go during the worst times.

      A massive and I mean really massive tank farm doesn't buy you more than a few days in storage capacity and costs hundreds of millions to construct. There's certainly some attempted smoothing going on at terminals but most of them have continuous supply contracts and can't not sell the product just because a price doesn't suit at a given day.

    6. Re:How would it help? by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Supply and demand. If speculators try to drive prices up on rumors of a shortage, say a fire at a refinery, any disruption can be fill from the storage tanks. The market will know about the extra supply so no buying panic will happen. The opportunity cost of maintaining storage facilities will have to be balanced with savings anticipated. Have you priced AR-15s and .223 ammunition recently?

    7. Re:How would it help? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The point is that it doesn't make economic sense to store fuel if you can sell 100% of your inventory today and make a small profit and then still sell 100% of your inventory tomorrow and make a large profit. Maximising profit based on speculation only works if you don't have production and supply always running at its limit like you do in the oil industry.

      To maximise your profit in the oil industry you sell all you have all the time. That is exactly how the oil industry works. Regardless if margins are good, or margins are bad, regardless of what speculation says we run our refineries at maximum capacity at all times and go out of our way to minimise time product is spent in tanks. Effectively the only time a transfer / booster pump or a product rundown pump is off is if something has gone wrong.

    8. Re:How would it help? by volmtech · · Score: 1

      I'll end with a personal anecdote. I grew potatoes for the fresh market. At the start of the season we were paid $12 per hundred weight by the local re-packer we sold to. Three weeks into the season we were only paid $4. In the grocery store I noticed that the price of potatoes from this packer in the store remained constant. I ask the company representative when he visited my farm why the store price didn't drop when their supply cost went down. His answer, "We don't want to confuse the consumer."

  16. Bad dog, sit! by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Employees should not audit their bosses

  17. It's Crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Failure to quickly report any insult to the environment by corporations is a conspiracy and should carry severe penalties. Both the oil and coal industries have horrid safety records and are essentially a form of organized crime.
                          And yes, our government is slow to respond and may seem excessive. I believe that it was Ben Franklin that remarked that a good population requires little government. The size and intrusion of government is directly related to the honesty and decency of the people and the businesses in the nation. Every time industry values profit above right then they in effect beg for more intrusion, more laws, and stiffer penalties. Also the more we support oil and coal the slower alternate sources can make their way in the market.
                          For example the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico was criminal enough that not only should BP be bankrupted but many executives should be in prison. Adequate punishments are not applied. The phrase safety first is more than a slogan. It means safety before even economic survival for a company. When safety really comes first accidents simply would not be so common. Yet this is the same industry that wants to pipe shale oil across America.

  18. Re:Did we nationalize the oil companies overnight? by c0lo · · Score: 2

    The oil industry was effectively nationalized decades ago. The industry operates under absolutely strangling regulation and government essentially dictates everything that happens at a refinery right down to when the workers take a leak.

    I agree oil industry and govt seem one and the same, but it doesn't quite look like the govt taking over the oil industry. On the contrary, it looks it is the oil industry privatized the government... the result is quite the same for consumers, though.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  19. Re:Capacity by brador4 · · Score: 1

    No, a refinery disruption at one west coast refinery ONLY caused west coast gas prices to rise. Refinery capacity in other areas of the US couldn't help gas prices on the west coast. If the US had more refineries, a disruption to one refinery wouldn't have such an impact. The US has half the refineries it had 30 years ago due to NIMBY. If there's a shortage on the west coast, excess capacity in other areas of the US don't help much.

  20. Re:You voted for it by pepty · · Score: 2

    Build more refineries, bigger refineries, and we won't have this nonsense

    Er, by nonsense you mean higher profit margins every time a refinery goes down? Guess who goes "envirowacko" and lobbies against competitors building new refineries based on environmental grounds? Guess who reports their refineries are down and enjoys the spike in prices while their refineries are actually still producing and they are stockpiling gasoline?

  21. We go to war to keep the price of oil down by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    We executed Gulf War I to prevent Saddam from controlling Kuwait's oil fields and stop threatening the Saudi fields.

    Greenspan said that we were in Iraq for oil. Controlling global energy sources was likely a significant sweetener for going into Iraq.

    It's directly linked to our quality of life. So you better believe the society, via the government, should be getting a clear picture of WHAT EXACTLY is going on with the oil supply chain.

  22. Re:Current Price here is $5.11/gallon by Altus · · Score: 1

    And how much of that is tax?

    Why do people compare gas prices in different countries without looking at the tax rate. That tax doesn't have to be there, the money supposedly brings some benefits for you guys. If you aren't getting good benefits for your taxes then you should consider complaining to your elected officials.

    --

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  23. Re:Did we nationalize the oil companies overnight? by pepty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The oil industry was effectively nationalized decades ago. The industry operates under absolutely strangling regulation and government essentially dictates everything that happens at a refinery right down to when the workers take a leak.

    Um, So The Fuck What?

    If you want to see tight regulation, try working in a pharmaceutical facility. Or maybe a nuclear plant. Guess what: if your workplace is likely to affect the health of LOTS and LOTS of people, I WANT it tightly regulated.

  24. Re:You voted for it by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Can you drill from helicopters?

  25. Oil companies' idea of petroleum transparency... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    ...is called Vaseline.

  26. Refining capacity is also a problem by wakeboarder · · Score: 2

    If states like California would allow more refining capacity to be built, then the supply end of the market would have more of a 'buffer' to supply problems (if you have a refinery they build these large things called tanks to store petrol in, this boots your supply and you can crank up capacity if you need more). If you don't believe me you can read this: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2004/06/the_great_refinery_shortage.html
    There hasn't been one built in California for at least 30+ years because of environmental restrictions. I was talking to a VP of an oil distributing company, he said that 10 years ago they were trying to get additional capacity for their oil refinery, each time they were rejected because of these regulations and today it would be prohibitively expensive to add capacity. This is not just a problem for California either... just look at what has been built in the last 40 years and where http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=29&t=6 . We are all to ready to fill up our vehicles, but when you bite the hand that feeds you, it may have a hard time delivering.

  27. Re:Capacity by grumpyman · · Score: 1

    Ask the pipeline folks - Alberta can't get the crude down south (or anywhere) to be processed.

  28. Re:Capacity by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Errr except all over the world refineries are being shutdown or divested as a major glut in capacity (not helped by Reliance Petroleum bringing online a 1million bbl/day refinery). The glut in capacity has driven the refinery margins so low that refineries are spending a small fortune increasing upgrading capacity so they can run an ever shitter and more corrosive mix of cheap and nasty sludge to try and turn a profit.

    No refinery right now can afford a nice sweet crude oil unless they are nationalised or positioned in a way that refining at a loss generates profits elsewhere. The only reason refineries are still pushing capacity to the limits is it costs a fortune to ramp down production.

  29. Re:[Citation needed] by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    1) Why do new refineries need to be built when companies are meeting capacity by upgrading and retrofitting old ones?

    You have apparently never heard of the concept of "single point of failure". The fewer refineries there are, the greater the amount of disruption that occurs in the market (and the greater the increase in price) when one of them experiences a problem in production.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  30. what? Huh? by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    "Or does our government and the electorate who put them there have a right to know what's really going on?'"

    Last time I looked the electorate was the oil companies and they know exactly what is going on.

  31. Re:Did we nationalize the oil companies overnight? by MartinSchou · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, the best way to demonstrate what happens without any kind of regulation at all, is to look at what is going on in Nigeria:

    Almost 1.9 million barrels have have been spilled into the Niger river delta in the 20 years between 1976 and 1996 in close to 4,900 different incidents, and there doesn't seem to be any indication that this is going to reduce in the future.

    See, in Nigeria there seems to be absolutely no business consequences to any kind of oil spills or accidents, so when the expenses of fixing a problem is greater than the expenses of the losses of oil, there's no incentive to pay for a fix.

    After all, the only ones feeling the consequences is the local population, and they obviously aren't worth much to anyone.

  32. Re:You voted for it by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    You're a fucking ass-hole.

    Refineries are operating nowhere near capacity and never have. When oils supplies start to peak, refineries go off-line and oils wells get capped. You never have maximum output.

    Then combine that with speculators driving up the price over any issue, the oil prices remain artificially high.

  33. transparency? by slick7 · · Score: 1

    Good luck with that.it's clear as mud. How's that workin' out for you?

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  34. Re:Capacity by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Refinery capacity in other areas of the US couldn't help gas prices on the west coast.

    There is sufficient capacity to make gasoline for the west coast issues. The problem is that it's illegal in California to sell it, as CA has specific requirements that only the refineries that regularly supply it are set up to deliver.