Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-08-2004, 12:12 PM   #41 (permalink)
Too Awesome for Aardvarks
 
stevie667's Avatar
 
Location: Angloland
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Europe has not strengthened their economy against ours. European economic growth is anemic at best. Off the top of my head it averages about 1.7% growth for the members of the EU. More favorable exchange rates do not equate to a stronger economy.
where did you get those stats from?
the problem with current europe is that because we have wildely different figures and numbers for each country it's hard to get a good average because of the variance.
however, over the past few years the major players in europe (Britain, France, Germany, Italy e.t.c) have greatly strengthend their economies.

Price rises for petrol don't really help towards putting people into public transport, charging a fiver a day to allow people the right to drive in big cities does that
More fuel economic cars are a way to go, but only a short term measure, you have to get the public thinking about saving energy and buying fuel efficient cars to really make a dent.
stevie667 is offline  
Old 04-09-2004, 05:43 AM   #42 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by stevie667
where did you get those stats from?
the problem with current europe is that because we have wildely different figures and numbers for each country it's hard to get a good average because of the variance.
however, over the past few years the major players in europe (Britain, France, Germany, Italy e.t.c) have greatly strengthend their economies.

Price rises for petrol don't really help towards putting people into public transport, charging a fiver a day to allow people the right to drive in big cities does that
More fuel economic cars are a way to go, but only a short term measure, you have to get the public thinking about saving energy and buying fuel efficient cars to really make a dent.
Please feel free to post data that proves me wrong. I am going off the top of my head of what I've read about growth in the "EU" economy.

You can't put people into non existent public transportation either. I live about 60 miles from NYC and there are millions of people who travel the same route eastward towards NYC everyday. There are few options for those travellers. You may be able to get within a few miles of your destination by using buses, trains, or van pools but then you're stuck.

Adding more to the price of gas will not push people here into public transportation or van pools. People work too varied of schedules and are not willing to modify their schedules to save a few dollars (even significant dollars).
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 04-16-2004, 08:28 AM   #43 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
I've written quite a bit, so I'd like to leave this question for the thread starter:

Whether you agree with my assessment or not, why would you expect to pay less money for gasoline granting the point that this war is about oil?
I wouldn't expect to pay more. Now that I've done more reading both on and off TFP about the subject, it seems that gas prices will not be afected by oil supply unless there is a severe shortage. Your analysis is right on target. I would never expect a company to "pass on savings to the consumer." I also agree with Lebell's point that refining capability has remained the same with increased demand.

Another comment that I heard is that the younger generation in China is beginning to drive, and with them getting cars, their demand for oil is now higher, increasing the worldwide demand. I'll look to see if I can dig up any more info on this.


It has not gone unnoticed that this thread has stayed so civil for so long.
MSD is offline  
Old 04-16-2004, 09:34 AM   #44 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by MrSelfDestruct
Another comment that I heard is that the younger generation in China is beginning to drive, and with them getting cars, their demand for oil is now higher, increasing the worldwide demand. I'll look to see if I can dig up any more info on this.
The proclivity of the young in China to drive is a minute factor if it's any at all. The fact that China (and other emerging nations) are beginning to grow their economies has a far greater impact on the demand for oil. Power demands for this growth will become more of a factor on into the future.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 04-16-2004, 09:37 AM   #45 (permalink)
Registered User
 
skysooner's Avatar
 
Location: Oklahoma
Give me a break on this collusion thing. The reason oil companies are shutting down their refineries in California are due to environmental regulations that force them to upgrade the plants to make them cleaner. In some cases, the profits of refining the oil there don't justify major overhauls of the refineries, so they are shut down. Oil prices in the 1970s were approaching $30/barrel back then. With inflation thrown in, the price of oil is way below what it was back then.

I have been working in this industry for 14 years, and the only time we have tried to "manipulate" prices is when the prices drop so low that it costs us more to produce than we can lift it out of the ground for. Oil companies (just like any other publicly traded company) are held accountable by the stock market, and if revenue were to suddenly dry up due to shutting wells in, the stock price would react accordingly.

The oil price is governed by simple supply and demand. It is also a very complex system since the oil reserves are reported differently by every country, and it is hard to get a consistent picture of what is on the market at any one time.
skysooner is offline  
Old 04-16-2004, 10:33 AM   #46 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
The proclivity of the young in China to drive is a minute factor if it's any at all. The fact that China (and other emerging nations) are beginning to grow their economies has a far greater impact on the demand for oil. Power demands for this growth will become more of a factor on into the future.
I agree that industrial demands are going to outstrip Asian consumer demand.

skysooner, at least one organization investigated the claim for lost profits as a reason for shutting down a California refinery. They found that the refinery was at least as profitable, if not moreso, than it has been in the past.

In this most recent case, at least, that argument isn't holding up. The organization is either seeking some type of injuction or requesting a government investigation--I don't remember. They are arguing the closure is against the agreement the oil company made when their merger was approved. Maybe you have some more information on this topic?

This story claims that, while upgrading costs are noted, Shell claimed "a big contributor to its decision to close the refinery is the decreasing supply of crude oil from the San Joaquin Valley."

--http://www.nacsonline.com/NR/exeres/00003342ushebobunnrzxpiv/NewsPosting.asp?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fNACS%2fNews%2fDaily_News_Archives%2fNovember2003%2fnd1117033%2ehtm&NRNODEGUID=%7b53D9DF75-C732-41A2-B9E4-BC58AD490FD5%7d&NRQUERYTERMINATOR=1&cookie%5Ftest=1

In an earlier piece on this topic, I read that this refinery is situated on or next to an oil field. The allegation was that these oil companies are shutting their refineries but retaining the rights to the oil reserves. So if someone chooses to re-open the refinery, they still won't have access to the oil next door.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Last edited by smooth; 04-16-2004 at 10:37 AM..
smooth is offline  
Old 04-16-2004, 11:08 AM   #47 (permalink)
Registered User
 
skysooner's Avatar
 
Location: Oklahoma
You might be right about that. Shell operates differently than most domestic oil companies. I worked for them from 1990-1992, and the corporation is very much run with an iron fist from The Netherlands and what they say/do is not always indicative of what other companies are going to do. The vast majority of oil companies that produce in this country don't own refineries and have no control over that end of the game. Only the big boys (Exxon, Shell, Chevron-Texaco, etc.) have refineries. I'm pretty much limited on my information regarding their economics, so I'm actually not surprised by what you are saying.

Also, regarding the oil companies reserving rights to the reserves. This doesn't sound right to me. Most oil fields are not located next to refineries. Some oil fields are lucky enough to have pipelines next to them that ship the oil sometimes hundreds of miles to refineries. In many of the places I worked, the oil was actually picked up by tanker and taken to a pipeline facility where it was then shipped. It is very rare for an oil company to own mineral rights to oil. They instead lease the rights from the true owner (usually a private landowner or the federal/state government). The lease typically has a cessation clause that basically means that once production stops, the rights to produce that oil is lost and instead reverts to the real owner. All leases are different, but I can't imagine any landowner granting an oil company a lease in perpetuity. The only way for the landowner to derive revenue from produced oil or gas is for it to be produced and sold on the market. If the oil company was allowed to sit on it indefinitely, then the landowner would lose the use of their own minerals. I was involved in a case in the early 1990s where my company sued some of the major oil companies in southwest Kansas because the leases they had from the 1930-1950s basically gave them the right to not drill for deeper production underneath the shallow gas production they had going. They actually won the case (although it was close), but it was so close that they started giving us concessions to allow us to drill for oil underneath the shallow production.

I'm basically saying that the oil economy is so diverse and widespread with so many different players involved that without a very large group working together there is no way for prices to be affected for a long period of time. OPEC is an obvious exception. The companies in the US don't even supply enough for our own needs so saying we have the ability to adversely affect prices is ridiculous considering that we have a hard time just working together on small things.
skysooner is offline  
Old 04-16-2004, 11:55 AM   #48 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
ah yes, I think we're discussion two different things rather than differing on opinion or fact.

I was focusing on west coast production, primarily california's since that is where I live and where we are feeling part of the brunt of this price escalation. This Bakersfield refinery accounts for 2% of our gas and 6% of the west's diesel. That's huge I'm thinking. It's at least a big enough chunk to sent reverbrations through the industry and prices.

The information I read approximates the following:

Quote:
The logical buyer for the Bakersfield refinery would be ChevronTexaco, which runs the adjacent Kern River oil field. The refinery grew up sipping Kern River heavy crude, and was owned over the years by successive companies with major holdings in Kern River.

The last of those was Texaco, which merged its West Coast refining and marketing operations with Shell's in the late 1990s.

When Texaco was bought by Chevron in 2001, the state Attorney General's office forced the merged company to sell off its interests in its jointly held refineries, including the Bakersfield plant.

That means ChevronTexaco can't buy the refinery unless a modification of the deal it negotiated with the attorney general is reached.

After the merger, ChevronTexaco also ended up with virtually the entire Kern River oil field.

Asked Friday, ChevronTexaco spokesman Ed Spaulding said the company already owns two large California refineries, one in Los Angeles and the other in the Bay area, and likely didn't need the Bakersfield plant.
-- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114927/posts

and a statement from Senator Ron Wyden here:

http://wyden.senate.gov/media/2004/0...4_ftc_gas.html

I honestly don't know the extent of field ownership. I was speculating that large corporations retain ownership. Given what I've studied regrading corporate interconnectedness, oil refineries and oil fields are possibly more closely intertwined than one might think.

But I admit I don't know the extent of this for a fact and haven't taken the initiative to research it all out. I can't find the article I read last week but it either stated or implied that this thorny ownership web is prevelant throughout California.

Thanks for the discussion.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 04-16-2004, 12:53 PM   #49 (permalink)
Registered User
 
skysooner's Avatar
 
Location: Oklahoma
Well they can interconnect for sure. When the Seven Sisters came out of Standard Oil, there was a definite connection between refineries and oil fields. The infrastructure just wasn't there to transfer oil for many miles and shipping by truck wasn't cost-effective. In the early boom days in Oklahoma, there were cases of oil wells being allowed to flow on the ground, into rivers and ultimately into large holding pits where it was pumped onto railroad cars. There is a huge Superfund site in northern Oklahoma where this happened. Today, the reality is quite different. Refineries and oilfields are generally widely separated. Bakersfield is a big exception for one reason. The oil pumped in that area is what we call heavy crude. It is like tar and won't flow easily so transshipment by pipeline just isn't that cost-effective. It can be done, but since that grade of crude oil doesn't fetch as high a price, they can't afford to ship it very far.
skysooner is offline  
 

Tags
gallon, oil, paying, regular, war


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:42 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360