brerrabbitTX
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:1,024
Points:18,165
Joined:Mar 2011
|
Message Posted: Aug 17, 2012 9:18:23 PM
Enron was one company doing those things. Oil and gas is bought and traded and refined by multiple companies in California and the possibility of them all colluding to achieve any thing close to what you are suggesting is almost impossible. Beyond that there would be no way to involve so many individuals and companies without the effort being exposed. Try again there is no conspiracy. And if there was why would prices not be $10 a gallon, come on prices go up but they come back down too.
I saw that a popular price in LA today was 3.95 a gallon. Knock 69.9 cents off that that you pay in taxes and thats only 3.25 a gallon. Why don't you bitch about taxes every once in a while. Besides the price of oil taxes take the biggest piece of what is left. If based on todays price of Brent crude oil is 2.71 a gallon and taxes are .699 thats 3.409 a gallon which means everyone else like refiners, oil transporters, gas transporters, wholesalers, dealers, and station operators have to split the remaining 54.1 cents. And at 3.95 a gallon the credit card company is getting 11.85 cents. So now all those people are down to only 42.25 cents a gallon. People are not making that much money bringing gas to California.
|
CHEAPERDREAMS
Champion Author
Nevada
Posts:1,019
Points:71,485
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Aug 17, 2012 4:06:10 PM
Remember how Enron Controlled Electric prices. Manufactured shortages by shipping supposed excess out of the area then buying it back at a higher rate to charge more for energy that never left the area. I really believe this is going on with oil and gasoline NOW.
|
travelzonecente
Champion Author
Riverside
Posts:3,842
Points:1,089,445
Joined:Jun 2008
|
Message Posted: Aug 17, 2012 3:28:52 PM
Chevron is the latest
|
Yonkers111
Champion Author
Scranton
Posts:8,326
Points:856,010
Joined:Apr 2007
|
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 5:27:40 PM
"Many refineries have been cutting maintenance and taking safety shortcut to increase profits."
They are not, because it makes no sense. You have any proof?
A chemist would know the temps and pressures these units operate at. You take a chance with that stuff you kill people. Think Texas City, 1947.
[Edited by: Yonkers111 at 8/15/2012 6:28:11 PM EST]
|
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:1,024
Points:18,165
Joined:Mar 2011
|
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 12:47:13 PM
I hear you Ocean, I am only 53 and sometimes look around at all the 20 somethings I work with and wonder how much time I have left. Major Oil coampanies are constantly churning the workforce.
|
OceanArcher
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:5,688
Points:1,324,375
Joined:May 2004
|
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 10:10:32 AM
BrerRabbitTX --
Would love to, but for some strange reason, refineries have made the decision that a 70yr-old, graduate engineer is more of a liability than an asset in the field of pretrochemicals ...
|
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:1,024
Points:18,165
Joined:Mar 2011
|
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 9:11:47 AM
"This latest one is extremely fishy and reeks to high heaven. In todays age we should not be constantly having fires at refineries, period. Someone isn't paying attention to detail and the safety regulations here."
Well if you know anything about the market you would know there is nothing fishy at all about it. In fact it totally flies in the face of everyone's conspiracy theroy. The unit they lost makes diesel and with the Chevron refinery already down if you were looking to make more money you would never want to lose production when another refinery is already down. You just lost your chance for economic gain.
Everyone here seems to know the refining business so well I have to ask myself why all you experts are not in the business making the big bucks running refineries.
|
MertieMan
Champion Author
Lexington
Posts:14,768
Points:2,891,610
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 8:49:13 AM
This latest one is extremely fishy and reeks to high heaven. In todays age we should not be constantly having fires at refineries, period. Someone isn't paying attention to detail and the safety regulations here.
|
chemist74
Champion Author
Cleveland
Posts:13,510
Points:2,395,980
Joined:Apr 2005
|
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 8:34:08 AM
I think it is more incompetence than conspiracy.
Many refineries have been cutting maintenance and taking safety shortcut to increase profits. Refineries often do planned maintenance and modification in the spring before peak driving season and they change to summer formulations in the spring. When refineries make changes, it can take a little while before they discover what the screwed up during the changes.
|
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:1,024
Points:18,165
Joined:Mar 2011
|
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2012 8:13:53 AM
If a renery is shut down and unable to make gas and diesel and therefore unable to sell it why would they be giggling? Zero cash flow, no money.
That is the equivilent of saying , hey you lost your job and till you find another one you won't have any money. Everyone I know in that situation sure as hell ain't giggling.
Do you people think before you type these things and consider what your saying? Your arguments and comment fly in the face of logic.
|
gougenator
Champion Author
Dallas
Posts:29,828
Points:3,240,925
Joined:Aug 2003
|
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 8:01:59 PM
sabotage , they can make millions off $5 gas with a shut refinery cus of a fire at 1 ,so shut some more it will be $10/g gas soon!
but noone wants to admit it ,the oilcos/ref'ys are giggling at yall
|
valby
Champion Author
Massachusetts
Posts:2,891
Points:423,165
Joined:Jan 2005
|
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 3:34:53 PM
Yes seems that way.
|
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:1,024
Points:18,165
Joined:Mar 2011
|
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 3:00:01 PM
For all the conspiracy theorists out there the industry is adding fuel to the fire (no pun intended). The Shell Martinez refinery in the Bay Area had a reported fire yesterday. The San Fransico Chronicle has a brief story on it in toady's paper.
|
Yonkers111
Champion Author
Scranton
Posts:8,326
Points:856,010
Joined:Apr 2007
|
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 2:58:29 PM
"something should be done to increase the number of refineries in CA"
Like increased demand?
or increased profit margins?
Two reasons for me to invest.
|
PithyOpiner
Champion Author
Stockton
Posts:16,184
Points:1,593,545
Joined:Jun 2008
|
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2012 11:32:02 AM
I think we scared the feathers off the gasduckee. But, as hot as it is in L.A. these days he won't need them.
|
OceanArcher
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:5,688
Points:1,324,375
Joined:May 2004
|
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2012 11:35:40 AM
Gasduckee --
The refineries you see around you in the Los Angeles area have been there since the 1940s and 50s. Back then, environmental care wasn't the watchword that it is today. The casual burnoff of natural gas from these plants earned the name "Signal Hill" for a very large tract of land from near the airport all the way to Long Beach Harbor.
Believe it or not, these refineries cost money to run, to repair, and to upgrade to ever-increasing environmental laws. When those costs become more than the amount of money coming in through the operation -- they close. This places additional burdens on the remaining plants to run harder, longer and more efficiently. Ya wanna get your feet wet? Make a donation .........
|
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:1,024
Points:18,165
Joined:Mar 2011
|
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2012 7:54:15 PM
gvan,
You are correct, and I mis spoke. In refinery speak getting this thing off the ground in no time means something more along the lines of geological time, so in that language it would mean 15 to 20 years if we expidited the process.
|
gvan
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:21,502
Points:2,832,290
Joined:Dec 2004
|
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2012 11:59:02 AM
brerrabbitTX,
Agree with what you said except "We can get this thing off the ground in no time." How many years will it take to get approval from the state and federal government plus all the individual groups that are going to sue to stop it? However, 5 billion would be some good seed money.
[Edited by: gvan at 8/12/2012 1:00:28 PM EST]
|
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:1,024
Points:18,165
Joined:Mar 2011
|
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2012 11:13:39 PM
gasduckee,
Estimated cost for a new refinery in the 250,000 barrel a day range including land, permitting, construction and startup is around $12 to $15 billion dollars and the chance of ever seeing a return on that investment is about 10%. So given that, how much can I count on you for? Say $5 billion? Just drop me a note and let me know. We can get this thing off the ground in no time.
|
PithyOpiner
Champion Author
Stockton
Posts:16,184
Points:1,593,545
Joined:Jun 2008
|
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2012 10:59:59 PM
Hey, great idea. So, what you are saying is we should force the oil companies to construct a multi-billion dollar refinery as a spare, right? Much like the spares we have in our trunks in case we get a flat. I don't know why nobody ever came up with that idea. Way to go, gasduckee.
|
valby
Champion Author
Massachusetts
Posts:2,891
Points:423,165
Joined:Jan 2005
|
Message Posted: Aug 10, 2012 4:33:54 PM
Funny huh?
|
Gas_Buddy
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:25,948
Points:3,030,065
Joined:Aug 2004
|
Message Posted: Aug 10, 2012 4:28:09 PM
Just asking, but would you be willing to invest in increasing the number of refineries in California? And if you increased the number of refineries, are you, as an investor, confident that your new refineries (the ones you're investing in) will have sufficient business to justify building the refineries, let alone a return on investment (for, among others, you)?
|