On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:02:29 GMT, "Bryan" wrote:


"PocoLoco" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:45:46 GMT, "Bryan" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
P. Fritz wrote:
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote in
:

OlBlueEyes wrote:
This is why prices are behaving as they are, and why prices ALWAYS
rise in any "crisis" situation. People who complain about $500
generators selling for $3,000 or $5 plywood boards selling for $25
don't understand basic economics. There aren't enough generators or
plywood boards for everyone, so prices self-regulate.
Sometimes, but more likely, the sellers are taking advantage and
gouging.

The stations in my immediate area raised their prices nearly $1.00
overnight. There's no shortage, there's no lines, and it's unlikely
all the stations just received thousands of gallons of higher priced
gas.
Actually it's LIKELY the stations WON'T be receiving ANY gas for DAYS.

It is likely the stations are making the same few cents a gallon that
they
have always made.





You think suppliers raise the price to stations on fuel already in their
underground tanks?

I don't know the economic facts, but I do have an opinion. It doesn't
matter that they charge us more for the gas in their tanks. Don't they
also
charge us less for the fuel in their tanks when prices come down? I will
concede that the price fails to come back down significantly.


If they charged only what they paid for the fuel in their tanks, they
wouldn't
be able to afford the cost of the next tank refill. I just spoke to the
owner of
the local Texaco (who, by the way, is selling gas at $2.96/gal. The
cut-rate
Crown right next to him is charging $3.16/gal.

And my wife just called to tell me that she saw CNN showing stations
charging $5.
Well, time to walk to the store and time for the kids to ride their bikes to
school (heresy in these SUV soccer mom parts).


I'm fixin' to break out the bicycle and, for longer trips, the motorcycle. It
gets about 48mpg, which isn't too bad.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:45:46 GMT, "Bryan" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
P. Fritz wrote:
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote in
:

OlBlueEyes wrote:
This is why prices are behaving as they are, and why prices ALWAYS
rise in any "crisis" situation. People who complain about $500
generators selling for $3,000 or $5 plywood boards selling for $25
don't understand basic economics. There aren't enough generators or
plywood boards for everyone, so prices self-regulate.
Sometimes, but more likely, the sellers are taking advantage and
gouging.

The stations in my immediate area raised their prices nearly $1.00
overnight. There's no shortage, there's no lines, and it's unlikely
all the stations just received thousands of gallons of higher priced
gas.
Actually it's LIKELY the stations WON'T be receiving ANY gas for DAYS.

It is likely the stations are making the same few cents a gallon that
they
have always made.





You think suppliers raise the price to stations on fuel already in their
underground tanks?

I don't know the economic facts, but I do have an opinion. It doesn't
matter that they charge us more for the gas in their tanks. Don't they
also
charge us less for the fuel in their tanks when prices come down? I will
concede that the price fails to come back down significantly.


If they charged only what they paid for the fuel in their tanks, they
wouldn't
be able to afford the cost of the next tank refill. I just spoke to the
owner of
the local Texaco (who, by the way, is selling gas at $2.96/gal. The
cut-rate
Crown right next to him is charging $3.16/gal.

And my wife just called to tell me that she saw CNN showing stations
charging $5.
Well, time to walk to the store and time for the kids to ride their bikes to
school (heresy in these SUV soccer mom parts).

Around 9/1/2005 7:07 AM, OlBlueEyes wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in
:

Why do you think the oil market is a rational market?

The "oil market" is not a "market" at all. Insane extremists have
prevented the construction of a single refinery over the past 20 years;

By "insane extremists," I assume you mean the oil industry execs?

Not only are they preventing new refineries from being built, but, even
worse, that particular group of insane extremists are actively shutting
refineries down to cut costs and increase their already mind-boggling
profits.


--
~/Garth - 1966 Glastron V-142 Skiflite: "Blue-Boat"
"There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing about in boats."
-Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows

Around 9/2/2005 3:20 AM, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:14:19 -0700, Garth Almgren
wrote:

Around 9/1/2005 7:07 AM, OlBlueEyes wrote:

The "oil market" is not a "market" at all. Insane extremists have
prevented the construction of a single refinery over the past 20 years;

By "insane extremists," I assume you mean the oil industry execs?

Not only are they preventing new refineries from being built, but, even
worse, that particular group of insane extremists are actively shutting
refineries down to cut costs and increase their already mind-boggling
profits.


That's not true at all.

Is so!

In all seriousness, there's only the tiniest dab of hyperbole in what I
said. Otherwise, it's almost precisely spot on.


CITGO and BP wanted to build a refinery up
river in Connecticut about six years ago - they got beat to death by
environmentalists and the Speaker of the House and President of the
Senate - all Democrats I might add - and just said screw it.

About ten years ago, a company wanted to take over the old torpedo
factory in Gould Island in Narragansett Bay for a refinery - nope, no
can do.


A couple of _very_ rare exceptions.

If I were into conspiracy theories (and I'm not), I'd have to guess that
those examples were half-hearted gestures, made only so that the oil
companies could say "Look how those nasty Earth-lovers and Democrats are
keeping us from making more gasoline!!"


It's not like they haven't been trying.

Well, they sure haven't been trying very hard, considering the closure
rate of perfectly functional and/or upgradeable refineries.

If they *really* wanted a new refinery, it would get built. They've got
the money and the political influence to make it happen quicker than you
can possibly imagine -- IF they wanted to.


--
~/Garth - 1966 Glastron V-142 Skiflite: "Blue-Boat"
"There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing about in boats."
-Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 04:12:59 -0700, Garth Almgren wrote:


It's not like they haven't been trying.

Well, they sure haven't been trying very hard, considering the closure
rate of perfectly functional and/or upgradeable refineries.

In 1982, there were 231 oil refineries in the US. In 2000, there were
155. In that time, according to Carol Browner of the EPA, there was
*one* application made to build a new refinery. Me thinks, the oil
industry is blowing smoke.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...f:74099 .wais


If they *really* wanted a new refinery, it would get built. They've got
the money and the political influence to make it happen quicker than you
can possibly imagine -- IF they wanted to.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

That's not true at all. CITGO and BP wanted to build a refinery up
river in Connecticut about six years ago - they got beat to death by
environmentalists and the Speaker of the House and President of the
Senate - all Democrats I might add - and just said screw it.

Is it a situation similar to what midwest coal burning plants face, being
asked to modify their methods to make them cleaner, or in the case of
refineries, safer and less likely to whack all your fish & birds for years,
because somebody came to work stoned? Remember that every business has some
acceptable loss or accident equation. But, with oil spills, what's OK with
the owner of the facility is usually WAY out of line with what the locals
think when their beaches are ruined for a period of time.

"Bryan" wrote in message
. ..

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
P. Fritz wrote:
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote in
:

OlBlueEyes wrote:
This is why prices are behaving as they are, and why prices ALWAYS
rise in any "crisis" situation. People who complain about $500
generators selling for $3,000 or $5 plywood boards selling for $25
don't understand basic economics. There aren't enough generators or
plywood boards for everyone, so prices self-regulate.
Sometimes, but more likely, the sellers are taking advantage and
gouging.

The stations in my immediate area raised their prices nearly $1.00
overnight. There's no shortage, there's no lines, and it's unlikely
all the stations just received thousands of gallons of higher priced
gas.
Actually it's LIKELY the stations WON'T be receiving ANY gas for DAYS.

It is likely the stations are making the same few cents a gallon that
they
have always made.





You think suppliers raise the price to stations on fuel already in their
underground tanks?

I don't know the economic facts, but I do have an opinion. It doesn't
matter that they charge us more for the gas in their tanks. Don't they
also
charge us less for the fuel in their tanks when prices come down? I will
concede that the price fails to come back down significantly.

Harry is as ignorant about gasoline sales as he is about boating and
politics.

Many stations take a net loss on gas sales, ( when you calculate labor,
shrinkage, capital investment etc) they profit from the pop and snack
business.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:56:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..

That's not true at all. CITGO and BP wanted to build a refinery up
river in Connecticut about six years ago - they got beat to death by
environmentalists and the Speaker of the House and President of the
Senate - all Democrats I might add - and just said screw it.

Is it a situation similar to what midwest coal burning plants face, being
asked to modify their methods to make them cleaner, or in the case of
refineries, safer and less likely to whack all your fish & birds for
years,
because somebody came to work stoned? Remember that every business has
some
acceptable loss or accident equation. But, with oil spills, what's OK with
the owner of the facility is usually WAY out of line with what the locals
think when their beaches are ruined for a period of time.

Totally agree, but the BP refinery was totally state of the art with a
12 foot berm to prevent accidental spills from the refinery. There
were some other technological innovations for filling up barges (it
was a lock system) which reduced the possibilities to like zippo.

It was quite an investment, but the whackos just wouldn't let it go.

BP gave up and according to somebody I know in the DEP, the CITGO
plant was even better in terms of engineering, pollution and
prevention.

As militant as I am with regard to stupid home lawn chemicals, I believe
there are actually people in the oil business who would be upset for
personal reasons if their facility made a mess. But, I also understand more
extreme views of industry in general. I mean...years ago, Waste Management
got a slap on the wrist for bribing local officials somewhere down south,
which got them a permit to build a toxic waste dump uphill from a town's
water supply. And, G.E. is still offering blowjobs to any politician that'll
help them not have to clean up the Hudson.