Anyone know why gas is cheaper in OKC? It was $1.97 per gal along I-35 this afternoon, and it was still $2.09 coming off the T'pike into Tulsa. Closest refinery I can think of to OKC is in Ardmore, yet Sinclair is right in the middle of Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
because the Fiesta Mart/QT cartel sets prices here and no such cartel exists in OKC.
the refinery **** has nothing to do with it. in fact, the Sinclair refinery doesnt even deliver gas to stations here. gas is shipped up from the gulf coast.
Sure are a lot of QT (OTL) trucks coming and going from Sinclair.
I think the QT trucks are coming and going from the other refinery, the Sunoco, not the Sinclair.
Last I knew Sunoco quit "brewing" gasoline about 1994 or so and only lubricants are made there.
Yup...You hit the nail on the head QT sets the market everyone else in Tulsa follows.....And yes QT fuel is from Sunoco.....Actually you don't have to travel to Okc to find lower prices....Just up 412 Chouteau fuel was 10 cents a gallon cheaper all summer fuel in most of the towns north-east was 10 cents a gallon cheaper....
The gas in Tulsa is only 2.09?[?]OMG, ours have finally gone down to 2.28 here in So. Dak. It wasn't too many weeks ago that we were paying over 3.00 a gallon. Oh well, life is good cause we'll need to fill gas when we get to Tulsa.[:P]
I paid $1.98 at 134th and Penn the other day...
Suckaaas!! [:D]
Gas a joke... You guys are abused by the companies and make excuses around everything... It should be a dollar or less...
Sounds like there are pockets where retailers take advantage of the local market. I went out to Woodward on business a few weeks ago. Gas in Enid was $2.25, in Woodward it was still $2.52 the same day!
That's the ruralscape for you.
Actually gas is still a bargain. You'll notice it did not go up with inflation in the 90s... if gas is sold for what it should be there would be no doubt light rail is the way to go. But till then it's just me with a pipe dream for Oklahoma...
I recall reading somewhere (and I could have sworn it was on this forum) that several years ago, Tulsa agreed to impose a requirement for a special blend of gasoline to cut down on air pollution. That special blend is the reason for Tulsa's prices being higher than OKC's. (And IIRC, neither of the Tulsa refineries produces the special blend, so all of Tulsa's gasoline has to come up from the Gulf Coast.)
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
I recall reading somewhere (and I could have sworn it was on this forum) that several years ago, Tulsa agreed to impose a requirement for a special blend of gasoline to cut down on air pollution. That special blend is the reason for Tulsa's prices being higher than OKC's. (And IIRC, neither of the Tulsa refineries produces the special blend, so all of Tulsa's gasoline has to come up from the Gulf Coast.)
From James McCarthy's 2000 statement to the Senate Agriculture Committee:
"In my hometown of Tulsa, we are experiencing a situation that graphically illustrates this point. Like many other regions, Tulsa has experienced in recent weeks sharp increases in gasoline prices. Here's why: our local regulators have entered into an agreement with EPA so that a special gasoline with 8.2 Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) is sold in Tulsa county during summer months. Tulsa is the only area in the nation where this particular gasoline is sold. As a result, no refiner manufactures it, but rather two different gasolines are mixed together to meet the 8.2 specification. Most of these two kinds of gasoline come from refineries on the Gulf Coast and are transported by pipeline to Tulsa. That was not a problem in 1999. Unfortunately, since last year, 98 counties in East Texas that are along the pipeline that connects Tulsa to the Gulf Coast refineries now require one of the gasolines that is blended to make Tulsa's fuel. That increased demand from motorists in the Texas counties caused an increase in the price of gasoline in our Tulsa market when the summer driving season began. Once again, this is a simple case of the relationship of supply, demand and price."
http://agriculture.senate.gov/Hearings/Hearings_2000/July_20__2000/00720mcc.htm
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Tulsa agreed to impose a requirement for a special blend of gasoline to cut down on air pollution. That special blend is the reason for Tulsa's prices being higher than OKC's. (And IIRC, neither of the Tulsa refineries produces the special blend, so all of Tulsa's gasoline has to come up from the Gulf Coast.)
What is the extent of the geographic area covered by this agreement? How are the borders defined?
Did anyone else just experience a sensation of vulnerability reading that?
By "entered into an agreement" they probably mean the EPA forced them to enter the deal or pay enormous fines. OKC has this on the horizon since this year was our first bad ozone/pollution level year as defined by the EPA.
One reason for cheaper prices could be that I-35 is a very competitive corridor, especially through OKC metro. Lots of major truck stops. I-40 is worse.
Shane change your sig. lol
One could figure that should Tulsa develop reasonable mass transit they get their cheap gas back.
Conan71 said "Lubricants"
The St. Louis area has the same sort of stricter requirements for gasoline. And, like Tulsa, it has problems with ozone during the summer.
So anytime you're driving through the St. Louis area, it's always best to wait until you're in the next county over or so, because you'll generally find cheaper gas.
I've found that the same rule applies, to a lesser extent, with Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by lindab
Conan71 said "Lubricants"
Is that some sort of Beavis and Butthead reference? heh heh
Sunoco Tulsa makes a variety of products including lubricants, aviation fuel and gasoline for QT and other retailers.
quote:
Originally posted by OKmetro
Gas a joke... You guys are abused by the companies and make excuses around everything... It should be a dollar or less...
Why is it that other companies can charge more for their products than what it takes to make or the material is actually worth but gas companies cant? I dont charge my service or artwork by how much its worth, I charge by how much I can get for it.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by OKmetro
Gas a joke... You guys are abused by the companies and make excuses around everything... It should be a dollar or less...
Why is it that other companies can charge more for their products than what it takes to make or the material is actually worth but gas companies cant? I dont charge my service or artwork by how much its worth, I charge by how much I can get for it.
Gas has become more of a necessity than a luxury, and therefore should be regulated as such. Also, the oil industry would be considered a near monopoly since the barriers to entry are too high for others to break into the market.
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by OKmetro
Gas a joke... You guys are abused by the companies and make excuses around everything... It should be a dollar or less...
Why is it that other companies can charge more for their products than what it takes to make or the material is actually worth but gas companies cant? I dont charge my service or artwork by how much its worth, I charge by how much I can get for it.
Gas has become more of a necessity than a luxury, and therefore should be regulated as such. Also, the oil industry would be considered a near monopoly since the barriers to entry are too high for others to break into the market.
Of course your declaration of "near monopoly" status conveniently ignores the fact that, despite the high barriers to entry, the oil industry is in fact no where near a monopoly. Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, Valero, Citgo, Sunoco, QuikTrip, 7-11, Sinclair, Conoco Phillips, Marathon, the list goes on . . . and on . . . hardly the sign of a monopoly.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by OKmetro
Gas a joke... You guys are abused by the companies and make excuses around everything... It should be a dollar or less...
Why is it that other companies can charge more for their products than what it takes to make or the material is actually worth but gas companies cant? I dont charge my service or artwork by how much its worth, I charge by how much I can get for it.
Gas has become more of a necessity than a luxury, and therefore should be regulated as such. Also, the oil industry would be considered a near monopoly since the barriers to entry are too high for others to break into the market.
Of course your declaration of "near monopoly" status conveniently ignores the fact that, despite the high barriers to entry, the oil industry is in fact no where near a monopoly. Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, Valero, Citgo, Sunoco, QuikTrip, 7-11, Sinclair, Conoco Phillips, Marathon, the list goes on . . . and on . . . hardly the sign of a monopoly.
You need to look at your list, all of them aren't oil companies, but retailers who have to buy oil from the major oil companies.
Oligopolistic competition is what we see in the oil markets, imperfect competition.
The term supermajor generally refers to one of the big six vertically integrated, private sector, oil, natural gas, and petrol companies. Formed through Mergers and acquisitions and organic growth over the last hundred years or so. Trading under various names around the world, they are considered to be:
Shell
BP
ExxonMobil
Total
ConocoPhillips
Chevron
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Tulsa agreed to impose a requirement for a special blend of gasoline to cut down on air pollution. That special blend is the reason for Tulsa's prices being higher than OKC's. (And IIRC, neither of the Tulsa refineries produces the special blend, so all of Tulsa's gasoline has to come up from the Gulf Coast.)
What is the extent of the geographic area covered by this agreement? How are the borders defined?
Did anyone else just experience a sensation of vulnerability reading that?
Basically that was for the Tulsa MSA and it was for "low vapor pressure" fuel for OZONE season but that expires Oct 1 of each year if I remember correctly. Originally the producers agreed to produce this fuel at no additional cost but that may have gone by the wayside.
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by OKmetro
Gas a joke... You guys are abused by the companies and make excuses around everything... It should be a dollar or less...
Why is it that other companies can charge more for their products than what it takes to make or the material is actually worth but gas companies cant? I dont charge my service or artwork by how much its worth, I charge by how much I can get for it.
Gas has become more of a necessity than a luxury, and therefore should be regulated as such. Also, the oil industry would be considered a near monopoly since the barriers to entry are too high for others to break into the market.
Of course your declaration of "near monopoly" status conveniently ignores the fact that, despite the high barriers to entry, the oil industry is in fact no where near a monopoly. Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, Valero, Citgo, Sunoco, QuikTrip, 7-11, Sinclair, Conoco Phillips, Marathon, the list goes on . . . and on . . . hardly the sign of a monopoly.
You need to look at your list, all of them aren't oil companies, but retailers who have to buy oil from the major oil companies.
Oligopolistic competition is what we see in the oil markets, imperfect competition.
The term supermajor generally refers to one of the big six vertically integrated, private sector, oil, natural gas, and petrol companies. Formed through Mergers and acquisitions and organic growth over the last hundred years or so. Trading under various names around the world, they are considered to be:
Shell
BP
ExxonMobil
Total
ConocoPhillips
Chevron
Yes I know all about the super-majors. But a few points, if I may: (1) six competitors does not a monopoly make. (2) These six are far from the only companies producing oil and they are far from the only companies refining oil. In fact, I beleive the largest refiner in America is not on the list of super-majors. (See, e.g., Valero, Sunoco, Tesoro, Frontier, Lyondell) (3) Indeed, the companies on my list were ALL retailers. They do not however, all have to buy their product from one of the super-majors. There are plenty of other producers, both state-owned (such as Citgo) and publicly-held (Anadarko, Apache, Amerada Hess, Oxy, just to name a few off the top of my head. And, as mentioned above, there are plenty of non-"major" refnining companies out there as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Yes I know all about the super-majors. But a few points, if I may: (1) six competitors does not a monopoly make. (2) These six are far from the only companies producing oil and they are far from the only companies refining oil. In fact, I beleive the largest refiner in America is not on the list of super-majors. (See, e.g., Valero, Sunoco, Tesoro, Frontier, Lyondell) (3) Indeed, the companies on my list were ALL retailers. They do not however, all have to buy their product from one of the super-majors. There are plenty of other producers, both state-owned (such as Citgo) and publicly-held (Anadarko, Apache, Amerada Hess, Oxy, just to name a few off the top of my head. And, as mentioned above, there are plenty of non-"major" refnining companies out there as well.
No, it's not a monopoly; it's a oligopoly, which is not perfect competition. Anadarko, Amereda Hess, etc... are not large enough to supply oil to a great extent to large retail chains. 56% of oil production in the U.S. comes from six producers. All those refining companies without a oil exploration arm have to buy oil from the large oil companies. Big Oil has a known cartel, OPEC. Cartels are explicitly created when you have oligopic conditions, though cartels are against U.S. law (though how do you prove when large corporations are acting in concert with each other?). I never claimed it was a monopoly, but if you have problems with the term "near monopoly", then oligopoly is actually a more definitive term.
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Yes I know all about the super-majors. But a few points, if I may: (1) six competitors does not a monopoly make. (2) These six are far from the only companies producing oil and they are far from the only companies refining oil. In fact, I beleive the largest refiner in America is not on the list of super-majors. (See, e.g., Valero, Sunoco, Tesoro, Frontier, Lyondell) (3) Indeed, the companies on my list were ALL retailers. They do not however, all have to buy their product from one of the super-majors. There are plenty of other producers, both state-owned (such as Citgo) and publicly-held (Anadarko, Apache, Amerada Hess, Oxy, just to name a few off the top of my head. And, as mentioned above, there are plenty of non-"major" refnining companies out there as well.
No, it's not a monopoly; it's a oligopoly, which is not perfect competition. Anadarko, Amereda Hess, etc... are not large enough to supply oil to a great extent to large retail chains. 56% of oil production in the U.S. comes from six producers. All those refining companies without a oil exploration arm have to buy oil from the large oil companies. Big Oil has a known cartel, OPEC. Cartels are explicitly created when you have oligopic conditions, though cartels are against U.S. law (though how do you prove when large corporations are acting in concert with each other?). I never claimed it was a monopoly, but if you have problems with the term "near monopoly", then oligopoly is actually a more definitive term.
Indeed that would be more definitive. And I do have a problem with the use of the "term" "near monopoly" when you were clearly attempting to imply something that was not the case. If you meant oligopoly, perhaps you should have said oligopoly. As to an oligopoly, I think it is very debatable whether a group of 6 companies collectively controlling only 56% percent of the market really constitutes an oligopoly. (And by the way, OPEC does not consist of the six super-major oil companies; it is the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries)
Further on the 56% number you quoted. I'm not sure the percentage of oil production in the U.S. that comes from the six producers is even relevant to the market we are discussing. As you surely know, a large portion of the oil used in America is not from American production. The relevant percentage we should be looking at is: what percentage of the feed stock used to produce the gasoline consumed in America was produced by one of the super-majors? I have not been able to find that number. If you have a source, I'd love to see it.
Here's some more on your 56% number. It appears you may have made an error. The source I was able to find says that as of 2004, 56% of total US oil production came from TEN, not six companies. http://www.gravmag.com/oil2.html#producers
quote:
Originally posted by Jammie
The gas in Tulsa is only 2.09?[?]OMG, ours have finally gone down to 2.28 here in So. Dak. It wasn't too many weeks ago that we were paying over 3.00 a gallon. Oh well, life is good cause we'll need to fill gas when we get to Tulsa.[:P]
Cry me a river! I pay 6.20 on a good day!
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Yes I know all about the super-majors. But a few points, if I may: (1) six competitors does not a monopoly make. (2) These six are far from the only companies producing oil and they are far from the only companies refining oil. In fact, I beleive the largest refiner in America is not on the list of super-majors. (See, e.g., Valero, Sunoco, Tesoro, Frontier, Lyondell) (3) Indeed, the companies on my list were ALL retailers. They do not however, all have to buy their product from one of the super-majors. There are plenty of other producers, both state-owned (such as Citgo) and publicly-held (Anadarko, Apache, Amerada Hess, Oxy, just to name a few off the top of my head. And, as mentioned above, there are plenty of non-"major" refnining companies out there as well.
No, it's not a monopoly; it's a oligopoly, which is not perfect competition. Anadarko, Amereda Hess, etc... are not large enough to supply oil to a great extent to large retail chains. 56% of oil production in the U.S. comes from six producers. All those refining companies without a oil exploration arm have to buy oil from the large oil companies. Big Oil has a known cartel, OPEC. Cartels are explicitly created when you have oligopic conditions, though cartels are against U.S. law (though how do you prove when large corporations are acting in concert with each other?). I never claimed it was a monopoly, but if you have problems with the term "near monopoly", then oligopoly is actually a more definitive term.
Indeed that would be more definitive. And I do have a problem with the use of the "term" "near monopoly" when you were clearly attempting to imply something that was not the case. If you meant oligopoly, perhaps you should have said oligopoly. As to an oligopoly, I think it is very debatable whether a group of 6 companies collectively controlling only 56% percent of the market really constitutes an oligopoly. (And by the way, OPEC does not consist of the six super-major oil companies; it is the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries)
Further on the 56% number you quoted. I'm not sure the percentage of oil production in the U.S. that comes from the six producers is even relevant to the market we are discussing. As you surely know, a large portion of the oil used in America is not from American production. The relevant percentage we should be looking at is: what percentage of the feed stock used to produce the gasoline consumed in America was produced by one of the super-majors? I have not been able to find that number. If you have a source, I'd love to see it.
Here's some more on your 56% number. It appears you may have made an error. The source I was able to find says that as of 2004, 56% of total US oil production came from TEN, not six companies. http://www.gravmag.com/oil2.html#producers
I stand corrected, ten companies supply more than 50% of US oil production, and I would argue that is very significant. OPEC is a cartel that controls a significant portion of the oil in the World so my statement that there is not perfect competition in the marketplace is true; the price of oil would drop if not for OPEC and the controlling of how much oil is produced in a day. And with ten corporations controlling a majority of the oil in the U.S., then it's a very good argument that there is most likely collusion occurring.
So my point is still valid, there is not perfect competition in the marketplace so there is a difference between the oil industry and the services that 'Ze Artist offers. (And I'd still argue that oil is a necessity whereas beautiful murals are more of a luxury).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/taxing-oils-monopoly-pro_b_17262.html?view=print
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Yes I know all about the super-majors. But a few points, if I may: (1) six competitors does not a monopoly make. (2) These six are far from the only companies producing oil and they are far from the only companies refining oil. In fact, I beleive the largest refiner in America is not on the list of super-majors. (See, e.g., Valero, Sunoco, Tesoro, Frontier, Lyondell) (3) Indeed, the companies on my list were ALL retailers. They do not however, all have to buy their product from one of the super-majors. There are plenty of other producers, both state-owned (such as Citgo) and publicly-held (Anadarko, Apache, Amerada Hess, Oxy, just to name a few off the top of my head. And, as mentioned above, there are plenty of non-"major" refnining companies out there as well.
No, it's not a monopoly; it's a oligopoly, which is not perfect competition. Anadarko, Amereda Hess, etc... are not large enough to supply oil to a great extent to large retail chains. 56% of oil production in the U.S. comes from six producers. All those refining companies without a oil exploration arm have to buy oil from the large oil companies. Big Oil has a known cartel, OPEC. Cartels are explicitly created when you have oligopic conditions, though cartels are against U.S. law (though how do you prove when large corporations are acting in concert with each other?). I never claimed it was a monopoly, but if you have problems with the term "near monopoly", then oligopoly is actually a more definitive term.
Indeed that would be more definitive. And I do have a problem with the use of the "term" "near monopoly" when you were clearly attempting to imply something that was not the case. If you meant oligopoly, perhaps you should have said oligopoly. As to an oligopoly, I think it is very debatable whether a group of 6 companies collectively controlling only 56% percent of the market really constitutes an oligopoly. (And by the way, OPEC does not consist of the six super-major oil companies; it is the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries)
Further on the 56% number you quoted. I'm not sure the percentage of oil production in the U.S. that comes from the six producers is even relevant to the market we are discussing. As you surely know, a large portion of the oil used in America is not from American production. The relevant percentage we should be looking at is: what percentage of the feed stock used to produce the gasoline consumed in America was produced by one of the super-majors? I have not been able to find that number. If you have a source, I'd love to see it.
Here's some more on your 56% number. It appears you may have made an error. The source I was able to find says that as of 2004, 56% of total US oil production came from TEN, not six companies. http://www.gravmag.com/oil2.html#producers
I stand corrected, ten companies supply more than 50% of US oil production, and I would argue that is very significant. OPEC is a cartel that controls a significant portion of the oil in the World so my statement that there is not perfect competition in the marketplace is true; the price of oil would drop if not for OPEC and the controlling of how much oil is produced in a day. And with ten corporations controlling a majority of the oil in the U.S., then it's a very good argument that there is most likely collusion occurring.
So my point is still valid, there is not perfect competition in the marketplace so there is a difference between the oil industry and the services that 'Ze Artist offers. (And I'd still argue that oil is a necessity whereas beautiful murals are more of a luxury).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/taxing-oils-monopoly-pro_b_17262.html?view=print
You still seem to be confusing US oil prouction (which is what the 10 companies control more than 50% of) with U.S. oil consumption, for which I have not found and you have not shown any numbers. But, you've also made it quite clear that your position does not rely on persnickety little things like facts.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Yes I know all about the super-majors. But a few points, if I may: (1) six competitors does not a monopoly make. (2) These six are far from the only companies producing oil and they are far from the only companies refining oil. In fact, I beleive the largest refiner in America is not on the list of super-majors. (See, e.g., Valero, Sunoco, Tesoro, Frontier, Lyondell) (3) Indeed, the companies on my list were ALL retailers. They do not however, all have to buy their product from one of the super-majors. There are plenty of other producers, both state-owned (such as Citgo) and publicly-held (Anadarko, Apache, Amerada Hess, Oxy, just to name a few off the top of my head. And, as mentioned above, there are plenty of non-"major" refnining companies out there as well.
No, it's not a monopoly; it's a oligopoly, which is not perfect competition. Anadarko, Amereda Hess, etc... are not large enough to supply oil to a great extent to large retail chains. 56% of oil production in the U.S. comes from six producers. All those refining companies without a oil exploration arm have to buy oil from the large oil companies. Big Oil has a known cartel, OPEC. Cartels are explicitly created when you have oligopic conditions, though cartels are against U.S. law (though how do you prove when large corporations are acting in concert with each other?). I never claimed it was a monopoly, but if you have problems with the term "near monopoly", then oligopoly is actually a more definitive term.
Indeed that would be more definitive. And I do have a problem with the use of the "term" "near monopoly" when you were clearly attempting to imply something that was not the case. If you meant oligopoly, perhaps you should have said oligopoly. As to an oligopoly, I think it is very debatable whether a group of 6 companies collectively controlling only 56% percent of the market really constitutes an oligopoly. (And by the way, OPEC does not consist of the six super-major oil companies; it is the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries)
Further on the 56% number you quoted. I'm not sure the percentage of oil production in the U.S. that comes from the six producers is even relevant to the market we are discussing. As you surely know, a large portion of the oil used in America is not from American production. The relevant percentage we should be looking at is: what percentage of the feed stock used to produce the gasoline consumed in America was produced by one of the super-majors? I have not been able to find that number. If you have a source, I'd love to see it.
Here's some more on your 56% number. It appears you may have made an error. The source I was able to find says that as of 2004, 56% of total US oil production came from TEN, not six companies. http://www.gravmag.com/oil2.html#producers
I stand corrected, ten companies supply more than 50% of US oil production, and I would argue that is very significant. OPEC is a cartel that controls a significant portion of the oil in the World so my statement that there is not perfect competition in the marketplace is true; the price of oil would drop if not for OPEC and the controlling of how much oil is produced in a day. And with ten corporations controlling a majority of the oil in the U.S., then it's a very good argument that there is most likely collusion occurring.
So my point is still valid, there is not perfect competition in the marketplace so there is a difference between the oil industry and the services that 'Ze Artist offers. (And I'd still argue that oil is a necessity whereas beautiful murals are more of a luxury).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/taxing-oils-monopoly-pro_b_17262.html?view=print
You still seem to be confusing US oil prouction (which is what the 10 companies control more than 50% of) with U.S. oil consumption, for which I have not found and you have not shown any numbers. But, you've also made it quite clear that your position does not rely on persnickety little things like facts.
I'm well aware of the difference of US oil production and US oil consumption and I'm not sure where I ever talked of consumption, but hey whatever you see. If you think that the oil industry is a open competitive market, then power to you. I don't know why you feel the need to attack me, but do your best and keep thinking 7-11 and Valero is going to keep your gas price low, but I'm not interested in explaining or clarifying any longer.
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Yes I know all about the super-majors. But a few points, if I may: (1) six competitors does not a monopoly make. (2) These six are far from the only companies producing oil and they are far from the only companies refining oil. In fact, I beleive the largest refiner in America is not on the list of super-majors. (See, e.g., Valero, Sunoco, Tesoro, Frontier, Lyondell) (3) Indeed, the companies on my list were ALL retailers. They do not however, all have to buy their product from one of the super-majors. There are plenty of other producers, both state-owned (such as Citgo) and publicly-held (Anadarko, Apache, Amerada Hess, Oxy, just to name a few off the top of my head. And, as mentioned above, there are plenty of non-"major" refnining companies out there as well.
No, it's not a monopoly; it's a oligopoly, which is not perfect competition. Anadarko, Amereda Hess, etc... are not large enough to supply oil to a great extent to large retail chains. 56% of oil production in the U.S. comes from six producers. All those refining companies without a oil exploration arm have to buy oil from the large oil companies. Big Oil has a known cartel, OPEC. Cartels are explicitly created when you have oligopic conditions, though cartels are against U.S. law (though how do you prove when large corporations are acting in concert with each other?). I never claimed it was a monopoly, but if you have problems with the term "near monopoly", then oligopoly is actually a more definitive term.
Indeed that would be more definitive. And I do have a problem with the use of the "term" "near monopoly" when you were clearly attempting to imply something that was not the case. If you meant oligopoly, perhaps you should have said oligopoly. As to an oligopoly, I think it is very debatable whether a group of 6 companies collectively controlling only 56% percent of the market really constitutes an oligopoly. (And by the way, OPEC does not consist of the six super-major oil companies; it is the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries)
Further on the 56% number you quoted. I'm not sure the percentage of oil production in the U.S. that comes from the six producers is even relevant to the market we are discussing. As you surely know, a large portion of the oil used in America is not from American production. The relevant percentage we should be looking at is: what percentage of the feed stock used to produce the gasoline consumed in America was produced by one of the super-majors? I have not been able to find that number. If you have a source, I'd love to see it.
Here's some more on your 56% number. It appears you may have made an error. The source I was able to find says that as of 2004, 56% of total US oil production came from TEN, not six companies. http://www.gravmag.com/oil2.html#producers
I stand corrected, ten companies supply more than 50% of US oil production, and I would argue that is very significant. OPEC is a cartel that controls a significant portion of the oil in the World so my statement that there is not perfect competition in the marketplace is true; the price of oil would drop if not for OPEC and the controlling of how much oil is produced in a day. And with ten corporations controlling a majority of the oil in the U.S., then it's a very good argument that there is most likely collusion occurring.
So my point is still valid, there is not perfect competition in the marketplace so there is a difference between the oil industry and the services that 'Ze Artist offers. (And I'd still argue that oil is a necessity whereas beautiful murals are more of a luxury).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/taxing-oils-monopoly-pro_b_17262.html?view=print
You still seem to be confusing US oil prouction (which is what the 10 companies control more than 50% of) with U.S. oil consumption, for which I have not found and you have not shown any numbers. But, you've also made it quite clear that your position does not rely on persnickety little things like facts.
I'm well aware of the difference of US oil production and US oil consumption and I'm not sure where I ever talked of consumption, but hey whatever you see. If you think that the oil industry is a open competitive market, then power to you. I don't know why you feel the need to attack me, but do your best and keep thinking 7-11 and Valero is going to keep your gas price low, but I'm not interested in explaining or clarifying any longer.
Then please explain to me why they (the few who "control" the market) don't keep prices consistently high.
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Yes I know all about the super-majors. But a few points, if I may: (1) six competitors does not a monopoly make. (2) These six are far from the only companies producing oil and they are far from the only companies refining oil. In fact, I beleive the largest refiner in America is not on the list of super-majors. (See, e.g., Valero, Sunoco, Tesoro, Frontier, Lyondell) (3) Indeed, the companies on my list were ALL retailers. They do not however, all have to buy their product from one of the super-majors. There are plenty of other producers, both state-owned (such as Citgo) and publicly-held (Anadarko, Apache, Amerada Hess, Oxy, just to name a few off the top of my head. And, as mentioned above, there are plenty of non-"major" refnining companies out there as well.
No, it's not a monopoly; it's a oligopoly, which is not perfect competition. Anadarko, Amereda Hess, etc... are not large enough to supply oil to a great extent to large retail chains. 56% of oil production in the U.S. comes from six producers. All those refining companies without a oil exploration arm have to buy oil from the large oil companies. Big Oil has a known cartel, OPEC. Cartels are explicitly created when you have oligopic conditions, though cartels are against U.S. law (though how do you prove when large corporations are acting in concert with each other?). I never claimed it was a monopoly, but if you have problems with the term "near monopoly", then oligopoly is actually a more definitive term.
Indeed that would be more definitive. And I do have a problem with the use of the "term" "near monopoly" when you were clearly attempting to imply something that was not the case. If you meant oligopoly, perhaps you should have said oligopoly. As to an oligopoly, I think it is very debatable whether a group of 6 companies collectively controlling only 56% percent of the market really constitutes an oligopoly. (And by the way, OPEC does not consist of the six super-major oil companies; it is the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries)
Further on the 56% number you quoted. I'm not sure the percentage of oil production in the U.S. that comes from the six producers is even relevant to the market we are discussing. As you surely know, a large portion of the oil used in America is not from American production. The relevant percentage we should be looking at is: what percentage of the feed stock used to produce the gasoline consumed in America was produced by one of the super-majors? I have not been able to find that number. If you have a source, I'd love to see it.
Here's some more on your 56% number. It appears you may have made an error. The source I was able to find says that as of 2004, 56% of total US oil production came from TEN, not six companies. http://www.gravmag.com/oil2.html#producers
I stand corrected, ten companies supply more than 50% of US oil production, and I would argue that is very significant. OPEC is a cartel that controls a significant portion of the oil in the World so my statement that there is not perfect competition in the marketplace is true; the price of oil would drop if not for OPEC and the controlling of how much oil is produced in a day. And with ten corporations controlling a majority of the oil in the U.S., then it's a very good argument that there is most likely collusion occurring.
So my point is still valid, there is not perfect competition in the marketplace so there is a difference between the oil industry and the services that 'Ze Artist offers. (And I'd still argue that oil is a necessity whereas beautiful murals are more of a luxury).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/taxing-oils-monopoly-pro_b_17262.html?view=print
You still seem to be confusing US oil prouction (which is what the 10 companies control more than 50% of) with U.S. oil consumption, for which I have not found and you have not shown any numbers. But, you've also made it quite clear that your position does not rely on persnickety little things like facts.
I'm well aware of the difference of US oil production and US oil consumption and I'm not sure where I ever talked of consumption, but hey whatever you see. If you think that the oil industry is a open competitive market, then power to you. I don't know why you feel the need to attack me, but do your best and keep thinking 7-11 and Valero is going to keep your gas price low, but I'm not interested in explaining or clarifying any longer.
Or, perhaps you'd like to take a shot at this one: Why have gasoline prices failed to keep pace with inflation? If the oil companies (or some other nefarious, undefined "they") indeed orchestrate prices, they seem to be singularly inept at it.