$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DantesPeak', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'T')hese "crazies" seem to know what they're talking about:
Public Citizen:
Public Citizen advocates a return to better regulated utilities by returning power plants to distributional utilities where states can better protect consumers. And with the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act in President Bush's August 2005 energy bill, electricity companies will be able to more easily merge, undermining the ability of states to effectively regulate these increasingly sprawling companies.
On petroleum markets, Public Citizen testifies before Congress on how record oil company profits are partly due to anti-competitive practices in the industry, and that a windfall profits tax is one equitable method to direct more money to help finance a transition away from a fossil-fuel based economy and towards a sustainable, clean energy future. In addition, Public Citizen advocates the strengthening of energy trading markets in New York where the prices of oil and natural gas are set.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/oilmergers.pdf
And the federal regulatory mechanisms in FERC under a Bush regime, should be renamed "FUCKED" for all the good they do.
PeakOil is You
THE Enron Thread (merged)
Re: Enron and Big Oil- Compare and contrast
by threadbear » Sat 26 May 2007, 16:52:40
Sorry to butt in again, since you addressed me in a derogatory manner in another post today, I feel I have a right to correct your comments which are misleading and incorrect.
Your outdated Public Citizen 2004 report misquotes the FTC.
The FTC never concluded there was a gasoline conspiracy as you keep implying.
This is what the FTC actually said:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]The completed investigation uncovered no evidence of collusion or any other antitrust violation. In fact, the varying responses of industry participants to the price spike suggests that the firms were engaged in individual, not coordinated, conduct. Prices rose both because of factors beyond the industry's immediate control and because of conscious (but independent) choices by industry participants.
Final Report of the Federal Trade Commission
Please post exactly where the misquote occurs, and if so, please explain why the "federal" trade commissionunder Bush, should be trusted.
-
threadbear - Expert
- Posts: 7577
- Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Re: Enron and Big Oil- Compare and contrast
by Mircea » Sat 26 May 2007, 18:37:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DantesPeak', 'I') fail to see how the example of one company monopolizing one type of one isolated energy market can be applied to an open and worldwide market for oil, oil products, petrochemicals, refining, and distribution, where $10 billion US of products are consumed daily.
Did you actually read it? It applies to creating phony or trumped up reasons for shutting down plants during supply crises. Could refiners not do this? If so I'd like to know why rather than being blown off.
First, you falsely concluded that an increase in price automatically results in an increase in profits, or revenues or both (profits and revenues aren't the same).
I assure you, in the case of oil and gasoline, it does NOT, except perhaps in the extreme short term.
The current tariffs on imported gasoline are $0.525 per barrel, but tariffs on unrefined crude oil are only $0.0525 per barrel. Once the price covers the tariff spread, it's profitable to import gasonline, which should give you an idea of the upper limits of gasonline prices that domestic suppliers can charge.
Secondly, the situations are not analogus. Enron was a single supplier. That is not true of gasoline. Shutting down a refinery for a "phony accident" places me at an extreme disadvantage while benefitting my competition. That's harmful to me in both the short and long term.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', '
')It is obvious that the reverse of what you say is true. When supply is plentiful, there is a need to collude and restrict supply. I give you : OPEC!
Yes, and the autocratic OPEC regimes damn near got overthrown in revolutions and coups and almost had to allow opposition parties to form and in some instances nearly had to allow opposition parties to not only form, but also run in elections resulting in a potential power sharing situation.
They won't be doing that again.
An increase in price does not automatically result in increased profits or revenues. Just ask the OPEC oil ministers. They can fill you in on all the gory details.
