eltejano1
Woodville, Texas
Senior Member
Joined: 08/05/2006
View Profile
 Offline
|
WZ - I read farther down in the article and found several instances of refineries being shut-down or demolished - but no concrete evidence that it was done in order to drive-up prices. The article also makes claims that aren't documented - like Shell admitting they demolished their Bakersfield refinery to stop competition - date of meeting, name of official making statement, etc are lacking. It's hearsay.
Quote:A CLASSIC EXAMPLE of frustration with antitrust law is the recent attempt by Shell Oil to close its highly profitable refinery in Bakersfield, California. Already short on fuel and home to some of the highest prices for diesel and gasoline, Shell attempted to bulldoze the refinery rather than sell it. During initial open meetings with effected employees, the Shell spokesman claimed the company would never sell the plant. The bulldozing was desired to prevent a new competitor from entering the market. The company claimed the decrease in production at Bakersfield was expected to increase profits for Shell at its remaining refineries in Puget Sound, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Shell's intentions alarmed the entire West. Elected officials pushed Shell to sell the refinery rather than close it and some asked the FTC to investigate. The company claimed it was losing money in Bakersfield and its wells in nearby California fields were running dry. The FTC agreed to investigate and announced its report would be completed sometime after Shell was scheduled to send the bulldozers through the refinery.
|
wing_zealot
East of the Mississippi
Senior Member
Joined: 12/31/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
AO_hitech – You know what, this has been tedious and tiresome. Long on hype and short on facts. So I am just going to declare you the winner !!
It’s all an Big Oil Conspiracy!
|
AO_hitech
SF Bay Area
Senior Member
Joined: 08/09/2004
View Profile
|
Your going to have to do a little more research. Yes, it was not closed after all. Shell Oil planned to close the plant to drive up prices. There are “leaked” internal documents that prove this (don't have handy links, sorry). Also, I said tried to shut down. That is what they did. Find the internal documents (I've read them before, so they are out there in the internet) and you can read it for yourself if you don't believe the sworn testimony I presented. Sometimes there are no shortcuts when attempting to find the truth. ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/awink.gif "awink")
|
crudeman
Texas
Senior Member
Joined: 06/21/2004
View Profile
Offline
|
ya that shell story has been beaten to death. I did not read the whole page story either, but have seen this here a many of times.
Its always been on the west coast ( at least when I worked in these places) that they were always at or above consumption of fuels versus what could be refined in that region. I remeber way back then some of the gulf coast refiners had consider pipelines etc to get more fuels out that direction because they brought more money on the market back then but I think they considered it to risky back then with the market as it was.
I think Shell did as some other refiners did (back when markets and margins were tuff and all the mergers going on) Mexico and others agreed to put money into these refineries to upgrade the heavy end products such as petroleum coke etc. as what comes from some of the heavier oils in these countries. The list goes on.
Steve & Pat
Hannah - Sophie
2006 HR Ambassador PDQ
2010 Silverado
|
trac209
winnipeg
Full Member
Joined: 07/06/2006
View Profile
Offline
|
eltejano1 wrote:Hi Joe and Mrs J:
Those fellows, with the DMax and CTD, are trying in their own way to make a statement - a kind of one man Boston Tea Party if you will. Rather than being ridiculed, they should be commended for at least making some small effort to offer resistance rather than just lying there and taking it! If we had a few million more like them, diesel would be $2/gal. Maybe the guys that should be ridiculed are the ones who gleefully pay exhorbitant prices and then make fun of those who try to resist - now that's just nuts :-):-0
Love and Prayers, Jack exactly my thoughts
|
|
|
trac209
winnipeg
Full Member
Joined: 07/06/2006
View Profile
Offline
|
Skid Row Joe wrote:trac209 wrote:try paying the almost 6 bucks we pay in canada for a country that sells you oil for cheaper the we sell it to ourselves. That's to pay for your almost free healthcare, we don't get it free in America. that has nothing to do with health care sir
|
wing_zealot
East of the Mississippi
Senior Member
Joined: 12/31/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
AO_hitech wrote:Your going to have to do a little more research. Yes, it was not closed after all. Shell Oil planned to close the plant to drive up prices. There are “leaked” internal documents that prove this (don't have handy links, sorry). Also, I said tried to shut down. That is what they did. Find the internal documents (I've read them before, so they are out there in the internet) and you can read it for yourself if you don't believe the sworn testimony I presented. Sometimes there are no shortcuts when attempting to find the truth.
Your sworn testimony occured in February of 2006. I kind of find sworn testimony given before the fact to be not a very credible explanation for something that occurs two years later. Just me though. You may find soothsayers credible.
|
AO_hitech
SF Bay Area
Senior Member
Joined: 08/09/2004
View Profile
|
crudeman wrote:ya that shell story has been beaten to death.
That's because it's such a "good" story. And their intentions were made clear in the "leaked" internal documents. ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/biggrin.gif "biggrin")
|
eltejano1
Woodville, Texas
Senior Member
Joined: 08/05/2006
View Profile
Offline
|
Let's assume that there is collusion and monopolistic behavior to drive-up prices in the industry - I'm willing to grant that there likely is, people being what they are, but it's just one factor in many. We have a tendency to focus on a single aspect of the problem, but it's clearly multi-faceted with a host of elusive underlying factors. Even if we could find ways to alleviate one or two of these, it would not solve the problem - probably wouldn't even help much.
We probably would benefit more on searching for ways to adjust each of our own lives to what clearly is going to be a long term reality.
I admit, to my own shame and self-disgust, that the idea of nationalizing the oil industry keeps crossing my mind and I keep trying to keep it at bay - because it's unamerican, disgraceful and against everything I've been taught.
But that guy that pointed-out the $2.00 fuel in Mexico................
If y'all want to dicuss that, I'll play devil's advocate and try to defend socialized energy. Might be fun!
Jack
|
AO_hitech
SF Bay Area
Senior Member
Joined: 08/09/2004
View Profile
|
wing_zealot wrote:Your sworn testimony occured in February of 2006. I kind of find sworn testimony given before the fact to be not a very credible explanation for something that occurs two years later...
Yes, I do find it creditable, esp. since I have seen the internal documents that backup the claim. I am at work or I'd try to find the again for you.
|
|
|
