About LAist

LAist is a website about Los Angeles. More

Editor: Zach Behrens Publisher: Gothamist

About | Archive | Contact | Mobile | RSS | Staff

Categories
Recent Comments
Favorites
Contribute

Latest tip:

Your thing on Burbank Ca didn't even mention America's only all-horror book and gift store Dark D [more]

 

Latest link:

 

Latest Photo:

 

Subscribe
Use an RSS reader to stay up to date with the latest news and posts from LAist.
Neighborhood Project, Los Angeles Communities

Links

May 9, 2007

Email This Entry







Advertisement: LAist Continues Below!

Comments (4) [rss]

I have gotten the email about May 15th from quite a lot of people and I always feel I should say something. Growing up, my parents both work for a major oil company (one still does) and because of that, I have, perhaps, a better-than-average understanding of the way this industry works.

This plan is totally ineffective. The business model of the oil industry pretty much precludes anything like this ever having an effect. Snopes.com (an urban legend site) has an article on this particular one: www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/nogas.asp

Incidentally (and in brief) - the current upsurge in prices is largely attributed to a combination of the summer season (always a higher demand this time of year which causes price to go up) and the up-tick in futures trading spiked by the potential for war with Iran. This is a very volatile market and every time a supply shortage rumor goes around, oil futures prices skyrocket. The oil companies make a huge profit, but they can't do anything about it because it's a public marketplace that they have literally no control over.

Sorry to disappoint :(

 

Time to protest the law of supply and demand! That'll work!

 

Maybe the amateur economists can explain this to me, then.

I'm not an economist, nor do I play one on television. But from what I remember, profit is what you get when you subtract expenses from revenue. So, Caroline, if the "current upsurge in prices" is from increased oil costs, shouldn't that mean that the oil companies' profits should be about the same? Their expenses went up and they passed that on to the customer. Thus, revenues go up and expenses go up and profits remain the same, right?

Now, obviously, there's more to gasoline prices than just the price of a barrel of oil, as witnessed by the fact that several months ago, the price of oil was going down while the cost of gasoline was going up. We also have the refineries.

The current problem is being blamed on various refineries being shut down for maintenance and to change over to the various "summer formulas" that help keep down pollution during summer months.

In other words, the gasoline companies are providing less gasoline and charging more for it. Thus, they have record profits.

Now, creating more refineries would allow oil companies to have more insurance against unexpected problems, maintenance, and the like. But, of course, the oil companies will tell us that the problem is NIMBY--they'd love to create more refineries but no-one wants one in their backyard and it's a battle to get any refinery built. There's some truth to that. But the other point is that the oil companies don't want to build more refineries because that lessens their profits. After all, if gasoline is plentiful, by the laws of supply and demand, it must also be cheap. So the oil companies would end up spending money to build more refineries and end up making less money selling gasoline. That'd be a tough thing to explain to the shareholders--"Let's spend money so we can make less money!"

It's also interesting because, with less refining capacity, the oil companies have to buy less oil. After all, why buy oil if you can't refine it into worthwhile products because you don't have the refinery capacity? So there's less expenses because they're buying less oil. So they less expenses in oil and they get to charge more for the gasoline because the refineries can't produce enough.

So the laws of supply and demand don't necessarily work here. It's more profitable to provide less gasoline and charge more than it is to provide more gasoline and charge less.

Anyway, I agree that the May 15th "Don't Buy Gas" protest is useless. Instead, consider that May 14-18 is Bike to Work Week and May 17th is Bike to Work Day. So instead of not buying gas, take a day or the whole week and reduce your gasoline usage.

I'm down here in Orange County and I bike 14 miles to work and back (28 miles total) two days a week. Next week, I'm going try to bike every day. I was considering a job up in LA and was happy to discover that I could bike to Long Beach and then catch the subway from there and the distance wouldn't be much more (though I'd be adding a 45 minute subway ride). Where there's a will, there's a way.

If you're not into biking, consider just driving to mass-transit to try it out. Like I said, I was pretty surprised to discover that the subway would drop me off about a block from where the new job is--convenient walking distance. Check out MTA's maps and try it out one day next week. You might find you like it.

A buddy of mine is doing something fun--he's renting one of those cute little electric cars for the week to try it out. He figures he should be able to make it to work and back and he wants to see how having one will affect the lifestyle he's come to know and love.

So if you want to get into the spirit of it, pick a day (or the whole week) and see how little gasoline you can use. By reducing the demand for gasoline to fit the reduced refinery capacity, you'll do more for lowering gasoline prices than you will by offsetting your purchase by a day.

 

if the "current upsurge in prices" is from increased oil costs, shouldn't that mean that the oil companies' profits should be about the same?

Theoretically yes, but it isn't just the basic law of supply and demand that we're talking about here. Oil prices are determined partly by supply and demand outright, but also by the futures market. When traders get scared that the supply will go down in a drastic fashion - like when pipelines are blown up in Niger or Russia cuts off supply to Europe or OPEC raises tariffs, etc. - futures prices spike dramatically because people buy like crazy, thinking they're gonna make money when the supply goes down. This causes a premature, and often highly exaggerated spike in price at the pump, and the oil companies make money hand over fist because the price inflation is not reflective of an increase in overhead.

You mentioned that the EPA mandates expensive additives which make oil burn cleaner, but less efficiently. Manufacturers used to use Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) until it was identified as a major contaminate in groundwater. Today ethanol is used. Ethanol is more costly than MTBE and therefore raises prices at the pump (specifics courtesy of my friend, a geology PhD candidate at Texas A&M). Don't get me started on the futility of the Ethanol craze - it takes more (fossil-fuel generated) energy to produce the corn to make the ethanol, than burning it can create. Hence a total and ineffective waste of time (that also puts a lot of pressure on corn farmers in developing countries - Mexico - who can't compete with US agrabusiness, then go out of business and move over the border...)

It is true, there is a massive difference in carbon footprints between an SUV and a hybrid, but at present, hybrid engines are complex, costly and burn fossil-fuels of their own just to be manufactured. So, especially if you trade in your car prematurely for a hybrid, you're actually increasing the amount of carbon emissions because the dealer is likely to turn around and sell your car and it'll go right back out on the road.

It will be a very long and painful change - especially here in California where the love affair with the automobile began and is arguably strongest. At the moment, I'm particularly intrigued with the Honda Civic GX - a natural gas powered vehicle. It's true that natural gas is only cheaper because it is Federally subsidized, but at least it is much cleaner-burning.

I'm also not an economist, but I took a year of econ (micro and macro) in HS and one in college (1 HS semester is required by the State of Texas, where I attended) I think if more people took a basic econ course the country would be exponentially better off. I know too few people who understand even the rudiments of the US economy, and I think their decision-making capabilities are highly impaired as a result. I'm glad to have a conversation with someone for whom that is not the case.

 
Post a comment (Comment Policy)

2003-2008 Gothamist LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use & Privacy Policy. We use MovableType.