Oil refiners exploited the crisis': Report shows oil refiners are gouging California drivers (dollars, economic)

[JGC97]

Interesting article, CA4Now. Oil companies have done this for ages so it's not surprising but what doesn't help matters now is that OPEC decided recently to cut output of two million barrels a day. They're trying to drive the price back up over $100/barrel. As it sits right now, it hovers between 85-90. They don't care about those of us who buy and use fuel. It's all about the money. Always has been and always will be. Not a lot we can do about it, though, and that's the terrible part. We're at their mercy.

I feel especially bad for those who have to commute to their job. The money they spend on fuel is taking money away from other necessities in their life. It's pretty pathetic for consumers.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Oil companies brought in staggering profits once again as people worldwide struggled with high gasoline and energy prices.

Exxon Mobil broke records with its profits in the third quarter, raking in $19.66 billion in net income. The Irving, Texas, company said Friday that it booked $112.07 billion in quarterly revenue, more than double the revenue it received last year during the same period.

Chevron had $11.23 billion in profits, almost reaching the record profits it attained last quarter, and the San Ramon, Calif., company brought in $66.64 billion in revenues.

...Chevron’s (refining businesses) said its $11.2-billion quarterly net income was the second-highest in company history, surpassed only by the previous quarter when it report more than $12 billion in net income..

https://www.latimes.com/business/sto...-steep-profits

Keep in mind that ExxonMobil does not have a refining presence in California, so did not contribute to price increases at the pump there. All Exxon and Mobil stations are franchises, since the company sold all US stations some time ago.

Chevron has a refinery in Richmond, California and another one in El Segundo.

[MKTwet]

What country with this much population density don't have a large mass transit system?

It's absurd to have a state as large as CA with some of the biggest cities with no commuter trains or extensive bus service. Just about every big city in Europe and Asia have plenty of transit options. Fewer people owned cars because it's not necessary.

Sad, that CA wants to force everyone to drive EVs and not use all the money to build an extensive mass transit system that can help society.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by MKTwet

What country with this much population density don't have a large mass transit system?

It's absurd to have a state as large as CA with some of the biggest cities with no commuter trains or extensive bus service. Just about every big city in Europe and Asia have plenty of transit options. Fewer people owned cars because it's not necessary.

Sad, that CA wants to force everyone to drive EVs and not use all the money to build an extensive mass transit system that can help society.

Few places in the US have the density to support huge amounts of transit, especially between cities. LA is building trains at a rapid pace, and has buses. San Francisco has transit. Houston has transit. Dallas has transit.

Realistically, no one will use intercity trains to any great extent.

Transit in Europe started 150 years ago. London built its first underground line, the Metropolitan Line, in the 1860's. However, there are still parts of London where you have to walk a mile or more to use transit.

California is pushing EVs because
a) there are serious air quality issues related to ICE vehicles
b) Residents there are not going to give up their cars
c) Places like LA, even with extensive transit, will still require cars, because of the size of the region, the distances travelled, and the fact that transit is not fast.

A number of years ago, my car was in the shop for 6 weeks here in Houston. There was a bus stop 6 blocks away where I could catch a bus that dropped me off in front of my office. The walk and bus ride turned a 15 minute drive into a 45 minute to one hour commute. Why would I make the choice to lose that much time every day to not have to drive?

[joosoon]

Imagine doing a run to Costco via public transportation.
No thanks.

[vincenze]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Imagine doing a run to Costco via public transportation.
No thanks.

We have a few stores in the walking distance around us. It takes too much time to drive to and shop at Costco.
It's good to live in a big city.

[vincenze]

Originally Posted by MKTwet

It's absurd to have a state as large as CA with some of the biggest cities with no commuter trains or extensive bus service. Just about every big city in Europe and Asia have plenty of transit options.

It's unimaginable that a filthy homeless person would be allowed to enter a subway in Japan or China, and pee and poop.
Subway trains in LA are full of them.

[MechAndy]

Yeah, I don’t think that would fly over there.
I say let the canings begin .

[moguldreamer]

Originally Posted by WRM20

Biden did NOTHING to increase the price of oil. Nothing. Nothing at all. It's not that hard to understand.

Don't discount the power of the Bully Pulpit.

In a CNN debate, Biden said no more oil drilling. For natural gas, he promised to allow no new fracking. His stated campaign position was to ban “new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters.” Yeah, lots of stuff gets said during campaigns - but the anti-E&P stance of the Administration is manifest and clear.

Oil & gas exploration companies are rational - they have not invested nearly as much in expanding the USA's supply, because our current Administration doesn't want them to.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by moguldreamer

Don't discount the power of the Bully Pulpit.

In a CNN debate, Biden said no more oil drilling. For natural gas, he promised to allow no new fracking. His stated campaign position was to ban “new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters.” Yeah, lots of stuff gets said during campaigns - but the anti-E&P stance of the Administration is manifest and clear.

Oil & gas exploration companies are rational - they have not invested nearly as much in expanding the USA's supply, because our current Administration doesn't want them to.

A much bigger driver for not going all out on drilling s the desire to not lose a huge pile of money again the next time prices drop off a cliff. The last time that happened, ExxonMobil lost $20 billion. That scares shareholders, and scared shareholders creates scared management.

Another contributor to drilling reluctance is supply chain issues and the loss of large portions of the employee base. Former oil field workers do not want to be out of work again, and many of them have switched industries.