Re: restatement re oil refining conspiracy?

[Eugene Coyle <eugenecoyle@xxxxxxx>]

Let me clarify.  I don't think the recent spate of oil refinery outages
in the USA results from a conspiracy.  But it seems clear that the oil
refiners have cooperated over decades to keep refinery capacity from
growing as fast as the market for refined products.

Gene Coyle

Eugene Coyle wrote:

> I'm always ready to embrace the idea of corporate collusion (we don't
> call it conspiracy in micro economics.  Actually we don't call it
> collusion, either) but although it crossed my mind when I heard about
> the Valero fire I don't see why they'd bother under these
> circumstances.  In fact they might rather keep from offending the public
> further, rather than inflame another refinery.
>
> Gene Coyle
>
> Jim Devine wrote:
>
> > OTOH, maybe stress on supply causes accidents?
> >
> > the CA electricity "deregulation" seemed to deliberately create the
> > incentive to manipulate supply a la Enron. Is the current oil market
> > that way?
> >
> > On 8/9/05, michael perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > This sounds like the California electricity scam?  Could it be true?
> > >
> > > Speculating without facts:
> > >
> > > More Outages Hit U.S. Refineries
> > >
> > > Recent Incidents Heighten
> > > Concerns About Capacity;
> > > Oil Nears $64 a Barrel
> > >
> > > Fresh upsets at U.S. refineries over the weekend extended an unusual
> > > spate of outages that has raised concerns about fuel supplies and
> > > contributed to a rise in oil prices on the New York futures market to
> > > nearly $64 a barrel.
> > >
> > > The rash of incidents over the past three weeks involves major
> > > processing units and four fires at a time when refiners are trying to
> > > run flat out to meet demand. The outages have put added stress on
> > > already-constrained U.S. fuel-production capacity.