Daily Kos

Oil Industry Collusion manipulates the market price

Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 09:24:44 PM PDT

I had an occaision to research a bit about the oil industry and its monopolistic practices this past summer.  I was alarmed and disgusted by the April/May "here comes the summer driving season price increases" heaped upon the world by the MSM.

It is so damned coincidental that after successive quarters of record-breaking profits, suddenly, before a now very important mid-term election, gas prices plummet.  Can the repugs affect gas prices?  Not the ones in office, but the ones running the industry can.  And they have in the past.  And they were found out...

But don't take my word for it... there is actually a congressional report on the subject....

Proof of collusion in the oil industry... why in God's name haven't we heard about it?

Senator Wyden of Oregon released a report in June, 2001.

I was out of work so I wasn't paying much attention to anything outside my world in the summer of 2001, so I can't tell you if it got any media coverage.  I became a news junkie after the terrorist attacks, and certainly don't recall anything about it, but it is excellent, and you can find the whole thing at
http://wyden.senate.gov/...

The investigation found emails and letters sent between the CEOs and senior management of various companies to exert pressure to keep mid-sized independent refineries applying for licenses to reopen after expansion or renovation, closed.  For instance, this is how it opens:


The Oil Industry, Gas Supply and Refinery Capacity:
More Than Meets the Eye

An investigative report presented
by Senator Ron Wyden
June 14, 2001

"As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline."
Internal Texaco document, March 7, 1996


"A senior energy analyst at the recent API (American Petroleum Institute) convention warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins...However, refining utilization has been rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low."
Internal Chevron document, November 30,1995

The findings of Sen. Wyden's report include revelations about companies witholding gas to manipulate the market, about the steadily declining production of the Bigs, and the rising profitability of the industry:


FINDING 1:
Oil Companies Articulated their "Need" to Reduce Oil and Gas Supply to Increase Prices and Grow Profit Margins

....snip....

FINDING 2:
Oil Company Competitors Planned Opportunities to Subvert Oil and Gas Supply

On June 11, 2001, the Wall Street Journal reported that Marathon Ashland Petroleum intentionally withheld reformulated gasoline supply in the Midwest in a contrived effort to keep prices, and profits, artificially high. Although Marathon was reported to have operated alone in this instance, documents suggest that over the past five years other leading oil companies have worked together to control the amount of gasoline available
on the market.
....snip....

FINDING 3:
Closing Refineries: Oil Companies Act to Inhibit Supply

snip...

FINDING 4:
Record Profits: Oil Companies Reap Benefit of Higher Prices at Pump

Despite complaints indicting the cost of environmental compliance and manufacturing "boutique" fuels, in the 2000 the oil and gas industry enjoyed record profits that reflect
record gas prices. According to Texaco's 2000 Annual Report, the company's production steadily decreased from 1998 to 2000, yet its net income more than quadrupled during the same period - with Texaco posting well above $2.4 billion in net income in 2000.
...snip...

Right now I'm singing "memories" thinking of $10Billion in quarterly profit today (XOM).


FINDING 5:
National Energy Policy Incentivizes Oil Companies to Expand Refinery Capacity

The Bush administration's National Energy Policy, released in May, points to lagging profit margins and costly environmental regulations during the past decade as the reason for lost refinery capacity. The report also states that, "excess capacity may have deterred some new capacity investments in the past," and that "more recently, other factors, such as regulations, have deterred investments."

Oil companies cited excess capacity in the mid-1990s as a cause of inadequate profit margins. It was this excess capacity that the companies sought to eliminate in order to
improve their margins. Subsequently, refineries were closed. The industry documents cited earlier indicate that oil companies may have closed those refineries specifically to
tighten supply and drive up costs.
...snip....

That an energy policy came out in May of 2001 is an insight into what the Bush administration was doing during its first eight months instead of taking the threat of terrorism seriously.  But that's another subject...

Since it has been found that gas supplies have, in the past, been witheld from the market to influence prices, it is no stretch to assume they can also dump supply on the market to reduce prices.  Why would they do it?  The current regime has rewarded them with tax breaks and incentives even when they have all reported record profits repeatedly... They are very interested in maintaining the status quo.

Even though the report is five years old, its findings are still relevant and an insight into the way the industry works, and it deserves some time in the public eye.

Tags: oil, big oil, gas prices, energy (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 19 comments

  •  rec'd ... great catch...always worth repeating (0+ / 0-)

    especially in these days.

  •  Agree with your last line 100% (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    JuliaAnn, netguyct

    Thanks for posting this.

    Barry Welsh Indiana 6th District Democratic Congressional Candidate

  •  wydens report has some big flaws (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    borkitekt

    It's a political document.  

    he lists refinery closures from 1995 to 2001 (IIRC) but fails to note when the refineries actually last ran any crude.  Some were idle for years before they were "closed" officially.  One in particular, the Hercules CA Pacific refinery, stopped running crude in 1995 but is listed as closing in 97.  As early as 1989 they were only running part time.  I lived near it.  It was an ancient polluting pig that the new grown suburbs circling it wanted gone.  No way they'd have gotten permits to expand to do the work needed to make clean fuels, even if it had been economic to do so.

    Wyden fails to note that refining capacity was growing during the 90's.  Operable capacity grew from 15.2 MMBD to almost 18 million today.  All while a number of smallish refineries were closed.  The reason they closed is primarily the clear air and clean fuels acts (both great ideas).  The tiny refineries were exempted from the Clean air act for a decade+.  When they finally were up against a hard deadline to stop polluting, they closed.

    And example,  Premcor's Blue Island unit, one of the largest and last on Wydens list.  Go google it's name and you'll find it was a horrible polluting pig of a refinery that was forced to close.  Could Premcor have invested hundreds of millions to fix it up?  sure.  Is it illegal to choose not to?  sure.

    the US refining industry is coining it now but was unprofitable from about 1983 to 2000.  meanwhile, they had to spend billions to be able to make the new low sulfur gasolines and diesels required.  At the same time, worldwide capacity grew with the US the dumping ground for leftover gasoline that foreign refiners made as they produce their top product -- diesel.

    No one should feel sorry for the oil companies.  far from it.  but if you expect any industry to keep open unprofitable capacity and spend billions to have it made suitable to produce new products just betting on the come, you are wearing a great big tin hat.

    Do I trust individual oilco employees to not manipulate markets.  Of course not.  I've seen it done.  Do I believe they can coordinate price swings?  nope.  Too many players.

    see also: http://www.dailykos.com/...

    the title is flat wrong, but the argumenet isn't.  mogas prices dumped recently for good reasons that don't include conspiracy.

    •  Um. (0+ / 0-)

      All while a number of smallish refineries were closed.  The reason they closed is primarily the clear air and clean fuels acts (both great ideas).  The tiny refineries were exempted from the Clean air act for a decade+.  When they finally were up against a hard deadline to stop polluting, they closed.

      Whose fault was this again? Like they didn't know that was going to happen...

      •  it's not about fault (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        pb

        you cannot expect companies to act in uneconomic ways.  and then describe rational decisions as collusion because you don't like the idea that we're using so much gasoline that we've run up against capacity limits enabling refiners to raise their prices.

        Most of the small refineries that closed were independants not Exxon/Mobil/Shell/Chevron.  From a competition standpoint it's a shame they're gone.  From every other standpoint, it's what needed to happen.

        The majors wanted to stay vertically integrated, so they grudgingly invested big piles of money (estimates range from $3 to $12 billion) to meet new clean fuels. It made no sense to do what is needed to a 25 MBD teakettle refinery to meet those requirements.

        Wyden's assessment is much more applicable to the west coast where there is indeed a small group of refiners that choose not to compete aggressively.  East of the rockies, it's not so clear.

        •  I can certainly see why... (0+ / 0-)

          But I guess I just have an aversion to short-sighted profiteering. However, I'll bow to your expertise on the economy of scale / barrier to entry / cost of doing business question here.

          •  Again no tears for oilcos (1+ / 0-)

            but the refining end was a pig for a decade +.  I had lots of friends laid off or quit in disgust as the projects they were working on just couldn't get funded.  The only projects done for ages were to comply with environmental rules (fully support).  

            It's easy to scream now that they are making big profits, but no one minded a bit when they were barely scraping buy, with tiny returns on capital.  they built too much capacity from 1975-85 both in the US and overseas.  Took nearly a generation (and major spec changes) to dry up the excess.

        •  It's about the Oil and Gas Industry's behavior (0+ / 0-)

          The only reference to anything political is the reference to the Energy Policy and a related report.  
          The energy policy also sought or actually did relax environmnental regulations.
          The fact that a congressional office investigated on behalf of constituents is refreshing.  Is anything a congressional office does "political?"

          That the Presidents and CEOs of major oil companies, i.e. "competitors" communicated about supply, demand, and price, is evidence of anti-competitive, and therefore, illegal anti-trust behavior.  
          If I remember correctly, the independent refineries that closed were responsible for 8% to 10% of capacity at the time. It might also be odd that no major retailer signed any agreements with these independents in a time they bemoaned refining capacity shortages.

          Since this report, Valero has purchased a significant percentage of domestic refining capacity, Exxon and Mobil have merged, Chevron and Texaco have merged, etc...
          There is no true competition.  

          True, no public company will normally act purposefully unprofitably, but working together to assure profits is illegal.

          It's now no small surprise that the first thing the  current administration did was for the oil industry, since the GOP is the Grand Oil Party.  Maybe this report serves as a reminder of that, so, ok then, it's polical.

          •  major logic flaw (0+ / 0-)

            It might also be odd that no major retailer signed any agreements with these independents in a time they bemoaned refining capacity shortages.

            refining margins were terrible due to excess capacity in the US and even more in Europe, South America etc.  These refineries closed because they were not profitable.  no one wanted 25 MBD, 40 year old refineries.  Makes no sense to add diesel hydrotreaters, cokers etc at sizes 1/10 of normal.  

            As for the FTC, I've said time and time again, they screwed up allowing these mergers.  major mistake.  But you should be glad Tosco and Premcor bought up the old rags from the majors and fixed them up.  Otherwise, we'd have even less operating capacity.  Their core refineries were castoffs from the majors that Exxon and Chevron didn't need to supply their stations and didn't want to invest in to make surplus' for others.

            as for working together to divide up markets, obviously that is illegal.  Even Wyden could find no proof that that occured.  He references a conversation between a Chevroid and the head man at Tosco, but cannot find that they ever acted or agreed to anything.  

            And again, as capacity still grew throughout the 90's it's hard to claim capacity was being cut to improve profits.  They just didn't add capacity as quickly as SUV's were purchased.  Supply is now below demand in summer, especially with the clean fuels that the European export refiners couldn't make as easily.  So pay up.  Dump the hummer and get a hybrid.  

    •  lots of typos sorry. (0+ / 0-)

      the worst is

      Could Premcor have invested hundreds of millions to fix it up?  sure.  Is it illegal to choose not to?  sure***no***.

  •  The price of gas is lowest in tight repub distric (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    OHdog

    I read that in an Ohio race where the
    repbulican is in a tight congressional
    race with the dem, the price of gas is going below $2.00.

    I would suspect that acrooss the country the biggest price drop will be seen in those
    congressional districts in which the repbulican
    is losing and the oil companies lower the cost of
    gas to show how the admin brought the price down.

    •  i hear elvis is alive (0+ / 0-)

      go look at gas buddy.  Ohio seems to be highly competitive.  it seems to spike down hard each time gas drops relative to the nation's average.

      and can you explain why gasoline increased in price right through the 2004 election before doing the usual fall fade?

      •  Pooh-Pooh... (0+ / 0-)

        I observe that red/blue district gas price variations are indeed pretty evident throughout my state of Virginia. Prices here currently vary as much as .15-.20/gal. from one congressional district to the next.
        As for your recollections about 2004, remember that the diarist is noting the quarterly profits (including tax breaks) made on gas, not just the waffling pump prices.
    •  Utah (0+ / 0-)

      Yep, in the reddest of the red states like Utah the price of gasoline is not falling like it is in the rest of the country.

      Obama doesn't look like Thomas Jefferson, just Jefferson's children.

      by OHdog on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 04:20:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  give it a little time (0+ / 0-)

        Utah is a long way from the rest of the country's supply.  hard to arbitrage in bbls to knock down the local prices.  Just a handfull of local refiners who've no pressure to compete aggresively until winter's demand drop starts backing up their tankage.  And even then they know demand is not price elastic so they just trim runs.  

        you should see out here.  We're still at $3.30 down from $3.55 while the NYMEX has dropped 70 cts.  We have NO competition to speak of and are 3000+ miles by ship from competitively priced bbls......

Permalink | 19 comments