Yep, :aro-u: something to think about. But there's always a long list ahead of it.
Printable View
Yep, :aro-u: something to think about. But there's always a long list ahead of it.
Are you referring to our price being linked to the Singapore price? I think that was done a long time before Keating (but I could be wrong).Quote:
Originally Posted by Waldo
However let me ask this - if you had oil to sell and person A was offering you US$50 a barrel (in Singapore) and person B was offering you US$40 a barrel (in Australia), who would you sell it to?
Unless you force Australian oil producers to sell below local market (SE Asia) price, we NEED to link our price to the local market. If the government did bring in such a policy, I think you will find that local producers would shut down (or at least scale down drastically) and we would have an oil shortage, because no non-Australian oil producers would sell their oil to us, because they can get a better price on the open market.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Yep, I was referring to the TAPAS.
This brings out the need to report correctly in the media. The only sources who I know of, that report on the TAPAS are Lateline Business on Ch 2 and the Business Report on SBS, the others all refer to the US crude barrel price, which as has been correctly pointed out doesn't reflect on our price, not directly anyway.
But, as always Australia for whatever reason follow the rest of the world for things, yes, prices have to reflect off something, but that it has to follow off prices for which the demand is not reflected on our local demand surely points to inadequacies and changes must be made?
But the Singapore price is, for all intents and purposes, a reflection of the local demand and/or market for oil. Like it or not, we are part of the SE Asian region.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waldo
At least the tele could show the tapas in the finance reports, rather than the US price, what the hell do they show that for here?
It's like mum used to say "it's got nothing to do with the price of eggs in China" erm, or something like that...
Cheers
Michael
TAPAS is the Singapore crude price, they have more volume of cars per capita on roads not meant for that volume. Their demand isn't our demand. Yes, we are part of something, but it's not a reflection of our market demand or use.
It's like saying Sydney house prices are x and Melbourne and Brisbane should also pay the same median price. Markets are local and demand/supply is local within it's own borders.
We pump our own crude here, we send it offshore for refining :? (in part but not all) so why are we paying a price in a market across the water, when that market is here not there? :?
I doubt that. Australia would have one of the highest per capita rate of car ownership in the world. On top of that we also tend to travel greater distances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waldo
You can't compare houses with a commodity such as oil. Could you easily send you Melbourne house to Sydney, if the Sydney market was paying higher prices?Quote:
Their demand isn't our demand. Yes, we are part of something, but it's not a reflection of our market demand or use.
It's like saying Sydney house prices are x and Melbourne and Brisbane should also pay the same median price. Markets are local and demand/supply is local within it's own borders.
We pump our own crude here, we send it offshore for refining :? (in part but not all) so why are we paying a price in a market across the water, when that market is here not there? :?
We have to get our oil from somewhere and the closest market is Singapore. How do we avoid paying the price that that market is asking?:?
We can't produce enough oil for our use and as mentioned before, even if we did, the producers will sell it to the highest bidder (i.e. someone else).
I'll try and find a reference for you, but it is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vernonv
You're right, they're "...12 cars per 100 people. This compares with the per capita rate of 46 cars per 100 people in Australia." Maybe that side of the argument doesn't hold up, but they have more cars to amount of road space, surely that has a greater affect on consumption.
By I fail to see why when everyone recognises that things aren't right in Australia, that they're defended and govt' is gutless to take them on because it's "too hard" Australia took on Apple with their pricing, I used to pay near triple for my customised Macs, which were made, customised and shipped from Singapore, $AU to $US, now I pay $AU to $US.
It's all getting no where and useless anyway. I'm going to save my sanity and close the door behind me.
You can't? :? It's about market demand and supply, that's my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vernonv
Yes Michael, that has been a source of puzzlement (and annoyance) for quite some time. The ABC (Alan Kohler) sometimes shows both, but usually only the NYMEX.Quote:
Originally Posted by mic-d
My brokers' website, Commsec, also only shows NYMEX, not TAPIS, go figure.
Demand doesn't give a hoot about the "per capita" it's primarily determined by the sheer numbers of vehicles. Japan has ~13% fewer vehicles per capita, but the 4 fold bigger population means they have way more cars than us. They have smaller cars and do travel shorter distances but their overall consumption is about double the petrol we use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waldo
What Vernon said. Anything based on oil is highly mobile.Quote:
We pump our own crude here, we send it offshore for refining :? (in part but not all) so why are we paying a price in a market across the water, when that market is here not there? :?