January 3, 2010

• <的士/ 小巴死火 : Some facts and thoughts>

  According to RTHK :

  繼的士司機後，有小巴團體亦投訴到中石化氣站加氣後死火。

  機電署表示，已到中石化的加氣站抽取樣本化驗，預計一至兩星期後會有結果。

  署方明天會與油公司及業界開會，商討事件。的士團體透露，受影響的士多達五千至六千輛，希望當局保障司機安全及生計。

  ——-

  1. According to Transport Department’s statistics (PDF file), there are a total 18,000 Urban and NT Taxis (For information, only 50 taxis in Lantau). So roughly, one of out 3 taxis suffers from breaking-down.

  2. Combining the information from EMSD and a website here (excel file), I manage to obtain the price of LPG (石油氣) for each station and its operator (there are only 2 operators in HK)

  油公司名稱			地址		專 用 氣 站 的 石 油 氣 上 限 價 格 （ 港 元 / 公 升 ）
  1	ECO 易高		柴灣豐業街9號		4.31
  2	ECO 易高		西九龍巧翔街2號		4.31
  3	ECO 易高		美孚深旺道111號		4.07
  4	ECO 易高		屯門業旺路7號		4.07
  5	ECO 易高		灣仔運盛街7號		4.06
  6	Sinopec 中國石化		九龍灣祥業街		4.05
  7	Sinopec 中國石化		葵安路葵涌道交界		4.05
  8	Sinopec 中國石化		上環豐物道		4.01
  9	Sinopec 中國石化		觀塘偉樂街		4.01
  10	Sinopec 中國石化		大埔元洲仔		4.01
  11	Sinopec 中國石化		元朗德業街		3.91
  12	Sinopec 中國石化		馬鞍山(近馬鞍山道)		3.91

  — Even the most expensive one under Sinopec is still cheaper than under ECO ($4.05 vs $4.06)

  — Ma On Shan is the most popular filling station : it is the cheapest, 9.2% lower than the highest one; and both Urban and NT taxis can refill their tank in Ma On Shan (NT taxis cannot go to, say, Wanchai)

  3. (First part) Why Sinopec’s price is lower? According to EMSD,

  專 用 氣 站 石 油 氣 上 限 價 格 (P) 的 定 價 公 式 包 含 兩 個 元 素 ， 即 國 際 石 油 氣 價 格 (A) 和 營 運 價 格 (B)

  以 定 價 公 式 (P=A+B) 計 算

  — 國 際 石 油 氣 價 格 (A) 的 升 跌 會 直 接 反 映 在 專 用 氣 站 零 售 價 格 上
  — 營 運 價 格 (B) 則 是 營 辦 商 在 投 標 時 提 出 的 營 運 成 本 和 邊 際 利 潤

  So basically, Sinopec is able to undercut ECO via putting a lower B, which in principle, represents its lower operating costs and profit margin.

  4. (Second part) Why Sinopec’s price is lower via cutting its B?

  — First of all, the filling stations were allocated at different point of time. The first patch of sites were allocated in 2000. So during time of economic downturn (1997-2003), Sinopec could able to take advantage of lower set up, overhead and related one-off costs to undercut its competitor.

  — Second, I have no evidence indicating Sinopec’s operating efficiency is higher or lower. Why can we expect a previously state-own enterprises to have higher efficiency?

  — More importantly, according to my mum’s friend, previously a oil-seller and now a taxi-driver (what a coincidence), Sinopec’s LPG quality is significantly lower. Its ‘density’ is lower, with more impurities. Compared to the competitor’s LPG, it offers “less power”, so to speak.

  So why all of a sudden, so many engine broke down? He suspected Sinopec’s LPG could be even worse, or such poor LPG is more vulnerable to recent sudden change in the weather of HK.

  He continues to say, the poor quality of Sinopec LPG is almost unknown amongst taxi drivers. He is previously a oil seller, so he can tell from the engine operation.

  By and large, by offering you inferior products (meaning goods with poor quality; not the goods with negative income elasticity), Sinopec is able to offer you a lower price.

  The unknown tradeoff? Engines breaking up.

  Recall that there is no such a thing called free-lunch.

  5. I am not saying government is wrong, but supposedly, it should make sure LPG at different stations has the same quality. Sometimes it is very difficult to have quality assurance all the time.

  Also, it takes 1 to 2 weeks to test the LPG? Com’on…

  • 11:41 am
  • 1 Comment