It's sooo funny how you don't get it.
These arguments I make aren't made in a vacuum, they're made in response to your criticisms.
I'm not comparing these two companies, I made an argument about a company that is in the oil business and their stock price. Then you take my argument out of that context and try to put some other context on my argument which, as I would agree, doesn't apply.
Let me lay out the argument you stated: VBHI, which is in the oil business where the price of oil is $100/bbl has not had a corresponding equity price change.
My counterpoint was: Valero, which is also in the oil business where the price of oil is $100/bbl has also not had an appreciable stock price change as the price of oil. The point that Valero is "the largest global independent refiner" was the exact discrepancy I was highlighting -- how do you consolidate how such a successful company in the oil business hasn't had as an appreciable rise in stock price as the price of oil? The answer to that conundrum is the answer to your original question.
In a similar example of cognitive dissonance, I presented the case of Coca-Cola. They are in the business of selling soda (an analogy for oil). Their stock over the past year has grown appreciably but not nearly as much as the underlying price of their commodity, soda, so how could you explain that discrepancy? The answer to this conundrum is also the answer to your original question.
Regarding your claim that "you really never explain why the stock price is doing so poorly when oil prices are at record highs," that was literally the point of those two arguments.
Both those examples contradict your rather naive assumption that the only thing that drives the stock price is the price of oil, or as in the Coca-Cola example, the price of the underlying commodity.
So, do you see how I'm not really comparing Valero to VBHI? Just because those two companies are in the same sentence doesn't mean they're being compared. You have to look at the other words in the sentence, as well as the words that you used which that sentence was being formulated against.
With regard to your price assessment, I'll assume your numbers on Valero are correct and say this:
The price today over the price last year for Valero is 7.8% increase.
The price today over the price for last year for VBHI is 200.0% increase.
When you say overly broad and assumptive statements like that, things like "price for last year" can be taken in many different ways. But as I've shown above, subtlety and specificity of argument is not a tool that's in your toolbox.
