$5 a gallon oil in 2012

[westwall]

We have? the oil supply is low?
Or have "we" reduced refining to raise prices of refined products?

the Hugo gasoline seems to be the same price as the "US" gas does.

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. – The Obama administration's decision to maintain a ban on oil drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts is a mistake, according to a University of Illinois expert who wrote a six-volume book series on marine pollution.

"It's a ridiculous decision on the part of the Interior Department," said John W. Kindt, a professor of business and legal policy at Illinois. "The previous 180-day moratorium really hurt a lot of businesses. Well, a seven-year ban is going to sting even more."

Kindt says giving the oil companies a public spanking through a seven-year ban isn't going to solve our energy problems, and that unreasonably prohibiting offshore drilling will not only exacerbate the region's economic woes, it also will strengthen U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

"Our motto should be 'Drill, Baby, Drill' but 'Safely, Baby, Safely,' " he said. "We have two wars in the Middle East, and while we do need alternate sources of energy, in the interim we still need to safely develop our off-shore resources. That means we need to open up both the East Coast and California for drilling, although California is not going to like that. But we've got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time."

According to Kindt, the author of "Marine Pollution and the Law of the Sea," a six-volume series that examines protecting the world's oceans while encouraging development of essential resources, the real villain in the new contretemps is not BP (formerly British Petroleum), but the Department of the Interior, with the recently announced seven-year moratorium serving as yet another example of what he says is the department's shortsightedness and incompetence.

Expert: Seven-year moratorium on gulf oil drilling an unwise decision | News Bureau | University of Illinois

We don't drill off our shores because there is barely any oil off our shores. Certainly not enough to make the slightest dent in our 86 million barrel per day appetite (and growing).

That being said, if oil companies want to continue to bludgeon their profit margin building vast infrastructure for piddly kiddie pools of oil in our water, I think they should be allowed to do so. WITH abundant safety oversight and severe ramifications for screw ups. They'll learn soon enough there's barely any oil, as the USGS has known for decades.

Hmmmm China is drilling in the Gulf. Russia's Gazprom is planing on drilling off of Florida,
the map in the link shows a whole hell of a lot of rigs and we don't own most of them. Somebody's getting oil there so why isn't it us?

Oil Platforms in the Gulf: How Many and Who Owns Them? | Deep Sea News

 

[Samson]

Oil is already more than $5 a gallon.

Quaker State is $3.25 a quart.
That's $13 a gallon

Its weird that you and I are the only ones here that know the difference between oil and gasoline.

Now I feel much more smug than usual.

It is the purpose of Message Boards.

 

[Samson]

We are building/have built a refinery in Wyoming I think it was to refine Tar Sands oil from Canada.

btw what ever happened to those refineries Bush promised to build on abandoned military base land?

I never heard about a single application being filed to build one.

We need more Refineries.

Top U.S. Refineries - Energy Information Administration. Energy Rankings

Let's build one in Elmhurst, NY.

 

[RallyxPoint]

thats if there is any oil lefted at all...

 

[Samson]

We are building/have built a refinery in Wyoming I think it was to refine Tar Sands oil from Canada.

btw what ever happened to those refineries Bush promised to build on abandoned military base land?

I never heard about a single application being filed to build one.

No.

The Canadians (Suncor) want to buy a refinery in Cheyenne to process "Tar Sand Oil" (aka Syncrude), and they have bought a refinery in Denver.

Refining Oil is not a terribly profitable business, and it takes about 20 years in the USA just to file all the EPA "Environmental Impact Studies."

There are 4 refineries in WY, and several in MT. All have been debottlenecked and expanded, but not necessarily to produce more gasoline. Much of the "expansion" is to produce "Ultra Low Sulfur" deisel at 10 ppm as EPA regulations dictated. The other major expansions have been to tighten Wastewater quality (the water returned from the refinery is better quality than the water entering), and to produce more Coke (and deisel) instead of asphalt (dramatically increasing the cost of building roads).

 

[mdn2000]

Jiggs the expert, what a tired joke. Given the Gulf of Mexico is supplying over 30% of our oil and we are not producing the oil at half its potential there is enough proven reserves to keep pumping hundreds of years. Since drilling in the Gulf has begun its continually expanded.

Hell, BP just suffered what is literally known or previously known as a "Gusher".

Of course with Libya about to double the supply of oil they produce, Brazil producing oil with billions of dollars given by Obama, the world has more and more oil than ever before.

Oil Field Services: Libya Increases Proven Oil Reserves

Libya Increases Proven Oil Reserves
Source: Newswires 8/2/2010, Location: Africa
Oil Field Services

Share |

Libya's proven crude oil reserves rose to 46 billion barrels in the first half of this year after adding 612 million barrels from new fields, local daily Oea said on Friday, quoting the country's top oil official. OPEC member Libya has the biggest crude oil reserves in Africa.

'Libya's oil reserves will increase further in next months because the exploration efforts in the first half accounted for 40 percent of the hydrocarbons search programme for the year,' Oea quoted Shokri Ghanem as saying. 'We expect the discovery of 20 additional oil fields this year,' said Ghanem who is the chairman of Libya's National Oil Corporation (NOC) and top energy official of his country which does not have an oil minister.

proven reserves to keep pumping hundreds of years

WOW!

I added that, figured as long as there is no proof to the contrary.

 

[uscitizen]

This is what I remembered reading about a new refinery. I was incorerect it was South Dakota, not Wyoming.

South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades
Wednesday, June 04, 2008


PrintShareThisELK POINT, S.D. — Voters in Union County on Tuesday approved rezoning for what would be the first new U.S. oil refinery in more than 30 years.

With all 13 precincts reporting, 3,932 voters, or 58 percent, endorsed their county commission's
rezoning of almost 3,300 acres north of Elk Point for the $10 billion refinery while 2,855, or 42 percent, opposed it.

South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

It appears to have suffered from a not in my backyard situation.

 

[DiveCon]

This is what I remembered reading about a new refinery. I was incorerect it was South Dakota, not Wyoming.

South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades
Wednesday, June 04, 2008


PrintShareThisELK POINT, S.D. — Voters in Union County on Tuesday approved rezoning for what would be the first new U.S. oil refinery in more than 30 years.

With all 13 precincts reporting, 3,932 voters, or 58 percent, endorsed their county commission's
rezoning of almost 3,300 acres north of Elk Point for the $10 billion refinery while 2,855, or 42 percent, opposed it.

South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

It appears to have suffered from a not in my backyard situation.

so, even though it had voter support, it still didnt get built

 

[uscitizen]

This is what I remembered reading about a new refinery. I was incorerect it was South Dakota, not Wyoming.

South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades
Wednesday, June 04, 2008


PrintShareThisELK POINT, S.D. — Voters in Union County on Tuesday approved rezoning for what would be the first new U.S. oil refinery in more than 30 years.

With all 13 precincts reporting, 3,932 voters, or 58 percent, endorsed their county commission's
rezoning of almost 3,300 acres north of Elk Point for the $10 billion refinery while 2,855, or 42 percent, opposed it.

South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

It appears to have suffered from a not in my backyard situation.

so, even though it had voter support, it still didnt get built

Marginal voter support.

The petro industry does not want to invest in any new refineries.
It would drop their profit.

 

[Care4all]

also, president bush offered up our closed military bases in 2005 for new refineries to avoid the NIMB Yarders, but STILL none built.....

Defense.gov News Article: Bush Proposes Oil Refineries on Closed Military Bases

 

[uscitizen]

None on the right want to talk about that Care.
They will just reply BOOOOSH.

As I recall he pulled back on that really quickly after oil companies talked with him.

 

[DiveCon]

None on the right want to talk about that Care.
They will just reply BOOOOSH.

As I recall he pulled back on that really quickly after oil companies talked with him.

proof?

 

[DiveCon]

also, president bush offered up our closed military bases in 2005 for new refineries to avoid the NIMB Yarders, but STILL none built.....

Defense.gov News Article: Bush Proposes Oil Refineries on Closed Military Bases

that doesnt prove a damn thing

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course it does not. If facts disagree with your version of the "Way things ought to be", ignore the facts, or belittle anyone that presents them with mindless derision. The Conservative way, avoid thinking at all costs.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is what I remembered reading about a new refinery. I was incorerect it was South Dakota, not Wyoming.

South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades
Wednesday, June 04, 2008


PrintShareThisELK POINT, S.D. — Voters in Union County on Tuesday approved rezoning for what would be the first new U.S. oil refinery in more than 30 years.

With all 13 precincts reporting, 3,932 voters, or 58 percent, endorsed their county commission's
rezoning of almost 3,300 acres north of Elk Point for the $10 billion refinery while 2,855, or 42 percent, opposed it.

South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

It appears to have suffered from a not in my backyard situation.

so, even though it had voter support, it still didnt get built

Well, dang, those 3,932 pinch pennies didn't put up the cash for that new refinery. What a bunch of cheapskates.

 

[DiveCon]

Of course it does not. If facts disagree with your version of the "Way things ought to be", ignore the facts, or belittle anyone that presents them with mindless derision. The Conservative way, avoid thinking at all costs.

idiot, thats YOU way, not the conservative way
you are too fucking stupid to know

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, they got the votes, why was not the refinery built? You still haven't answered that.

 

[Intense]

This is what I remembered reading about a new refinery. I was incorerect it was South Dakota, not Wyoming.

South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades
Wednesday, June 04, 2008


PrintShareThisELK POINT, S.D. — Voters in Union County on Tuesday approved rezoning for what would be the first new U.S. oil refinery in more than 30 years.

With all 13 precincts reporting, 3,932 voters, or 58 percent, endorsed their county commission's
rezoning of almost 3,300 acres north of Elk Point for the $10 billion refinery while 2,855, or 42 percent, opposed it.

South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

It appears to have suffered from a not in my backyard situation.

so, even though it had voter support, it still didnt get built

Well, dang, those 3,932 pinch pennies didn't put up the cash for that new refinery. What a bunch of cheapskates.

You can't have it both ways, either shit or get off the pot. Stop blaming Bush and Republicans for everything. It really makes you look foolish.




ELK POINT, SD - The ailing economy and declining demand for oil have lead some to question the future of a South Dakota oil refinery in Union County.

At a debate last month both candidates for South Dakota governor said they had their doubts about the refinery, and if it would ever be built.

Thousands of acres of farmland in central Union County are still growing beans and corn. They're fields that were supposed to be plowed under this year to make way for the oil refinery.

"At the end of the day our goal hasn't changed. We're going to create a world-class facility that's going to bring over 18 hundred permanent jobs to Union County and the region," Hyperion project executive Preston Phillips said.

Hyperion Resources out of Dallas, Texas wanted to break ground by now on the country's first new oil refinery in more than three decades. But, Phillips says like many projects across the country the refinery has been hindered by the economy.

"We wanted to start construction in 2010. But, with the financial crisis that really has put the financial markets in a great amount of uncertainty, and because of that it slowed down our project just like a bunch of other projects across the country," Phillips said.
The project has also been slowed down by court cases and new EPA rules. The Sierra Club is one of the organizations fighting the refinery.

"The state agency and our governor have focused almost exclusively on the jobs and the economic activity aspects of Hyperion, and have dismissed the environmental and health problems that are certainly related to a large oil refinery," Peter Carrels of the South Dakota Sierra Club said.

The Sierra Club is involved with a lawsuit over the project. It's not only concerned about the pollution the new refinery could cause in South Dakota, but they are also concerned about the global impact. Hyperion's proposed refinery will use Canadian oil from the oil sands in Alberta.

"Tar sands as it turns out has a very high carbon-dioxide pollutant emission, and that really puts them in a difficult position with the new thinking about carbon-dioxide pollution," Carrels said.

Carrels says it takes more energy and more pollution to pull Canadian oil out of the ground. And, with more attention on global warming and the possibility of more restrictions on Canadian oil sands development, Hyperion's proposal could be risky.

"The conditions are fairly sketchy I would say for a tar sands oil refinery," Carrels said.

But, Hyperion is sticking to it's plans saying Canadian crude oil is the best option for its refinery project.

KELOLAND.com | Sioux Falls News & Weather, South Dakota News & Weather, Minnesota and Iowa News

 

[Intense]

OK, they got the votes, why was not the refinery built? You still haven't answered that.

Gee, maybe you could do your home work.

 

[mdn2000]

Why no refineries, simple, the Liberal/Marxist will not allow it. Bush was never about the USA, what did Bush do other than where a "R" on his lapel.

Insurance, wonder what that costs, with all the Lawyers involved.

They build refineries on ships these days to avoid any countries laws and regulations that strangle the industry.