Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling

[Jeepers]

I can't find the post, but about 3 weeks ago I predicted this! TO bad Nancy Sent congress home for a 6 week break with out allowing a vote on this. My guess is she was protecting Obama from having to vote on the issue.

My guess is that she was telling our Cowboy president to stuff his antagonistic words up his ass... The president told Nancy to go screw herself then wanter her to call a vote... LOL.. you cats made this guy your Republican leading spokesperson...

Ya know whats even funnier than that... YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS KEEP PARROTING HIS BULLSHIT... How many friggin threads do we need on this.... There is NO oil supply problem... THERE IS A DUMB FUCKING REPUBLICAN problem...

Now if Obama is going to throw you a bone... you take it.. You pass a bipartisan bill that makes your oil loving bankrollers happy... If you get ten more wells out of this compromise then thats ten more than you had or would have had without the deal... How the hell you idiots managed to survive as long as you have, I'll never know... Maybe darwin was wrong... its not just the smartest and strongest that propagate and thrive....

 

[dilloduck]

My guess is that she was telling our Cowboy president to stuff his antagonistic words up his ass... The president told Nancy to go screw herself then wanter her to call a vote... LOL.. you cats made this guy your Republican leading spokesperson...

Ya know whats even funnier than that... YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS KEEP PARROTING HIS BULLSHIT... How many friggin threads do we need on this.... There is NO oil supply problem... THERE IS A DUMB FUCKING REPUBLICAN problem...

Now if Obama is going to throw you a bone... you take it.. You pass a bipartisan bill that makes your oil loving bankrollers happy... If you get ten more wells out of this compromise then thats ten more than you had or would have had without the deal... How the hell you idiots managed to survive as long as you have, I'll never know... Maybe darwin was wrong... its not just the smartest and strongest that propagate and thrive....

Unrefined oil ain't worth shit. Refineries aren't being built in America anymore. Until alternate energy sources come on line and are affordable, what's your solution ?

 

[Chris]

Unrefined oil ain't worth shit. Refineries aren't being built in America anymore. Until alternate energy sources come on line and are affordable, what's your solution ?

Elect Obama so alternative energy sources will come on line.

Otherwise the Republicans will continue to screw us.

 

[Jeepers]

Unrefined oil ain't worth shit. Refineries aren't being built in America anymore. Until alternate energy sources come on line and are affordable, what's your solution ?

There is nothing stopping Exxon from building a refinery.. Its not like they are cash poor... It might cut into those dividends however..

 

[jreeves]

There is nothing stopping Exxon from building a refinery.. Its not like they are cash poor... It might cut into those dividends however..

Lmao...yes and Santa exists. Do you realize the the governmental regualtions and hurdles that discourage building new refineries?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Lmao...yes and Santa exists. Do you realize the the governmental regualtions and hurdles that discourage building new refineries?

Do you seriously believe that the government is prohibiting Exxon from building a new refinery? Belief in Santa is more credible than that.

Exxon doesn't build more refineries because it's not a good investment. With alternative fuel and an increase in fuel efficient technology right around the corner, it's bad business to throw a couple of billion dollars into a refinery that's only going to meet demand today.

 

[Chris]

Lmao...yes and Santa exists. Do you realize the the governmental regualtions and hurdles that discourage building new refineries?

Total bullsh*t.

Big Oil's Big Lie.

Today, the North County Times quoted an oil industry lobbyists as saying:

"California's gasoline demand has gone up "50 percent in the last 20 years," while the number of refineries in the state dropped from 32 to 14. "With our supply and demand so finely balanced, it doesn't take very much to see pretty dramatic changes in pricing,"

This statement, by Mr. Tupper Hull of of the powerful oil lobbying group, WiSPA, the Western States Petroleum Association, is extremely deceptive. Yes, California has fewer refineries, but it is because the oil industry has aggressively shut them down and consolidated its operations. Fewer refineries mean less competition. The result is a dysfunctional market where seven refining operations control 91.5% of the gasoline sold in the state. This is too much gasoline in the hands of too few companies.

Gouging by gas refineries costs consumers an extra 50¢ a gallon | UCAN

 

[jreeves]

Elect Obama so alternative energy sources will come on line.

Otherwise the Republicans will continue to screw us.

1) Defeat of President Bush's 2001 energy package According to the BBC, "Key points of Bush('s 2001) plan were to:


-Promote new oil and gas drilling


-Build new nuclear plants


-Improve electricity grid and build new pipelines -$10bn in tax breaks to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels
A New York Times article, dated May 18, 2001, explained:


"President Bush began an intensive effort today to sell his plan for developing new sources of energy to Congress and the American people, arguing that the country had a future of 'energy abundance if it could break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.


Mr. Bush's plea for a new dialogue came as his administration published the report of an energy task force containing scores of specific proposals... for finding new sources of power and encouraging a range of new energy technologies."

[The Bush plan] "mentions about a dozen areas including land-use restrictions in the Rockies, lease stipulations on offshore areas attractive to oil companies, the vetting of locations for nuclear plants, environmental reviews to upgrade power plants and refineries that could be streamlined or eliminated to help industry find more oil and gas and produce more electricity and gasoline."

The article went on to quote some rather prescient words from the President, "this great country could face a darker future, a future that is, unfortunately, being previewed in rising prices at the gas pump and rolling blackouts in the great state of California" if his plan was not adopted in 2001.
The Times account continued:


"Mr. Bush talked not only of blackouts but of blackmail, raising the specter of a future in which the United States is increasingly vulnerable to foreign oil suppliers...Mr. Bush was praised by many groups for laying out a long-term energy policy. His report contained 105 initiatives..."
Just as President Bush's predictions have been born out, the article quoted from that most sage of Democrats, former President Jimmy Carter:


"World supplies are adequate and reasonably stable, price fluctuations are cyclical, reserves are plentiful," he (Carter) argued. Mr. Carter said "exaggerated claims seem designed to promote some long-frustrated ambitions of the oil industry at the expense of environmental quality."


But, as a later Times article notes, "the president's ambitious policy quickly became a casualty of energy politics and, notably, harsh criticism from Democrats enraged by the way the White House had created the plan."


In other words, Democrats refused the President's plea to "break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates."


Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump ... or the voter's booth.

The other 9 reasons are at...
American Thinker: Top 10 reasons to blame Democrats for soaring gasoline prices

sigh....

 

[dilloduck]

Total bullsh*t.

Big Oil's Big Lie.

Today, the North County Times quoted an oil industry lobbyists as saying:

"California's gasoline demand has gone up "50 percent in the last 20 years," while the number of refineries in the state dropped from 32 to 14. "With our supply and demand so finely balanced, it doesn't take very much to see pretty dramatic changes in pricing,"

This statement, by Mr. Tupper Hull of of the powerful oil lobbying group, WiSPA, the Western States Petroleum Association, is extremely deceptive. Yes, California has fewer refineries, but it is because the oil industry has aggressively shut them down and consolidated its operations. Fewer refineries mean less competition. The result is a dysfunctional market where seven refining operations control 91.5% of the gasoline sold in the state. This is too much gasoline in the hands of too few companies.

Gouging by gas refineries costs consumers an extra 50¢ a gallon | UCAN

Well I'll be eagerly awaiting the solar and wind cartels to come on the market and save us all beaucoup dollars. ( Consolidating resources doesn't neccessarily mean less gas )

 

[jreeves]

Do you seriously believe that the government is prohibiting Exxon from building a new refinery? Belief in Santa is more credible than that.

Exxon doesn't build more refineries because it's not a good investment. With alternative fuel and an increase in fuel efficient technology right around the corner, it's bad business to throw a couple of billion dollars into a refinery that's only going to meet demand today.

05/31/2007

Monterey County Herald, Monterey, Ca.

WASHINGTON — With gasoline prices averaging $3.22 for a gallon of regular nationwide over the Memorial Day weekend, traditional economic logic might suggest that this would be a good time to invest in new U.S. oil refineries and increase the supply of gasoline.

Yet no new refinery has been built in the United States in three decades, only one is in the works and oil companies are scaling back planned investments in new, expanded or modernized U.S. refineries rather than increasing them.

Overseas, however — where it's generally cheaper and easier to build refineries — a boom in construction is under way to meet the growing demand for gasoline in the United States and in big developing countries such as China and India. That means that Americans increasingly will be filling their tanks with imported gasoline.

In 2005, imported liquid fuels — mostly oil and an increasing amount of gasoline — accounted for about 60 percent of U.S. consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the Energy Department. In a long-term assessment this month, the EIA said that figure could grow to 67 percent by 2030.

"We are outsourcing refining," said Severin Borenstein, an economist and energy expert at the University of California-Berkeley. "I think that this is primarily because of community resistance ... people don't want to live by refineries, but they still want the gasoline.".: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

05/31/2007

Here's a more up to date article:

Valero, an independent refiner, said its first-quarter profit fell by 76 percent. Above, the company’s refinery in Paulsboro, N.J.

After last year’s stellar profits, American refiners are going through a traumatic period. In a time of record gasoline prices, some of them actually lost money in the first quarter, and for virtually all refiners, profits are down sharply.

Experts say the refiners are caught in a double bind. The price of their raw material, oil, is rising because of strong global demand. At the same time, consumption of gasoline in the United States is falling as a result of slower economic growth and consumer efforts to conserve.

However much the companies would like to raise gasoline prices enough to pass along the full increases in oil, analysts say they have been unable to do it. Oil prices doubled in the past year, while wholesale gasoline prices rose a mere 39 percent.

“Refiners are having a terrible time,” said Lawrence J. Goldstein, an economist at the Energy Policy Research Foundation.

For decades, global oil prices were tightly coupled to the ups and downs of the American economy. But in recent years, world oil prices have been pulled upward by heavy demand for diesel fuel from developing countries like China. American economic growth weakened in the last few months, but that has mattered little in the upward march of oil prices.

“What we see at the gasoline pump is increasingly driven by what is happening elsewhere in the global economy,” said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm.

Gasoline prices rose on Tuesday to a nationwide average of $3.73 a gallon, according to AAA, the automobile club. That is yet another record. Diesel prices also set a record, at $4.39 a gallon. Crude oil futures closed at $125.80 a barrel, up $1.57, or 1.3 percent, on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

In its latest monthly report, the International Energy Agency, an adviser to industrialized countries, reduced its forecast for global oil demand for this year, as consumption drops by a bigger-than-forecast 300,000 barrels a day in the developed world.

But that decline will be more than offset by growth from developing countries. Consequently, global consumption is expected to rise this year by 1 million barrels a day, to 86.8 million barrels a day. Nearly all that growth will come from China, the Middle East and Russia.

In the United States, there is no longer much doubt that consumers are responding to higher fuel costs by driving less. Oil consumption fell by 3.3 percent in March, compared with March of last year.

But even as gasoline demand softens, the price keeps rising, driven by higher oil prices. The cost of oil represents about 75 percent of the price of gasoline at the pump, according to the Energy Department; state and federal taxes account for 12 percent, and refining and distribution make up the rest.

The rising oil prices have led to a sharp drop in refining profit margins, or the difference between the cost of oil and the cost of gasoline. These margins, at $12.45 a barrel on average, are 60 percent below their year-ago level, and in the lower half of their five-year range, according to a report by UBS.

In response to falling gasoline demand and rising costs, refiners have cut their production rates. Refining utilization rates, for example, slumped to a low of 81.4 percent in the second week of April, compared with 90.4 percent at the same time last year. Earlier this month, refineries were running at 85 percent of their capacity.

All this has translated into a tough quarter for some refiners. While large integrated companies, like Exxon Mobil, reported big profits in the first quarter thanks to their oil sales, smaller independent refiners that buy their oil, instead of producing it themselves, have been losing money.

Tesoro, Sunoco, and United Refining all posted losses in the first quarter. The hardest hit have been small refineries that tend to process the most expensive types of crude oil into gasoline. Sunoco, for example, lost $123 million in the first quarter, while Tesoro posted a $82 million loss for that period, in contrast to a profit of $116 million last year.

“We’re just not able to pass along the increased cost of crude oil on the gasoline side,” said Lynn Westfall, the chief economist at Tesoro.

At Valero, the nation’s largest independent refiner, first-quarter profit melted by 76 percent. Its refining capacity allows it to process heavier grades of crude oil that typically trade at a discount. Still, its profit dropped to $261 million in the first quarter compared with $1.1 billion last year.

Some consumer advocates say they are deeply suspicious about the behavior of refiners who are sharply cutting production at a time of record gasoline prices.

“They are not sitting in a boardroom and colluding, but they can see easily enough where their benefit lies, and it doesn’t lie in a price war,” said Judy Dugan, the research director at Consumer Watch. “In a truly competitive market, you might see some of these providers try to improve their market share by reducing prices. But this is not happening. They are all better off by restricting production to keep prices up.”
Full article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/business/14refine.html

 

[jreeves]

Here's a more up to date article:

Valero, an independent refiner, said its first-quarter profit fell by 76 percent. Above, the company’s refinery in Paulsboro, N.J.

After last year’s stellar profits, American refiners are going through a traumatic period. In a time of record gasoline prices, some of them actually lost money in the first quarter, and for virtually all refiners, profits are down sharply.

Experts say the refiners are caught in a double bind. The price of their raw material, oil, is rising because of strong global demand. At the same time, consumption of gasoline in the United States is falling as a result of slower economic growth and consumer efforts to conserve.

However much the companies would like to raise gasoline prices enough to pass along the full increases in oil, analysts say they have been unable to do it. Oil prices doubled in the past year, while wholesale gasoline prices rose a mere 39 percent.

“Refiners are having a terrible time,” said Lawrence J. Goldstein, an economist at the Energy Policy Research Foundation.

For decades, global oil prices were tightly coupled to the ups and downs of the American economy. But in recent years, world oil prices have been pulled upward by heavy demand for diesel fuel from developing countries like China. American economic growth weakened in the last few months, but that has mattered little in the upward march of oil prices.

“What we see at the gasoline pump is increasingly driven by what is happening elsewhere in the global economy,” said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm.

Gasoline prices rose on Tuesday to a nationwide average of $3.73 a gallon, according to AAA, the automobile club. That is yet another record. Diesel prices also set a record, at $4.39 a gallon. Crude oil futures closed at $125.80 a barrel, up $1.57, or 1.3 percent, on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

In its latest monthly report, the International Energy Agency, an adviser to industrialized countries, reduced its forecast for global oil demand for this year, as consumption drops by a bigger-than-forecast 300,000 barrels a day in the developed world.

But that decline will be more than offset by growth from developing countries. Consequently, global consumption is expected to rise this year by 1 million barrels a day, to 86.8 million barrels a day. Nearly all that growth will come from China, the Middle East and Russia.

In the United States, there is no longer much doubt that consumers are responding to higher fuel costs by driving less. Oil consumption fell by 3.3 percent in March, compared with March of last year.

But even as gasoline demand softens, the price keeps rising, driven by higher oil prices. The cost of oil represents about 75 percent of the price of gasoline at the pump, according to the Energy Department; state and federal taxes account for 12 percent, and refining and distribution make up the rest.

The rising oil prices have led to a sharp drop in refining profit margins, or the difference between the cost of oil and the cost of gasoline. These margins, at $12.45 a barrel on average, are 60 percent below their year-ago level, and in the lower half of their five-year range, according to a report by UBS.

In response to falling gasoline demand and rising costs, refiners have cut their production rates. Refining utilization rates, for example, slumped to a low of 81.4 percent in the second week of April, compared with 90.4 percent at the same time last year. Earlier this month, refineries were running at 85 percent of their capacity.

All this has translated into a tough quarter for some refiners. While large integrated companies, like Exxon Mobil, reported big profits in the first quarter thanks to their oil sales, smaller independent refiners that buy their oil, instead of producing it themselves, have been losing money.

Tesoro, Sunoco, and United Refining all posted losses in the first quarter. The hardest hit have been small refineries that tend to process the most expensive types of crude oil into gasoline. Sunoco, for example, lost $123 million in the first quarter, while Tesoro posted a $82 million loss for that period, in contrast to a profit of $116 million last year.

“We’re just not able to pass along the increased cost of crude oil on the gasoline side,” said Lynn Westfall, the chief economist at Tesoro.

At Valero, the nation’s largest independent refiner, first-quarter profit melted by 76 percent. Its refining capacity allows it to process heavier grades of crude oil that typically trade at a discount. Still, its profit dropped to $261 million in the first quarter compared with $1.1 billion last year.

Some consumer advocates say they are deeply suspicious about the behavior of refiners who are sharply cutting production at a time of record gasoline prices.

“They are not sitting in a boardroom and colluding, but they can see easily enough where their benefit lies, and it doesn’t lie in a price war,” said Judy Dugan, the research director at Consumer Watch. “In a truly competitive market, you might see some of these providers try to improve their market share by reducing prices. But this is not happening. They are all better off by restricting production to keep prices up.”
Full article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/business/14refine.html

Here's a company trying to build a new refinery in AZ and look at the hurdles they have to jump through.

A new oil refinery has not been built in the United States or Canada in decades, but now there are plans to build one in each nation.

Most recently, Irving Oil Corp. announced Oct. 5 that it is exploring the possibility of building a refinery at its headquarters in St. John, New Brunswick, Canada, where it already operates one refinery, Canada’s largest, which exports most of its output to the U.S. Meanwhile, Arizona Clean Fuels (ACF) Yuma plans to begin construction of a 150,000-barrel-a-day plant, about 100 miles southwest of Phoenix, in 2008.

Irving Oil said it may spend as much as $6.21 billion to build a facility. It would be Canada’s first new refinery in more than two decades.

The plant, because it would be located in Saint John, could supply as many as 300,000 barrels of gasoline and other fuels daily to the northeastern U.S., according to a statement issued Oct. 5 by Irving Oil.

Canadian and United States refiners are gearing up expansion efforts after gasoline and diesel prices surged to all-time highs in the past year, sending profits from turning crude into fuel to unprecedented levels, according to Bloomberg News. A new refinery hasn't opened in the U.S. since 1976, and the last one in Canada was completed in 1984, according to Bloomberg.

“We do need more refineries in the U.S., and New Brunswick is a good place to put one for that market,” Peter Linder, chief adviser at DeltaOne Capital Partners in Calgary, Alberta, told Bloomberg. “I think it's a good move.”

Irving said it's doing feasibility and environmental studies, including one to determine the best site for a plant. The company, which is seeking investors to join in the project, said it plans to decide on whether to apply for a government permit by early next year.

Partners could share the costs of the plant or provide crude for refining, said Kevin Scott, Irving's director of refinery growth.

“Many of the companies that could invest in such a project also potentially have crude-oil supply to bring to such a facility,'' Scott said, according to Bloomberg. “We're open to either type of partner.”

The new refinery may start operations in 2012 or 2013, Scott said. The U.S. Northeast is attractive because of its proximity to New Brunswick, which shares a border with Maine, and the region imports about 900,000 barrels a day of refined products, he said.

“We believe that market has sufficient capacity to accept another 300,000 barrels a day of product,” Scott said.

The plant will likely process heavy crude to take advantage of growing supplies and lower costs for that type of oil, Scott said in a telephone interview with Bloomberg. Heavy oil sells for less than lighter grades because it costs more to refine.

The project would employ 5,000 during construction and 1,000 permanent workers once the refinery is operating, Irving said. Construction could begin in 2009, Scott said.

In the U.S., historically low profit margins, anti- pollution rules and local resistance have discouraged construction of new refineries in the past three decades.

The developer of the refinery planned in Arizona took five years to get its environmental permit from state regulators, according to The Yuma Sun.That developer, ACF Yuma, estimates the cost of the project at $2.6 billion, according to news reports.

But ACF recently missed a deadline to start construction, and had to apply for a renewal of an air quality permit. That renewal was granted Sept. 18 by the Arizona Department of Air Quality (ADAQ). Steve Owens, director of ADAQ, said, "We are really just reissuing the same permit we issued last year," reported The Yuma Sun. "It's still the toughest air quality permit ever crafted for a refinery."

Ian Calkins, spokesman for ACF, said ADEQ's willingness to grant the renewal gives the company another 18 months to start construction.

"It was great news on this end," Calkins said. "We appreciate ADEQ's willingness to work with us on reissuing the permit and believe it sends a positive message that this refinery does indeed comply with clean air regulations and laws."

ADEQ issued the original air permit last year. Under state law, ACF had 18 months — until November 2006 — to begin construction of the refinery or the permit would lapse.

Calkins said when it became apparent that ACF wasn't going to be able to begin construction by the deadline, the company applied with ADEQ to have the permit renewed.

"We recognized that with the deadline looming that we weren't going to be able to meet some of the timeline requirements of the permit due to some issues and challenges unrelated to the air permit," Calkins said.

Among those challenges, Calkins said, is that the company still needs to secure a financial partner for the project that can put up a significant amount of the capital to begin construction.

Another issue is ACF is still trying to secure a long-term crude oil supply contract. Calkins said both matters should be resolved well within the deadline of the renewed permit.

"The outlook is positive on both of those fronts," Calkins said. "We are close to finalizing a crude oil supply agreement and securing a financial partner."

Under the permit renewal, ACF is now required to begin construction on the refinery within the permit's effective date, which means that the new 18-month deadline ends during April 2008.

The permit renewal also puts the same strict limits on potential emissions from the refinery as the previous permit. Like the previous permit, the renewed permit is good for five years.

The refinery would be located on approximately 1,450 acres near Tacna, Ariz., and could produce approximately 150,000 barrels per day of motor fuels, including approximately 85,000 barrels per day of gasoline and 35,000 barrels per day of diesel fuel and 30,000 barrels per day of jet fuel.
NPN MarketPulse: New refineries would be first in decades in U.S. and Canada

 

[Dirt McGirt]

And??? Neither one of your articles ultimately points to the government as the major reason why refinieries are not being built. Even with the permit, they still haven't secured funding to build the refinery or secured a long term oil contract. The bottom line is that the oil business is lucrative but refining it into gasoline is not. The government could lift all regulations tomorrow and big oil would still have limited interest in investing into oil refineries. As I said earlier, it's not the government, it's just not good business.

 

[jreeves]

And??? Neither one of your articles ultimately points to the government as the major reason why refinieries are not being built. Even with the permit, they still haven't secured funding to build the refinery or secured a long term oil contract. The bottom line is that the oil business is lucrative but refining it into gasoline is not. The government could lift all regulations tomorrow and big oil would still have limited interest in investing into oil refineries. As I said earlier, it's not the government, it's just not good business.

In the U.S., historically low profit margins, anti- pollution rules and local resistance have discouraged construction of new refineries in the past three decades.
Missed this part of the article huh?
If you made it less burdensome for oil companies to build refineries they would do it. For one they outsource alot of their refining now, which cuts into their profit margins.

 

[Paulie]

In the U.S., historically low profit margins, anti- pollution rules and local resistance have discouraged construction of new refineries in the past three decades.
Missed this part of the article huh?
If you made it less burdensome for oil companies to build refineries they would do it. For one they outsource alot of their refining now, which cuts into their profit margins.

Yeah, I'd probably rather send my crude the next STATE over to refine it, than to the next CONTINENT over to refine it.

Eventually, the refineries would pay for themselves. Unless of course a major new advancement in alternate energy technology is made. All bets would be off then, I would think.

I think big oil is probably trying to make sure they can have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to spend the bucks building a bunch of refineries that may be obsolete in 10-20 years, and they probably want to make sure they have the monopoly over whatever alternate energy technology becomes widespread available.

Let's not make the mistake of thinking big oil has our best interests at heart any more than the government does. They are both taking care of each other before we are EVER seeing any benefits OURSELVES.

 

[jreeves]

Yeah, I'd probably rather send my crude the next STATE over to refine it, than to the next CONTINENT over to refine it.

Eventually, the refineries would pay for themselves. Unless of course a major new advancement in alternate energy technology is made. All bets would be off then, I would think.

I think big oil is probably trying to make sure they can have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to spend the bucks building a bunch of refineries that may be obsolete in 10-20 years, and they probably want to make sure they have the monopoly over whatever alternate energy technology becomes widespread available.

Let's not make the mistake of thinking big oil has our best interests at heart any more than the government does. They are both taking care of each other before we are EVER seeing any benefits OURSELVES.

Oh don't get me wrong I think "Big Oil" is into making a profit....
But Congress could make things less regulatory in order to make it more profitable for these oil companies to build refineries, with the end goal of making prices cheaper at the pump.

How about this the US government invest in new refineries? Instead of blowing 300 billion dollars to bail out irresponsible homeowners and billions of other dollars bailing out irresponsible lenders?

 

[Paulie]

Oh don't get me wrong I think "Big Oil" is into making a profit....
But Congress could make things less regulatory in order to make it more profitable for these oil companies to build refineries, with the end goal of making prices cheaper at the pump.

How about this the US government invest in new refineries? Instead of blowing 300 billion dollars to bail out irresponsible homeowners and billions of other dollars bailing out irresponsible lenders?

Well, by cutting taxes, they are in a sense investing in it IF the oil companies actually built them.

I'm all for building refineries, and drilling here at home, but I want to be sure that in 15 or so years, we are WELL on our way to something newer and better than fossil fuels.

Man, I saw Back to the Future when I was a kid. We were supposed to have FLYING cars that ran on fusion and almost empty cans of beer by 2015! What happened?

But anyway though, I think the oil companies have some things up their sleeves. Let's just hope it's in our best interest.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

In the U.S., historically low profit margins, anti- pollution rules and local resistance have discouraged construction of new refineries in the past three decades.
Missed this part of the article huh?
If you made it less burdensome for oil companies to build refineries they would do it. For one they outsource alot of their refining now, which cuts into their profit margins.

Didn't miss jack. Anti-pollution rules and local resistance didn't stop the group from securing a permit to build the refinery did it? Finding an investment group to build the refinery and securing a long term oil deal did. Besides two articles doesn't prove that the government prohibits anyone from building any more refineries. You tell me, sport, who's going to invest in a refinery when it's a volatile business and the profit-loss margins range from +1 billion to -1 billion a year??? You should go back and read the article I posted, you might learn that oil and gas are two separate industries.

Yeah, I'd probably rather send my crude the next STATE over to refine it, than to the next CONTINENT over to refine it.

Eventually, the refineries would pay for themselves. Unless of course a major new advancement in alternate energy technology is made. All bets would be off then, I would think.

I think big oil is probably trying to make sure they can have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to spend the bucks building a bunch of refineries that may be obsolete in 10-20 years, and they probably want to make sure they have the monopoly over whatever alternate energy technology becomes widespread available.

Let's not make the mistake of thinking big oil has our best interests at heart any more than the government does. They are both taking care of each other before we are EVER seeing any benefits OURSELVES.

Exactly. Why would big oil assume the high risks of refinement when they are already profitting tenfold from crude extraction and delivery? Alternative energy is right around the corner. 20 years from now, do you still think we'll be consuming the same amount of gas? That's a huge risk for anyone thinking about building a new refinery.

Oh don't get me wrong I think "Big Oil" is into making a profit....
But Congress could make things less regulatory in order to make it more profitable for these oil companies to build refineries, with the end goal of making prices cheaper at the pump.

How about this the US government invest in new refineries? Instead of blowing 300 billion dollars to bail out irresponsible homeowners and billions of other dollars bailing out irresponsible lenders?

Yes let's give 300 billion to oil companies as an incentive for them to invest in refineries.

Retarded.

What kind of a self-proclaimed conservative argues in favor of government subsidies for big oil? How's about the government not invest in new refineries or bail out irresponsible homeowners.

 

[Bern80]

Yes let's give 300 billion to oil companies as an incentive for them to invest in refineries.

Retarded.

What kind of a self-proclaimed conservative argues in favor of government subsidies for big oil? How's about the government not invest in new refineries or bail out irresponsible homeowners.

Gotta agree with that. While it is private industries duty to be profitable, oil companies even now are STILL recording record profits. One would think they have enough to do some of this on their own.

As to the thread topic, this is the time of year where the candidate start whaling the tight rope between the pandering to moderates and upsetting their base and Obama might be a little too close to falling off at this point.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Big oil has no reason to drill. They have the money, land, but not the motivation. They are not in the business to make less profit. Demand is huge, and they will keep supply low. AltE is within a decade of now, and whatever rigs they build will not put oil on the world market for 7-10 years.