BOHICA(Bend over, here it comes again) Oil $220. a barrel

[MERCMAN]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080428/oil_prices.html

Gee it seems like yesterday that I was posting if oil would hit $100. a barrel.

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?t=38796&highlight=%24100+BARREL

[Krytin]

He said BOHICA!
I'm glad I have heard someone else use this acronym - I was getting tired of explaining it to other people!

On the price of oil - if this continues there will be a colapse of law and order as well as a colapse of the economy.
Someone needs to be taxing the s**t out of oil company profits until they start increasing their refinery capacity - lack of finished product is the real driver behind the pump pricing.

[Bluerauder]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080428/oil_prices.html

Gee it seems like yesterday that I was posting if oil would hit $100. a barrel.

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?t=38796&highlight=%24100+BARREL
$120 per barrel, right? Not $220.

[Starman]

Plus the US Government needs to get off its arse and start making it easier for oil companies to drill here. I heard a couple of weeks ago about an oil field that covers North and South Dakota and part of Montana. They estimate it holds billions of gallons of oil. A Story LINK (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61488)

Marathon Oil is investing 1.3 Billion Dollars up there to start. Plus we have Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico to boot. We have enough oil to tell these other Countries to get lost. We also need to build at least a couple more refineries. We are also pumping half the oil here in the States we did in the 70's. One step forward and about three or for backwards it seems.

And what is with the cost of diesel. It used to be cheaper than regular gas and now it is at least 70 cents a gallon more from what I have seen. It takes less to refine it and you get more diesel from a barrel of oil than gasoline, so more profit for the oil companies. And of course now, diesel engines are made so well they burn cleaner than most gas engines and better gas mileage to boot. I heard an economist say that if a third of our cars were diesel we would not need to import oil, and that is not taking in consideration the oil in the Dakotas.

A lot of what is going on now and being said sounds like a rehash of the 70's oil crisis and look how much we learned and changed from that, little or nothing. I remember then a guy in Florida had a car that got 100 MPG. I didn't personally know the guy, but I did meet him and see the car. He sold out to the auto manufacturers or oil companies, (Sorry my CRS got in the way) and his idea went away.

Ok, sorry for the rant. I am off my :soapbox:

[Vortex]

Good thing were are fighting that war in Iraq, Im sure they will pay us back the 300 million a day we spend there in oil!

[Stranger in the Black Sedan]

My mother's mini van was siphoned the other night when she was parked in a hospital parking garage, where she works. Her brother was siphoned too, in a totally unrelated incident.

This is bad

[Motorhead350]

In the wise words of Chuck Berry in the song No Money Down "I'm burnin' aviation fuel, No matter what the cost"

Yes my car is a rocket! :cool:

[MERCMAN]

$120 per barrel, right? Not $220.


Nope $200 a barrel

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/769574.html

[Hacklemerc]

Gas drive offs (pump and no pay) are getting so bad in my town we (the Police Dept) don't even take reports on them anymore unless there are aggravated circumstnaces. Our dispatchers just not the time, date, stations, and any vehicle particulars. It is so bad that we have a detective that just handles the drive offs. On average we would take about 10- 15 drive off reports a night. The stations won 't do pre pay for some reason.... It is getting really bad... I just paid $4.15 a gallon for 93.

[J D]

Plus the US Government needs to get off its arse and start making it easier for oil companies to drill here. I heard a couple of weeks ago about an oil field that covers North and South Dakota and part of Montana. They estimate it holds billions of gallons of oil. A Story LINK (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61488)

Marathon Oil is investing 1.3 Billion Dollars up there to start. Plus we have Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico to boot. We have enough oil to tell these other Countries to get lost. We also need to build at least a couple more refineries. We are also pumping half the oil here in the States we did in the 70's. One step forward and about three or for backwards it seems.

And what is with the cost of diesel. It used to be cheaper than regular gas and now it is at least 70 cents a gallon more from what I have seen. It takes less to refine it and you get more diesel from a barrel of oil than gasoline, so more profit for the oil companies. And of course now, diesel engines are made so well they burn cleaner than most gas engines and better gas mileage to boot. I heard an economist say that if a third of our cars were diesel we would not need to import oil, and that is not taking in consideration the oil in the Dakotas.

A lot of what is going on now and being said sounds like a rehash of the 70's oil crisis and look how much we learned and changed from that, little or nothing. I remember then a guy in Florida had a car that got 100 MPG. I didn't personally know the guy, but I did meet him and see the car. He sold out to the auto manufacturers or oil companies, (Sorry my CRS got in the way) and his idea went away.

Ok, sorry for the rant. I am off my :soapbox:

When I read that article and saw this map: where 2/3rds of the deposit is located in Canada all I have to say is

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!

But seriously, yeah I did the double take at the 4.09 for premium, we need to get the govt to do something else my MM relieved of my DD duties and becomes my trophy car set up in my driveway.

[Stranger in the Black Sedan]

my MM relieved of my DD duties and becomes my trophy car set up in my driveway.

Yeah I am buying car #4 for commuting in a few weeks, once I move and have to start driving to work

[Aren Jay]

$220 a barrel is fine by me.

It will be just like driving in England again.

[ImpalaSlayer]

i to am pickin up a 25+ mpg DD some time soon. this sux ass. oh well less miles on mm

[SC Cheesehead]

quote=Krytin;610885]He said BOHICA!
I'm glad I have heard someone else use this acronym - I was getting tired of explaining it to other people!

On the price of oil - if this continues there will be a colapse of law and order as well as a colapse of the economy.
Someone needs to be taxing the s**t out of oil company profits until they start increasing their refinery capacity - lack of finished product is the real driver behind the pump pricing.[/quote]

There hasn't been a new refinery built in the US in over 20 years, environmental regulations are so stiff that oil companies can't get permitting to build.

Lots of folks talk about the oil companies building, but when talk centers on location, all of a sudden it's "NIMBY."


When I read that article and saw this map: where 2/3rds of the deposit is located in Canada all I have to say is

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!

But seriously, yeah I did the double take at the 4.09 for premium, we need to get the govt to do something else my MM relieved of my DD duties and becomes my trophy car set up in my driveway.


Yeah, let's get the government to ****** things up even worse by trying to manipulate prices or institute higher taxes on producers, that'll fix it.:rolleyes:

Seriously though, if the government would relax drilling restrictions off the Gulf coast and in the ANWR, plus allow oil companies to increase refining capacity, we'd see a significant drop in gas prices.

SCCH

[jdando]

$200/barrel, ouch. Guess I will ride my bike to work.

[MM03MOK]

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/showcase/files/4/6/7/Gas.jpg

I'm glad I don't live on Nantucket. Gas went up by $0.60 the other day.

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080503/NEWS/805030335

[Seneca]

those prices will be here before you know it though.. :argue:

[Bluerauder]

I'm glad I don't live on Nantucket. Gas went up by $0.60 the other day.
That almost make the "arm" and "leg" prices look good.

This week Exxon-Mobil posted another record profit for 1st Quarter, 2008 topping last years profits by a wide margin. They do this by charging you today at the rate for oil that they won't even buy for another couple months. This profit amounts to 4 - 15 gallon fill ups for every car, truck, & SUV registered in the USA. Big Oil is out of control and driven by greed and the "I got mine - you get yours mentality".

Please spare me the counter-arguments. It is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. I have made up my mind NEVER to buy Exxon-Mobil ever again. That's "One small step for man .....". Such corporate greed will be the downfall of this country.

[sailsmen]

The profit on a gallon of gas is 8 cents and the tax is 47 cents.

The 20 year profits on a gallon of gas are less than half the 20 year taxes on a gallon of gas.

The "Environmentalists" hard work is coming to fruition. What is happening is exactly what they have worked so hard to create.

Stop Drilling in the USA, stop new refineries, stop nuclear power, stop hydro power, stop coal mining, make CO2 a pollutant. The next step is to declare that humans are a pollutant, population controls, forced abortions, mandatory death age. Solent Green!

Humans have polluted the Earth and they are killing the Earth. Humans are now killing the SUN. Humans are burning up the SUN. Look at how the SPF on SUN Screen keeps getting higher and higher.

Humans are killing the Universe, Uranus is no longer a planet and the ice caps are melting on Mars! IT's no longer Global Warming it's Universe Warming. No it's Universe Cooling, but wait it's no longer Universe Warming or Universe Cooling it's Universe Climate Change.:mad2:

I command all "Enviromentalists" to save the Universe by killing yourself! Make this sacrifice to save the Universe. Human Sacrifice to appease the Universe Gods! Paganism and worship of the Universe is our only chance!

We have proof that Humans are changing the climate. Archeologists can reproduce the Earth's climate from thousands of years ago before humans and it is vastly different. They can track how the Earth's climate has constantly changed since humans were created!

The Peace Movement has thrown the Universe out of balance, wars were what saved the Earth from humans in the past.

"Big Consumer" convinces "Big Gov't" to weild it's red hammer and red sickle to dice up "Big Oil" into 50,000 little oil. Little Oil now finds it is expensive to raise capital due to the cyclical nature and uncertainty in getting a gusher. "LO" bands together and forms the National Energy Alliance or NEA for short.

NEA demands that it's return on equity equal the banking industry which is 50% higher than Big Oils. NEA demands a min price on gas regardless of the brand quality and a min price on oil to guarranty it's return on equity. NEA demands the same subsidies as Ethanol, pay half the cost of refinery expansion. NEA demands in lieu of dozens of gas blends only 2, regular and premium. NEA demands an end to low sulphur diesel but maintaing the same price as low sulphur diesel for 20 years to amortize the costs. NEA demands a subsidy to keep the inefficent LO in business.

Bring on the NEA!

[SC Cheesehead]

Sailsman, you nailed it, my friend!:agree:

SCCH

[sailsmen]

Now that the SUN, which by the way warms the Earth, completed its warm 33 year "Jesus Cycle" the "Environmentalists" have begun changing the mantra from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change".

This is to explain "Global Cooling" for the next 32 years.

Some of the same Chicken Little Scientist that were hawking the Ice Age Cometh during the end of the cool "Jesus Cycle" in the early 1970's are the same Chicken Little Scientist that are hawking Global Warming during the end of the warm "Jesus Cycle".

In both cases the Chicken Littles looked at 25 years of data.

They are now going to switch to "Global Climate Change".;)

I am allergic to Bull ***** and everytime I hear it I sneeze and proclaim "Ahh Bull *****"!

[duhtroll]

You must have a tinfoil shortage at your house from making all those hats.

Fine. Let's get rid of the gas taxes. Good luck finding a road to drive on in 5 years.

Tax is not profit -- it pays for stuff we need. Keep saying it is profit, though. I'm sure you'll get a bunch of people to believe you. :rolleyes:

Look, if you're not going to to look anything up, I'm just going to wave the :bs: flag every time you start one of your completely made-up rants. OK, not every time -- I have much better things to do most of the time.

Refineries *can* be built right now. The oil companies won't build them. I've posted that article here somewhere. They whine that building them would be too expensive. That's right -- some of the most profitable companies in the world are complaining about having to spend some cash.

Drilling solves nothing until we have more refineries. But it's easier to keep whining that "the environmentalist government machine" is keeping you down.

Dammit, where's my violin? I can play some heart-rending sad music for you!

But keep spouting ignorance and pretty soon you'll get a whole army of uneducated morons to follow you. Hey, it works for FOX News...




The profit on a gallon of gas is 8 cents and the tax is 47 cents.

The 20 year profits on a gallon of gas are less than half the 20 year taxes on a gallon of gas.

The "Environmentalists" hard work is coming to fruition. What is happening is exactly what they have worked so hard to create.

Stop Drilling in the USA, stop new refineries, stop nuclear power, stop hydro power, stop coal mining, make CO2 a pollutant. The next step is to declare that humans are a pollutant, population controls, forced abortions, mandatory death age. Solent Green!

Humans have polluted the Earth and they are killing the Earth. Humans are now killing the SUN. Humans are burning up the SUN. Look at how the SPF on SUN Screen keeps getting higher and higher.

Humans are killing the Universe, Uranus is no longer a planet and the ice caps are melting on Mars! IT's no longer Global Warming it's Universe Warming. No it's Universe Cooling, but wait it's no longer Universe Warming or Universe Cooling it's Universe Climate Change.:mad2:

I command all "Enviromentalists" to save the Universe by killing yourself! Make this sacrifice to save the Universe. Human Sacrifice to appease the Universe Gods! Paganism and worship of the Universe is our only chance!

We have proof that Humans are changing the climate. Archeologists can reproduce the Earth's climate from thousands of years ago before humans and it is vastly different. They can track how the Earth's climate has constantly changed since humans were created!

The Peace Movement has thrown the Universe out of balance, wars were what saved the Earth from humans in the past.

"Big Consumer" convinces "Big Gov't" to weild it's red hammer and red sickle to dice up "Big Oil" into 50,000 little oil. Little Oil now finds it is expensive to raise capital due to the cyclical nature and uncertainty in getting a gusher. "LO" bands together and forms the National Energy Alliance or NEA for short.

NEA demands that it's return on equity equal the banking industry which is 50% higher than Big Oils. NEA demands a min price on gas regardless of the brand quality and a min price on oil to guarranty it's return on equity. NEA demands the same subsidies as Ethanol, pay half the cost of refinery expansion. NEA demands in lieu of dozens of gas blends only 2, regular and premium. NEA demands an end to low sulphur diesel but maintaing the same price as low sulphur diesel for 20 years to amortize the costs. NEA demands a subsidy to keep the inefficent LO in business.

Bring on the NEA!

[FordNut]

Gas NEEDS to cost more. The economics will then bring about 2 things. It will make it economical to retrieve the massive amounts of oil in Canada which is in the oil sand deposits and it will influence conservation. Both are good things.

Cheap gas is not environmentally friendly.

[sailsmen]

Show me a premit for a new refinery.

Laws were passed to make it easier to build an oil refinery, part of the problem is the laws expired in less than 10 years vs the 30 year refinery amoritization.

A tax on gasoline is the same as a tax on royalty payments, tax on royalty payments are treated by Big Gov't as the same as tax on profits. I will SPELL IT OUT, using the same definition Big Gov't uses to define profits a Big Gov't tax on gas is a profit. Profits are needed as well to pay taxes, make capital expenditures and allow reinvestment.

Get rid of Big Oil's profits and in 5 years good luck finding something to put in your tank or run your utilities. Less than 60% of the Gas taxes go to roads.

Big Oil is taxed at twice the rate of the Mfg industry and has double the capital expenditure rate of the Mfg industry.

The Big Oil's 20 year return on equity is less than the S&P 500, not as profitable as you are mislead to beleive. In 2007 Tobacco, Drugs, Computer, Electronic, Chemical and Non-Auto Mfg industries were more profitable then Big Oil. Add up the 20 year taxes on a gallon of gas, taxes currently averaging 47 cents per gallon, and it is over double Big Oils 20 year profits on a gallon of gas. 93.5% of Big Oil is owned by individuals, IRA, mutual and pensions.

Refineries can be built right now just like drilling off the coast of FL on Federal Leases can be done right now that Big Oil paid for provided they directional drill from 100 miles off the FL coast! To meet US Enviro laws adds $3 Billion to the cost of a $2 Billion refinery.

If they build these $5 Billion refineries what are you going to put in them? Crude makes up 58% of the cost of a gallon of gas.

Gas Consumption is 10mm BBL per day and refinery capacity is up to 17mm BBL per day. Big Gov't by requiring 50+ different grades of fuel, the latest being ethanol, drives up the cost. Allowing refineries to be built in the different regions that have their "unique" gas grades and freeze those grades for 30 years will reduce the 17% refinery costs.

The facts are Big Gov't collects more in taxes than Big Oil makes in profits and Big Gov't owns the majority of US land untapped Oil and Gas and 100% of untapped offshore Oil and Gas, ("An estimated 67 percent of the oil and 40 percent of the nation's undiscovered natural gas resources lie beneath government lands" "Congress and past Presidents have placed moratoria on offshore drilling and development on the U.S. East and West Coasts, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, and parts of Alaskan offshore waters. The consequence of these actions is to foreclose until at least 2012 any effort to explore for critical oil and gas resources that are estimated to lie beneath these areas"), and will not let Big Oil drill for it or anyonelse buy it, try getting your head around that, I know you can.

If Rockerfeller owned all this untapped Oil and Gas in the USA and refused to sell eminent domain would prevail. Take back what is yours, demand our greedy hoarding Big Gov't sell our Oil to us! Sell us what belongs to us and charge us a tax!

Troll -"Look, if you're not going to to look anything up, I'm just going to wave the flag every time you start one of your completely made-up rants. OK, not every time -- I have much better things to do most of the time." Your post does not meet the standard you have requested of others.

Bring on the NEA with collective barganing! Everybody gets paid the same regardless of quality or performance!




(ps you should try the tin foil it makes things very clear by keeping out the worker bee commands)

[FordNut]

Why would anybody build a new refinery? With all the talk about alternative fuels, conservation, hybrids, electrics, hydrogen fuel, as well as comments about price controls is there really a great future in the refinery business? If it was so profitable, wouldn't independent (non-big oil) companies such as chemical companies (who have the expertise) be clamoring to build refineries?

[B.C. Bake]

My mother's mini van was siphoned the other night when she was parked in a hospital parking garage, where she works. Her brother was siphoned too, in a totally unrelated incident.

This is bad

Our fleet of work trucks were siphoned two days ago. They wanted to be quick so the took an ice pick to the bottom of the fuel tanks, and now until we repair them the are useless. :mad2:

[sailsmen]

How many Oil Refineries have "Environmentalists" built?
How many Power Plants have "Environmentalists" built?
How many Nuclear Plants have "Environmentalists" built?
How many Coal Mines have "Environmentalists" built?
How many Hydro Elec Plants have "Environmentalists" built?
How many wells have "Environmentalists" drilled?


How many Oil Refineries have "Environmentalists" proposed?
How many Power Plants have "Environmentalists" proposed?
How many Nuclear Plants have "Environmentalists" proposed?
How many Coal Mines have "Environmentalists" propsed?
How many Hydro Elec Plants have "Environmentalists" proposed?
How many wells have "Environmentalists" proposed?

How many Oil Refineries have "Environmentalists" endorsed?
How many Power Plants have "Environmentalists" endorsed?
How many Nuclear Plants have "Environmentalists" endorsed?
How many Coal Mines have "Environmentalists" endorsed?
How many Hydro Elec Plants have "Environmentalists" endorsed?
How many wells have "Environmentalists" endorsed?

How many Oil Refineries have "Environmentalists" opposed? ALL
How many Power Plants have "Environmentalists" opposed? ALL
How many Nuclear Plants have "Environmentalists" opposed? ALL
How many Coal Mines have "Environmentalists" opposed? ALL
How many Hydro Elec Plants have "Environmentalists" opposed? ALL
How many wells have "Environmentalists" opposed? ALL

Free yourself of your ignorance - By an Act of God refineries are now free the cost of Gas goes down by 17%.;)

[duhtroll]

Show me a premit for a new refinery.

MY point. Who is supposed to apply for the permit? I suppose someone has to do the work for the oil companies, too?


Laws were passed to make it easier to build an oil refinery, part of the problem is the laws expired in less than 10 years vs the 30 year refinery amoritization.

Cry me a friggin' river. So they cost more. Doesn't prohibit anything for people who have trillions of dollars.


A tax on gasoline is the same as a tax on royalty payments, blah blah blah

And here we go, off on a tangent, because you have no point to make for the actual discussion at hand.


Less than 60% of the Gas taxes go to roads.

So, even if your numbers ARE true, which they aren't until you back them up, you're still stating that a majority of the taxes DO go to roads?

Full point, there! :lol:


Here's another set of tangents which make it look like I am arguing the point...

Look, if you want to make a point, show me that the oil companies cannot afford new refineries.

You can't.

End of story.

Good luck with the next rant.

[duhtroll]

Because if they don't build them, the supply bottleneck still exists to drive up prices. Why would they want to release more supply and drive prices down? They are more profitable if they don't.

Which of course is what I have been saying all along.


Why would anybody build a new refinery? With all the talk about alternative fuels, conservation, hybrids, electrics, hydrogen fuel, as well as comments about price controls is there really a great future in the refinery business? If it was so profitable, wouldn't independent (non-big oil) companies such as chemical companies (who have the expertise) be clamoring to build refineries?

[sailsmen]

Permits do not exist, they are not being handed out, that is my point.

Per the US Dept of Commerce the average price of gas in the US in March of 1982 was 10% higher in todays dollars than March of 2008. We "afforded it" in 1982 prove to me we cannot afford it now.

The only entiety that has trillions of dollars in the US is Big Gov't.

Where are your facts and figures? You use adjectives, essentially name calling because you have no argument.

If someone could make money building a refinery in the US they would.

Big Oil is in the business to sell oil. No refinery or not enough refinery capacity and no sell oil, understand? Big Gov't let the refineries produce the fuels they and the market wants, as in eliminate low sulfer diesel, and there is a surplus of refinery capacity.

You keep talking about how profitable Big Oil is and yet there were as stated numerous industires that were more profitable in 2007, a boom year for Big Oil profits.

You continue to ignore three basic facts; 1) Several industries were more profitable then Big Oil in 2007 a record year for Big Oil, 2) The majority of untapped oil is owned by Big Gov't who refuses to sell it and 3) Big Gov't could suspend fuel requirements for a set period, say 3 years, of refineries and immediately resulting in excess refinery capacity.

Here are some links to Leftists Organizations on refineries;
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/17/news/economy/refineries/index.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6019739/

Additional Links;
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0921/p11s02-usec.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0921/p11s02-usec.html

For those who have owned a business, capitalized a business, borrowed to expand a business, hired employees, met payroll and paid corporate taxes understanding the difference between what one can do and what is viable is a simple concept.

For those who work for Big Gov't w/ no capitalization, a guarranted revenue, a guarranted job, a guarranted salary, a guarranted retirement, no performance standardand and are exempt from taxes all because they take by threat of force 30% of every dollar in the US Economy it is very difficult to understand. No need to show a profit with all those guarrantees. The guarranty is the profit.

When you quote me please do not add words that are not mine to the quote.

[duhtroll]

Permits do not exist, they are not being handed out, that is my point.

Really? Show me the applications, then. Show me the huge efforts the oil companies have been making to build new refineries.


The only entiety that has trillions of dollars in the US is Big Gov't.


Single entity, maybe. I'm talking about the large oil companies together. They can make happen whatever they like. They choose not to.


Where are your facts and figures? You use adjectives, essentially name calling because you have no argument.

Nor am I the one posting endless streams of drivel. Stay on topic and answer the question. Stop dancing around it and prove to me the oil companies can't afford the new refineries.

Can you prove oil companies cannot afford to build new refineries?


If someone could make money building a refinery in the US they would.

Do you mean to imply they are not making huge profits right now? Why change something that is to their advantage? Why spend money when they are rolling in cash without the expense?


Big Oil is in the business to sell oil. No refinery or not enough refinery capacity and no sell oil, understand? Big Gov't let the refineries produce the fuels they and the market wants, as in eliminate low sulfer diesel, and there is a surplus of refinery capacity.

This surplus of which you speak is a fabrication -- more "if then" arguments made to distract from the topic. We need more refineries.

Can you prove oil companies cannot afford to build new refineries?


You keep talking about how profitable Big Oil is and yet there were as stated numerous industires that were more profitable in 2007, a boom year for Big Oil profits.

Comparing oil to other industries has nothing to do with the discussion. It's like Charles Manson pointing fingers at Jeffrey Dahmer.


You continue to ignore three basic facts; 1) Several industries were more profitable then Big Oil in 2007 a record year for Big Oil,

Meaningless. Profit margins have nothing to do with the fact that oil companies can afford new refineries and choose not to build them.


2) The majority of untapped oil is owned by Big Gov't who refuses to sell it and

Meaningless. The supply problem in this country is the refineries, not the supply of crude, and I've posted the sources at least twice only to have you ignore them, wait a few more weeks and then start up your rants again.


3) Big Gov't could suspend fuel requirements for a set period, say 3 years, of refineries and immediately resulting in excess refinery capacity.

Woulda coulda shoulda. Answer my question or you have no argument. Can you prove that oil companies cannot afford to build new refineries?

Until you can answer "yes" to that question, you have no point to make.


For those who have owned a business, capitalized a business, borrowed to expand a business, hired employees, met payroll and paid corporate taxes understanding the difference between what one can do and what is viable is a simple concept.

Good for you, you've tried more tangents. Answer the question. Can you prove oil companies cannot afford to build new refineries?


For those who work for Big Gov't w/ no capitalization, a guarranted revenue, a guarranted job, a guarranted salary, a guarranted retirement, no performance standardand and are exempt from taxes all because they take by threat of force 30% of every dollar in the US Economy it is very difficult to understand. No need to show a profit with all those guarrantees. The guarranty is the profit.

Meaningless. You are trying to distract from the subject by ranting about people in government jobs. Answer the question.

Can you prove oil companies cannot afford to build new refineries?


When you quote me please do not add words that are not mine to the quote, because I'll whine about it.

OK.

[FordNut]

Because if they don't build them, the supply bottleneck still exists to drive up prices. Why would they want to release more supply and drive prices down? They are more profitable if they don't.

Which of course is what I have been saying all along.

I still don't see a supply bottleneck. I NEVER see the signs that the stations are out of gas. Raising the price until people quit buying and switch to alternate forms of transportation will reduce demand. That's an answer that will satisfy the tree-huggers too.

[sailsmen]

You make a statement w/ no proof then you ask me to prove it?

You ignore the facts. We are importing refined product, as in gasoline.

Exxon has 3.2% of the supply, try influencing the market w/ 3.2%

Your arguement is hollow and w/ out facts.

Prove the oil companies can build a new refinery and make a profit!

I have provided you w/ links to info about refineries.

The only way to prove something is to do it. If new refineries were profitable they would be building them in the USA instead of overseas.
I can quote numerous financial oil analyst who have said a new refinery cannot be profitably built in the USA. I have proprietary info that a USA Major Oil just tried to and the $2 Billion refinery would have cost $5 Billion. It is now being built overseas for $2 Billion.

Lets see you prove something or provide a fact that US Oil can build a new refinery profitably in the USA, even one financial analyst opinion.

Your atacks on me are proof you cannot put forth a valid arguement or any facts.

Keep up the personal attacks it shows everyone your true character and prejudices.

Keep quoting me and inserting your own words as mine it shows everyone your integrity.

[BruteForce]

Stick to bare-chested axe throwing. Debate is not your strong suit.

[sailsmen]

When I am personaly attacked it is a clear sign of Victory.

Thank you Troll and Brute for the congratulations.:banana2:

[BruteForce]

When I am personaly attacked it is a clear sign of Victory.

Thank you Troll and Brute for the public spanking.:banana2:

You really are a silly man. Most entertaining to read you go on and on how oil companies are getting the short end of the stick.
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

oh yeah... and :lol:

[sailsmen]

Read the posts, you have missed the entire point, it's the American people who are getting the short end of the stick due to greedy hoarding Big Gov't ,

"The facts are Big Gov't collects more in taxes than Big Oil makes in profits and Big Gov't owns the majority of US land untapped Oil and Gas and 100% of untapped offshore Oil and Gas, ("An estimated 67 percent of the oil and 40 percent of the nation's undiscovered natural gas resources lie beneath government lands" "Congress and past Presidents have placed moratoria on offshore drilling and development on the U.S. East and West Coasts, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, and parts of Alaskan offshore waters. The consequence of these actions is to foreclose until at least 2012 any effort to explore for critical oil and gas resources that are estimated to lie beneath these areas"), and will not let Big Oil drill for it or anyonelse buy it, try getting your head around that, I know you can.

If Rockerfeller owned all this untapped Oil and Gas in the USA and refused to sell eminent domain would prevail. Take back what is yours, demand our greedy hoarding Big Gov't sell our Oil to us! Sell us what belongs to us and charge us a tax!"

You are so blinded by your prejudice you resort to personal attacks, misquoting and name calling. Please contiue with your behavior for all to see.

Keep talking about me being bare chested and giving me a spanking. It reflects well on you.

[BruteForce]

Read the posts, ... Keep talking about me being bare chested and giving me a spanking. It reflects well on you.

Must be some kind of gheydar thing. I never put the two together at this end. Not that there is anything wrong with that... :eek:

[duhtroll]

All this and you are too afraid to answer one little question.

Can you prove that oil companies cannot afford to build more refineries?

Keep yelling all you like. Until you can answer that question "yes," you have no point.

I'm not the one making claims about running businesses or inventing repeated tangents to try and distract from the topic.

Didn't you state earlier that you have worked in this industry in the past? Who is biased, again?

It's widely agreed that more refineries are needed. You keep saying that oil companies can't build more refineries. I say show something that backs that up. You refuse.

I'll keep asking -- Can you prove that oil companies cannot afford to build more refineries?

Interrupt your victory dance long enough to get back on topic. :D

You say that I am blind. I still see well enough to know that you are ducking a question to which you know the answer, yet are afraid to address.

When you want to stay on topic, let me know. All the side grumbling doesn't make you look any more competent.

Have a nice day.



Read the posts, you have missed the entire point, it's the American people who are getting the short end of the stick due to greedy hoarding Big Gov't ,

"The facts are Big Gov't collects more in taxes than Big Oil makes in profits and Big Gov't owns the majority of US land untapped Oil and Gas and 100% of untapped offshore Oil and Gas, ("An estimated 67 percent of the oil and 40 percent of the nation's undiscovered natural gas resources lie beneath government lands" "Congress and past Presidents have placed moratoria on offshore drilling and development on the U.S. East and West Coasts, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, and parts of Alaskan offshore waters. The consequence of these actions is to foreclose until at least 2012 any effort to explore for critical oil and gas resources that are estimated to lie beneath these areas"), and will not let Big Oil drill for it or anyonelse buy it, try getting your head around that, I know you can.

If Rockerfeller owned all this untapped Oil and Gas in the USA and refused to sell eminent domain would prevail. Take back what is yours, demand our greedy hoarding Big Gov't sell our Oil to us! Sell us what belongs to us and charge us a tax!"

You are so blinded by your prejudice you resort to personal attacks, misquoting and name calling. Please contiue with your behavior for all to see.

Keep talking about me being bare chested and giving me a spanking. It reflects well on you.

[duhtroll]

Demand has not continued to rise, at least in the US - it has fluctuated up and down. Funny when it goes down, prices never follow suit.

A supply bottleneck doesn't mean they run out of gas - that would be a shortage. It means the supply is only able to be accessed at a certain speed, not that it's running out.




I still don't see a supply bottleneck. I NEVER see the signs that the stations are out of gas. Raising the price until people quit buying and switch to alternate forms of transportation will reduce demand. That's an answer that will satisfy the tree-huggers too.

[BruteForce]

According to the gummint...

Why are retail gasoline prices so high? (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/gasoline_faqs.asp#gas_prices) ...analysis of the petroleum market points to the cost of crude oil as the main contributor to the record high gasoline prices...

A Primer on Gasoline Prices (http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/eia1_2005primerM.html)

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp) - break down of current cost components

[Breadfan]

We need to drill and inject US supply of crude into the market place. This will have a ripple effect that will reverse the high crude oil prices. OPEC is not going to do much to help the market increase of crude, they are benefiting from the high prices and there is little to no competition against them.

If we produce more of our own crude demand for OPEC crude goes down. While some countries that do not rely as heavily on the money may not wish to lower prices, when we stop buying oil from the smaller providers they will be more inclined to vote OPEC prices down too because oil sales are their primary income source and without it their gov't and peoples go bankrupt.

Futures traders will then forecast drops, lowering the per barrel cost of the commodity.

Then we all drop dual 4bbl 600cu in motors in our Mercury's and have fun.

Sorry tree huggers - let's break out the drills. (Which btw you don't have to drill through a tree, so...yeah let's get them drills out!)

[duhtroll]

Hey - I'm not saying "let's not drill ever." I'm only saying that we need the refineries to handle the additional supply in place first, or it won't matter.

I'm all for opening up the supply if we can get it into my gas tank cheaper. :)


We need to drill and inject US supply of crude into the market place. This will have a ripple effect that will reverse the high crude oil prices. OPEC is not going to do much to help the market increase of crude, they are benefiting from the high prices and there is little to no competition against them.

If we produce more of our own crude demand for OPEC crude goes down. While some countries that do not rely as heavily on the money may not wish to lower prices, when we stop buying oil from the smaller providers they will be more inclined to vote OPEC prices down too because oil sales are their primary income source and without it their gov't and peoples go bankrupt.

Futures traders will then forecast drops, lowering the per barrel cost of the commodity.

Then we all drop dual 4bbl 600cu in motors in our Mercury's and have fun.

Sorry tree huggers - let's break out the drills. (Which btw you don't have to drill through a tree, so...yeah let's get them drills out!)

[Dr Caleb]

. . analysis of the petroleum market points to the cost of crude oil as the main contributor to the record high gasoline prices..


I always love that excuse. They pump the oil from the ground, pay the gubbmint it's $5 ($12.50 in Alaska) SELL it to THEIR refinery - and say the cost for crude is too high.

http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=10827

[Breadfan]

Hey - I'm not saying "let's not drill ever." I'm only saying that we need the refineries to handle the additional supply in place first, or it won't matter.

I'm all for opening up the supply if we can get it into my gas tank cheaper. :)

True, you need to ensure you don't just uncover the next bottleneck in the supply chain. As for drilling, one would also hope it could be done in a decent manner that DOES take into account the environment. I want cheap oil but I know we also have the tech to do it pretty cleanly.

[Bluerauder]

According to the gummint...

Why are retail gasoline prices so high? (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/gasoline_faqs.asp#gas_prices) ...analysis of the petroleum market points to the cost of crude oil as the main contributor to the record high gasoline prices...

A Primer on Gasoline Prices (http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/eia1_2005primerM.html)

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp) - break down of current cost components
Very interesting how refining costs and profit are lumped together to obscure the real picture. What is known is that the oil companies are posting record profits at a time when everyone else is taking it in the shorts. And there is not a dayum thing said above ^^^^ that changes my opinion on that.
I understand supply & demand. I also understand the costs of raw products and effort required to produce a saleable product. Gas prices DO NOT follow this model at all. How else do you explain prices going up within an hour of an incident in the Middle East or within 30 minutes of Hurricane Katrina. Its profiteering pure and simple. Refining capacity is another red herring to cover for greed. Screw Exxon-Mobil --- not another penny of mine will they see.

[Breadfan]

A lot of it has to do with the commodity nature of oil, and the future predicted costs that drive the market. The thing is, you are right the oil companies profit from it. The suppliers of crude profit first, the refiners, distributors, and sellers, i.e. oil companies, second.

The price of refined fuels seems to react very closely to the commodity market for crude. Hence what you've pointed out - the increase in gas prices 30 min after something like a natural disaster impacts the market. How can this be since gas in the tanks is already refined? Well, there's part of the profit point. In one sense it's the oil companies "planning" ahead at the increased cost of the base crude. However at the same time they are inflating the price on fuel refined on crude that was usually cheaper - cheaper because it was from oil barrels that cost less at the time they entered the refining supply chain.

You look at the history price of crude, and hence the "record" profits. Yes it is true that oil companies profit MARGIN isn't all that huge compared to other industries, but the fact remains they are profiting from the higher prices of crude. Unfortunely it's the end user/consumer who is not profiting and taking the brunt of the increased costs. (i.e. we are!)

[Haggis]

Very interesting how refining costs and profit are lumped together to obscure the real picture. What is known is that the oil companies are posting record profits at a time when everyone else is taking it in the shorts. And there is not a dayum thing said above ^^^^ that changes my opinion on that.
I understand supply & demand. I also understand the costs of raw products and effort required to produce a saleable product. Gas prices DO NOT follow this model at all. How else do you explain prices going up within an hour of an incident in the Middle East or within 30 minutes of Hurricane Katrina. Its profiteering pure and simple. Refining capacity is another red herring to cover for greed. Screw Exxon-Mobil --- not another penny of mine will they see.

A lot of it has to do with the commodity nature of oil, and the future predicted costs that drive the market. The thing is, you are right the oil companies profit from it. The suppliers of crude profit first, the refiners, distributors, and sellers, i.e. oil companies, second.

The price of refined fuels seems to react very closely to the commodity market for crude. Hence what you've pointed out - the increase in gas prices 30 min after something like a natural disaster impacts the market. How can this be since gas in the tanks is already refined? Well, there's part of the profit point. In one sense it's the oil companies "planning" ahead at the increased cost of the base crude. However at the same time they are inflating the price on fuel refined on crude that was usually cheaper - cheaper because it was from oil barrels that cost less at the time they entered the refining supply chain.

You look at the history price of crude, and hence the "record" profits. Yes it is true that oil companies profit MARGIN isn't all that huge compared to other industries, but the fact remains they are profiting from the higher prices of crude. Unfortunely it's the end user/consumer who is not profiting and taking the brunt of the increased costs. (i.e. we are!)

Sure glad I bought stock in Oil Companies when they were cheap. Every time I'm in a Gas Station I smile; I'm in the money...I'm in the money. :D

[Aren Jay]

123

that is dollars US per barrel today.

[sailsmen]

Troll prove that a new refinery can be built in the USA profitably. You have offered no proof.

The fact that no one is building a new refinery in the USA is the proof.

"Big Gov't" is paying for 1/2 the cost of new ethanol refineries why not 1/2 the cost of an oil refinery?

I have stated the proof $5 billion in USA vs $2 billion overseas to build a refinery. This should not be a surprise as many mfg have moved overseas.

"Big Oil" which consists of 184 cos has a market capitalization of $1.6 Trillion. "
"Big Gov't", which spends $2.8 Trillion annually, could easily buy "Big Oil" and then gas would be for "FREE"!

The price of crude oil has gone up for 2 reasons the dollar going down and demand going up. Crude makes up 58%-70% of the cost of gas.

You just can't understand basic economics. It's supply and demand. "Big Gov't" owns the oil and refuses to sell it.

Read the posts, you have missed the entire point, it's the American people who are getting the short end of the stick due to greedy hoarding Big Gov't ,

"The facts are Big Gov't collects more in taxes than Big Oil makes in profits and Big Gov't owns the majority of US land untapped Oil and Gas and 100% of untapped offshore Oil and Gas, ("An estimated 67 percent of the oil and 40 percent of the nation's undiscovered natural gas resources lie beneath government lands" "Congress and past Presidents have placed moratoria on offshore drilling and development on the U.S. East and West Coasts, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, and parts of Alaskan offshore waters. The consequence of these actions is to foreclose until at least 2012 any effort to explore for critical oil and gas resources that are estimated to lie beneath these areas"), and will not let Big Oil drill for it or anyonelse buy it, try getting your head around that, I know you can.

If Rockerfeller owned all this untapped Oil and Gas in the USA and refused to sell eminent domain would prevail. Take back what is yours, demand our greedy hoarding Big Gov't sell our Oil to us! Sell us what belongs to us and charge us a tax!"

Per Brutes link;
"Question: Why are retail gasoline prices so high?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EIA analysis of the petroleum market points to the cost of crude oil as the main contributor to the record high gasoline prices that we are now experiencing.

The cost of crude oil now accounts for almost 70% of the gasoline pump price. World crude oil prices are at record highs due mainly to high worldwide oil demand relative to supply. Other factors contributing to higher prices include political events and conflicts in some major oil producing regions, as well as other factors such as the declining value of the U.S. dollar (the currency at which crude oil is traded globally)."

There are numerous industries that were more profitable then "Big Oil" in 2007, a boom year, such as In 2007 Tobacco, Drugs, Computer, Electronic, Chemical and Non-Auto Mfg industries.

Per the US Dept of Comm the average cost of a gallon of gas in todays dollars March 2008 is 10% less than March 1982. The USA has enjoyed low oil costs for a long time.

"Big Gov't" is hoarding a bigger supply then we purchase from the MidEast.

[Haggis]

Troll prove that a new refinery can be built in the USA profitably. You have offered no proof.

Not taking sides here, but why should it be built for profit? They should want to do it not only to help the economy, but to help the American people. I know I am dreaming, but some things go above money and wanting your country to be better should be one of them. Because if American goes down the toilet so does the oil companies and upper management with it to include their families. Nothing lasts for ever especially governments, from the earlier empires (Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, and Mongols to the Soviet Union); one day this government will change or fall for better or worse.

[sailsmen]

"Big Gov't" is paying for 1/2 the cost of new ethanol refineries why not 1/2 the cost of an oil refinery?

Because "Big Gov't" is controlled by "Environmentalists" and their agenda is to reduce the world population to ~210mm people.

Because we are a capitalists society that many beleive is the most efficient way for man to please/serve his fellow man.

Doing things for a loss is the way "Big Gov't" operates and is inefficient, which drives up costs, as in you will pay more for energy.

The point is to reduce costs. If "Big Gov't" is paying for 1/2 the cost of something then "Environmentalists" opposition maybe less.

[Haggis]

... their agenda is to reduce the world population to ~210mm people.

Hmmmm, might not be a bad thing. Can we also go back to a pre-industrial age?

[Breadfan]

I'm sure part of the gov't love of Ethanol right now is that it's a politically safe place for most politicians to go to. The problem is, right now, it's actually a rather dangerous place to be for the economy and the people.

Think of it this way, if a politician supports ethanol production and subsizing it, the public perception they can make is the things such as the following:

- We support alternative fuels
- Fighting "Big Oil"
- Look at how "green" we are!

All those things folks hear and get a big 'ol warm and fuzzy.

If that same politician supported new drilling, new oil refineries, or other thigns to increase US oil supply in the market, this is the persona they put out in the public:

- I support "Big Oil"
- Screw the environment, drill though a seal if you have to.
- YUM YUM - OIL!

Basically you come across like some sort of beast.


The dangerous part is how reality may differ from perception. Yes Ethanol research and development IS important, but in the current economic state heavy subsidizing and artifical pushing of ethanol by the gov't may be more harmful to the economy due to ripple effect.

An effect that could be such as this:

- Subsidized ethanol refineries increase demand for corn
- Corn as a commodity goes up in value
- Current corn growers sell to ethanol rather than say, food, or livestock feed
- Current non-corn growers see profits in corn, and switch to growing it
- Livestock feed goes up in price, meat goes up in price
- Other staple crops go up in price because everyone wants to grow corn
- Food prices go up
- Ripple contines...

On the other hand, if you were to support oil in the short term to lessen crude prices, you may see a secnario such as this ripple effect:

- Subsidies and programs promote new drilling, oil refineries, taking care to ensure environmental responsibility
- US crude reserves injected into market
- Short term Us supply increase and long term supply prospects cause drop in price of crude
- Prices drop for oil based goods mainly gasoline/diesel
- Lower production, transport, and etc. costs for other goods
- Food prices stabilize, ethanol production continues at natural market-driven pace

So, just scenarios, not "how it is" or "how it will be" but I think viable scenarios of how a ripple effect could play out based on a political stance. Sometimes the "safe" political bet isn't the best thing for the economy.

Thing is, until the election is over, I doubt anyone will do much more than play safe. Maybe congress can spend more time trying to fix baseball while we suffer with record high gas prices, rising food costs, etc.

[duhtroll]

Your argument is still incredibly weak.

Answer the question.

Can you prove oil companies cannot afford to build new refineries?

Everything else is useless posturing.

So your argument that they have to make a bigger profit than they are now in order to validate new refineries really is supporting everything I have been saying. They have a bottleneck on the supply, so prices go up and they have record profits. If they release more supply they might have to take a small temporary financial hit to help out the US economy -- something it is their CHOICE to not do.

Thanks for proving yourself wrong, oil guy.

No one is building and marketing Model Ts anymore, either. By your argument, that means it can't be done.

<ahem> "Lame..."

A $5 billion refinery, using your own numbers, can be paid for in less than one month's worth of profits. Spread out over the life of the refinery, it is peanuts by comparison to oil company profits. There's your proof.

Keep pushing against that immovable object. Maybe you'll get somewhere.

Seriously, unless you have something new to bring to the table, you're just digging yourself a deeper hole. Maybe you can find some oil down there while you're digging.



Troll prove that a new refinery can be built in the USA profitably. You have offered no proof.

The fact that no one is building a new refinery in the USA is the proof.

"Big Gov't" is paying for 1/2 the cost of new ethanol refineries why not 1/2 the cost of an oil refinery?

I have stated the proof $5 billion in USA vs $2 billion overseas to build a refinery. This should not be a surprise as many mfg have moved overseas.

"Big Oil" which consists of 184 cos has a market capitalization of $1.6 Trillion. "
"Big Gov't", which spends $2.8 Trillion annually, could easily buy "Big Oil" and then gas would be for "FREE"!

The price of crude oil has gone up for 2 reasons the dollar going down and demand going up. Crude makes up 58%-70% of the cost of gas.

You just can't understand basic economics. It's supply and demand. "Big Gov't" owns the oil and refuses to sell it.

Read the posts, you have missed the entire point, it's the American people who are getting the short end of the stick due to greedy hoarding Big Gov't ,

"The facts are Big Gov't collects more in taxes than Big Oil makes in profits and Big Gov't owns the majority of US land untapped Oil and Gas and 100% of untapped offshore Oil and Gas, ("An estimated 67 percent of the oil and 40 percent of the nation's undiscovered natural gas resources lie beneath government lands" "Congress and past Presidents have placed moratoria on offshore drilling and development on the U.S. East and West Coasts, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, and parts of Alaskan offshore waters. The consequence of these actions is to foreclose until at least 2012 any effort to explore for critical oil and gas resources that are estimated to lie beneath these areas"), and will not let Big Oil drill for it or anyonelse buy it, try getting your head around that, I know you can.

If Rockerfeller owned all this untapped Oil and Gas in the USA and refused to sell eminent domain would prevail. Take back what is yours, demand our greedy hoarding Big Gov't sell our Oil to us! Sell us what belongs to us and charge us a tax!"

Per Brutes link;
"Question: Why are retail gasoline prices so high?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EIA analysis of the petroleum market points to the cost of crude oil as the main contributor to the record high gasoline prices that we are now experiencing.

The cost of crude oil now accounts for almost 70% of the gasoline pump price. World crude oil prices are at record highs due mainly to high worldwide oil demand relative to supply. Other factors contributing to higher prices include political events and conflicts in some major oil producing regions, as well as other factors such as the declining value of the U.S. dollar (the currency at which crude oil is traded globally)."

There are numerous industries that were more profitable then "Big Oil" in 2007, a boom year, such as In 2007 Tobacco, Drugs, Computer, Electronic, Chemical and Non-Auto Mfg industries.

Per the US Dept of Comm the average cost of a gallon of gas in todays dollars March 2008 is 10% less than March 1982. The USA has enjoyed low oil costs for a long time.

"Big Gov't" is hoarding a bigger supply then we purchase from the MidEast.

[Bluerauder]

After reading ALL of the 55 posts ^^^^^ above, I can see where and how we got into this predicament on high gas prices. Lots of rhetoric and all convoluted logic just to confuse the issue with too many variables. I think the problem is much, much simpler .....

Who is gonna join me in a boycott of Exxon-Mobil (the worst among the greed mongers)? If WE COLLECTIVELY can hurt one segment of "Big Oil" enough, we will find out where their real pain point is with regard to prices at the pump. Refineries, drilling, foreign oil, big Government, R&D, exploration, ethanol, alternative fuels, profits, costs, ...... etc. Sure they are all pieces of the puzzle, but the oil companies count on the ignorance and confusion of the general public to continue their blatant extortion. :soap:

[MERCMAN]

I am with you on this except we have no Exxon or Mobil stsations here:(

[Ken]

I am with you on this except we have no Exxon or Mobil stsations here:(Ditto, So I guess that I'm already boycotting them.:D

Ken

[FordNut]

Can you prove oil companies cannot afford to build new refineries?



Being able to afford it is irrelevant.

They are in business.

The question is "is it profitable to build a new refinery?"

The answer is NO.

If the government wants to subsidize a new refinery like they are doing with the ethanol industry, maybe that would make it happen.

Overall, it's better for the government to stay out of BOTH industries and let free market forces and economics be the driving forces.

[FordNut]

Yeah......


I'm sure part of the gov't love of Ethanol right now is that it's a politically safe place for most politicians to go to. The problem is, right now, it's actually a rather dangerous place to be for the economy and the people.

Think of it this way, if a politician supports ethanol production and subsizing it, the public perception they can make is the things such as the following:

- We support alternative fuels
- Fighting "Big Oil"
- Look at how "green" we are!

All those things folks hear and get a big 'ol warm and fuzzy.

If that same politician supported new drilling, new oil refineries, or other thigns to increase US oil supply in the market, this is the persona they put out in the public:

- I support "Big Oil"
- Screw the environment, drill though a seal if you have to.
- YUM YUM - OIL!

Basically you come across like some sort of beast.


The dangerous part is how reality may differ from perception. Yes Ethanol research and development IS important, but in the current economic state heavy subsidizing and artifical pushing of ethanol by the gov't may be more harmful to the economy due to ripple effect.

An effect that could be such as this:

- Subsidized ethanol refineries increase demand for corn
- Corn as a commodity goes up in value
- Current corn growers sell to ethanol rather than say, food, or livestock feed
- Current non-corn growers see profits in corn, and switch to growing it
- Livestock feed goes up in price, meat goes up in price
- Other staple crops go up in price because everyone wants to grow corn
- Food prices go up
- Ripple contines...

On the other hand, if you were to support oil in the short term to lessen crude prices, you may see a secnario such as this ripple effect:

- Subsidies and programs promote new drilling, oil refineries, taking care to ensure environmental responsibility
- US crude reserves injected into market
- Short term Us supply increase and long term supply prospects cause drop in price of crude
- Prices drop for oil based goods mainly gasoline/diesel
- Lower production, transport, and etc. costs for other goods
- Food prices stabilize, ethanol production continues at natural market-driven pace

So, just scenarios, not "how it is" or "how it will be" but I think viable scenarios of how a ripple effect could play out based on a political stance. Sometimes the "safe" political bet isn't the best thing for the economy.

Thing is, until the election is over, I doubt anyone will do much more than play safe. Maybe congress can spend more time trying to fix baseball while we suffer with record high gas prices, rising food costs, etc.

[duhtroll]

"Being able to afford it" is most definitely the relevant question. Oil companies are choosing to keep things as they are because it's better for their own profits. That has been the point all along. Until they are forced to do otherwise, this is how it will be. I never said it wasn't good business for them. I said it is not good for the country.

Oil companies CAN change things and make things easier for the consumer and the entire country. They choose not to. Greed is their only motivation.

When one industry has a stranglehold on consumers (that would be the opposite of a free market, btw), price gouging is always going to happen until someone steps in and stops them from doing it. People say they want less and less government until something like this happens, and then they whine about the government not fixing things.

Making the point that oil companies shouldn't have to spend money to help out the consumers if it causes them to make only $50 billion per quarter instead of $51 billion per quarter is a pathetic position to take and it evokes no sympathy from the consumers.

This will all sort itself out when the public demand gets loud enough to force the government into action. I figure we are a couple years away from that point at this rate.

Free market? In oil? Hah! :lol:



Being able to afford it is irrelevant.

They are in business.

The question is "is it profitable to build a new refinery?"

The answer is NO.

If the government wants to subsidize a new refinery like they are doing with the ethanol industry, maybe that would make it happen.

Overall, it's better for the government to stay out of BOTH industries and let free market forces and economics be the driving forces.

[Haggis]

After reading ALL of the 55 posts ^^^^^ above, I can see where and how we got into this predicament on high gas prices. Lots of rhetoric and all convoluted logic just to confuse the issue with too many variables. I think the problem is much, much simpler .....

Who is gonna join me in a boycott of Exxon-Mobil (the worst among the greed mongers)? If WE COLLECTIVELY can hurt one segment of "Big Oil" enough, we will find out where their real pain point is with regard to prices at the pump. Refineries, drilling, foreign oil, big Government, R&D, exploration, ethanol, alternative fuels, profits, costs, ...... etc. Sure they are all pieces of the puzzle, but the oil companies count on the ignorance and confusion of the general public to continue their blatant extortion. :soap:

Charlie this boycott stuff has been posted here before and it is not going to work. Therefore all it is is SPAM!!!!

[Bluerauder]

Charlie this boycott stuff has been posted here before and it is not going to work. Therefore all it is is SPAM!!!!
This ain't SPAM and it ain't a copy and paste. For once, Duhtroll and I are in complete agreement on an issue. I am making my point known by boycotting Exxon-Mobil. You do what you want -- including cashing those dividend checks. Duhtroll's last comment was right on the money IMHO. You can't hurt 'em all --- so just pick one -- and sting 'em enough to change the dynamics. I pick Exxon-Mobil.

[FordNut]

"Being able to afford it" is most definitely the relevant question. Oil companies are choosing to keep things as they are because it's better for their own profits. That has been the point all along. Until they are forced to do otherwise, this is how it will be. I never said it wasn't good business for them. I said it is not good for the country.

Oil companies CAN change things and make things easier for the consumer and the entire country. They choose not to. Greed is their only motivation.

When one industry has a stranglehold on consumers (that would be the opposite of a free market, btw), price gouging is always going to happen until someone steps in and stops them from doing it. People say they want less and less government until something like this happens, and then they whine about the government not fixing things.

Making the point that oil companies shouldn't have to spend money to help out the consumers if it causes them to make only $50 billion per quarter instead of $51 billion per quarter is a pathetic position to take and it evokes no sympathy from the consumers.

This will all sort itself out when the public demand gets loud enough to force the government into action. I figure we are a couple years away from that point at this rate.

Free market? In oil? Hah! :lol:


So the government should get into the refinery business?

How can the government or consumers force any business to make that sort of investment?

[Haggis]

So the government should get into the refinery business?

How can the government or consumers force any business to make that sort of investment?

The Soviet Union did it in the '50s, '60s, '70s & '80s.

[Haggis]

This ain't SPAM and it ain't a copy and paste. For once, Duhtroll and I are in complete agreement on an issue. I am making my point known by boycotting Exxon-Mobil. You do what you want -- including cashing those dividend checks. Duhtroll's last comment was right on the money IMHO. You can't hurt 'em all --- so just pick one -- and sting 'em enough to change the dynamics. I pick Exxon-Mobil.
I am not saying Dutroll is wrong; what I am saying is it is not going to work.

Besides I agree with sailsmen on his point here:


Because "Big Gov't" is controlled by "Environmentalists" and their agenda is to reduce the world population to ~210mm people.
Where's the button, when the turd hits the fan I want to be the one to push the little red button.

[SC Cheesehead]

"Being able to afford it" is most definitely the relevant question. Oil companies are choosing to keep things as they are because it's better for their own profits. That has been the point all along. Until they are forced to do otherwise, this is how it will be. I never said it wasn't good business for them. I said it is not good for the country.

Oil companies CAN change things and make things easier for the consumer and the entire country. They choose not to. Greed is their only motivation.

When one industry has a stranglehold on consumers (that would be the opposite of a free market, btw), price gouging is always going to happen until someone steps in and stops them from doing it. People say they want less and less government until something like this happens, and then they whine about the government not fixing things.

Making the point that oil companies shouldn't have to spend money to help out the consumers if it causes them to make only $50 billion per quarter instead of $51 billion per quarter is a pathetic position to take and it evokes no sympathy from the consumers.

This will all sort itself out when the public demand gets loud enough to force the government into action. I figure we are a couple years away from that point at this rate.

Free market? In oil? Hah! :lol:

Troll, the cost of crude oil comprises the majority of the cost of a gallon of gas. Refinery profits are typically 7 to 9% of cost you pay for a gallon.

Would you suggest that the government force oil companies to sell gas for less than it costs them to buy crude and refine it to prevent "price gouging?"

Yeah, that'll work.:rolleyes:

Get yourself a copy of Economics 101 and read the sections on supply and demand, cost and price curves (i.e. equilibrium), and then the section on what happens any time the government (or any other entity for that matter) attempts to interject artificial contraints on costs or pricing.

In the event you don't want to follow up on my suggestion, here's a couple quick excerpts:

"In economics, a deadweight loss (also known as excess burden or allocative) is a loss of economic efficiency that can occur when equilibrium for a good or service is not Pareto optimal. In other words, either people who would have more marginal benefit than marginal cost are not buying the good or service or people who would have more marginal cost than marginal benefit are buying the product.

Causes of deadweight loss can include...taxes or subsidies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_taxes_and_subsidies_ on_price) (Case and Fair, 1999: 442), and binding price ceilings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_ceiling) or floors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_floor)."


"Price controls usually create shortages, reduce quality, and generate inconvenience for consumers when they are imposed in markets that could be competitive. [In the example of gasoline prices] if the price controls...become effective and succeed in reducing retail gasoline prices, they likely will impose significant non-price costs on consumers...The more consumer-friendly way to reduce gasoline prices...would be through policies that reduce costs."

SCCH

[duhtroll]

That might be true if many of the oil companies didn't "manufacture" their own crude, but they do.

So if we are talking about artificial prices, there's your answer. If US oil really wanted to be different than OPEC, they would be.

When an industry is reduced to a few major players, there is no free market.

When there is no free market, prices will be out of control.

Oil companies know that right now they are untouchable --- hence our price problem.

If you had read the recent oil threads, you'd find that I'm the one who pointed out the price of crude is the major factor in pricing -- not government taxes. :rolleyes:

Reading Econ 101 and understanding it are two different things and theory doesn't usually reflect reality. Demand has NOT risen constantly in this country. It has fluctuated. Even when the demand levels or falters, prices rise. When demand is less, prices don't revert to previous levels.

Then we hear the excuse that it is a global demand problem and we have to keep pace. So no matter what we do, oil companies will continue to raise prices. Nevermind that the US has more demand than supply, and it would follow that 100% of US oil should be sold domestically, or that...

US oil has the ability to produce more gasoline. But if they do that, the prices might drop slightly. They could still see the same profit levels by selling more product at lower prices, but right now their profits are a "sure thing." Why make effort when they don't have to? Why help out anyone else? Screw the little guy as long as I get my 16 summer homes.

Oil companies have wayyyy too much power and no check to it. Until that changes, we have the prices we have and worse.

I'll point out once again that I am not complaining about prices, only stating that it is obvious why they are the way they are. Making excuses for oil companies and claiming they are somehow being shortchanged is laughable.






Troll, the cost of crude oil comprises the majority of the cost of a gallon of gas. Refinery profits are typically 7 to 9% of cost you pay for a gallon.

Would you suggest that the government force oil companies to sell gas for less than it costs them to buy crude and refine it to prevent "price gouging?"

Yeah, that'll work.:rolleyes:

Get yourself a copy of Economics 101 and read the sections on supply and demand, cost and price curves (i.e. equilibrium), and then the section on what happens any time the government (or any other entity for that matter) attempts to interject artificial contraints on costs or pricing.

In the event you don't want to follow up on my suggestion, here's a couple quick excerpts:

"In economics, a deadweight loss (also known as excess burden or allocative) is a loss of economic efficiency that can occur when equilibrium for a good or service is not Pareto optimal. In other words, either people who would have more marginal benefit than marginal cost are not buying the good or service or people who would have more marginal cost than marginal benefit are buying the product.

Causes of deadweight loss can include...taxes or subsidies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_taxes_and_subsidies_ on_price) (Case and Fair, 1999: 442), and binding price ceilings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_ceiling) or floors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_floor)."


"Price controls usually create shortages, reduce quality, and generate inconvenience for consumers when they are imposed in markets that could be competitive. [In the example of gasoline prices] if the price controls...become effective and succeed in reducing retail gasoline prices, they likely will impose significant non-price costs on consumers...The more consumer-friendly way to reduce gasoline prices...would be through policies that reduce costs."

SCCH

[sailsmen]

"No one is building and marketing Model Ts anymore, either. By your argument, that means it can't be done." - It is illegal by "Big Gov't" to build a Model T, try building and selling one, you will be arrested.


"Being able to afford it" is most definitely the relevant question. Oil companies are choosing to keep things as they are because it's better for their own profits. That has been the point all along. Until they are forced to do otherwise, this is how it will be. I never said it wasn't good business for them. I said it is not good for the country.

Oil companies CAN change things and make things easier for the consumer and the entire country. They choose not to. Greed is their only motivation.

When one industry has a stranglehold on consumers (that would be the opposite of a free market, btw), price gouging is always going to happen until someone steps in and stops them from doing it. People say they want less and less government until something like this happens, and then they whine about the government not fixing things.

Making the point that oil companies shouldn't have to spend money to help out the consumers if it causes them to make only $50 billion per quarter instead of $51 billion per quarter is a pathetic position to take and it evokes no sympathy from the consumers.

This will all sort itself out when the public demand gets loud enough to force the government into action. I figure we are a couple years away from that point at this rate.


Free market? In oil? Hah! :lol:

What you are advocating is COMMUNISM. Plain and simple. "Dictator Troll" - Determines who is greedy, how much an industry can make, refuses to sell his oil and gas.

"Greed" as you call it is the motivator in a Capitalist Society.

You continue to ignore the facts;
a) 20 year return of the S&P 500 is more than "Big Oil"

b) There are numerous industries that were more profitable then "Big Oil" in 2007, a boom year for "Big Oil", such as In 2007 Tobacco, Drugs, Computer, Electronic, Chemical and Non-Auto Mfg industries

c) Per the US Dept of Comm the average cost of a gallon of gas in todays dollars March 2008 is 10% less than March 1982

d) "Big Gov't" owns 67% of US untapped land Oil / 40% of US untapped land gas and 100% of untapped offshore Oil and Gas

e) the 20 year taxes "Big Gov't" has collected on gasoline are over double "Big Oils" profits

e) "Big Gov't" is hoarding a bigger supply then we purchase from the MidEast

f) Refinery Capacity, here's your favorite word, CAN go up by as much as 70% if "Big Gov't" waives the multi blended environmental fuel requirements for a set period such as 3 years.

Troll - "That might be true if many of the oil companies didn't "manufacture" their own crude, but they do." Incorrect - "Big Gov't" owns the oil and is choosing not to sell.

Troll - "Oil companies have wayyyy too much power and no check to it." Incorrect - if they had all this "power" 80% off the US coast would not be banned from drilling and ANWAR would be developed.

Every 1% drop in the dollar and the "price" of crude goes up $4 a barrel. This is one reason why we need to get "Big Gov't" to sell us our oil.


Per Troll - "Demand has NOT risen constantly in this country. It has fluctuated. Even when the demand levels or falters, prices rise. When demand is less, prices don't revert to previous levels."

US Crude Consumption;
year consumption change
1980 17056 NA
1981 16058 -5.85 %
1982 15296 -4.75 %
1983 15231 -0.42 %
1984 15725.61 3.25 %
1985 15726.42 0.01 %
1986 16280.63 3.52 %
1987 16665.05 2.36 %
1988 17283.31 3.71 %
1989 17325.15 0.24 %
1990 16988.5 -1.94 %
1991 16713.84 -1.62 %
1992 17032.86 1.91 %
1993 17236.73 1.20 %
1994 17718.16 2.79 %
1995 17724.59 0.04 %
1996 18308.9 3.30 %
1997 18620.3 1.70 %
1998 18917.15 1.59 %
1999 19519.34 3.18 %
2000 19701.08 0.93 %
2001 19648.71 -0.27 % (911)
2002 19761.3 0.57 %
2003 20033.5 1.38 %
2004 20731.15 3.48 %
2005 20802.16 0.34 %

Boycott Exxon all you want they have 3.2% of the supply and own .62% of the reserves. "Big Foreign Gov't" owns 81% of the reserves. Try Boycotting them instead by getting our "Big Gov't" to sell us our oil.

Per Troll - "When there is no free market, prices will be out of control." Thats the whole point the market is not free, "Big Gov't" refuses to sell us our oil, One Greedy Entiety owns 67% of Land Oil and 100% of Offshore Oil and refuses to sell it at any price. If a Non-"Big Gov't" entiety did this emminent domain would prevail. "Big Gov't" refuses to temporarily waive environmental fuels to facilitate an increase in refinery capacity.

If "Big Oil" controls the market they would just idle the refineries.

It's our own "Big Gov't" and "Big Foreign Gov't" that controls the market, because they OWN THE OIL!

[duhtroll]

What part of "it's not unrefined crude that makes the supply problem" don't you get?

It's refinery space, for the 35th time already.

Can you prove that oil companies cannot afford to build new refineries?

Also, go look up the word "irrelevant." It is the word that best describes every argument you make comparing oil to other industries.

1) Thanks for posting the stats that show demand for gas has fluctuated, even if only up to 2005. They have gone up and down since then, too. Funny how the prices don't follow the same pattern.

2) I bet Ford could build Model Ts if they really wanted to. Just because they don't doesn't mean it cannot be done.

You need a little "cause/effect" review there, dude.

3) I'm not the one promoting the boycott, either...

4) We're not in March 2008. Or 2005. Prices have gone up quite a bit since then.

5) You must mean "socialism" and not "communism." Of course, neither is true. Having limits on business (not control, limits) is not a bad thing. I also don't think Wal-Mart should be allowed to sell sweat shop products, so I suppose that is "communism" also :rolleyes:

Placing a limit on one industry's influence on the economy is not communism, but it is common sense.

I realize you only bring to the table stuff you read from biased sources, but use a bit of common sense for these things, willya?

Seriously, if you have nothing else to offer, repeating the same tired and incorrect analysis is a waste of time.

Here's another question I bet you won't answer:

If "Big Gov't" as you say is in control of the economy and oil supply, why not fix it? The Republicans controlled Congress AND the White House for how many years? They couldn't get this done? Neither can the Democrats?

Getting re-elected must not be in their plans. If it really were that simple, our economy wouldn't be tanking and gas would be cheap.

Keep defending the oil companies. Lots of folks will believe you. :P




"No one is building and marketing Model Ts anymore, either. By your argument, that means it can't be done." - It is illegal by "Big Gov't" to build a Model T, try building and selling one, you will be arrested.



What you are advocating is COMMUNISM. Plain and simple. "Dictator Troll" - Determines who is greedy, how much an industry can make, refuses to sell his oil and gas.

"Greed" as you call it is the motivator in a Capitalist Society.

You continue to ignore the facts;
a) 20 year return of the S&P 500 is more than "Big Oil"

b) There are numerous industries that were more profitable then "Big Oil" in 2007, a boom year for "Big Oil", such as In 2007 Tobacco, Drugs, Computer, Electronic, Chemical and Non-Auto Mfg industries

c) Per the US Dept of Comm the average cost of a gallon of gas in todays dollars March 2008 is 10% less than March 1982

d) "Big Gov't" owns 67% of US untapped land Oil / 40% of US untapped land gas and 100% of untapped offshore Oil and Gas

e) the 20 year taxes "Big Gov't" has collected on gasoline are over double "Big Oils" profits

e) "Big Gov't" is hoarding a bigger supply then we purchase from the MidEast

f) Refinery Capacity, here's your favorite word, CAN go up by as much as 70% if "Big Gov't" waives the multi blended environmental fuel requirements for a set period such as 3 years.

Troll - "That might be true if many of the oil companies didn't "manufacture" their own crude, but they do." Incorrect - "Big Gov't" owns the oil and is choosing not to sell.

Troll - "Oil companies have wayyyy too much power and no check to it." Incorrect - if they had all this "power" 80% off the US coast would not be banned from drilling and ANWAR would be developed.

Every 1% drop in the dollar and the "price" of crude goes up $4 a barrel. This is one reason why we need to get "Big Gov't" to sell us our oil.


Per Troll - "Demand has NOT risen constantly in this country. It has fluctuated. Even when the demand levels or falters, prices rise. When demand is less, prices don't revert to previous levels."

US Crude Consumption;
year consumption change
1980 17056 NA
1981 16058 -5.85 %
1982 15296 -4.75 %
1983 15231 -0.42 %
1984 15725.61 3.25 %
1985 15726.42 0.01 %
1986 16280.63 3.52 %
1987 16665.05 2.36 %
1988 17283.31 3.71 %
1989 17325.15 0.24 %
1990 16988.5 -1.94 %
1991 16713.84 -1.62 %
1992 17032.86 1.91 %
1993 17236.73 1.20 %
1994 17718.16 2.79 %
1995 17724.59 0.04 %
1996 18308.9 3.30 %
1997 18620.3 1.70 %
1998 18917.15 1.59 %
1999 19519.34 3.18 %
2000 19701.08 0.93 %
2001 19648.71 -0.27 % (911)
2002 19761.3 0.57 %
2003 20033.5 1.38 %
2004 20731.15 3.48 %
2005 20802.16 0.34 %

Boycott Exxon all you want they have 3.2% of the supply and own .62% of the reserves. "Big Foreign Gov't" owns 81% of the reserves. Try Boycotting them instead by getting our "Big Gov't" to sell us our oil.

Per Troll - "When there is no free market, prices will be out of control." Thats the whole point the market is not free, "Big Gov't" refuses to sell us our oil, One Greedy Entiety owns 67% of Land Oil and 100% of Offshore Oil and refuses to sell it at any price. If a Non-"Big Gov't" entiety did this emminent domain would prevail. "Big Gov't" refuses to temporarily waive environmental fuels to facilitate an increase in refinery capacity.

If "Big Oil" controls the market they would just idle the refineries.

It's our own "Big Gov't" and "Big Foreign Gov't" that controls the market, because they OWN THE OIL!

[sailsmen]

Troll - by your way of thinking we should ban all imports of any kind. Auto companies can build all their parts and autos in the USA. Farmers can grow all the food we need. Garment industry can make all the clothes we need.

Why - because Troll the dictator says they can.

Crude consumption has gone up in the USA, has gone up in China and has gone up in India. USA oil production has gone down.

Try this for common sense; WHO OWNS the OIl - "Big Gov't", WHO REFUSES to SELL the OIL "Big Gov't". That is the problem, all of your other statements are completely meaningless and with out relevance.:D

The "Environmentalists" are right, "Blood for Oil". The "Environmentalists" lobby has resulted in "Big Gov't" hoarding our oil directly resulting in the USA buying oil from the MidEast. "Environmentalists" drop their opposition to "Big Gov't" selling to us our oil in less then 10 years we will be able to stop buying oil from the MiddleEast.

We would then have the economic power over the MiddleEast and stop the "Blood for Oil"!

Stop greedy colleges and universities from their gross increases in tuition. Professors can work for less for the good of the country.

[duhtroll]

I'm waiting to hear your argument on how oil prices affect the trade winds. There are only a few tangents you have left in order to "prove" your point. :lol:

We have more than enough crude supply for the refinery capacity we have.

Are you able to prove that oil companies cannot afford to build new refineries?

Still can't answer that one, can ya?

For all of your conclusions below, I said nothing of the sort. It sure makes it easier to make your point if you get to argue both sides tho', ain't it?

And for your college professor comment, you obviously have no idea how colleges and universities are funded. I'll wait while you go look that up so you can try and sound knowledgeable. Never mind that it has nothing to do with this topic (so it's no surprise you brought it up).

The main difference between our two positions is that mine comes with actual research behind it, while yours sounds like it's being recited by a disheveled doom sayer on a street corner wearing a sandwich board.

Chicken little called. He wants his job back.


Troll - by your way of thinking we should ban all imports of any kind. Auto companies can build all their parts and autos in the USA. Farmers can grow all the food we need. Garment industry can make all the clothes we need.

Why - because Troll the dictator says they can.

Crude consumption has gone up in the USA, has gone up in China and has gone up in India. USA oil production has gone down.

Try this for common sense; WHO OWNS the OIl - "Big Gov't", WHO REFUSES to SELL the OIL "Big Gov't". That is the problem, all of your other statements are completely meaningless and with out relevance.:D

The "Environmentalists" are right, "Blood for Oil". The "Environmentalists" lobby has resulted in "Big Gov't" hoarding our oil directly resulting in the USA buying oil from the MidEast. "Environmentalists" drop their opposition to "Big Gov't" selling to us our oil in less then 10 years we will be able to stop buying oil from the MiddleEast.

We would then have the economic power over the MiddleEast and stop the "Blood for Oil"!

Stop greedy colleges and universities from their gross increases in tuition. Professors can work for less for the good of the country.

[SC Cheesehead]

I'm waiting to hear your argument on how oil prices affect the trade winds. There are only a few tangents you have left in order to "prove" your point. :lol:

We have more than enough crude supply for the refinery capacity we have.

Are you able to prove that oil companies cannot afford to build new refineries?

Still can't answer that one, can ya?

For all of your conclusions below, I said nothing of the sort. It sure makes it easier to make your point if you get to argue both sides tho', ain't it?

And for your college professor comment, you obviously have no idea how colleges and universities are funded. I'll wait while you go look that up so you can try and sound knowledgeable. Never mind that it has nothing to do with this topic (so it's no surprise you brought it up).

The main difference between our two positions is that mine comes with actual research behind it, while yours sounds like it's being recited by a disheveled doom sayer on a street corner wearing a sandwich board.

Chicken little called. He wants his job back.

Troll,

It's not a matter of whether oil companies can afford to build more refineries, much of it hinges on environmental permitting.

SCCH

[duhtroll]

I agree that it is more difficult to build within environmental regulations.

However,

1) more difficult does not mean impossible

2) every other industry must abide by the same standards

Why should Big Oil be any different?




Troll,

It's not a matter of whether oil companies can afford to build more refineries, much of it hinges on environmental permitting.

SCCH