WSJ: Refining Incapacity - Politicians have done as much damage as hurricanes.

Washington Post ^ | September 28, 2005 | Editorial

[pennconservative]

Government regulation stifles innovation and economic growth. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

[JLAGRAYFOX]

So, what's new? If the American could not fathom the the Democrat Party was instrumental in restraining refining facilities in the USA, then they deserve to pay every cent they get charged for gasoline and heating oil. The problem lies first with the American voter.

[Mogollon]

If you like high gas prices, thank an environmentalist wacko.

[fight_truth_decay]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1492712/posts

Might be of interest to your thread.

[fight_truth_decay]

"Mr Naimi also said that there were "no takers" for more oil right now, as a result of constrained refining capacity. Roughly a quarter of US refining capacity is still shut after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck the country's southern coast, but global refining capacity - to turn crude oil into petrol and other products - was struggling to keep up with demand even before that."

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article315546.ece

Mr Naimi said talk of oil scarcity reminded him of the 1970s, when people also thought the end of the age of oil was at hand. "But in the intervening years, when we were supposedly facing a precipitous decline, world oil reserves more than doubled," he said.

CUT

Exxon's Mr Tillerson told the convention in South Africa that his company estimated that global energy demand would increase by 50 per cent over the next 25 years. Mr Tillerson said that by some estimates there was as much as 7 trillion barrels of oil yet to be discovered. On a more conservative basis, the world still had more than 3 trillion barrels from conventional fields, oil sands deposits and other sources. "That is more than twice all the oil recovered up to now in all of human history," Mr Tillerson said.

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article315546.ece

“Basically, crude oil is no use to anybody. You can’t put it in a car,” said Tony Machacek of Bache Financial brokerage.

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A96367

[Savage Beast]

"Politicians have done as much damage as hurricanes."

Oh, far more!

And Leftist enablers have done far more damage than terrorists.

A fool is more dangerous than a scoundrel. The fools are the scoundrels' enablers.

And the Democrat Party is the Party of BOTH fools AND scoundrels. The scoundrels are the sociopathic leaders. The fools are their enablers.

[Savage Beast]

If the "environmentalists" are for it, oppose it. If they're against it, support it.

And never give one penny to an "environmentalist charity".

[DeaconRed]

Somebody please explain to this ole country Boy why we have most of the refineries near hurricane areas. Why not put them in the desert?

[The Great RJ]

The construction of a gas turbine electric generating plant in decidedly red state South Dakota took more than a decade, most of that time taken up with the permitting process. A more recent example is a century old dairy farm that has spent nearly three years getting permits and approvals to increase the number of dairy cows. The owners of nearby homes that didn't exist even five years ago are protesting over the smell.

[Bulwark]

If the American could not fathom the the Democrat Party was instrumental in restraining refining facilities in the USA, then they deserve to pay every cent they get charged for gasoline and heating oil.

Sorry, but you've bought into a very popular misconception. The oil companies are the ones who absolutely do not want more refineries. It makes no sense for them to build more.

[Adder]

While I agree with your statement, the fact is that despite that the major oilco's are raking in record PROFITS, net, even after complying.

I'm not feeling real sad for them right now....

[cynicom]

All we need do is is have the republicans in charge of our government and they will put such things right.

[pfony1]

Just as Jimmy Carter's price controls provided the "discipline" that enforced the production limitations decreed by OPEC, our current NIMBY no-new-refinery prohibitions have created a "shared monopoly" for EXISTING oil refiners.

As you implied, why would any "monopolist" want to add capacity?

The answer is (or should be): "For competitive advantage".

Therefore, IF the government would offer a hassle-free site for a new refinery to the "highest bidder" -- there would be quite a few bidders, IMHO.

[RedMonqey]

Ever seen the "donor" list for the eco-maniacs.


Exxon, Shell, BP, etc.

I couldn't decide if it was extortion or a reward.


Hmmmmmmmmmm.

[JLAGRAYFOX]

I am afraid my friend you have been drinking too much Kool Aid these days. American oil companies have built refineries off shore in the Caribbean and South America for the past thirty years. But, it has not been enough capacity. You must also not realize, that with increasing USA population, the demand for gasoline/heating oil keeps increasing, thus requiring more capacity to insure the overall economy keeps moving forward. As far as excess capacity, it can be marketed and sold to a world that is increasing daily into a consumer driven economic environment. Believe me, just as lower airfares increase operating revenue, economy of scale, higher profit margins, etc., so will excess, reasonably priced gasoline increase oil company profits. You must be one of those "Democrats" that believes in raising taxes!!! Get real!!!

[thackney]

Sorry, but you've bought into a very popular misconception. The oil companies are the ones who absolutely do not want more refineries. It makes no sense for them to build more.

Can you explain why then they continue to upgrade and expand the existing facilities? And why an oil company has spent ten years trying to permit a completely new one?

U.S. Refinery Operations; Inputs, Utilization, and Production; History

Consider the adventures of Arizona Clean Fuels. The company spent 10 years and $20 million trying to secure all the permits necessary to build a small refinery in the Arizona desert. They cleared the latest hurdle this summer, when they secured air-quality permits from the Environmental Protection Agency. That step took five years.

And since they are getting tired of trying to build in the US, they are willing to build Mexico.

[Bulwark]

Can you explain why then they continue to upgrade and expand the existing facilities? And why an oil company has spent ten years trying to permit a completely new one?

Because it's a hell of a lot cheaper to expand and upgrade an old refinery than to build a new one. Quicker ROI.

[Bulwark]

The answer is (or should be): "For competitive advantage".

But that's shooting themselves in the foot. If they increase capacity, they reduce price. If they reduce price, their ROI time goes up. I used to work in the energy industry, and trust me, this is a well known industry fact.

[Bulwark]

American oil companies have built refineries off shore in the Caribbean and South America for the past thirty years.

An off-shore refinery? Unless the oil business has changed dramatically in the 6 years I've been out of it, you're referring to an offshore drilling platform, which does not refine oil. But thanks for playing, sorry ya lost!