Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Moonman62

It is implied as land refineries would be much more economical. Not to mention the increased risk to the tankers carrying refined gas rather than crude.


4 posted on 05/20/2011 3:42:09 PM PDT by Teflonic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Teflonic
"It is implied as land refineries would be much more economical. Not to mention the increased risk to the tankers carrying refined gas rather than crude."

Not oil. Natural gas. Although there are likely to be some "heavies" (C2, C3, C4, and sometimes even out to C8, but rarely higher).

Not very economical in the USA, given the recent gigantic finds of shale gas.

6 posted on 05/20/2011 3:50:21 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Teflonic

The U.S. has also loaned $2.84 billion for upgrades to an oil refinery in Cartagena, Columbia. Because the permitting regulations are so excessively onerous and radical environmentalists keep proposed projects tied up in litigation, there has not been a new major refinery built in the U.S. in 35 years, so increasingly we are forced to not only import crude oil, but refined gasoline, as well.
He could remove Lisa Jackson at the EPA who has turned a “regulatory firehose” on the energy industry and U.S. business according to the Wall Street Journal. In just two years, Jackson has proposed or finalized 29 major regulations and 172 policy rules.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2722605/posts

this as regarding crude oil,not natgas...but we get the picture.


9 posted on 05/20/2011 4:13:34 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson