Posted on 05/24/2007 4:50:40 AM PDT by Kaslin
In my opinion, it is not "politically" viable.
Arizona refinery permit took seven years, Senate told
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/business/19103.php
Oil companies are spending billions of dollars upgrading and expanding existing refineries. For a couple decades the US refinery capacity and throughput has been increasing but it is getting very tight. The consequences of such tight margin capacity is upset results in great impacts as we have seen the last 3 months and in the aftermath of Katrina.
But the same could be said of many other kinds of construction.
Which is why our electric power generation and transmission grids are also pushing the limits on capacity.
With prices as high as they are, why don't oil companies very publicly announce plans for some new refineries, explaining that they are needed to improve supplies?
When they continue to increase throughput by expanding and upgrading existing refineries, why would they spend the time and money fighting this battle?
Well, I'd like to think the exposure and long-term marginalization of the eco-nutjobs would be worth the fight. I'd even be willing to bay $0.10 more per gallon, if I knew it was funding a war on environmentalists that would produce long-term benefits.
It's important to educate ignorant consumers on just who the culprits are in this mess. Expose environmentalists for the obstructionist, fascist group that they are.
-—It’s important to educate ignorant consumers on just who the culprits are in this mess. Expose environmentalists for the obstructionist, fascist group that they are.-—
Bump
Hmmm... according to that graphic, every section is down (including taxes!!), except refining and profits.
Remember, it is percentages that still have to add up to 100%
He was better when he said what he said yesterday. Just because the MSM wouldn't carry that soundbite is no reason to back down.
Right, but the share of the pie that is dedicated to refining and profits is the only one that is growing as a share of the total pie. Of course, the raw numbers of each could be growing, but their shares are not growing as fast, relative to refining and profits.
I presume you're referring to quotes like this one: "three major refiners determined it wasn't in their economic self interest to produce any more RFG [reformulated gas] than that required to meet the demands of their own customers,..."
The cold cruel fact of life is that no producer (whether it be for cars, TVs, building materials, food, clothing, ... or even oil) can produce more than what its customers demand for long and still remain in business.
As for there could be a list of Federally Regulated company stocks that affects the American economy with the greater impact, with our elected government officials and family having no stocks in them if they choose Public Service...I am all for it.
I'd be satisfied with these officials simply disclosing what their financial interests are. If their voters are ok with that, fine with me.
That's a good one. The Feds "gauge" consumers more than the eeevil "Republican" oil companies do, taxing consumers more per gallon than the oil company makes in profit.
Perhaps the RATS should look into the mirror and cut out the federal tax on gas first. But then again, we wouldn't have any road improvments but for the tax, right? And some pork barrel useless highways for Senator KKK Byrd in West Virginia.
The limit must be pushed.... (sarc).
“WTF are you talking about?
the refinery markup is at least 75 cents.”
BINGO! Two problems:
1) Supply and Demand, India and China
2) Refinery capacity
How do you solve these two problems? Build competing energy products and vehicles. Competing products is happening faster then most people think because we are in the information age and major investors are linking in smaller investors to create this new market. Government can further help but won’t, too many conflicting interests.
What conflict do you claim there is? Who and what, please.
Depends on each individual investor's cash basis happens to be.......Duh!
Sometimes and sadly, this forum resembles DU..... The facts don't seem to get in the way of emotions....
You are for price gouging laws, right?
To repeat -- What officials, elected or appointed, are you cliaming have conflicts of interest? And in each case, what is the substance of the conflict?
Listen, can Senate/House members own stock in the oil industry and do you think it is right?
As for who...
http://www.foeaction.org/expose/housevotecharts.pdf
The top five oil and gas stock holders in the House of Representatives, in order, are:
Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) $15 million
Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC) $5.6 million
Rep. John Carter (R-TX) $5 million
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) $1.9 million
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) $1.7 million.
The Senate’s top holders are:
Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) $1.4 million
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) $646,000
Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) $600,000
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) $515,000
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) $500,000. [*]
Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) owns more oil and gas company stock than any other senator, holding as much as $1.47 million. On ten significant energy votes, DeWine sided with the oil industry 70 percent of the time. While environmentalists have applauded DeWine’s opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, he voted against taxing the excess profits of oil companies, in favor of opening new areas off Florida’s Gulf Coast to drilling and against a proposal to reduce foreign oil imports by 40 percent.
Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) holds as much as $80,000 in oil and gas company stock and sided with the oil industry 90 percent of the time on ten key votes. He supported an energy bill that provided billions in tax breaks to oil companies, opposed a proposal to reduce foreign oil imports by 40 percent and voted against a proposal to tax the excess profits of oil companies.
Several top House holders including Representatives Wally Herger (R-CA), John Carter (R-TX), Robin Hayes (R-NC), Chris Chocola (R-IN), and Anne Northup (R-KY) voted in favor of oil company interests 100 percent of the time. They supported an energy bill larded with billions in oil company tax breaks, opposed stronger fuel economy standards for automobiles, voted to allow oil companies to drill offshore without paying royalties to the federal treasury, and to let refiners off the hook for polluting groundwater with a toxic gasoline additive.
Mind you, on some of the votes above I agreed with the how the votes went but again, on many issues I question whether those who own this stock vote for what is right by the consumer or what is right by their wallets.
Amazing. To think an American with some extra money to invest would invest in the energy business of all places! More amazing is your inability to prove anything. But I am impressed with your cut-n-paste abilities. I think you’re posting your moonbat theories in the wrong forum.
BTW, if you even remotely decided to read what I wrote, regardless of where the information came from, you would truly understand the driving point that conflicts are dangerous. I guess you have never had jobs in the private or public sector where your employer has you sign contracts to ensure there are no conflicts in the capacity of your job...I would even bet the Directors and Executive board of your beloved coprporations you salivate and worship over sign conflict employment agreements before excepting positions. Then again, being all you seem is to shovel shi* I doubt you can even understand the reasoning for same.
Please, stop posting replies to me...you are a moron and I will completely ignore your stupidity from this point forward.
Oh cry me a river, cupcake. Your points might be better made with proper grammar and spelling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.