A 10 Year Cooling Trend Predicted?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>billvon, when and where was oil first discovered and produced?

Oil was first used back in the days of Herodotus. It was first drilled in the US around 1860.

>And there is plenty of oil.

Then no problem. Good to hear you'll finally stop with the "ANWR is our only oil and we MUST drill it!"Nope, that is where some of it is and there is not good reason NOT to drill for it

>We do not have nuclear plants being built thank to enviros

Google "Lee Nuclear Plant."

Oh one is good? There are currently 5 under the permitting process which is expected to take 8 to 12 years each

>How many different gas formulas are there in the US today.

Dozens.Which puts a huge strain on the to few plants we have for no good reason

>How many refineries are currently running in the US?

About 150.

>How many have been built in the last 30 years?

None.Which is stupid

>Which countries are drilling for oil closer to our shores than we are
>allowed to?

Most countries that drill for oil off their coasts are drilling closer than we are.Cuba is has contracted companies to drill closer to US shores than US companies are allowed to

>What are the two counties that the US buys the vast majority of oil
>from?

Canada and Saudi Arabia.You flunked as 1 for 2 is only 50%

>One of these countries has an oil we dont buy because it has been
>demonized as "dirty" just like the enviro's are trying to do with coal

So a country we import most of our oil from, we don't import much oil from? Even for you that's a little opaque.nice spin as the fact is they have more they would sell us (and they do use themselves) if the enviros would stop the scare tactics

>CO2 induced global warming arguments are starting to die fast
>(because it is not being proven as true . . .)

Ah yes. "There's only one problem with global warming - it ended in 1998!" People are starting to realize that such statements are wrong. Every single time. They're starting to listen to climate scientists instead of overweight conservative talk show hosts. They're starting to see the results of climate change, and thus are starting to ignore the people who say "it's not happening! And even if it is, it's not our fault!"

>cause the cause can not be defended. It can't hold up under its own
>merits.

On Weds night I spent some time talking to a Scripps Institute oceanographer. You'll forgive me if I place more stock in what he says than in what people who prefer politics to science say.Well, soon he will be proven wrong as well. But will now have to wait 10 years for it to cycle around again so the bs can start yet again?

>This is about money. Exampled by Gores proposed multi trillion dollor
>world carbon tax and Obams world proverty bill he just introduced.

Ah. Well, by that angle, it is indeed "exampled' by money. The oil companies billion dollar subsidies, for example. You do not know what the rate of return they get on thier investment is do you?? Ya, big huge profits what a joke. Lets tax the bastards so they will stop providing what what this world runs on

Hint, they make less on their investments than regulated power comanies do

Here's a good article on the subject:

===========================


Dumb as We Wanna Be

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: April 30, 2008

It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.

When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit.

No, no, no, we’ll just get the money by taxing Big Oil, says Mrs. Clinton. Even if you could do that, what a terrible way to spend precious tax dollars — burning it up on the way to the beach rather than on innovation?

The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

But here’s what’s scary: our problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage — gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars — and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage — new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

Are you sitting down?

Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again — which often happens — investments in wind and solar would still be profitable. That’s how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale, so it can compete without subsidies.

The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.

“It’s a disaster,” says Michael Polsky, founder of Invenergy, one of the biggest wind-power developers in America. “Wind is a very capital-intensive industry, and financial institutions are not ready to take ‘Congressional risk.’ They say if you don’t get the [production tax credit] we will not lend you the money to buy more turbines and build projects.”

It is also alarming, says Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that the U.S. has reached a point “where the priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics” that it would turn its back on the next great global industry — clean power — “but that’s exactly what is happening.” If the wind and solar credits expire, said Resch, the impact in just 2009 would be more than 100,000 jobs either lost or not created in these industries, and $20 billion worth of investments that won’t be made.

While all the presidential candidates were railing about lost manufacturing jobs in Ohio, no one noticed that America’s premier solar company, First Solar, from Toledo, Ohio, was opening its newest factory in the former East Germany — 540 high-paying engineering jobs — because Germany has created a booming solar market and America has not.

In 1997, said Resch, America was the leader in solar energy technology, with 40 percent of global solar production. “Last year, we were less than 8 percent, and even most of that was manufacturing for overseas markets.”

The McCain-Clinton proposal is a reminder to me that the biggest energy crisis we have in our country today is the energy to be serious — the energy to do big things in a sustained, focused and intelligent way. We are in the midst of a national political brownout.

Political election year pandering. It is worth the damage

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

There's no money or political capital to be made from Global Unwarming

Hey but we're just nutter deniers, what do we know?

Really? Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell and Chevron all seem to be making record profits from the status quo.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

There's no money or political capital to be made from Global Unwarming

Hey but we're just nutter deniers, what do we know?

Really? Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell and Chevron all seem to be making record profits from the status quo.

Those companies are making record profits because they are selling a product that is in demand. Free market economy at work. Plain and simple. If you don't like it feel free to walk or ride your bike.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Remster 30]

Quote

>What are the two counties that the US buys the vast majority of oil
>from?

Canada and Saudi Arabia.You flunked as 1 for 2 is only 50%

Which one is wrong? http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html Notice the doe.gov at the end of the site domain.

Remster

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In the end...does it really matter?

Does it TRULY matter?

What will it take to cause people to treat the earth better? If there was unequivocal evidence that humanity was indeed ruining this planet, would you change then? Or would we continue to argue?

What sort of evidence would you need, deniers, to decide to change? Give me examples here, because all I ever see is the same "it's not real and here's why". So look at it from the other side. What, for YOU, would MAKE it real? If one day you woke up and took two steps, then passed out from lack of oxygen? You turned on your faucet and nothing came out? You drove your car to the gas station and it was closed...they were all closed for lack of supply?

What would it take? And would it be too late?

Then I ask you, tell me the harm in changing NOW. Tell me. What is the harm in changing NOW?

What is wrong is where you are starting from. You automaticly assuming that we are destroying the planet. If one really cares to look at it, all this green stuff and green house gas crap has nothing to ddo with the planet.

In the end, YOU want to force what you believe on the rest of us.

As for harm of "changing"? The implications of the change you advocate is a huge list. And nearly non of them are good.

But lets say you are correct in some fashion. Then common sense would beg for change. But, people will only do that if the information being put forth is truthful. Saddly, this is not the case.

Eddited to add: We are already seeing the effects of the kind of change you advocate. Those being gas prices and food shortages. If you really care to look

I asked for what sort of proof you would need.

Please answer my question.

Is there ANYTHING that will EVER be "truthful" in your eyes? what if it is completely counter to your current world view? Is there ANY evidence you would accept...or would you continue to call it a lie?

If so, please, tell me. Tell us. I am not talking about what is out there now. I'm talking about what, in YOUR mind, will prove to YOU that we do, indeed, need to change.

Me, i don't need proof. I believe we should be good custodians of our planet no matter what. Cutting down forests, polluting our air and water, etc...that's not being a good custodian. Honestly, it's not an argument based on consequences. it's an argument based on the means. So I say again...does it really matter if it's humanity or not?

I believe we should be good keepers of our planet to but this GW crap is going toooooooo far.
I believed that man was causing GWing about 2 years ago and I used to think gun control was a good idea. But once I looked into it and past the hype I changed my mind on both.

Fact and data could change my mind yet again but, the CO2 is rising so I predict the temps will rise and it did so I am right is not fact or proof.

And now that DATA is showing some slowing or maybe some cooling well that has to be explained away. Add to the fact that the world has had higher levels of CO2 and lower levels and that records show CO2 as following temps not leading them well, I will accept the denier label until something of substance shows up to change my mind

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There's no money or political capital to be made from Global Unwarming

Hey but we're just nutter deniers, what do we know?

Really? Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell and Chevron all seem to be making record profits from the status quo.

Those companies are making record profits because they are selling a product that is in demand. Free market economy at work. Plain and simple. If you don't like it feel free to walk or ride your bike.

I do, and it's quite irrelevant to the point. LOTS MORE MONEY is being made off the status quo than is being made by anyone warning about GW.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

>What are the two counties that the US buys the vast majority of oil
>from?

Canada and Saudi Arabia.You flunked as 1 for 2 is only 50%

Which one is wrong? http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html Notice the doe.gov at the end of the site domain.

Not too long ago mexico was number 2. Still close so I suppose it can shift from time to time

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>Nope, that is where some of it is. . .

I agree. But as you say, we have plenty, so we might as well follow the current laws until we need it.

>Oh one is good?

It's a start! I can think of half a dozen large solar projects at the same phase of development.

>Which puts a huge strain on the to few plants we have for no good reason.

OK.

>>None.
>Which is stupid.

The oil companies may well be stupid. Their money, their decision.

>You flunked as 1 for 2 is only 50%

KBBL/Day, Feb 08, per the US DOE:

Canada 1920
Saudi Arabia 1614
Mexico 1231
Nigeria 982
Venezuela 945
Iraq 780
Angola 341
Kuwait 261
Algeria 191
Ecuador 169

>Well, soon he will be proven wrong as well.

Right. "There's only one problem with global warming - it stopped in 1998!" I guess one advantage he has over you is that you've _already_ been proven wrong.

>You do not know what the rate of return they get on thier investment is do you?

Nope. And you don't know how many private jets Exxon owns, do you?

>Ya, big huge profits what a joke.

Reading the news will help prevent you from making silly errors like this.

>Political election year pandering.

Now THAT I agree with! The McCain/Clinton 'tax relief' bill is pandering of the worst kind, the sort that hopes to appeal to people who can't listen to anything longer than a three second sound bite.

[Remster 30]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>What are the two counties that the US buys the vast majority of oil
>from?

Canada and Saudi Arabia.You flunked as 1 for 2 is only 50%

Which one is wrong? http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html Notice the doe.gov at the end of the site domain.

Not too long ago mexico was number 2. Still close so I suppose it can shift from time to time

If by close, you mean you were wrong, then yes, Mexico is close.

Remster

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There's no money or political capital to be made from Global Unwarming

Hey but we're just nutter deniers, what do we know?

Really? Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell and Chevron all seem to be making record profits from the status quo.

Those companies are making record profits because they are selling a product that is in demand. Free market economy at work. Plain and simple. If you don't like it feel free to walk or ride your bike.

I do, and it's quite irrelevant to the point. LOTS MORE MONEY is being made off the status quo than is being made by anyone warning about GW.

Gore is laughing all the way to the bank. The status quo you speak of is being protected by our inept politicians on both sides of the aisle.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What will it take to cause people to treat the earth better?

Honesty. That is all. Honesty. Instead of fear mongering that the environment will be a blast furnace in 20 years if we don't pull out all stops, why not just, "It's the right thing to do, it will save you money in the long run, and you and your family can live longer and healthier." That's it.

Quote

What sort of evidence would you need, deniers, to decide to change?

The savings, and they are real. I just replaced the roof with a high emissivity roof. Because I want to spend less on cooling. The shake shingles were taken off (shake is an excellent insulator but, damn, dangerous stuff in other ways). And hopefully in the next couple of months, I'll have the money to put up solar panels. This after buying energy star appliances.

Quote

What, for YOU, would MAKE it real?

My monthly heating and cooling bill. That makes it real. The less energy I use, the more money I have left over to pay things off like debt.

Quote

Then I ask you, tell me the harm in changing NOW.

There is benefit to changing now. Then again, I changed 5 years ago.

Quote

If one day you woke up and took two steps, then passed out from lack of oxygen?

This is the sort of thing wherein the possibilities are SOOOOOOO remote that it is fear-mongering. This is like "reefer madness." Or any of a number of htings for which the evidence does not suggest that it actually happens or will happen. The result is a lack of credibility. And to seek credibility that has been lost is like unringing a bell. It's tough to do.

Quote

turned on your faucet and nothing came out?

THIS is not an idle threat. There is a possibility of this happening within my lifetime. However, I recall tv ads in LA in about 1990 painting this picture during that big drought.

Again - just because I am a skeptic does NOT mean that I cheer on the bad guys on Captain Planet. I have a responsibility to myself and my neighbors to keep my neighborhood clean. I have a responsibility to get as much value as I can.

This is how we change. We avoid waste - unnecessary usage of energy.

How do we change everyone? LEt them know what's in it for them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I believe we should be good custodians of our planet no matter what. Cutting down forests, polluting our air and water, etc...that's not being a good custodian. Honestly, it's not an argument based on consequences. it's an argument based on the means.

A nice statement with which I agree.
Take the hypothetical consequences out of it, and there is much less room to argue. And I say "hypothetical" because that's what so much of it is - a hypothesis.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Nope, that is where some of it is. . .

I agree. But as you say, we have plenty, so we might as well follow the current laws until we need it.

>Oh one is good?

It's a start! I can think of half a dozen large solar projects at the same phase of development.

>Which puts a huge strain on the to few plants we have for no good reason.

OK.

>>None.
>Which is stupid.

The oil companies may well be stupid. Their money, their decision.Not really, the envior whackos made the process such a political nightmare it was not worth the time. You know, the rediculas pemitting process that has been created??? Like the ones for power plants. So, a really missleading post on your part

>You flunked as 1 for 2 is only 50%

KBBL/Day, Feb 08, per the US DOE:

Canada 1920
Saudi Arabia 1614
Mexico 1231
Nigeria 982
Venezuela 945
Iraq 780
Angola 341
Kuwait 261
Algeria 191
Ecuador 169

>Well, soon he will be proven wrong as well.

Right. "There's only one problem with global warming - it stopped in 1998!" I guess one advantage he has over you is that you've _already_ been proven wrong.Nice try but not true. Oh thats right, there is some kind of (claimed) consensus or some such nonsense. And, as you know, you are posting the tittle of the article I posted but, I think it may be more profound than first realized

>You do not know what the rate of return they get on thier investment is do you?

Nope. And you don't know how many private jets Exxon owns, do you?Irrealvant unless being envious is your point

>Ya, big huge profits what a joke.

Reading the news will help prevent you from making silly errors like this.The papers are what give you your messed up perspective. You may want to learn something and find out the true rate of return per dollar invested. And, just for your info, oil companies make .08 cents on a gallon of gas. The Fed gov. gets .20 cents per gallon. Maybe you should bitch about thier profits (for not a dam(n) thing produced. But is about getting BIG somebody is it not?

>Political election year pandering.

Now THAT I agree with! The McCain/Clinton 'tax relief' bill is pandering of the worst kind, the sort that hopes to appeal to people who can't listen to anything longer than a three second sound bite.

You should read your own posts above. You have proven in some cases thats all you are getting

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>What are the two counties that the US buys the vast majority of oil
>from?

Canada and Saudi Arabia.You flunked as 1 for 2 is only 50%

Which one is wrong? http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html Notice the doe.gov at the end of the site domain.

Not too long ago mexico was number 2. Still close so I suppose it can shift from time to time

If by close, you mean you were wrong, then yes, Mexico is close.

If stating so makes you feel better then yes, I was in error

Ther there now, you can feel better about yourself

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Honesty. That is all. Honesty. Instead of fear mongering that the environment will be a blast furnace in 20 years if we don't pull out all stops, why not just, "It's the right thing to do, it will save you money in the long run, and you and your family can live longer and healthier." That's it.

The soft approach has been failing for 30 years.

It's basic economics - people abuse public goods. Cheap energy is effectively a public good - everyone will leave it to 'others' to conserve.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The Fed gov. gets .20 cents per gallon. Maybe you should bitch about thier profits (for not a dam(n) thing produced.

What profits? We have a record spending deficit.

Incidentally, some of us are quite fond of having roads to drive on, the creation and maintenance of which is not free.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[BikerBabe 0]

rush, you still avoided my question. let me restate.

What type of scientific evidence would cause you to change? What proof? From which "expert?" Go on, give it a go...make a stab at answering.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

rush, you still avoided my question. let me restate.

What type of scientific evidence would cause you to change? What proof? From which "expert?" Go on, give it a go...make a stab at answering.

I did. You just dont like my answer.

Any proof will be considered. But since there is not anytodate you have nothing either..


FYI
Snarky does not become you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The soft approach has been failing for 30 years.

Actually, it seems to me to have worked quite nicely over the last 30 years or so.

Quote

people abuse public goods

Indeed. Unless it costs them.

Quote

Cheap energy is effectively a public good - everyone will leave it to 'others' to conserve.

Indeed! And energy really ain't that cheap. Gas guzzling SUV's aren't sellign now, either.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,991]

>Not really, the envior whackos made the process such a political
>nightmare it was not worth the time.

It's become very easy to show your errors lately.

BP’s CEO: "Refinery margins over the last 10 to 15 years have not been high enough on average to justify building a new refinery.”

Mobil Oil: "We see no need to build new refineries" through 2030.

Plus which, you are forgetting basic economics. Gas usage has been declining a bit; why the heck would anyone build new refineries? Why spend billions you don't have to? If the refineries really WERE the problem, oil would be cheap and piling up on the docks because refineries couldn't handle all the crude.

Google the price of oil and tell me if you think it's getting cheaper.

> Oh thats right, there is some kind of (claimed) consensus or some
> such nonsense. And, as you know, you are posting the tittle of the
> article I posted . . .

Hmm. So I guess my choices are to go with scientists at Scripps, or a guy on the internet who has no background in the sciences whatsoever.

If you were at a drop zone, and you needed some advice on how to dock last on a bigway, would you go to Dan BC or a whuffo who thinks skydivers go up when they pull their string? I guess in your case it would depend on whether Dan BC was a "liberal wacko" or a wise conservative.

>Irrealvant unless being envious is your point

Correct! It was as irrelevant as your statement.

>And, just for your info, oil companies make .08 cents on a gallon of
>gas.

Right. So?

> The Fed gov. gets .20 cents per gallon.

Right. So? You use that money every time you drive. It would be quite hypocritical of you to complain about it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Not really, the envior whackos made the process such a political
>nightmare it was not worth the time.

It's become very easy to show your errors lately.

BP’s CEO: "Refinery margins over the last 10 to 15 years have not been high enough on average to justify building a new refinery.”But, I thought they were making soooooooo much money???

Mobil Oil: "We see no need to build new refineries" through 2030. 10% of our refined gas is currently being brought in by tanker. Seems there may be some inconsistancy here?

Plus which, you are forgetting basic economics. Gas usage has been declining a bit; why the heck would anyone build new refineries? Why spend billions you don't have to? If the refineries really WERE the problem, oil would be cheap and piling up on the docks because refineries couldn't handle all the crude.You are in error here as siteing is going on near Souix City Iowa as I type

Google the price of oil and tell me if you think it's getting cheaper.Where did I say this?

> Oh thats right, there is some kind of (claimed) consensus or some
> such nonsense. And, as you know, you are posting the tittle of the
> article I posted . . .

Hmm. So I guess my choices are to go with scientists at Scripps, or a guy on the internet who has no background in the sciences whatsoever.

If you were at a drop zone, and you needed some advice on how to dock last on a bigway, would you go to Dan BC or a whuffo who thinks skydivers go up when they pull their string? I guess in your case it would depend on whether Dan BC was a "liberal wacko" or a wise conservative.

>Irrealvant unless being envious is your point

Correct! It was as irrelevant as your statement.

>And, just for your info, oil companies make .08 cents on a gallon of
>gas.

Right. So?

> The Fed gov. gets .20 cents per gallon.

Right. So? You use that money every time you drive. It would be quite hypocritical of you to complain about it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

I'll agree with billvon on one subject. The oil companies don't want to build any new refineries. They are doing just fine with what they've got. Bush mentioned the lack of refineries a couple fo days ago. It was hogwash political posturing - just like the goofballs on the left.

The oil companies don't need to build new refineries. It'll eat into their profit margins and they are doign fine with the oil showing up.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,991]

>But, I thought they were making soooooooo much money???

Jealous?

>10% of our refined gas is currently being brought in by tanker.
>Seems there may be some inconsistancy here?

Uh, no. Companies buy gas wherever it's cheaper. That's called capitalism. If you live in Wrangell, Alaska, it's probably going to be cheaper to buy a tanker of gasoline from Canada than it is to drill your own wells, set up a refinery and refine your own gas.

>You are in error here as siteing is going on near Souix City Iowa as I type

I don't think you even read what you reply to - or indeed your own replies.

>Where did I say this?

If you believe there is a refinery shortage, then basic economics would result in cheaper crude as the oil piles up, unable to be processed. Do you think crude is getting cheaper?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I'll agree with billvon on one subject. The oil companies don't want to build any new refineries. They are doing just fine with what they've got. Bush mentioned the lack of refineries a couple fo days ago. It was hogwash political posturing - just like the goofballs on the left.

The oil companies don't need to build new refineries. It'll eat into their profit margins and they are doign fine with the oil showing up.

I do not agree with you here. One of the reasons gas prices are so high is because the existing refineries have not been able to keep up. And in order to get over seas plants to make gas in thier low effeiceny plants we need to pay high dollars and ship it in. The US gasoline supply is currently 10% inported.

Add to this the dozens of differnt formulas required by different regulatory bodies and they have keep changing produciton runs.

And you can Google gas refinery in Souix City Iowa. The permits to build are being worked on now.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>One of the reasons gas prices are so high is because the
>existing refineries have not been able to keep up.

Do you have a single shred of proof of this?

>And you can Google gas refinery in Souix City Iowa. The permits to
>build are being worked on now.

Ah. So environmentalists are NOT stopping new refineries from being planned.