Dem frauds blame Bush for high gas prices

[Native American]

The Democrat Party becomes more disgusting, and more phony, with each passing day! The latest episode in that sick Party's 5-year "blame game" agenda? Now the Democrat Party is blaming Bush for high gasoline prices, even though it was President Bush and the GOP who have sought, repeatedly, to overcome the obstructionist Democrats who continue to block increasing our oil production in the Gulf of Mexico and in our huge Alaskan oil fields!

Cute. First the Democrat Party causes a problem (block the United States from increasing its domestic production of oil) then it blames the other party for that problem it has just created!

Today's Democrat Party is sick, sick, sick.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/18/060418211031.8onrfqm1.html

[The_Elucidator]

Among the 15 senators signing the letter were Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, and senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman.

I see it's the same merry band of idiots. But to be honest, I thought Joe Lieberman was a lot smarter than that. I guess bitter partisanship knows no bounds. I'm surprised that McCain or Snowe of Chaffe didn't sign the letter also.

You are correct sir in your analysis. If we had started drilling in Alaska, in the entire Gulf Coast region and off the entire West Coast we would be up to our necks in oil, and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

[Native American]

That's what I find so galling about this "leadership" tactic of the Democrat Party - the very things for which it keeps blaming those who are leading the country are caused by the Democrat Party behavior!

For example, the Democrats will raise taxes. Then when the economy slumps (like towards the end of the Clinton Administration) and some Republican has to step in and clean up the mess, the Democrats promptly begin blaming that Republican for "causing the problem"! Or when gas prices rise, due to the Democrats continuing to vote to obstruct drilling in ANWR and the Gulf, the Democrats begin blaming the Republicans (who have repeatedly voted for increasing our oil production in ANWR and the Gulf) for "causing high gasoline prices".

Not to mention the fact that the Democrats never present what their plan is for "fixing" the problem that they created! No, they merely whine and blame others who are working hard to fix the problems that they, the Democrats, created. The Democrat Party has no leadership skills whatsoever.

[Borgia]

Not to mention the fact that the Democrats never present what their plan is for "fixing" the problem that they created!

See, Native_American, since you obviosuly keep your eyes closed I am not surprised you think the Dems have not offered any solutions.

From the Dem website we have these bills that have been defeated by thet Republicans.

1. House Bill to have electric companies have 10% of their energy come from renewable sources. This would force them to invest in wind/solr/ and other alternate energy sources.
2. Make our strategic reserve larger
3. Tire efficiency program. Underinflated tires cost us almost half a million barrels of oil per day. Program to raise awareness and research into combating this problem.

Now, you may disagree with these programs but clearly you are misinformed when you say the Dems have never presented any solutions.

[Borgia]

By the way, I disagree with the Democrat's stance on ANWR. I say drill away!!!

[PaulRevere]

See, Native_American, since you obviosuly keep your eyes closed I am not surprised you think the Dems have not offered any solutions.

From the Dem website we have these bills that have been defeated by thet Republicans.

1. House Bill to have electric companies have 10% of their energy come from renewable sources. This would force them to invest in wind/solr/ and other alternate energy sources.
Just like a Rat: coerce through legislative fiat and expect private companies to figure out the details. Nevermind that wind and solar is not economically viable. If it adds to costs, TOUGH! It's for the public good. However, if it adds greatly to costs, cover it up with taxpayer subsidies.
2. Make our strategic reserve larger
And this would lower prices how?
3. Tire efficiency program. Underinflated tires cost us almost half a million barrels of oil per day. Program to raise awareness and research into combating this problem.
Great idea. Tire pressure police; complete with taxes and fines. We should have a government sponsored program to fight school tardiness, too.

Now, you may disagree with these programs but clearly you are misinformed when you say the Dems have never presented any solutions.

[Borgia]

Great idea. Tire pressure police; complete with taxes and fines.
Where did you get the idea of police involvement? I see that nowhere in the Dem bill. It is more about awareness and research.

I can see why you are against it when you make things up about it. LOL!

Anyway, my point is not to debate the merits of these proposals, but to show Native_American that he is wrong in his claim that the Dems have offered nothing. It really was simple for me to find htis info so I doubt Native_American even bothered educating himself before he posted his incorrect claim.

[dPrasse]

Actually , high gas prices were Algores plan to save the world ..... the higher the better ....

[Native American]

See, Native_American, since you obviosuly keep your eyes closed I am not surprised you think the Dems have not offered any solutions.

From the Dem website we have these bills that have been defeated by thet Republicans.

1. House Bill to have electric companies have 10% of their energy come from renewable sources. This would force them to invest in wind/solr/ and other alternate energy sources.

See, Borgia, since you obviously keep your eyes closed concerning the Democrat Party agenda, I am not surprised that you failed to recognize that what you listed above is a Socialist agenda.

That Socialist plan of the Democrats, to micromanage corporations and businesses in America, is wrongheaded and counterproductive. The Democrat Party might as well have dictated that the electric companies "produce 10% of their energy by burning cowchips". You see, Borgia, the electric companies know far better than the Democrats what makes economic sense in terms of energy production.

The Democrat Party can take its Socialist/Marxist agenda and shove it!

[Borgia]

See, Borgia, since you obviously keep your eyes closed concerning the Democrat Party agenda, I am not surprised that you failed to recognize that what you listed above is a Socialist agenda.

The Democrat Party can take its Socialist/Marxist agenda and shove it!

Socialist or not, your claim that the Democrats offered nothing was wrong. Glad you agree that you were wrong yet again.

[Native American]

Borgia, as I said, the Democrats never present what their plan is for fixing the problem that they created! In fact, your claimed "fix" that you allege the Democrat Party has put forth to correct the high gasoline prices that the Democrat Party obstructionism has caused was merely another round of Socialist proposals - namely, to dictate to power companies (who know far better than do the Democrats how to produce electricity!) that they produce electricity via windmills or burning cowchips, rather than producing electricity in the most economiically-feasible fashion!

So you see, once again, that the Democrat Party's "fix" for a problem would only create more problems. Wake up, Borgia - Socialism doesn't work! Which is one of the reasons why your beloved Democrat Party is a failure!

[Borgia]

Borgia, as I said, the Democrats never present what their plan is for fixing the problem that they created! In fact, your claimed "fix" that you allege the Democrat Party has put forth to correct the high gasoline prices that the Democrat Party obstructionism has caused was merely another round of Socialist proposals - namely, to dictate to power companies (who know far better than do the Democrats how to produce electricity!) that they produce electricity via windmills or burning cowchips, rather than producing electricity in the most economiically-feasible fashion!

So you see, once again, that the Democrat Party's "fix" for a problem would only create more problems. Wake up, Borgia - Socialism doesn't work! Which is one of the reasons why your beloved Democrat Party is a failure!

Again, you agree the Democrats proposed a plan so clearly you were wrong in stating earlier that they offered no solutions.

By the way, Bush's plan in ANWR/Gulf does not FIX the problem either. It helps, but does not FIX the problem.

We can argue whether these solutions help or hinder but it does nto change the FACT that Democrats have offered what they think are solutions.

[Borgia]

And I am not sure how Democrats created the oil problem. This has been going on for decades. Carter supproted alternate energy research yet Reagan cut the programs.

I wonder where we would be if those programs had not been cut by Reagan?

[Native American]

Again, you agree the Democrats proposed a plan so clearly you were wrong in stating earlier that they offered no solutions.

Apparently you are too stupid to understand that there is a difference between the socialist Democrats offering a plan and offering a solution that would actually fix something, Borgia.

[Borgia]

Apparently you are too stupid to understand that there is a difference between the socialist Democrats offering a plan and offering a solution that would actually fix something, Borgia.

I wa not arguing whether it would work or not. I merely countered your claim that the Dems offered nothing.

[dPrasse]

Apparently you are too stupid to understand that there is a difference between the socialist Democrats offering a plan and offering a solution that would actually fix something, Borgia.

That is not a Borgia-exclusive problem ... that is a problem of all socialists ...

[Native American]

I wa not arguing whether it would work or not. I merely countered your claim that the Dems offered nothing.

Now you're lying about what I said. Sure, the Democrats offer all sorts of sh*t, most of it Socialist in nature. What the Democrat Party does not offer is any useful solutions to the problems America faces, and in fact mostly what the Democrat Party offers us is nothing more than mere complaining and whining. And what few "solutions" the Democrat Party puts forth (like your crappy Socialist example earlier about how the Democrat Party proposes to micromanage the power companies) aren't actual fixes or solutions at all! On the contrary, they are merely more Socialist proposals, and Socialism is a failure, Borgia.

Wake up, you ignorant (but obedient) little Democrat drone!

[Rhino]

Okay, so they never offered a workable plan.

[Borgia]

I am not sure what is socialist in nature about "tire efficiency" programs that are targeted to raise awareness of the issue, and to perform research into means of maintaining tire pressure.

As an aside, you all claim socialism is failure yet so many countries in Europe have had it for a long time. I don't see it failing in Finland. Or in Norway. Nor do I see it failing in Sweden. I am NOT saying socialism is better than our system, but to claim it is a failure seems to be ignoring plenty of successful countries.

[Rhino]

Many there would disagree, but I guess that's a given. Dissent is everywhere.

[Native American]

As an aside, you all claim socialism is failure yet so many countries in Europe have had it for a long time.

It's hardly an "aside", since it's what the Democrat Party continues to advocate as its "solution" for America.

And while you are indeed correct that Europe has been plagued with Socialism for years and years, it's also a fact that it shows.

If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states. France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany have lower GDP per capita than all but four of the states in the United States. In fact, GDP per capita is lower in the vast majority of the EU-countries (EU 15) than in most of the individual American states. This puts Europeans at a level of prosperity on par with states such as Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia. Only the miniscule country of Luxembourg has higher per capita GDP than the average state in the USA.

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

Wake up, Borgia! Your beloved Socialism is a failure.

[Borgia]

Despite your claims that socialism in Europe has failed, I have yet to see any countries fail or they have any problems any more serious than ours.

[Telit laikitiz]

I am not sure what is socialist in nature about "tire efficiency" programs that are targeted to raise awareness of the issue, and to perform research into means of maintaining tire pressure.

As an aside, you all claim socialism is failure yet so many countries in Europe have had it for a long time. I don't see it failing in Finland. Or in Norway. Nor do I see it failing in Sweden. I am NOT saying socialism is better than our system, but to claim it is a failure seems to be ignoring plenty of successful countries.
:hissyfit:
I know it makes no sense to tell you anything because you have shown thus far that you are unchangeable. However, 1) How would you enFORCE car owners to maintain proper air pressure? 2) What would maintaining proper tire pressure do to bring down gas prices? 3) First tire pressure laws, and what next? Some people will not qualify to buy a car so we can keep the number of cars down? for example?

And now about socialism. Do you live in Scandinavia? Prove to us that socialism is successful. Only 3 countries are successful socialist countries? How do you measure success? Are there countries where socialism is the cause of their troubles? This is just a start, but I hope others will pitch in.

So how about it Borgia, can you reply?

[Telit laikitiz]

Despite your claims that socialism in Europe has failed, I have yet to see any countries fail or they have any problems any more serious than ours.

You don't get out much do you? I guess you haven't noticed how successful we are in the U.S. People from socialist countries are literally dieing to get here, even if they spend life in jail, its better than their own country. You have yet to see because you have yet to look, but I understand, you are an ostrich with his head in the sand, if you don't see a problem, there is no problem. Dems and libs, who needs 'em!

[Borgia]

:hissyfit:
I know it makes no sense to tell you anything because you have shown thus far that you are unchangeable. However, 1) How would you enFORCE car owners to maintain proper air pressure?

Who said anything about enforcement? Where do you get such ideas? I said that it woul dbe about EDUCATION and RESEARCH. Education to show people they can save money by keeping their tires within spec and RESEARCH into tires that coudl more easily maintain their pressures voer time.


2) What would maintaining proper tire pressure do to bring down gas prices?

Let's see. This is basic Econ 101. If we saved gas by using less, basic supply and demand would dictate that the price would drop due to less demand.


3) First tire pressure laws, and what next? Some people will not qualify to buy a car so we can keep the number of cars down? for example?
Again, who said anything about tire pressure laws. You guys keep making that stuff up.

[Borgia]

You don't get out much do you? I guess you haven't noticed how successful we are in the U.S. People from socialist countries are literally dieing to get here, even if they spend life in jail, its better than their own country. You have yet to see because you have yet to look, but I understand, you are an ostrich with his head in the sand, if you don't see a problem, there is no problem. Dems and libs, who needs 'em!

Yes, we are successful in the US. I do note deny that. Of course, the error in your logic is thinking that our success had any bearing on whether they are successful. They can be successful too.

As to socialist country citizens wanting to emigrate here, that is true for some I am sure. But not all. I do not see a long list of Swedes trying to enter the US. OR Norwegians. Or Belgiums. Or Danes. Or Finns. Need I go on?

Now I have actually been to some of these "socialist" countries and the citizens there are quite happy. I even asked a couple if they wanted to move here to the US and the said "no way". You see, it helps to actually have first-hand experience instead of just guessing. Your comment about jials is intersting. Do you really think all these socialist countries have jails full of political dissidents?

[Rhino]

Now I have actually been to some of these "socialist" countries and the citizens there are quite happy. I even asked a couple if they wanted to move here to the US and the said "no way". You see, it helps to actually have first-hand experience instead of just guessing.Yes, it does. And my first hand experience reveals that many from those countries feel exactly the opposite from what you heard. As I said earlier, opinions will vary anywhere you go, but their citizens are far from universally happy with their systems. Many of them are also unaware of the alternatives. Quite a few foreigners who come here are amazed because what they experience here is not nearly the same as what they expected from what they were told about America at home.

[Borgia]

Yes, it does. And my first hand experience reveals that many from those countries feel exactly the opposite from what you heard. As I said earlier, opinions will vary anywhere you go, but their citizens are far from universally happy with their systems. Many of them are also unaware of the alternatives. Quite a few foreigners who come here are amazed because what they experience here is not nearly the same as what they expected from what they were told about America at home.

Of course opinions will vary. Many of our citizens are far from universally happy too. Many of our citizens (including many here) are unaware of the alternatives. I would imagine some here would be amazed because what they experience in Europe is not nearly the same as what they expected from what they were told about Europe.

The few that I mentioned, all have been to the US numerous times, a couple even living here, and all preferred Europe. That is not to say they hated hte US or anything, jsut preferred Europe.

[Native American]

Of course opinions will vary.

Which is why, unlike you, I prefer to use hard numbers rather than personal opinion.

If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states.

France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany have lower GDP per capita than all but four of the states in the United States.

In fact, GDP per capita is lower in the vast majority of the EU-countries (EU 15) than in most of the individual American states. This puts Europeans at a level of prosperity on par with states such as Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia.

Only the miniscule country of Luxembourg has higher per capita GDP than the average state in the USA.

Wake up, Borgia.

[Naturalized-Texan]

The reason for the high gasoline prices is nothing more than the most basic law of economics: The law of supply and demand.

The supply of gasoline is declining because of the switchover in refining from fuel oil to gasoline while the demand is rising as we approcch the summer travel season. Compounding the problem is the fact that price of crude oil is at an all-time high, also due to that same law of economics.

[Telit laikitiz]

The reason for the high gasoline prices is nothing more than the most basic law of economics: The law of supply and demand.

The supply of gasoline is declining because of the switchover in refining from fuel oil to gasoline while the demand is rising as we approcch the summer travel season. Compounding the problem is the fact that price of crude oil is at an all-time high, also due to that same law of economics.

There is more to it than just supply and demand. What about the way Iran has been acting and that has caused crude prices to go up. Venuzuela is causing prices to rise too. And what about democrats and liberals? Sure, supply and demand, but other forces control the supply. And what of taxes on gasoline? The government gets more from taxes the higher the gas goes up, and who likes to get tax money the most? But let's get down to brass tacks, shall we, it is all about global warming and spreading the wealth with all the poor suckers who believe their stupid socialist garbage. Yeah, liberalism and socialism, there are two of your culprits right there.

[Borgia]

And what of taxes on gasoline? The government gets more from taxes the higher the gas goes up, and who likes to get tax money the most?

Um, just sticking my head in here to correct your statement here. Taxes on gasoline are a flat fee and not a percentage. Thus, govt revenue DOES NOT rise with rising gas prices.

In actuality, govt revenues probably FALL when prices rise as the law of supply and demand dictates that gas consumption increases with increasing prices. So decreased demand (consumption) will result in less govt revenues.

Just helping you out here.

[Native American]

For once, Borgia actually managed a correct post....

[The_Elucidator]

1. House Bill to have electric companies have 10% of their energy come from renewable sources. This would force them to invest in wind/solr/ and other alternate energy sources.

Wind has been tried in PA and MASS but the same Lawmaker Libs that scream for this stuff don't want it in their back yard ala (Ted Kennedy). Also PETA is upset because waterfowl fly into the massive blades...

2. Make our strategic reserve larger

W is already doing this...Chucky Schumer and company want W to release the reserves to ease the skyrocketing prices they caused by not drilling on American soil.

3. Tire efficiency program. Underinflated tires cost us almost half a million barrels of oil per day. Program to raise awareness and research into combating this problem.

Give me a break!



Kind of like pouring a glass of water over a waterfall.

[DoctorDoom]

The Borg are here! Unfortunately.

From the Dem website we have these bills that have been defeated by thet Republicans.

1. House Bill to have electric companies have 10% of their energy come from renewable sources. This would force them to invest in wind/solr/ and other alternate energy sources.That's typical RAT bullshit, although if we could harness the endless gales of hot air from those morons, we could power the country. That's NOT a practical "solution". In fact it's not even an IMpractical solution. However, so that you have a microclue ...

(CBS) It reads like a summer novel. The location is one of the nation's prized resort areas, comprising Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket -- playgrounds for the wealthy and powerful.

CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston reports Jim Gordon has an idea that's shaking things up in these New England communities. He's a developer who wants to use wind power to replace electric power plants and the pollution they cause.

"Wind mills are an icon on the Cape and islands," he says. "So, what we're doing is kind of going back to the future and addressing the present day problems that we have now, such as global warming and climate change, by building a clean, green, renewable energy project."

But the idea has raised a storm among some residents, because Gordon wants to build his windmills in the middle of Nantucket sound.

[snip]

State Sen. Rob O'Leary represents the Cape Cod region. He points to a 200-foot weather tower that Gordon built in the middle of the proposed wind farm. It's half as tall as the wind turbines. O'Leary says he support wind power in principle, just not at that location.

"The problem is that they're going to be visible. And they're going to be visible at night and they're going to be visible during the day and they're going to be lit up," says O'Leary. "It's a big problem. Nantucket Sound is a unique place. It's why a quarter of a million people live here on Cape Cod and why people come here by the millions. It's a precious resource. I think this project is just too big and it's in the wrong place."

Gordon says the wind towers would only be a blip on the horizon — barely visible when viewed from the nearest beach.

[snip]

The campaign to stop the wind farms was started by Cape Cod merchants and wealthy landowners. It's also opposed by almost every town government. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who has a home overlooking the proposed wind farm, also opposes the project. So does one of Martha's Vineyard most famous residents, former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite.Storm Over Mass. Windmill Plan (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/26/sunday/main560595.shtml)

"The problem is that they're going to be visible," says the RAT O'Leary. DUH! Does the ignorant son of a bitch think windmills can be built underground or underwater? The fact that they'll be visible with binoculars as blips on the horizon on a crystal-clear day is immaterial to the jerk.

O'Leary aside, there is not a Republican of note on Cape Cod. Therefore 100% of the opposition to the windpower facility is from RATs. The RATs are in favor of anything that is utterly impractical but that sounds good. However, when someone actually wants to do what they propose, the screeching RAT assholes rise up against it. Every time.

2. Make our strategic reserve largerLeave it to the rats to call that stupid concept a "plan". Again, they're blowing smoke out their recta and their fawning disciples are calling it a sign from heaven.

Actually, our supply of oil is not that weak. Here's the REAL problem.

About 100 miles southwest of Phoenix, in a remote patch off Interstate 8, Glenn McGinnis is seeking to do something that has not been done for 29 years in the United States. He is trying to build an oil refinery.

Part of his job is to persuade local officials and residents to allow a 150,000-barrel-a-day refinery in their backyard - no small task. Another is to find investors ready to risk $2.5 billion in a volatile industry. So far, the effort has consumed six years and $30 million, with precious little to show for it.

Oil industry analysts and trade organizations like the American Petroleum Institute say they know of no one else doing the same thing.

Even so, Mr. McGinnis - an industry veteran who joined Arizona Clean Fuels last year as chief executive to give the project more heft against long odds - cleared a significant hurdle recently when Arizona awarded him a crucial emissions permit. Still ahead are countless rounds of negotiations with local, state and federal agencies to secure dozens more permits.

Meanwhile, the 1,400-acre site picked for the refinery, an old citrus grove near the Mexican border, remains empty, a sign of why the United States is now grappling with an acute shortage of plants that can refine the more than 20 million of barrels of crude oil that the country consumes every day.US: No New Refineries in 29 Years (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12227)

If the refineries are maxed out, no amount of crude oil will make a difference. And it's not Republicans that are spearheading the war against the building of new refineries.

3. Tire efficiency program. Underinflated tires cost us almost half a million barrels of oil per day.According to whom? Some looneytoon envirowacko group? Facts and figures, please, with sources.

Program to raise awareness and research into combating this problem.That has to be the dumbest idea yet, but no micromanagement proposal is so stupid that the RATs won't embrace it.

Now, you may disagree with these programs ...May??? It's a 100% certainty.

... but clearly you are misinformed when you say the Dems have never presented any solutions.Only a liberal would call those idiotic ideas "solutions".

[dPrasse]

And you ought to hear the Libs scream bloody murder when a company tries to build an ethanol plant ... Good Lord Almighty .... one would think they were trying to build a chem weapons lab ...

As far as the best energy producer the US could have had ... that idjut Jimmy Cahter killed the Breeder Reactor research ...

ALL of our energy problems can be put at the feet of Socialist /Liberal/Commies ...

[DoctorDoom]

As far as the best energy producer the US could have had ... that idjut Jimmy Cahter killed the Breeder Reactor research ...Yep. With breeder technology and existing supplies of fuel, we could power an all-nuclear economy for half a millenium.

For the unacquainted:

Fast Breeder Reactors

Under appropriate operating conditions, the neutrons given off by fission reactions can "breed" more fuel from otherwise non-fissionable isotopes. The most common breeding reaction is that of plutonium-239 from non-fissionable uranium-238. The term "fast breeder" refers to the types of configurations which can actually produce more fissionable fuel than they use, such as the LMFBR. This scenario is possible because the non-fissionable uranium-238 is 140 times more abundant than the fissionable U-235 and can be efficiently converted into Pu-239 by the neutrons from a fission chain reaction.

France has made the largest implementation of breeder reactors with its large Super-Phenix reactor and an intermediate scale reactor (BN-600) on the Caspian Sea for electric power and desalinization.Fast Breeder Reactors (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/nucene/fasbre.html)

At 12:30 am, on August 26, 1977, the operators at the Shippingport Atomic Power Station began lifting the central modules of the experimental breeder reactor core into the blanket section. At 04:38 am, the reactor reached criticality. During the next five years, the core produced more than 10 billion kilowatt-hours of thermal power - equivalent to about 2.5 billion kilowatt hours of electrical power - with a current retail value of approximately $200 million.

It showed no signs of approaching the end of its useful life. It was obvious from the core performance that the reactor was at least a very efficient converter with a long life core. However, in October, 1982, the reactor was shut down for the final time under budgetary pressures and a desire to conduct the detailed fuel examination needed to determine if breeding had actually occurred.

A report on the experiment was quietly issued in 1987. The core contained approximately 1.3% more fissile material after producing heat for five years than it did before initial operation. Breeding had occurred in a light water reactor system using most of the same equipment as used for conventional reactor plants.Light Water Breeder Reactor (http://www.atomicinsights.com/oct95/LWBR_oct95.html)

Naturally, the anti-newkewlar loonies and their political bedfellows squelched breeders along with regular nukes. It's one more reason why politicians should have no say in energy matters.

[nene]

Seems to me that more is at play than the law of "supply and demand" with regards to the price of gas. When Exxon and others report record profits never seen before in this industry, one can conclude that increase profits is the primary motivation for the price increases at the pump. Supply and demand has very little to do with it. Exploitation of the problems in Iraq and Iran for profit is probably a better explanation. The gap between the supply of gas and the demand for it has not widened to the extent that it would drive prices to double in two years.

[Nutrider99]

Seems to me that more is at play than the law of "supply and demand" with regards to the price of gas. When Exxon and others report record profits never seen before in this industry, one can conclude that increase profits is the primary motivation for the price increases at the pump.
Exxon does not control the price at the pump.

Record profits correlate to record expenditures. The percentage of markup remains the same, but when the prices soar the profits soar accordingly. Commodities traders have more impact on the price of oil then Exxon does, but then why interrupt a prefectly good hatred with facts.

At the pumps, your local service station makes LESS money when prices climb. Why? Because his profits are per the gallon, usually 6-10 cents depending on the competition. Higher fuel prices result in fewer gallons pumped. The greatest profits are made by people who handle crude, not the refined product. Even then, they have the highest risk.

Supply and demand has very little to do with it.
Supply and demand has everything to do with it. The world demand for oil is increasing geometrically as nations become more industrialized. At the same time, exploration and drilling is being halted by environmentally correct policies that have hamstrung increased production. Meanwhile, surveys of the world's oil reserves have demonstrated that rather than being depleted, the planet is nearly drowning in oil. All we have to do is pump it out.

Even if we had rivers of oil, we can't refine it because we have built no refineries. Since we do not have enough refineries, we also don't have enough storage. Consequently, any hint of disaster causes and immediate spike in prices since we can't weather ANY interruption of supply.

In short, our politicians are guilty of 26 years of criminal negligance. America's energy policy is non-existent. We rely more than ever on our ENEMIES to keep the price of oil affordable.

Exploitation of the problems in Iraq and Iran for profit is probably a better explanation.
Iraqi oil is flowing at record rates. Remember the previous embargo and oil for food???

The gap between the supply of gas and the demand for it has not widened to the extent that it would drive prices to double in two years.

A statement born in ignorance. The THREAT of a shortage is enough to double prices in two days. We have no reserves. Anyone who thinks that properly inflating tires is going to make up for doubling our energy use and not increasing production is either naive or stupid.

[Telit laikitiz]

Um, just sticking my head in here to correct your statement here. Taxes on gasoline are a flat fee and not a percentage. Thus, govt revenue DOES NOT rise with rising gas prices.

In actuality, govt revenues probably FALL when prices rise as the law of supply and demand dictates that gas consumption increases with increasing prices. So decreased demand (consumption) will result in less govt revenues.

Just helping you out here.

Thanks for the help. I have asked many questions, its good to get answers. You answered one question. Thanks. But if that flat fee was reduced, wouldn't prices go down? Isn't this all really about global warming and not high fuel prices? And about Iran? And about Venezuela? And about kyoto protocol?

[Timberwolf]

The following is a letter to the editor that I'll be submitting as soon as my email client decides to start working. I sent this to President Bush, VP Cheney, Rush, Sean, and a whole host of others back in September and received no response.

Concerning the upward spiral of crude oil/gasoline prices, I think I have at least a partial solution. The reasoning behind this comes from Peter Beutel. He is the president of Cameron Hanover, an energy risk management firm in New Canaan, Connecticut. His contention is that crude oil and gasoline are becoming more and more "commoditized" and thus, they will behave as other commodities such as soybeans, international currency, precious metals, etc.

Since these other commodities fluctuate more due to perception and speculation rather than reality (soybean prices spike during forecasted drought...gold prices spike during perceived inflation, etc), I suggest that President Bush issue an Executive Order stating that the United States will immediately begin exploiting our domestic oil reserves in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and along the Pacific Coast. He should also include in this announcement that we will begin building nuclear power plants and oil refineries in the effort to not only reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but increase our ability to keep up with demand until such time as viable alternatives become a reality. This announcement, in my humble opinion, would cause crude prices to fall by at least $30 / barrel and quite likely more. An Executive Order carries the weight of law unless rescinded by an act of Congress within 60 days. Basically, the President introduces signed legislation to Congress upon which they MUST act or it becomes law.

When I suggested this idea to Mr. Beutel, he said that it was the first time, in his 30-year career, he had heard of such an idea. He also said it was a good one and, more importantly, just might work.

Conservation by itself will not work, according to an engineer with Ford Motor Co (I apologize that I cannot recall his name). He stated that even if everyone, who drove a motor vehicle - including semis and public transportation - were to begin driving hybrid vehicles tomorrow, in 6 years we'd be right back in the same boat we're in today due to increasing demand for gasoline.

I don't know about anyone who may be reading this, but I'm sick and tired of being held hostage by OPEC, Big Oil, natural disasters, environmentalists, politicians, and the like, who only have retaining their power at heart, rather than the best interests of the entire country.

[DeclinetoState]

I am not sure what is socialist in nature about "tire efficiency" programs that are targeted to raise awareness of the issue, and to perform research into means of maintaining tire pressure.


There are two devices I have heard of that come in useful here: one is a tire pump; the other is a tire pressure gauge. Like condoms, they're inexpensive and fairly easy to use, but some seem to think that spending beaucoup bucks on "education" or "forcing" people to use them will make a meaningful difference in the world.

Never overestimate the intelligence of a liberal.

[Borgia]

Thanks for the help. I have asked many questions, its good to get answers. You answered one question. Thanks. But if that flat fee was reduced, wouldn't prices go down? Isn't this all really about global warming and not high fuel prices? And about Iran? And about Venezuela? And about kyoto protocol?

Sure, the flat fee could be reduced which would result in;

1. Lower gas prices
2. Lower revenue for the govt

As for your other queries, I am not sure where global warming plays into it a whole lot. Venezuela and Iran certainly can and do give us a squeeze to some extent. And we are not sgners of the Kyoto protocol so it has no effect.

[Borgia]

He should also include in this announcement that we will begin building nuclear power plants and oil refineries in the effort to not only reduce our dependence on foreign oil,

I actually have no problem with your solutions yet isn't the above, socialism? Where is it the business of the govt to be building power plants and refineries? Businesses have not done so because it is not economically feasible to do so. That may change, but shouldn't we let the market handle these items and not have socialism?


Conservation by itself will not work, according to an engineer with Ford Motor Co (I apologize that I cannot recall his name). He stated that even if everyone, who drove a motor vehicle - including semis and public transportation - were to begin driving hybrid vehicles tomorrow, in 6 years we'd be right back in the same boat we're in today due to increasing demand for gasoline.
Clearly conservation would help though. The engineer is a bit daffy since that increased demand will occur whether we use hybrids or not. I'd rather it be handled by the hybrid technology than have to buy more oil.


I don't know about anyone who may be reading this, but I'm sick and tired of being held hostage by OPEC, Big Oil, natural disasters, environmentalists, politicians, and the like, who only have retaining their power at heart, rather than the best interests of the entire country.

Isn't Big Oil just participating in the free market? That is capitalism. Why don't you like it?

[Borgia]

There are two devices I have heard of that come in useful here: one is a tire pump; the other is a tire pressure gauge. Like condoms, they're inexpensive and fairly easy to use, but some seem to think that spending beaucoup bucks on "education" or "forcing" people to use them will make a meaningful difference in the world.

Never overestimate the intelligence of a liberal.

Well, you can say we need do nothing and watch us continue to waste so much oil or you can try to alleviate the problem. I see which camp you fall in.

The reality is a lot fo tires are underinflated. We can't count on everyone to be as responsible as you are, much as we wish they would be. So perhaps research so that when tires roll over a curb, they don't lose air pressure. Or perhaps better barrier properties in the rubbers themselves so we avoid permeability issues.

[DoctorDoom]

Well, you can say we need do nothing and watch us continue to waste so much oil ...You have yet to provide the research and the data to support the claim that underinflated tires waste 500K bbls/day. However, that crap is not nearly so oil-consuming as other auto-related issues.

• Running with lights on in daylight hours wastes fuel by forcing the engine to generate the electricity for them. Yet many cars have lights on whenever the engine is running. The government must abolish the rules that mandate it.

• The use of heavier-than-necessary oil puts a drag on the engine. The government must require low-viscosity oil.

• Automatic transmissions waste fuel because of fluid pumps. The government must outlaw them and require manual transmissions.

• Driving with windows open wastes fuel by interrupting the aerodynamics of the vehicle. The government must require that windows be made unopenable.

• Auto air conditioning is a notorious power-waster. The government must forbid the use of A/C. You southern-states folks will appreciate the fuel savings as you drive in your non-A/C car with closed windows in mid-summer.

• Flags on antennas create drag. The government must disallow them (except for Mexican flags, of course).

• Dirt on the vehicle creates air friction. The government must require that all cars be washed at the first sign of dirt or dust.

• Overweight drivers and passengers put needless strain on the engine, wasting fuel. The government must institute mandatory weight control of all people who drive or ride in cars.

• Cars with more than one person are inefficient because they must be large enough to accommodate multiple occupants. The governmernt must abolish all multi-passenger vehicles and force Americans to drive truly energy-efficient cars.

<center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/ToyotaPM.jpg" /></center>

Etcetera etcetera. You're missing the Big Picture, liberal. Where is your highly vaunted concern for saving oil when you ignore everything but underinflated tires?

... or you can try to alleviate the problem.And you, liberal, propose to do that by (Surprise! Surprise!) more government.

I see which camp you fall in.The camp that doesn't have its collective head buried in the ass of Big Government.

The reality is a lot fo tires are underinflated.The reality is that if every f**king liberal social-engineer wannabe would use bicycles rather than driving, disconnect the power lines to their homes, and stop breathing to reduce CO₂ emissions, we could far more than offset the highly questionable stats on underinflated tires.

We can't count on everyone to be as responsible as you are, much as we wish they would be.And therefore a federal Tire Inflation Agency must be created to enforce the latest example of the insufferable, exponentially increasing intrusion into even the smallest, most insignificant aspects of American life.

You sound like this infamous quotation from your god:

"We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right... But ... if you don't spend it right, here's what's going to happen. In 2013—that's just 14 years away—taxes people pay on their payroll for Social Security will no longer cover the monthly checks... I want every parent here to look at the young people here, and ask yourself, 'Do you really want to run the risk of squandering this surplus?' "
-- Source: Washington Times, January 21, 1999, re Bill Clinton speaking in Buffalo, NY on January 20, 1999. He was responding to someone who asked why there should not be not a tax cut if we have a surplus.

So perhaps research so that when tires roll over a curb, they don't lose air pressure. Or perhaps better barrier properties in the rubbers themselves so we avoid permeability issues.Kid, we don't care.

[DeclinetoState]

The reality is a lot fo tires are underinflated. We can't count on everyone to be as responsible as you are, much as we wish they would be. So perhaps research so that when tires roll over a curb, they don't lose air pressure.

Clearly, we must abolish curbs so that tires won't be able to roll over them.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Seems to me that more is at play than the law of "supply and demand" with regards to the price of gas. When Exxon and others report record profits never seen before in this industry, one can conclude that increase profits is the primary motivation for the price increases at the pump. Supply and demand has very little to do with it. Exploitation of the problems in Iraq and Iran for profit is probably a better explanation. The gap between the supply of gas and the demand for it has not widened to the extent that it would drive prices to double in two years.
Exxon only earned a profit of about 10% on its sales in 2005 - 10 cents on every dollar of sales - lower than most American corporations. Other big oil companies earned even less (As I remember, BP-Amoco made about 7 cents on every dollar of sales.). There is nothing exorbitant about a 10% profit or less.

Contrast ththe above with the 11.6% profit earned by McDonald's. Is McDonald's gouging? Of course not. Are the oil companies gouging? Of course not.

[nene]

Record profits correlate to record expenditures. Not necessarily. Record profits can be the result of increasing prices without having an increase in expenditures. Usually if a business raises their prices due to increase expenditures, it generally results in a decline in profits because sales go down. Think the airline industry.
The percentage of markup remains the same, but when the prices soar the profits soar accordingly. This doesn’t make sense. If increase expenditures and increase in prices are proportional so that the profit margin is as before per unit of measure, profits will remain the same. The output of Exxon (and others) has not increased to account for such increase in profits.
<O:p
Commodities traders have more impact on the price of oil then Exxon does, but then why interrupt a prefectly good hatred with facts. Hatred may be your purview, it’s not mine.

Supply and demand has everything to do with it. The world demand for oil is increasing geometrically as nations become more industrialized. At the same time, exploration and drilling is being halted by environmentally correct policies that have hamstrung increased production. Meanwhile, surveys of the world's oil reserves have demonstrated that rather than being depleted, the planet is nearly drowning in oil. All we have to do is pump it out...

Even if we had rivers of oil, we can't refine it because we have built no refineries. Since we do not have enough refineries, we also don't have enough storage. Consequently, any hint of disaster causes and immediate spike in prices since we can't weather ANY interruption of supply…
<O:p
In short, our politicians are guilty of 26 years of criminal negligance. America's energy policy is non-existent. We rely more than ever on our ENEMIES to keep the price of oil affordable.
Yes, I’ve heard all this before. Nothing new.

<O:p</O:p
A statement born in ignorance. The THREAT of a shortage is enough to double prices in two days. We have no reserves. Yes, in theory. The THREAT has proven very profitable. I guess for the sake of these companies, may the THREAT continue to escalate so that even more record profits may be realized.
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Anyone who thinks that properly inflating tires is going to make up for doubling our energy use and not increasing production is either naive or stupid.Yes.

[nene]

Exxon only earned a profit of about 10% on its sales in 2005 - 10 cents on every dollar of sales - lower than most American corporations. Other big oil companies earned even less (As I remember, BP-Amoco made about 7 cents on every dollar of sales.). There is nothing exorbitant about a 10% profit or less.

Contrast ththe above with the 11.6% profit earned by McDonald's. Is McDonald's gouging? Of course not. Are the oil companies gouging? Of course not.Yes, but from what I hear, Exxon and others output has not increased but may have actually declined a bit. So, if the output is the same, and the profit margin per unit of measure is the same, how can profits go up 75%?

[The_Sonarman]

"Profits going up 75%" from 10% means profits were 17.5%

Not only that, those "outrageous profits" weren't given to the shareholders. Those profits are mainly being plowed back into searching for and developing new oil sources. It isn't money sitting in "Big Oil's" bank account.

Profits didn't suddenly go to "75%". Profits increased from about 10-11 cents to the 17-18 percent range, depending on which oil company you're talking about.

For example, banks average about 21% profit.

[nene]

"Profits going up 75%" from 10% means profits were 17.5%...

Profits didn't suddenly go to "75%". Profits increased from about 10-11 cents to the 17-18 percent range, depending on which oil company you're talking about.This is only in comparison to the same period the year before which also had record profits. Going back to 2001, it's been a helluva ride. There can be no denying that 9/11 and the war in Iraq has been good for the oil companies, IMO.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Yes, but from what I hear, Exxon and others output has not increased but may have actually declined a bit. So, if the output is the same, and the profit margin per unit of measure is the same, how can profits go up 75%?
The profit percentage didn't go up. It remained the same. For example, say Exxon's total sales in 2004 were $20 Billion and their profits were $2 billion (10%). Then if their sales increased in 2005 by 75% to $35 Billion, their profits would also increase by 75% to $3.5 Billion (still 10%). No matter how one spins it, a 10% profit is NOT gouging; is NOT exorbitant.

BTW, according to an Exxon stockholder who called Rush yesterday, Exxon paid over $23 billion in federal income taxes for 2005, probably also up by 75%. Now, that IS exorbitant!

[nicki33]

BTW, according to an Exxon stockholder who called Rush yesterday, Exxon paid over $23 billion in federal income taxes for 2005, probably also up by 75%. Now, that IS exorbitant!

I love Rush! And by the way, in addition to those federal taxes, states also take their "fair" share of taxes.

:bdh:

[Nutrider99]

Yes, but from what I hear, Exxon and others output has not increased but may have actually declined a bit. So, if the output is the same, and the profit margin per unit of measure is the same, how can profits go up 75%?
Crude is now $75. per gallon. Ten percent of $50. is $5. Ten percent of $75. is $7.50. Since $7.50 is 50% more than $5., you have a 50% increase in profits with the same profit margin.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I love Rush! And by the way, in addition to those federal taxes, states also take their "fair" share of taxes.

:bdh:
Yeah. Since Exxon and other Big Oil companies give their stockholders a huge chunk of their profits in the form of dividends, the feds and the states are really the gougers because of their exorbitant tax bills. Also, those companies have to make us pay more for gasoline in order to pay their tax bills. As Rush pointed out, those taxing entities should rescind their taxes, at least temporarily, in order to lower the price of gasoline for us consumers.

[nicki33]

Yeah. Since Exxon and other Big Oil companies give their stockholders a huge chunk of their profits in the form of dividends, the feds and the states are really the gougers because of their exorbitant tax bills. Also, those companies have to make us pay more for gasoline in order to pay their tax bills. As Rush pointed out, those taxing entities should rescind their taxes, at least temporarily, in order to lower the price of gasoline for us consumers.


AMEN brother!

[PeaceDog]

Yeah, Bush threatening to nuke Iran had NOTHING to do wit the increase in gas prices over the last several weeks. Get a clue, losers.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Yeah, Bush threatening to nuke Iran had NOTHING to do wit the increase in gas prices over the last several weeks. Get a clue, losers.

Why don't you go back to your hole with the rest of the dickslaps, mo cheese?

[nicki33]

Yeah, Bush threatening to nuke Iran had NOTHING to do wit the increase in gas prices over the last several weeks. Get a clue, losers.



PeaceDog, are your kidding? Do you really think high gas prices are caused by Bush? If so, you need to get a clue! Stop believing everything you hear on CNN and CBS news.

Unfortunately, I do not know how to include a link yet to prove my points, but I will find out soon.

By the Way.......Go away Troll!

[nene]

The profit percentage didn't go up. It remained the same. For example, say Exxon's total sales in 2004 were $20 Billion and their profits were $2 billion (10%). Then if their sales increased (emphasis by nene) in 2005 by 75% to $35 Billion, their profits would also increase by 75% to $3.5 Billion (still 10%). No matter how one spins it, a 10% profit is NOT gouging; is NOT exorbitant.

BTW, according to an Exxon stockholder who called Rush yesterday, Exxon paid over $23 billion in federal income taxes for 2005, probably also up by 75%. Now, that IS exorbitant!That's just it, their sales didn't go up. Their output did not increase.

[nene]

Yeah, Bush threatening to nuke Iran had NOTHING to do wit the increase in gas prices over the last several weeks. Get a clue, losers.Dolt, you haven't a clue.

[sunsettommy]

From the Washington Post,

From the Oil Well to the Pump

<img src="http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/04/21/GR2006042100040.gif" width="727" height="326"</img>
SOURCES: Energy Information Administration, Bloomberg | GRAPHIC: Karen Yourish and David Murray, The Washington Post - April 21, 2006


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/04/21/GR2006042100040.html

[DoctorDoom]

Unfortunately, I do not know how to include a link yet to prove my points, but I will find out soon.You can do it one of two ways.

1. Copy the page URL from the browser's address bar and paste it into the post. The software will automatically make a link out of it.

2. Use the vB URL codes. Here's what it looks like, with added spaces to prevent it from activating. The URL is for this thread (the bold codes are optional - I use them to highlight links).

[ b][ url=http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=34578] Dem frauds blame Bush for high gas prices[/url][/b]

With the spaces after the [ removed:

Dem frauds blame Bush for high gas prices (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=34578)

The second method is much better for really long URLs.

[DoctorDoom]

Yeah, Bush threatening to nuke Iran had NOTHING to do wit the increase in gas prices over the last several weeks. Get a clue, losers.That's twice in two posts, "loser". Know any other words?

[Naturalized-Texan]

That's just it, their sales didn't go up. Their output did not increase.
Their sales DID go up - by 75% - just as their profits did. That's the only way that their profits could remain at 10% of sales.

I see that you are deficient in mathematics. Are you a product of government schools with labor-union teachers?

[Naturalized-Texan]

I have a feeling that PeaceDog, the terrorist-loving appeaser, won't last long here.

[ibadreamer]

so if we have airless tires we wouldn't have a gas price problem. that should be easy to fix.

[nene]

Their sales DID go up - by 75% - just as their profits did. That's the only way that their profits could remain at 10% of sales. No sales did not go up.

I see that you are deficient in mathematics. Are you a product of government schools with labor-union teachers?

No, foolish old man. You on the other hand are an impertinent buffoon whose stupidity is compounded by the fact that you are elderly and still act like a dumb ass. Yet you have the audacity to question someone's intellect. Shut up parrot, you bore me.

[omegatrump]

No sales did not go up.



No, foolish old man. You on the other hand are an impertinent buffoon whose stupidity is compounded by the fact that you are elderly and still act like a dumb ass. Yet you have the audacity to question someone's intellect. Shut up parrot, you bore me.

I do think you are on to something here. Have you read the article in the Forbes magazine, and the projection that because of over supply the price will plummet to about 35 or 40 dollars a barrel? I want to go back and look at that.

My opinion is that the whole price structure is contrived. It's the entire Oil Industry complex that is responsible for the price gouge. The little guy / distributor is for the most part excluded from the profit class.

[Borgia]

No sales did not go up.

Oh ye of little knowledge.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/13748301.htm


Exxon Mobil’s 2005 gross revenue, $371 billion, compares with $298 billion in 2004

Revenue went up 24%.

[Rhino]

He shoots! He scores! nene heads to the locker room, head bowed in shame!

[Borgia]

He shoots! He scores! nene heads to the locker room, head bowed in shame!

Well, a mitigating factor in nene's defense is that if profits went up 75% one might think that revenues also went up 75%. This was not seen though.

So one could certainly argue that profits rose disproportionately higher than revenues did over the same period.

[Rhino]

So one could certainly argue that profits rose disproportionately higher than revenues did over the same period.Indeed they could, but he didn't.

[Native American]

I wonder how much longer the American Voter will tolerate the Democrat Party continuing to obstruct the extraction of our oil fields in ANWR?

[Rhino]

And the building of refineries.

[Borgia]

And the building of refineries.

The refinery point is interesting. Oil companies are not terribly interested in building new refineries. They HAVE spent billions in upgrading the current refineries and those upgrades have resulted in boosted capacity and the oil comapnies are content with that.

I think one problem is the cafeteria of gases that they have to make to satisfy the different markets. A contributor to that problem, from what I have heard, is environmental standards depending on localities create a mish-mash of products. I'll give some blame to the environmentalists on that score. And I will fully blame environmentalists for the ANWR debacle.

[Native American]

The Democrat Party, by way of contrast, is very interested in continuing to obstruct America from extracting her oil from ANWR. The Democrat Party instead much prefers keeping America as completely dependent as possible upon foreign oil.

[Rhino]

The refinery point is interesting. Oil companies are not terribly interested in building new refineries. They HAVE spent billions in upgrading the current refineries and those upgrades have resulted in boosted capacity and the oil comapnies are content with that.Not really. They are very interested, but it never goes beyond interest because they can't afford to build any new refineries. That's due to environmental regulations and environmental lawsuits, the same reasons we don't build nuclear power plants any more. Our refineries continually operate at or near capacity, and that does affect pricing, especially when possible disruptions from foreign refineries are added to the mix. I'd like to see more nuclear power too, but that's another issue.

[DoctorDoom]

Oil companies are not terribly interested in building new refineries.If this is true, which is highly questionable, the reason is that for several decades US policy makers have fawned like fugging rock groupies over every obstructionist envirowacko. Where is the incentive when the paperwork and laws and regulations and ecoloony interference and political NIMBYism makes even planning a refinery an exercise in futility?

This country is at the mercy of imported oil while its domestic supplies are locked in the ground because of anti-business, anti-America leftists who are out to destroy us. And we can't refine the oil that we DO have because new refineries are being blocked by the same asswipes.

No new refining capacity has been built in thirty years. Therefore the existing refineries are at least three decades old. The older equipment gets, the more maintenance it requires, and the more susceptible it is to unscheduled downtime. There is only so much "upgrading" that can be done on an existing facility.

I worked in industrial maintenance for 38 years before I retired. I've seen the results of trying to make aging, inefficient equipment do more than it was designed to do. And I've seen what companies have to go through to meet the ever-increasing burden of outrageous, meaningless overregulation by namewless, faceless, power-mad bureaucrats and ecofreaks.

I've seen a pile of dirt sit under a plastic tarp for a year because it took that long to get state approval to put the dirt back into the same f**king hole that it was removed from a year earlier.

I've seen a thousand-dollar fine levied because some OSHA asshole found a "knockout" seal missing on an electrical box fifty feet in the air behind live 480-volt crane busses. Obviously the pencil-necked prick decided that someone would climb the ladder, walk along the crane rail, shove his arm between the busses, stick his finger into the box, and be tingled by the 24-volt alarm wires inside.

What astounds me is that any company still wants to do business in this over-regulated, over-lawyered, micromanaged country.

Oil companies are not terribly interested in building new refineries.Bullshit. More refining capacity will mean more sales. Of course they want to build. But they won't as long as energy policy is dictated by politicos who are liplocked on the butts of obstructionists and ecoterrorists, and the fate of some ugly "endangered" bug is more important than the US economy.

[Rhino]

I've seen the results of trying to make aging, inefficient equipment do more than it was designed to do.I resemble that remark.

[Borgia]

Well, you two experts clearly know more than Rex Tillerson, President of Exxon:

http://www.npnweb.com/uploads/featurearticles/2006/npnMarketPulse/032106_mp1.asp


Exxon Mobil Corp. Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson said on March 21 that creeping refinery capacity expansion would keep up with growing U.S. demand for refined products without the need to build a new refinery.

[Rhino]

And he also said,

Increasing capacity through expansion costs far less than building from scratch, Weissgarber added. “The economics are such that it makes more sense to continue to expand the existing refineries.Which is exactly what we were saying. New refineries would make sense if it wasn't so expensive.

[Borgia]

And he also said,

Which is exactly what we were saying. New refineries would make sense if it wasn't so expensive.

Please point me to where he identifies environmental regulations/restrictions as the cause of the high costs. Or is that something you are inferring from his words?

[Rhino]

I'm inferring it from many sources, although he wasn't specifically addressing that issue in the link. Do a Google search.

As far as the need for new refineries goes, how about the Department of Energy?

We all know that investment in our critical energy infrastructure has fallen woefully behind. We need more pipeline capacity… we need an expanded and more reliable electric grid… we need new power plants in many areas… and we definitely need more oil refining capacity.

We haven’t built a new refinery in this country in about 30 years… and over the past 10 years, about 50 refineries have shut down. The growing demand for gasoline and other refinery products is straining our refining capacity to its limits.

But regulatory hurdles and unpredictable rule changes make siting and building new refineries and power lines and generation plants costly, complicated and time-consuming. Political opposition makes it even worse. All this creates investment risk… driving the already-high cost of capital for these very capital-intensive projects even higher.http://www.energy.gov/news/1919.htm

[Borgia]

I'm inferring it from many sources, although he wasn't specifically addressing that issue in the link. Do a Google search.

As far as the need for new refineries goes, how about the Department of Energy?

http://www.energy.gov/news/1919.htm

All right, I like your cite there. Well done. But I would really like some sort of breakdown of what environmental laws/restrictions are adding to the cost of a refinery.

Keep in mind, many environmental laws are quite practical. for example, I doubt we want a refinery expelling contaminated water. Now, the cost of removing the heavy metals and so on is added to the environmental costs of the refinery but clearly it is needed. My point, "unnecessary" environmental laws are contributing what factor to a a refinery's cost?

You see my point? I am sure we all agree there are "necessary" and "unnecessary" environemtnal laws. We all agree that nuclear power plants cant dump their plutonium out in the open air. That qualifies as a "necessary" law but that is an easy one. How you differentiate is when it starts to get difficult.

[Rhino]

But getting an oil refinery built is next to impossible, hence the 30-year construction drought. There will always be environmental activists who fight any new proposed refinery, regardless of where it might be located and how environmentally safe it is. And our environmental rules give them the upper hand.

The environmental impact-report process mobilizes the "not in my back yard" elements to oppose any proposed refinery, but it does not mobilize people or groups who are looking at national energy needs. You wind up with a very lopsided discussion where potential problems are thoroughly and perhaps overly represented, but the only group pointing out the benefits of the refinery is the "evil" oil company asking to build it - even though every automobile driver would benefit.

Consider the example of Arizona Clean Fuels, which has been trying to build a small refinery outside Yuma for almost 10 years. It took five years just to get air-quality permits. Now they hope to be operational in 2010, 15 years after they started the project.http://www.reason.org/commentaries/moore_20050901.shtml

Even Kuwait would like to build refineries here.
We are very keen to build a refinery in the U.S., but environmental restrictions and other regulations make it difficult,'' Sheikh Ahmad said in Kuwait City, where he's hosting OPEC's sixth ministerial meeting this year.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ai2PoL0XZ1zY&refer=top_world_news

[Rhino]

You see my point? I am sure we all agree there are "necessary" and "unnecessary" environemtnal laws. We all agree that nuclear power plants cant dump their plutonium out in the open air. That qualifies as a "necessary" law but that is an easy one. How you differentiate is when it starts to get difficult.Nobody is advocating poisoning the environment. The regulations themselves are not the root cause either. But they do open the floodgates to an endless stream of litigation from the environmentalists on irrelevant issues that are motivated by obstructionism rather than on a valid need for environmental protection. Defending against those suits and the long delays they cause are what drives the costs up. Finding the right balance is the tough choice, as you note, but the balance is heavily skewed toward the obstructionists right now. That needs to be addressed.

[Borgia]

Nobody is advocating poisoning the environment. The regulations themselves are not the root cause either. But they do open the floodgates to an endless stream of litigation from the environmentalists on irrelevant issues that are motivated by obstructionism rather than on a valid need for environmental protection. Defending against those suits and the long delays they cause are what drives the costs up. Finding the right balance is the tough choice, as you note, but the balance is heavily skewed toward the obstructionists right now. That needs to be addressed.

I agree with this but remain unconvinced that "unnecessary" rules/regulations would have a large impact on the cost of a refinery. What would constitute a large cost? 10%? 20%? 50%? I would guess that the "unnecessary" costs would amount to less than 10% but I am completely guessing.

[Rhino]

I would guess higher. Environmental costs for operating a refinery after it is built exceed 10 percent.

One refinery can't be conclusive, but this example is at least illustrative of how costs are driven up:
MAKOTI, N.D. (AP) - Three Affiliated Tribes Chairman Tex Hall says plans for an oil refinery are being held up by federal reviews.

Hall said the BIA, the Environmental Protection Agency's Region 8 office in Denver and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are working on the reviews for an environmental impact statement. Tribal officials are not questioning the need for one, but they believe the process is taking too long, he said.

''We are really concerned that this is taking longer than it need be,'' Hall said. ''They're saying that there has never been one built for 30 years. They must have to dust off this process.''

Tribal Treasurer Frank Whitecalfe said the latest word from the EPA is that the EIS will be completed in February 2007. Hall said the tribe was told earlier that it would be finished in December this year; then that date was moved back to December 2006. ''We'd really like to bring it up to September or October of 2006,'' Whitecalfe said. ''If we get it to that point, we're comfortable that things will work. But if we start talking another year ...''

He said the tribes started working with the EPA on the required environmental review in 2002. Delays add to the cost of building the refinery, he said.

That cost now is estimated at about $150 million, compared to the original estimate of about $100 million.http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096411844

[DoctorDoom]

Please point me to where he identifies environmental regulations/restrictions as the cause of the high costs. Or is that something you are inferring from his words?Nothing is inferred. It's cold, hard FACT. The same negative forces that have stymied the growth of nuclear power are at work opposing any expansion of America's energy resources. Two of the guiding darks of the anti-everythingist lunatic fringe stated their philosophy very clearly three decades ago.

"It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we might do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that don't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to each other."
-- Amory Lovins, Mother Earth News, 11-12/77

"In fact, giving society cheap abundant energy at this point would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."
-- Paul Erlich, Not Man Apart (Friends of The Earth), Vol 5, No. 18, Sept 1975

That philosophy has been at the core of the envirowacko "movement" since its inception. Witness the rabid opposition to exploiting the ANWR oil fields. Witness the intractable opposition to offshore drilling.

Demand for refined products, especially gasoline, is expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.6 percent for the rest of this decade, requiring an additional 260,000 barrels a day of gasoline and other fuels each year, according to Goldman Sachs.

With those kinds of demand forecasts, why is there no interest in building more U.S. refineries?

There is the cost, estimated at $2 billion to $3 billion in capital investment with no certainty that today's glowing profits will stay around, say economists. And, despite billions spent on pollution controls, refineries do not make pleasant neighbors.

"Nobody seems to want to build a refinery in their back yard," David O'Reilly, chairman of ChevronTexaco, told a U.S. Chamber of Commerce luncheon the other day, deploring what he said was a regulatory and permitting morass and almost certain citizen opposition to any new refinery project.

Given likely community opposition, an anticipation of a lengthy permitting fight and uneven expectations on a future investor's rate of return, "most companies are unlikely to undertake the significant investment needed to even begin the process" says Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute. The organization represents the large oil companies in Washington.Refinery logic (http://www.madison.com/tct/business/stories/index.php?ntid=7502&ntpid=2)

About 100 miles southwest of Phoenix, in a remote patch off Interstate 8, Glenn McGinnis is seeking to do something that has not been done for 29 years in the United States. He is trying to build an oil refinery.

Part of his job is to persuade local officials and residents to allow a 150,000-barrel-a-day refinery in their backyard - no small task. Another is to find investors ready to risk $2.5 billion in a volatile industry. So far, the effort has consumed six years and $30 million, with precious little to show for it.

Oil industry analysts and trade organizations like the American Petroleum Institute say they know of no one else doing the same thing.

Even so, Mr. McGinnis - an industry veteran who joined Arizona Clean Fuels last year as chief executive to give the project more heft against long odds - cleared a significant hurdle recently when Arizona awarded him a crucial emissions permit. Still ahead are countless rounds of negotiations with local, state and federal agencies to secure dozens more permits.

Meanwhile, the 1,400-acre site picked for the refinery, an old citrus grove near the Mexican border, remains empty, a sign of why the United States is now grappling with an acute shortage of plants that can refine the more than 20 million of barrels of crude oil that the country consumes every day.

The last refinery to be completed in the United States was in 1976, and Mr. McGinnis knows all too well that community and political opposition squashed earlier projects. His proposed refinery in Arizona has already been forced away from its original site near Phoenix, in 2003, after the state considered expanding the city's clean-air limits.US: No New Refineries in 29 Years (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12227)

WASHINGTON — America is the largest gasoline market in the world. But the land of the Hummer and the SUV can't seem to build a new refinery.

The United States hasn't seen a new refinery open in 29 years. And despite enjoying record profits last year, the industry isn't likely to break that streak anytime soon.

New refinery construction has been stymied for years by poor economics, changing environmental rules and vociferous community opposition.

"Nobody wants these refineries near them," said Jacques Rousseau, a refining analyst with Arlington, Va.-based Friedman, Billings, Ramsey.In the land of the Hummer, no new refineries are in sight (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/special/04/toxic/2990832)

OPEC is only part of the problem. The federal government is exacerbating oil price inflation by making it increasingly difficult for the energy industry to access vast amounts of natural gas and oil located within the U.S. Sixty-seven percent of the nation's onshore oil reserves and 40 percent of natural gas reserves are located on federal land in the western U.S. But environmentalists have been very successful in gradually removing much of this land from new energy development. Since 1983, the amount of federal land available for development has decreased by more than 60 percent.4

The latest environmental salvo against domestic energy development occurred on January 5, 2001, when President Clinton announced a ban on new road construction on 58 million acres of federal land. While some environmentalists called it the "greatest conservation achievement in history," the roadless rule marks yet another dramatic assault on the hard-pressed energy industry's ability to find new fuel sources.5

Environmental regulations that make it nearly impossible to build new oil refineries are further compounding the nation's energy woes. No major refineries have been built in the U.S. since the mid-1970s, even though the number of vehicles in use has doubled.6 This lack of refinery capacity especially hurts Californian and Midwestern consumers. Last summer, Californians were paying $1.85 per gallon and Midwesterners as much as $1.87 per gallon, considerably more than the 2000 summer national average of $1.68 per gallon. A lack of refineries during this peak travel season was the reason.7

Overall, the nation's crude oil stocks are now seven percent below the five-year average with little prospect in sight for a quick increase in U.S. petroleum production.8

A raft of onerous Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that unnecessarily inflate the price of gasoline is yet another cause of U.S. energy woes. A U.S. House Science Committee report concluded that Midwestern consumers were forced to pay 50 cents more per gallon in the summer of 2000 due to the EPA's controversial requirement that one-third of the nation's gasoline supply must be reformulated gasoline (RFG), a requirement imposed to promote cleaner air.9 The EPA ordered the costly RFG regulation despite a 1999 report from the National Research Council concluding that the RFG regulation would not reduce air pollution.10

In California, a huge increase in electric utility bills is partly due to environmental rules against new power plant construction. Overly restrictive pollution rules prevented the construction of power plants needed to keep pace with the state's need for more power. Between 1996 and 1999, peak power demand increased 12 percent, but power plant capacity increased only one percent. Enron Corporation says it planned and built three power plants in the southeastern U.S. in less than a year during this period. In contrast, it is going to take Enron three and a half years to build just one California plant.11 California power companies are producing about the same amount of power they did in 1990, even though the state's electrical demand is increasing twice as fast as the national average.12Environmentalists' Opposition to Oil Exploration ... (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA324.html)

WASHINGTON — House Republicans pushed through legislation Wednesday that supporters said would speed construction of new refineries (search) to ease tight gasoline supplies. Opponents said the bill would reduce environmental protection and do little to stem high fuel costs.

The legislation was approved by a vote of 239-192 as House Republican leaders sought to dramatize the congressional impasse over energy legislation by bringing up for votes a series of energy-related bills.

Democrats said the effort was all for show since none of the bills has a chance of being approved by the Senate.

[snip]

The refinery bill was sharply criticized by environmentalists and state officials in charge of enforcing air quality standards.

"It pre-empts state and local environmental agencies" enforcing pollution controls on refineries, said William Becker, executive director of two associations that represent state and local air pollution control agencies. "The bill will obstruct state and local efforts to achieve and maintain clean, healthful air."House Approves Bill to Construct Oil Refineries (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122892,00.html)

Just a few new refineries would alleviate the problem and help keep our gas prices lower and steadier.

But getting an oil refinery built is next to impossible, hence the 30-year construction drought. There will always be environmental activists who fight any new proposed refinery, regardless of where it might be located and how environmentally safe it is. And our environmental rules give them the upper hand.

The environmental impact-report process mobilizes the "not in my back yard" elements to oppose any proposed refinery, but it does not mobilize people or groups who are looking at national energy needs. You wind up with a very lopsided discussion where potential problems are thoroughly and perhaps overly represented, but the only group pointing out the benefits of the refinery is the "evil" oil company asking to build it - even though every automobile driver would benefit.

Consider the example of Arizona Clean Fuels, which has been trying to build a small refinery outside Yuma for almost 10 years. It took five years just to get air-quality permits. Now they hope to be operational in 2010, 15 years after they started the project.

President Bush recently signed a new energy bill that tries to make it easier to build new oil refineries, especially in areas with high unemployment – where the new jobs would likely be welcome. And yet, special-interest groups decried the provision as an environmental and public health injustice, arguing that these communities won't want refineries but won't have the political power to fight them off.Katrina Reveals Gas Price Folly (http://www.reason.org/commentaries/moore_20050901.shtml)

The alleged “solution” to the Texas blast, according to industry critics, is still more regulation, even though regulation was the ultimate cause of the accident (and many others that have occurred in the industry). Fact: not a single new oil and gas refinery has been built in the U.S. since 1976; the last one built was in Garyville, Louisiana that year. Worse, today there are 54% fewer oil and gas refineries in the U.S. (149) than there were in 1981 (321). Why? Not only have environmentalists lobbied government to block new refinery construction; they’ve also lobbied to have refineries decommissioned. Moreover, environmental regulations have materially raised the cost of operating refineries, making many of them unprofitable. It has been estimated that today it would take seven years, 800 permits and $2.5 billion to build a new refinery; nearly half of that cost is due entirely to the arbitrary and unnecessary costs imposed by environmentalists and their obstructionism. The National Petrochemical and Refiners Association reports that environmentalist-related costs have totaled $47 billion over the past decade; that’s enough to have built 19 new refineries (even at today’s bloated cost of $2.5 billion per unit), or 13% more refineries than exist in the U.S. today.

When environmentalists and their regulatory lackeys aren’t impeding the construction of new refineries, they are, of course, also impeding the building of new transmission pipelines which efficiently move refined product to wholesalers and retailers. Environmentalists also impede the building of nuclear plants, which provide a safe energy alternative to oil and gas. As in the case of refineries, not a single new nuclear plant has been built in the U.S. since 1979, due to costs imposed by environmentalists; today there are only 95 such plants and five have been decommissioned since 1979. What about hydro-electric power? Environmentalists call for tearing down existing dams.Environmentalists Kill and Maim Dozens in Texas ... (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4177)

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Envirowackos have the US in a death grip, and until we tell the SOBs to piss off, and commit to exploiting our domestic energy resources, America will continue to be held hostage by the vermin.

We have provided many links to items that support our positions. You have thusfar provided nothing but your opinions. That's not debating. It's arguing just to argue.

[Naturalized-Texan]

There hasn't been a new refinery built in the U.S. for more than 20 years, mostly due to the enviro-Nazis, while population continues to increase and demand continues to increase. It's no wonder that we are paying a lot more for gasoline. That coupled with the enviroNazi's preventing us from drilling in ANWR and along the Gulf Coast and the Pacific Coast, we can't even begin to reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

[Native American]

I wonder how much longer the American Voter will tolerate the Democrat Party continuing to obstruct the construction of new oil refineries?

[Native American]

All right, I like your cite there. Well done. But I would really like some sort of breakdown of what environmental laws/restrictions are adding to the cost of a refinery.

I'd rather require the environazis provide a breakdown of what cost/value benefits (if any) their oppressive regulations/restrictions have added to our country.

In fact, I'd like to see them required to produce a fully scientifically-documented case analysis before any environmental legislation is even voted on. And I'd like to see all current environmental legislation sunsetted and made void unless and until the aforementioned case analyses are provided. The burden of proof should be on the envirowackos, not on the oil companies.

[Wyatt_Junker]

I wonder how much longer the American Voter will tolerate the Democrat Party continuing to obstruct the extraction of our oil fields in ANWR?

Great point, but keep in mind we now have Madonna.

(see below)

[Native American]

?

[Wyatt_Junker]

?

(hint) I like sigs. Turn 'em on.

I hope it doesn't piss off the Soozmeister. I'll crapcan it if it does.

[Native American]

Oh. Yeah, I turned off my sigs quite some time ago, because I got tired of having to scroll past them all, and rarely did I find they added anything of value.

[DoctorDoom]

... we can't even begin to reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.In fact, the US is importing 10% of its gasoline requirements.

Primarily because U.S. refining capacity hasn't grown as rapidly as gasoline demand, the shortfall has been made up with increased gasoline imports from Caribbean, Canadian and European refineries. Imported gasoline now accounts for about one out of every 10 gallons of gasoline sold in the United States. In the last 10 years, gasoline imports have risen by more than 60 percent.Gasoline (http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/other_resources/energyanswers/gasoline.htm)

Since higher standards cannot be achieved by foreign refiners, imports will be interrupted. Four percent of the U.S. consumption depends on the Venezuelan gasoline. Shortages may cause the gasoline prices to rise. Imported gasoline constitutes 20 percent of Northeast's consumption. As a result of this shortage, 10-15 cents of price increases are expected.7US-Venezuela Gas (http://www.american.edu/TED/esp/venezuela-WTO.htm)

Can you say "We're screwed!" boys and girls? And when the fit hits the shan, who will be blamed? A: Big Oil. The envirofreaks will as always escape absolutely unscathed.

[DoctorDoom]

All right, I like your cite there. Well done. But I would really like some sort of breakdown of what environmental laws/restrictions are adding to the cost of a refinery.Try doing some research on your own. We're not obligated to do all of your homework.

[Borgia]

You might try doing some research on your own. We're not obligated to do your homework.

Hey, you folks made the claim of regulatory costs being too high. It really is YOUR job to provide evidence for your claim. I grant that you provided some qualitative evidence but I would prefer quantitative substatiation.

[Native American]

Hey, you folks made the claim of regulatory costs being too high. It really is YOUR job to provide evidence for your claim.


Nope. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that regulation is needed!

[DoctorDoom]

Hey, you folks made the claim of regulatory costs being too high. It really is YOUR job to provide evidence for your claim. I grant that you provided some qualitative evidence but I would prefer quantitative substatiation.Freely translated, "YOU do all the work. I'm too damned lazy to bother. IAC, I'm a liberal, and liberals don't do research."

Sorry, dude, but if you want that info, you find it. We provided overwhelming evidence that over-regulation and environmentalist bullshit have stymied US energy growth for decades. If you need numbers, YOU find them.

But, I'll compromise. If you can provide quantitative data on the percentage of global climate change that is directly attributable to anthropogenic CO₂, what percentage of reduction of A-CO₂ will result in a 1% decrease in the rate of GCC, what it will cost to reduce it by that amount, and what the cost-benefit ratio is, then I in turn will provide the numbers that you demand.

[Borgia]

Freely translated, "YOU do all the work. I'm too damned lazy to bother. IAC, I'm a liberal, and liberals don't do research."

Doom, I am surprised you say that with a straight face. In my short tenure here I have cited numerous sources, I have performed statistical analysis and crunched data. Now, perhaps the liberals you know do not do research but this one does.


Sorry, dude, but if you want that info, you find it. We provided overwhelming evidence that over-regulation and environmentalist bullshit have stymied US energy growth for decades. If you need numbers, YOU find them.

Qualitatively they say this but I wonder if it is true or not. If you don't have the evidence, that is fine. So your claim remains dubious at this time.


But, I'll compromise. If you can provide quantitative data on the percentage of global climate change that is directly attributable to anthropogenic CO<SUB>2</SUB>, what percentage of reduction of A-CO<SUB>2</SUB> will result in a 1% decrease in the rate of GCC, what it will cost to reduce it by that amount, and what the cost-benefit ratio is, then I in turn will provide the numbers that you demand.

This is a total nonsequitor. You attempt to divert. If you can't find the numbers I requested just say so.

[Rhino]

Quantitative isn't really possible since no one has built a refinery yet. Estimates and partial figures are the only thing possible at this point.

[Borgia]

Quantitative isn't really possible since no one has built a refinery yet. Estimates and partial figures are the only thing possible at this point.

I would say quantitative is possible. I am sure they know how much the cost would be to build one. I am sure they know how much the regulatory and environmental compliance would cost.

The problem is WE don't know and I would expect that info to be very hard to come by. I don't fault you or Doom not having that info, I am merely musing that without it, we have a somewhat incomplete picture of the costs and are left to make assumptions, and, with our limited knowledge in this area, our assumptions can be dangerously off.

[DoctorDoom]

Doom, I am surprised you say that with a straight face. In my short tenure here I have cited numerous sources, I have performed statistical analysis and crunched data. Now, perhaps the liberals you know do not do research but this one does.I'm not interested other threads. This thread is the focus of this thread.

Qualitatively they say this but I wonder if it is true or not. If you don't have the evidence, that is fine. So your claim remains dubious at this time.Unlike liberals, my native tongue is not lying, nor is it that of the linked sites.

This is a total nonsequitor. You attempt to divert. If you can't find the numbers I requested just say so.Not a bit of it. I have asked those things of the GW zealots for weeks, and to a one they have hemmed and hawed and spun. I've come to expect that from libs.

You demand quantitative data and reject qualitative data. The qualitative data is more than adequate evidence to anyone who isn't leftist-agenda-driven. IAC, as Rhino has stated, since no refineries are even planned, it is impossible to compute the precise economic impact of enviroasshole opposition.

You want numbers. I want numbers. Neither demand can be met.

[DoctorDoom]

I would say quantitative is possible. I am sure they know how much the cost would be to build one. I am sure they know how much the regulatory and environmental compliance would cost.I'd guess that you still pissing your didies, or at best were still awaiting puberty, during the heyday of the no-nukes bullshit of the 70s. I was in the middle of that crap, on the side of nuclear power.

It is possible to compute a number based on existing, static laws and regulations. However, it is impossible to account for endless, unpredictable delays, challenges, obstructionism, and new or changed regulations. The construction time of nukes in that perriod was doubled solely because of the impediments thrown in the way by the no-nukes asswipes and thier political lackeys. And every delay, every requirement to rewrite specs, redraw blueprints and remanufacture equipment cost millions of dollars.

And what was the purpose? A: the no-nukes shitheads wanted the plants to cost as much as possible and be delayed as long as possible, so they could point to the delays and increased costs as "proof" that nuclear power was unviable. They didn't give a shit for what it cost the ratepayers who were paying for their idiocy. They had a leftist political agenda and nothing was allowed to stand in their way.

IMO, the f**kers should have been lined up against the fences at Diablo Canyon and Seabrook and machine-gunned.

Take a trip to Long Island some day, and look up the Shoreham nuclear plant. No-nukes obstructionists fought it 24/7, resulting in constant setbacks and cost increases. Despite all that, it was finally ready to go online when New York politicians with their heads up their asses killed it by refusing to allow it to run. So there sits a plant that could have been providing clean, safe electricity to Long Island, a lifeless, untended monument to the egregious, unfathomable stupidity of politicians and envirodickheads.

You want quantitative data? Shoreham was completed at a cost of $5 billion, and never generated a watt of power. Therefore 100% of the cost, every f**king dollar of the $5 billion, was wasted because of politics and envirowacko opposition.

[Rhino]

I would say quantitative is possible. I am sure they know how much the cost would be to build one. I am sure they know how much the regulatory and environmental compliance would cost.No, they don't. Even the attempts in progress have only estimates because they have no way of knowing what the final cost will be. Some is due to variations in locale, and the inherent resistance there, and some is due to the fact that new obstuctions are constantly arising. Even if one actually gets built, and we get the exact figures for it, they would not necessarily apply to the next refinery as anything more than an estimate. They have no way of knowing in what form the next obstruction may be, or what it will eventually cost to overcome. That's part of the problem.

[Borgia]

No, they don't. Even the attempts in progress have only estimates because they have no way of knowing what the final cost will be. Some is due to variations in locale, and the inherent resistance there, and some is due to the fact that new obstuctions are constantly arising. Even if one actually gets built, and we get the exact figures for it, they would not necessarily apply to the next refinery as anything more than an estimate. They have no way of knowing in what form the next obstruction may be, or what it will eventually cost to overcome. That's part of the problem.

I apologize, I did not mean to say we had to have actual numbers but some sort of quantitative measure and estimates would be fine by me.

I am all for using estimates. If you have estimates of the costs broken down, feel free to provide them.

Thx!

[Rhino]

I don't have them. I consider steep environmental costs for building a refinery to be common knowledge enough to be axiomatic. Some of the links here already mentioned them.

[Native American]

Doom, I am surprised you say that with a straight face. In my short tenure here I have cited numerous sources, I have performed statistical analysis and crunched data. Now, perhaps the liberals you know do not do research but this one does.

Qualitatively they say this but I wonder if it is true or not. If you don't have the evidence, that is fine. So your claim remains dubious at this time.

This is a total nonsequitor. You attempt to divert. If you can't find the numbers I requested just say so.


TRANSLATION: "I am unable to provide the backup data requested by DoctorDoom and the other posters."

[nene]

Oh ye of little knowledge.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/13748301.htm



Revenue went up 24%.I wasn't referring to revenue. Of course revenue went up which is the point of this discussion. I repeatedly made the point that I'm referring to output in terms of units sold. Again, if the oil companies' output has not significantly increased, and the profit margin per unit has not significantly increased, what explains the significant increase in profits?

You must not have read my posts, which explains your ridiculous rebuttal.

[nene]

He shoots! He scores! nene heads to the locker room, head bowed in shame!:rolleyes:

[nene]

Indeed they could, but he didn't.
This doesn’t make sense. If increase expenditures and increase in prices are proportional so that the profit margin is as before per unit of measure, profits will remain the same. The output of Exxon (and others) has not increased to account for such increase in profits.

Yes, but from what I hear, Exxon and others output has not increased but may have actually declined a bit. So, if the output is the same, and the profit margin per unit of measure is the same, how can profits go up 75%?They could, and I did.

[Rhino]

They could, and I did.You said "No sales did not go up." You didn't offer the proportional argument Borgia was referring to. You simply said sales didn't rise, proceeded to fall back on nothing but insults, and then were soundly proven wrong by Borgia's next post. Hence, you didn't.

[Native American]

Meanwhile, liberals and Democrats and envirowackos continue to obstruct America from constructing new refineries and expanding her domestic supply of oil in ANWR and the Gulf.

[Borgia]

I wasn't referring to revenue. Of course revenue went up which is the point of this discussion. I repeatedly made the point that I'm referring to output in terms of units sold. Again, if the oil companies' output has not significantly increased, and the profit margin per unit has not significantly increased, what explains the significant increase in profits?

You must not have read my posts, which explains your ridiculous rebuttal.

Units sold? What units? Need I point out to you that ExxonMobil is involved in far more than just oil? So to look at solely oil output is not really looking at the whole picture.

[Naturalized-Texan]

In the case of a corporate balance sheets such as Exxon's, sales are equivalent to revenues. When one states that revenues increased by 75%, one is stating that sales increased by 75%. No matter. Exxon's profit margin was still about 10%, which is quite normal among successful corporations and a little ABOVE average for oil companies. The average oil company has about a 6% to 7% profit. Not at all exorbitant, especially when one considers that McDonald's had a profit of 11.6%.

The most important point that negates any discussion of oil company profits is the fact that the oil companies have absolutely no control over the price of crude oil. The huge increase in the price of crude oil is THE driving force behind the increased price of gasoline.

[Naturalized-Texan]

A week or so ago, Rush quoted from an analysis by an on-line blogger who started with the price of crude at $60, as it was in the aftermath of Katrina, and added up everything that is required for refining and transporting gasoline and then added in federal and state taxes, and determined that the price of gasoline at the pump should have been $2.75 per gallon, which is about where it was at the time.

Using the same calculations based in the current price of crude of about $75, the price of gasoline at the pump would probably be at or a little over $3.00 per gallon, about where it is.

Unfortunately, Rush no longer has the link to that blogger's analysis on his web site.

[Native American]

Meanwhile, while Borgia continues to fret over the oil companies "gouging" the consumer on gasoline costs, Borgia remains silent while the government "gouges" (via taxes) the consumer on gasoline costs at a rate roughly double the "gouging" being done by the oil companies.

It's interesting to observe the priorities of our resident anti-capitalist posters....

[Borgia]

Meanwhile, while Borgia continues to fret over the oil companies "gouging" the consumer on gasoline costs, Borgia remains silent while the government "gouges" (via taxes) the consumer on gasoline costs at a rate roughly double the "gouging" being done by the oil companies.

It's interesting to observe the priorities of our resident anti-capitalist posters....

Read more carefully. I have never said Oil Companies are gouging. I have defended them and even brought up the fact that they get about a 10% profit margin on their products which is hardly "gouging".

If you persist on making things up about what I say, then I will have to ignore you.

[Native American]

Read more carefully. I have never said Oil Companies are gouging. I have defended them and even brought up the fact that they get about a 10% profit margin on their products which is hardly "gouging".

Care to tell us what the government's profit margin is on the money they rake in on every gallon of gas?

[Borgia]

Is it safe for me to assume that you will never acknowledge that you just totally misrepresented my position about oil companies?

I mean, you just made a HUGE error in when you said I was fretting over Big Oil for gouging when I have never said that and even said they were not gouging. Anyone with honor might issue a quick apology or retraction.