For those that like to argure about the price of gas

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

ummmmm..... What does research in the arctic have to do with the fact that for the last 4 years they have ran at 60% capacity?

Why do you suppose there hasn't been a new oil refinery built in the US since 1976? I mean come on man, do a little research.

edited to add: heres a little help http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-21,GGLG:en&q=environmentalists+oil+refineries

-

[billvon 2,434]

>Why do you suppose there hasn't been a new oil refinery built in the US since 1976?

Because oil companies, despite people's opinions, are pretty smart. There is no question that cheap oil is going to run out, the only question is when. Why build a new refinery when you will just have to shut it down in a year or two or ten because of a lack of oil? With that sort of an amortization schedule, you'd make more money investing in bonds.

[Pendejo 0]

Quote

I mean come on man, do a little research.

I don't need to.... I ship hazardous material for most of the major oil companies. I know EXACTLY what capacity those plants run at (unlike many who think because they found something on Google that it is research).

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Why do you suppose there hasn't been a new oil refinery built in the US since 1976?

Because oil companies, despite people's opinions, are pretty smart. There is no question that cheap oil is going to run out, the only question is when. Why build a new refinery when you will just have to shut it down in a year or two or ten because of a lack of oil? With that sort of an amortization schedule, you'd make more money investing in bonds.

I can't find a single source to support your theory, but there are thousands to support mine. Can you provide any credible source?

-

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I mean come on man, do a little research.

I don't need to.... I ship hazardous material for most of the major oil companies. I know EXACTLY what capacity those plants run at (unlike many who think because they found something on Google that it is research).

Well there it is. I guess we should just accept your anecdotal opinion without question than to accept thousands of credible sources who disagree with you.

-

[Pendejo 0]

So you are saying there are thousands of sources that say they are running at capacity? Please provide some of those credible sources that say this.

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I mean come on man, do a little research.

I don't need to.... I ship hazardous material for most of the major oil companies. I know EXACTLY what capacity those plants run at (unlike many who think because they found something on Google that it is research).

Well there it is. I guess we should just accept your anecdotal opinion without question than to accept thousands of credible sources who disagree with you.

-

I took a short look through that google link. I see many Op-ed pieces. The one from Fox news that is NOT op ed, says that DESPITE envirmentalists, a new refinery is going to be built.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

So you are saying there are thousands of sources that say they are running at capacity? Please provide some of those credible sources that say this.

No, that isn't what I said. I said the reason our refining capability is inadequate is because we haven't built any new refineries since 1976 and the reason we haven't is because environmentalists have blocked every effort to do so.

-

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I mean come on man, do a little research.

I don't need to.... I ship hazardous material for most of the major oil companies. I know EXACTLY what capacity those plants run at (unlike many who think because they found something on Google that it is research).

Well there it is. I guess we should just accept your anecdotal opinion without question than to accept thousands of credible sources who disagree with you.

-

I took a short look through that google link. I see many Op-ed pieces. The one from Fox news that is NOT op ed, says that DESPITE envirmentalists, a new refinery is going to be built.

I've not commented on what we are going to do in the future, just the past. The economic pressure is too great for the environmentalists to be as effective in winning public opinion as they have in the past so I would expect we will see more refineries built in the future. I hope we don't get distracted and think this is a panacea. We need to develp alternatives as quickly as possible. What kind of source would you accept?



-

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I mean come on man, do a little research.

I don't need to.... I ship hazardous material for most of the major oil companies. I know EXACTLY what capacity those plants run at (unlike many who think because they found something on Google that it is research).

Well there it is. I guess we should just accept your anecdotal opinion without question than to accept thousands of credible sources who disagree with you.

-

I took a short look through that google link. I see many Op-ed pieces. The one from Fox news that is NOT op ed, says that DESPITE envirmentalists, a new refinery is going to be built.

I've not commented on what we are going to do in the future, just the past. The economic pressure is too great for the environmentalists to be as effective in winning public opinion as they have in the past so I would expect we will see more refineries built in the future. I hope we don't get distracted and think this is a panacea. We need to develp alternatives as quickly as possible. What kind of source would you accept?



-

It is not what sources I would accept. I believe that enviromental concerns HAVE had SOME effect on building new refineries. But I also think that the NIMBY's make a bigger stink. No one wants a refinery in their yard...envirmentalist or not.

Regardless, I was merely pointing out that the list of sources your provided are not all what I would call credible. Many were just opinion pieces.

Here is the thing: If oil companies are currently running at sub capacity as the article in this thread says is being investigated, the cries of "Its all the enviromentalists fault" is quickly made moot.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

It is not what sources I would accept. I believe that enviromental concerns HAVE had SOME effect on building new refineries. But I also think that the NIMBY's make a bigger stink. No one wants a refinery in their yard...envirmentalist or not.

While I agree that NIMBYs are a factor, they are far from being a major driving force. As an example, last year the California Coastal Commission rejected a proposal to build an off-shore refinery and it was environmentalists who were a major factor in lobbying against it. This has happend frequently in Florida and elsewhere. Why would a NIMBY type have a problem with an off-shore refinery unless there was more to their agenda?

Quote

Regardless, I was merely pointing out that the list of sources your provided are not all what I would call credible. Many were just opinion pieces.

Depends on who is giving the opinion.

Quote

Here is the thing: If oil companies are currently running at sub capacity as the article in this thread says is being investigated, the cries of "Its all the enviromentalists fault" is quickly made moot.

Unless they are running below capacity because of the environmentalists.

-

[billvon 2,434]

>I can't find a single source to support your theory, but there are
>thousands to support mine.

If you can post a link to a credible source that says cheap oil will never run out, I'll buy you a case of beer.

[Pendejo 0]

Quote

Unless they are running below capacity because of the environmentalists.

They run below capacity because they want to keep the supply low and the demand high. Not that there is anything wrong with that in my mind. After all they are the ones that invest the money in drilling and refining. I think they are entitled to make what ever profit the market will allow. The only problem that I have with it is that they "sell" the American public that they are doing all they can.... Now that is a load of bull.... Its like most of the tv advertisements about 93 octane verses 87 octane. 93 is cleaner and better gas right?

Quote

As an example, last year the California Coastal Commission rejected a proposal to build an off-shore refinery and it was environmentalists who were a major factor in lobbying against it.

I agree that in some cases they are a force to reckon with, but at the same time I agree with them on this one. Refining is a messy business and there is great opportunity for spills. Having a refinery located off shore is asking for trouble. There are to many places that they can be built on land where you have better control in an emergency for going off shore to make sense.

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[Pendejo 0]

Quote

If you can post a link to a credible source that says cheap oil will never run out, I'll buy you a case of beer.

You mean the oil fairy won't just keep making more oil? How can this be? When I was little the cookie fairy kept the cookie jar full.... Doesn't this work the same way??

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Unless they are running below capacity because of the environmentalists.

-

That would be interesting. Except it has been reported that refineries are running at full capacity for quite some time. In other words, they lied if this inquiry comes out true.

I have no problem if they want to run lower capacity. There is nothing that says a company has to produce its max it can, but if they are lying about it....that is where I have the problem.

I was just reading an interesting analysis of this issue. I will try to sum it up:

If refineries are running at full capacity, then there is a FIXED amount of gas being produced. Therefore, the price of gas goes up. However, since the bottleneck is produced at the refinery stage, the demand for crude SHOULD go down (and so should then the price of crude) because oil companies are already running at full capacity and have no need for more crude than they already have. And yet, crude prices are rising.

you could argue that it is because oil is running out. However, the Saudi oil minister himself said that the problem is not LACK of oil, but the lack of ability to produce the finished product in great enough quantities.

So, if crude prices are rising, then demand for that crude is high. So, oil companies must have a driving need for more crude. Which implies that lack of refineries is not the problem.

If the refinery is not the problem, then we certainly cannot blame it on the enviromentalists.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I can't find a single source to support your theory, but there are
>thousands to support mine.

If you can post a link to a credible source that says cheap oil will never run out, I'll buy you a case of beer.

I didn't say oil would never run out. I said the reason you give for not building more refineries is bogus.

Quote

Because oil companies, despite people's opinions, are pretty smart. There is no question that cheap oil is going to run out, the only question is when. Why build a new refinery when you will just have to shut it down in a year or two or ten because of a lack of oil? With that sort of an amortization schedule, you'd make more money investing in bonds.

Tell you what, if you can provide a credible source that oil will run out in one, two or ten years, I'll buy you 2 cases of beer.

-

[mr2mk1g 10]

Actually, all he really has to do to prove the accuracy of the quoted statement is to show that refining capacity is predicted to outstrip supply in 1, 2, or 10 years... I'd bet that's not actually that hard to do. Can I get in on the bet too?

[billvon 2,434]

>I said the reason you give for not building more refineries is bogus.

OK, then. The reason I gave is that oil companies are not fools and they know the oil will run out soon. I expect you will take it on faith that the people running oil companies are not fools, since you have invested in them. Here are some links on the oil running out soon part:

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:XY-kdCAeZYcJ:www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1464050,00.html&hl=en
http://www.peakoil.net/

>Tell you what, if you can provide a credible source that oil will run
>out in one, two or ten years, I'll buy you 2 cases of beer.

I never said oil will 'run out.' In the year 3000 someone will be able to find a few thousand gallons of oil somewhere under Antarctica. What I did say is that cheap oil will run out - demand will exceed the supply of easily-recoverable oil, and we won't be able to get sub-$100 barrels of oil. And at that point, oil companies will be shutting down refineries - at least, if they want to stay in business.

But in any case is Exxon/Mobil a good enough source?

------------------------
Big Oil warns of coming energy crunch
by Carola Hoyos


International oil companies have advertising campaigns warning that the world is running out of oil and calling on the public to help the industry do something about it.

Most of the executives of the world's five largest energy groups generally maintain that oil projects are viable with the price at which they test a project’s viability is within the around $20 a barrel. range. But their advertising and some of their companies' own statistics appear to tell a different story.

ExxonMobil, the world's largest energy group, said in a recent advertisement: “The world faces enormous energy challenges. There are no easy answers.” And the companies' statistics back up the sentiment. In The Outlook for Energy: A 2030 View, the Irving, Texas-based company forecasts that oil production outside the Organisation ofthe Petroleum Exporting Countries, the cartel that controls three-quarters of the world's oil reserves, will reach its peak in just five years.

http://www.energybulletin.net/7676.html

-------------------------------

Without any press conferences, grand announcements, or hyperbolic advertising campaigns, the Exxon Mobil Corporation, one of the world's largest publicly owned petroleum companies, has quietly joined the ranks of those who are predicting an impending plateau in non-OPEC oil production. Their report, The Outlook for Energy: A 2030 View, forecasts a peak in just five years.

In the past, many who expressed such concerns were dismissed as eager catastrophists, peddling the latest Malthusian prophecy of the impending collapse of fossil-fueled civilization. Their reliance on private oil-reserve data that is unverifiable by other analysts, and their use of models that ignore political and economic factors, have led to frequent erroneous pronouncements. They were countered by the extreme optimists, who believed that we would never need to think about such problems and that the markets would take care of everything. Up to now, those who worried about limited petroleum supplies have been at best ignored, and at worst openly ridiculed.

May/June 2005 pp. 16-18 (vol. 61, no. 03) © 2005 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: By Alfred J. Cavallo
------------------------------------

[Gravitymaster 0]

We aren't in disagreement about oil running out eventually. I think it's debatable as to when, but thats not something either of us know nor to I give much credibility to anyone who professes to know.

My original point was that the number of refineries in the US built in the last 30 years are due more to environmentalists than they are to business decisions.

[Pendejo 0]

Quote

My original point was that the number of refineries in the US built in the last 30 years are due more to environmentalists than they are to business decisions.

I can see how you would feel that way. The nut jobs of the world (as some of the environmentalists are) seem to scream louder than most. They also have a tendency to take credit for a "victory" regardless of how much they actually had to do with the outcome.

But I think that we would agree that if the profit to cost ratio were high enough that the oil companies would find a way to build what they wanted.

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

They also have a tendency to take credit for a "victory" regardless of how much they actually had to do with the outcome.

.

You mean like this and this?

...

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

[Gravitymaster 0]

Thought you might be interested in this article. It seem to contradict much of what you have claimed about oil reserves being in decline.

Quote

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/27/D8CSMS300.html

Saudi Oil Minister: More Refineries Needed
Sep 27 12:06 PM US/Eastern


By TERRY LEONARD
Associated Press Writer


JOHANNESBURG, South Africa


Saudi Arabia's oil minister said Tuesday that world oil reserves are more than enough to meet rising future demand but that without new refineries prices will remain high and markets volatile.

"These are turbulent times for oil markets. Prices are under pressure because the petroleum industries infrastructure is stretched thin," Ali Naimi told the 18th World Petroleum Congress in Johannesburg. "Most of the spare capacity of the 1980s and 1990s has disappeared, resulting in a system that has a much smaller margin for error."

Naimi said the havoc and disruptions caused recently by hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf of Mexico offered visible examples of the fragility of the energy delivery system.

Concerns about refining capacity, heightened by the hurricanes, have pushed the price of oil beyond $60 a barrel.

Underscoring his point that the problem was not supply, Naimi said that after Katrina struck, OPEC had offered to put 2 million barrels a day on the market but had no takers, while the International Energy Agency had offered 60 million and only 11 million was taken. Much of the rejected crude was the heavy and sour grade, which is more difficult to refine than light, sweet crude.

During periods of low prices, Naimi said low cost fuel encourages consumption but causes investors to turn to other industries that offer greater returns. If prices are too high, global growth suffers and the petroleum industry suffers from reduced demand.

"The current price level is providing the returns needed to attract adequate investment," said Naimi. "We believe spare crude oil production capacity will grow sufficiently in the next 3-4 years to restore some margin of safety to world crude markets."

However, he said higher prices were not enough to assure the necessary investment. He said environmental impact issues and contentious planning regulations will make it more difficult to overcome the bottlenecks in the current energy delivery system. He said an uncoordinated proliferation of regulations was complicating investment decisions and clouding the future.

Rex Tillerson, president of Exxon Mobil Corp., said the damage from hurricane Rita was still being assessed but that Hurricane Katrina had destroyed 40 oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and damaged others. It also briefly knocked out 95 percent of the oil production in the Gulf of Mexico and 90 percent of natural gas production there.

"There was a rapid, market-driven recovery. Within two weeks, all but 15 percent of oil and 6 percent of gas production was restored," he said.

The hurricanes, he said, underscored the global interdependence of the oil industry and made it clear that no country can be truly energy independent.

Tillerson said global energy demands would increase by 50 percent in the next 25 years and about 80 percent of that increase will come from the developing world.

"We must invest wisely and continue to make technological innovation to meet the challenge of the next generations energy demand," said Tillerson.

He said although some estimates were as high as 7 trillion, by conservative estimate there were at least 2 trillion barrels of oil yet to be recovered. "That is more than twice all the oil recovered up to now in all of human history," said Tillerson.

Naimi said talk of oil scarcity reminds him of the 1970s, when people also thought the end of the age of oil was at hand.

"But in the intervening years, when we were supposedly facing ap precipitous decline, world oil reserves more than doubled," said Naimi. The increase was noteworthy because the world consumed 800 billion barrels during the period.

Proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia in 1970 totaled 88 billion. Today, he said they are estimated at 264 billion barrels despite 91 billion barrels have been produced over the 35 years.

New technology as well as new discoveries have raised world oil reserves. He said new technology would soon boost proven reserves in Saudi Arabia by 200 billion barrels. He said a technology that allows the country to recover just 1 percent more from its fields would add a full year to production.

-

[billvon 2,434]

> It seem to contradict much of what you have claimed about oil
>reserves being in decline.

There is no question whatsoever that our reserves are in decline just from straight math - unless you believe gnomes are pumping oil back in. It is logic like that that will result in a catastrophic oil crash instead of a merely painful one.

>Proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia in 1970 totaled 88 billion.
>Today, he said they are estimated at 264 billion barrels despite 91
>billion barrels have been produced over the 35 years.

Those gnomes have been busy! Look at all the oil they pumped down there.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

> It seem to contradict much of what you have claimed about oil
>reserves being in decline.

There is no question whatsoever that our reserves are in decline just from straight math - unless you believe gnomes are pumping oil back in. It is logic like that that will result in a catastrophic oil crash instead of a merely painful one.

>Proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia in 1970 totaled 88 billion.
>Today, he said they are estimated at 264 billion barrels despite 91
>billion barrels have been produced over the 35 years.

Those gnomes have been busy! Look at all the oil they pumped down there.

Either that or the original estimates on future supplies which you like to use are just plain wrong.

Quote

He said although some estimates were as high as 7 trillion, by conservative estimate there were at least 2 trillion barrels of oil yet to be recovered. "That is more than twice all the oil recovered up to now in all of human history," said Tillerson.

-

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

> It seem to contradict much of what you have claimed about oil
>reserves being in decline.

There is no question whatsoever that our reserves are in decline just from straight math - unless you believe gnomes are pumping oil back in. It is logic like that that will result in a catastrophic oil crash instead of a merely painful one.

>Proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia in 1970 totaled 88 billion.
>Today, he said they are estimated at 264 billion barrels despite 91
>billion barrels have been produced over the 35 years.

Those gnomes have been busy! Look at all the oil they pumped down there.

Either that or the original estimates on future supplies which you like to use are just plain wrong.

Quote

He said although some estimates were as high as 7 trillion, by conservative estimate there were at least 2 trillion barrels of oil yet to be recovered. "That is more than twice all the oil recovered up to now in all of human history," said Tillerson.

-

Just to be devil's advocate but is the word of the Saudi Minister and the president of an OIL company really valid when it comes to telling us how much oil is left?

I mean, they have a highly vested interest in there being more rather than less.

I would like to see independent data if I could. I am too lazy to look myself at the moment.

I kinda liken it to listening to a tobacco company telling me their product will not kill me.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.