Blame OPEC! Blame the environuts

"Gordon Burditt" > wrote in message
...
> >>There is no shortage of refinery capacity.
....
> >there most certainly is, when was the last refinery in the US built?
....
> This is not a convincing argument that there is a capacity shortage.
Wrong! There is indeed a shortage of refinery capacity in the US. That and
the costs of doing business here (read: taxes, wages, benefits, fees, &
other graft) are high enough that we've increased our import of
ready-to-market petroleum products; gas, light-fuels, jet fuel, diesel, etc.

> It could just as well be true that refineries are at 10% of capacity,
> but the greedy oil companies won't produce more so they can drive
> the price up.
Pure speculative nonsense with absolutely no basis in fact!

> When was the last time the US built a buggy-whip factory? Hint:
> that doesn't mean there's a buggy-whip factory capacity shortage,
> even if the demand for antique buggy whips has gone up in the
> last decade.
More misdirect bull****! You could just as easily ask when we built the
last typewriter factory? Factories are built when the cost of building,
owning, feeding, and running them is less than the payment you can get for
selling their product or service. Simple supply & demand
economics--something the soviets could never get right, and something our
current crop of fiscally illiterate liberals think they *can* get right...

> A convincing argument would show that refineries are at or near
> capacity, and that oil companies are not producing more gasoline
Which they are.

....
> If there really was a capacity shortage the oil companies are worried
> about, they wouldn't be shutting down profitable refineries. If

Name one?

> they are greedy monopolistic pigs, they might shut down profitable
> refineries to drive the price up due to artificial shortages. If
Yeah! You got it. Somebody puts up their own money, time and effort to
build a refinery. They ink long-term agreements to put into place a stream
of delivery agreements for everything from office supplies to light-bulbs,
spare parts, new equipment, lunches, and tankers full of crude (done years
in advance and running for equally long periods of time)...just so they can
fit your idea of "driving the price up" by reducing supply? Sounds like
another liberal financial fantasy...right along with tax cuts benefit only
the top 1% of taxpayers...

Running a refinery isn't exactly like shoveling the **** out of that barn
you live in. You can't stop, and take a few hours off to drink a beer.
Once they're up and running, a lot of complex steps have to happen rather
flawlessly for a long time to keep in going. Failing to do so results in
things going "BOOM!", from time-to-time...

You might indeed shut down an otherwise profitable refinery...however, the
taxes, license fees, maintenance, insurance, and at least a skeleton staff
still need to be paid for. According to your math, that's easily done. If
it's so easy, I'd think that you're missing out on a chance to make a
killing...


Dusty
--
....rest of the bafflegab snipped...

James Chamblee wrote:

>
>
> wrote:
>
>> My Air is the cleanest I've ever breath.
>> My Water is the cleanest I've ever drank.
>
>
> Then you are in a sorry state of environmental quality, and you're also
> in denial, because you have no way to determine your own air & water
> quality.
>
> Over half of the nation's waters do not meet prevailing water quality
> standards, which means that if a water body is classified as a sewer, it
> doesn't meet the standards for being a sewer.
>
> Bush's relaxation of air quality standards for power plants means that
> 30,000 more people per year will die from respiratory ailments.

Prove it.
LZ

> wrote in message
...
> Why do the environuts fail to understand that people do not want
> to BUY vehicle that get 30 MPG. If they did there are plenty of
> vehicles on the market that get 30 MPG, and more, for those that
> want them yet people buy vehicles that get 20 MPG. WHY? Because
> that is the type of vehicle they want, need and can afford. The
> environuts prefer that the government force you to buy the
> vehicles that they think you need, sad.
>
>
> mike hunt
>

Personally, I'd _LOVE_ to have a vehicle that would (1) pull a 10-ton
fifth-wheel or gooseneck trailer at full [75 MPH] highway speeds up a 10%
grade with a 45 MPH headwind, (2) seat at least 6 full-size [6'3". 275 lb.
each] adults comfortably, and (3) get at least 30 MPG all at the same time.

If I have to compromise on this combination, though, it'll have to be the
fuel economy that will suffer since the first two are _NOT_ negotiable.

James Chamblee wrote:

Actually he just repeated propaganda from the DNC press room.
LZ
>

James Chamblee wrote:

>
>
> 127.0.0.1 wrote:
>
>>> Environmental quality improvements create many more jobs than are
>>> lost. They also improve the quality of life for people. Many
>>> university and other studies have shown that the cost of
>>> environmental controls are paid back 4-5 times over in reduced health
>>> care costs alone.
>>
>>
>> is that so? in what industry have these improvements been implemented
>> and how jobs were created?
>
>
>
> An official EPA report on pollution control job creation can be found at
>
> http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/costs/02.htm
>
> Jobs created by pollution controls are professional jobs of many kinds,
> including engineering, and are almost ALWAYS better jobs than the ones
> eliminated when pollution is cleaned up.
>
How about all the jobs which left to where controls are less stringent
and there are fewer radical envirokooks/
LZ