Lack of refining capacity, thanks envirokooks

On Aug 10, 8:37*pm, Rich > wrote:
> Shell ran out of gas in Toronto today. *Enviroscum strike again.
> Gasoline shortages, the greatest spread ever of the price of oil ($79
> barrel) versus the price of gasoline $1.30/L/ $5.00 per U.S. gal. *Thanks
> enviros, I owe you and hopefully, you'll end up on my bumper, strictly by
> accident, of course.

Before you blast the "enviroscum" I suggest you go live in a country
for a while that doesn't have any/much of any environmental laws. I
have and I can tell you when I returned I kissed my catalytic
convertors and vowed to never again have a vehicle that doesn't run
legally.

So, yes, while the enviroscum can cause us hotrodders some head/heart
aches they, for the most part, see a/the broader picture.

Patrick

On 8/14/2011 12:32, dwight wrote:
>
>> Huge snip
>>
>>> So, please, don't throw taxes and regulation in my face, when that has
>>> nothing to do with anything
>>> If you don't understand Wall Street and the futures market, Google that,
>>> instead of "why I hate o'bama."
>>>
>>> dwight
>>
>> Taxes and regulation have nothing to do with what? The price of oil?
>> You must be kidding when you say that taxes and regulation of any item
>> doesn't affect that item's price. Taxes and regulation definitely affect
>> prices.
>>
> The price of oil jumped 50% virtually overnight. That was taxes and
> regulation? I'll grant you that taxes and regulations may raise the
> price of oil by pennies on the barrel, but they absolutely do NOT figure
> into a 50% increase.
>
>> I'm guessing you are a liberal, socialist, o'bama fan boy.
>> I doubt there is any way to argue with you. Any anti o'bama information
>> is false, and o'bama is the savior of the US.
>>
>> Time is short so I can't comment on the rest of your post.
>
> No time to explain how the President imposes a tax of any kind?
> I am a liberal in some areas, a conservative in others. I am neither a
> fan nor a hater of any president. I just prefer facts.
>
> And critical thinking. I really enjoy critical thinking.
>
> dwight
>
>


I *really* enjoy pie and ice cream.
















,................................................. .........................................

\

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 11:36:36 -0400, FalconGuy
> wrote:

>Any legit news sources ?
>Other than the NY times. Maybe the gulf should be closed off, and remove
>the water. No more shore drilling.

China has an agreement with Cuba to drill for oil in the Gulf.

China has also staked claimes to oil and mineral mining of the ocean
floor all around the East China Sea, etc. They even acknowledge
planting a Chinese flag on the ocean floor.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 12:13:49 -0400, "dwight" >
wrote:

>
>"twk" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, "dwight" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "twk" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > In article >,
>>> > "huhie" > wrote:
>>
>> ---- Snip a little ----
>>
>>> >> it is the only way to save us from global warmings, raise gas prices
>>> >> so
>>> >> everybody stops using gas .- EVScum
>>> >>
>>> >> (so we will starve to death quickly, instead of being slowly roasted
>>> >> in
>>> >> 50,000 years++)
>>> >
>>> > That's what o'bama is doing now. He's helping to run up the price of
>>> > oil
>>> > so the hybrid cars seem more economical... No wait, it's so the battery
>>> > cars will seem more economical. Yep, that's it. However if you live in
>>> > a
>>> > northern/cold climate on our earth, you're screwed! Battery cars don't
>>> > work in the cold.
>>> >
>>> > Hail o'bama! It's for our own good! Hail o'bama!
>>> > BTW, what are we going to do with all those expended batteries in a few
>>> > years...
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Not sent through any particular network from any pompous smart phone.
>>>
>>> Wait... what? Obama's the reason I'm paying $3.73 per gallon? I had no
>>> idea.
>>> Can you cite any kind of source for this? I'd like to read up on it.
>>>
>>> dwight
>>>
>>
>> Yes he is responsible for higher gas prices. No doubt about it.
>> o'bama admits it and his administration admits it.
>>
>> Well, _IF_ (not saying you are) you're a liberal o'bama fan boy, you
>> won't believe anything bad about that dirty commie, but here goes. And
>> yes, I spell it "o'bama" out of my displeasure and utter lack of respect
>> for the dirty commie... I mean dirty socialist. I meant socialist.
>>
>> Top Five Things Obama Has Done to Raise Gasoline Prices
>> <http://www.americansolutions.com/dhd...ngs-obama-has-
>> done-to-raise-gasoline-prices.php>
>>
>> Gas prices too high? Obama may not think so. He's pumped to use high oil
>> prices.
>> <http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...011/0307/Gas-p
>> rices-too-high-Obama-may-not-think-so.-He-s-pumped-to-use-high-oil-prices
>>>
>>
>> Obama Admin Says New Offshore Safety Rules May Delay Oil Drilling, Raise
>> Gas Prices
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/10...admin-says-new
>> -offshore-safety-rules-may-19250.html>
>>
>> Obama raises taxes on oil and gas to stop global warming
>> <http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2...-taxes-on-oil-
>> and-gas-to-stop-global-warming/>
>>
>> Obama to raise gas prices and inflation by raising taxes on oil companies
>> <http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2...se-gas-prices-
>> and-inflation-by-raising-taxes-on-oil-companies/>
>>
>> o'bama is a dirty commie, bent on big government and total control of
>> the masses. As a result of this, he is destroying the United States
>> economy and, ultimately, the United States.
>>
>> --
>> Not sent through any particular network from any pompous smart phone.
>
>Look - I don't mind that you hate. In fact, some would argue that it's your
>god-given right to hate. I just prefer facts.
>
>Aside from the questionable sources (I really enjoyed "american
>solutions.com," which I suspect may be an oil-industry funded site), and the
>woefully outdated articles, we are left with two big questions:
>
>How does the President, under the U.S. Constitution, impose a tax?
By imposing regulations through the EPA and other agancies
>
>What does the President, under our capitalist system, have to do with oil
>speculation on Wall Street?
Speculators bet on the price of oil rising or falling. In order to
decide which way to bet, they watch a wide range of actions which
impact the price. For example, as soon as Obama slammed the door on
deep water drilling and imposed finacial sanctions, the speculators
knew the price would rise.
>
>In other words, there is no oil shortage. There are no shortages of oil
>leases or reserves to be tapped. The oil companies already have more of a
>playground than they can use. By all accounts, opening up even MORE reserves
>to the oil companies will have little or no impact on the price of gasoline
>within the next ten to twenty years.
>
>So all of what you've cited are little more than red herrings, and
>irrelevant to the discussion.
>
>Rich started this thread, "Lack of refining capacity," which IS more of an
>issue. When oil companies drill here in the U.S., there is no mandate that
>the oil be SOLD in the U.S. In fact, it goes out to the world market and can
>end up anywhere. It's the refining capacity that keeps the U.S. gas engine
>turning. (i.e.: why would Iran, with its huge reserves of oil, have gasoline
>shortages? Because they lack the refining plants to turn all that oil into
>usable gasoline.)
>
>So, please, don't throw taxes and regulation in my face, when that has
>nothing to do with anything.
>
>If you don't understand Wall Street and the futures market, Google that,
>instead of "why I hate o'bama."
>
>dwight
>

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:01:07 -0400, "dwight" >
wrote:

>
>"FalconGuy" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>
>>> Okay, Rich, you started this.
>>>
>>> WHY did Shell run out of gas? Please explain, other than "enviroscum
>>> strike again."
>>>
>>> Certainly, there is no oil shortage, and any gasoline shortages are
>>> primarily local, not a result of "refining capacity." Why Toronto?
>>>
>>> dwight
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Their refinery was shut for maintenance. They underestimate on hand stock
>> and completion of maintenance.
>> But Canada in the Central East still does not have enough refinery
>> capacity,
>> If terrorist blew up two of our, I can tell you Ontario would stop moving.
>
>Yes. And, actually, I misspoke - the gas shortage in Toronto WAS the result
>of refining capacity, but was certainly not the fault of any "enviroscum."
>In fact, it was an almost voluntary shortage of refined product.
>
>Aside from that, yes, Ontario doesn't have enough refineries to withstand an
>attack. The U.S. has LOTS of refineries, but a certain hurricane took out a
>good number of them, leading to a near-panic here and prices well over the
>$5.00 mark in certain areas. Obviously, none of that had anything to do with
>"enviroscum," either.
>
>Rich's original post was nothing more than another troll, and a purposely
>misleading and inflammatory one, at that. Gasoline prices go up rapidly,
>come down slowly, then increase again without any apparent cause. But I know
>(as much as I can "know") that this has nothing to do with
>environmentalists, taxes, regulations, or any alleged shortage of oil
>reserve leases.
>
>dwight
>
the "enviroscum" are the ones who for over 40 years have been trying
to stop the building, or even expanding, of new refineries. They are
also the ones who have pushed for fuels which damage engines (here in
California even the state tried to eliminate the special fuel and the
feds said they could not go back). Ethanol? It's driving up food
prices AND screwing up engines. That's at the 10% level. And Obama
wants to go to at least 15% in the near term and higher down the road.
As for what Obama is doing... just go back and read his own words
during the campaign.

Do I trust the oil companies? No. Do I trust this socialist style
adminiostration? Absolutely not. Nor do I blame Obam,a for
everyuthing. It's all been building up to this for decades, and both
parties are to blame. I just see this one as the very worst... even
worse than Jimmy Carter.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 18:22:19 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Aug 10, 8:37*pm, Rich > wrote:
>> Shell ran out of gas in Toronto today. *Enviroscum strike again.
>> Gasoline shortages, the greatest spread ever of the price of oil ($79
>> barrel) versus the price of gasoline $1.30/L/ $5.00 per U.S. gal. *Thanks
>> enviros, I owe you and hopefully, you'll end up on my bumper, strictly by
>> accident, of course.
>
>Before you blast the "enviroscum" I suggest you go live in a country
>for a while that doesn't have any/much of any environmental laws. I
>have and I can tell you when I returned I kissed my catalytic
>convertors and vowed to never again have a vehicle that doesn't run
>legally.
>
>So, yes, while the enviroscum can cause us hotrodders some head/heart
>aches they, for the most part, see a/the broader picture.
>
>Patrick

Do they really? I've seen what they have done to California. The state
has been going down hill since Ronald Reagan left office. Buisness is
killed by an avalanche of regulations. You can't even take your own
son to a job site to teach him the family business without being
levied with an obscene fine.

In article >, "dwight" >
wrote:

> "twk" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "dwight" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > Huge snip
> >
> >> So, please, don't throw taxes and regulation in my face, when that has
> >> nothing to do with anything.
> >>
> >> If you don't understand Wall Street and the futures market, Google that,
> >> instead of "why I hate o'bama."
> >>
> >> dwight
> >>
> >
> > Taxes and regulation have nothing to do with what? The price of oil?
> > You must be kidding when you say that taxes and regulation of any item
> > doesn't affect that item's price. Taxes and regulation definitely affect
> > prices.
> >
>
> The price of oil jumped 50% virtually overnight. That was taxes and
> regulation? I'll grant you that taxes and regulations may raise the price of
> oil by pennies on the barrel, but they absolutely do NOT figure into a 50%
> increase.

I believe D E Willson answered that, and thank you D E.

> > I'm guessing you are a liberal, socialist, o'bama fan boy.
> > I doubt there is any way to argue with you. Any anti o'bama information
> > is false, and o'bama is the savior of the US.
> >
> > Time is short so I can't comment on the rest of your post.
>
> No time to explain how the President imposes a tax of any kind?

Are we picking nits here? Are you that ignorant of how things work?
Okay, the president's staff, cronies, fellow party members, etc, adjust
taxes, make laws, and all those other things. When I said "o'bama" I
meant his entire horde of socialist party members. Sorry I wasn't as
clear as I should have been for you.

--
Not sent through any particular network from any pompous smart phone.

"twk" <

>>
>> No time to explain how the President imposes a tax of any kind?
>
> Are we picking nits here? Are you that ignorant of how things work?
> Okay, the president's staff, cronies, fellow party members, etc, adjust
> taxes, make laws, and all those other things.

Isn't that the way it's intended to work? It's called checks and balance
but of late all I see is evidance of check$ and no balance in the system.

On Aug 14, 11:23*am, "dwight" > wrote:
> "Rich" > wrote in message
>
> news >
> > Shell ran out of gas in Toronto today. *Enviroscum strike again.
> > Gasoline shortages, the greatest spread ever of the price of oil ($79
> > barrel) versus the price of gasoline $1.30/L/ $5.00 per U.S. gal. *Thanks
> > enviros, I owe you and hopefully, you'll end up on my bumper, strictly by
> > accident, of course.
>
> Okay, Rich, you started this.
>
> WHY did Shell run out of gas? Please explain, other than "enviroscum strike
> again."
>
> Certainly, there is no oil shortage, and any gasoline shortages are
> primarily local, not a result of "refining capacity." Why Toronto?
>
> dwight

Refinery capacity was CUT due to ridiculous environmental concerns.
C02 is NOT a pollutant it never has been. It's integral to plant
life. Which the enviros should be aware of, since they are all
vegetables.

On Aug 14, 1:01*pm, "dwight" > wrote:
> "FalconGuy" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Okay, Rich, you started this.
>
> >> WHY did Shell run out of gas? Please explain, other than "enviroscum
> >> strike again."
>
> >> Certainly, there is no oil shortage, and any gasoline shortages are
> >> primarily local, not a result of "refining capacity." Why Toronto?
>
> >> dwight
>
> > Their refinery was shut for maintenance. *They underestimate on hand stock
> > and completion of maintenance.
> > But Canada in the Central East still does not have enough refinery
> > capacity,
> > If terrorist blew up two of our, I can tell you Ontario would stop moving.
>
> Yes. And, actually, I misspoke - the gas shortage in Toronto WAS the result
> of refining capacity, but was certainly not the fault of any "enviroscum."
> In fact, it was an almost voluntary shortage of refined product.
>
> Aside from that, yes, Ontario doesn't have enough refineries to withstand an
> attack. The U.S. has LOTS of refineries, but a certain hurricane took out a
> good number of them, leading to a near-panic here and prices well over the
> $5.00 mark in certain areas. Obviously, none of that had anything to do with
> "enviroscum," either.
>
> Rich's original post was nothing more than another troll, and a purposely
> misleading and inflammatory one, at that. Gasoline prices go up rapidly,
> come down slowly, then increase again without any apparent cause. But I know
> (as much as I can "know") that this has nothing to do with
> environmentalists, taxes, regulations, or any alleged shortage of oil
> reserve leases.
>
> dwight

Go back to your Prius, greenie.