So, Dave, you say "we have been building refineries" and "the real information exists. Look into it."

Here you go!

No, Dave, with ONE exception, we have built NO new refineries here in the U.S.

From:
http://emirateseconomist.blogspot.com/2008/06/first-us-refinery-in-30-years.html

First US refinery in 30 years
The US has not had a new refinery in 30 years. Some of this is due to regulation that biases incentives towards investment in old refineries, much of it is due to regulation and public resistance to refineries in general: NIMBY -- not in my backyard. Some of the reason the oil market does not work well is scarcity of refinery capacity in total, and scarcity of refinery capacity specific low quality oil.

From 2005:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12227
US: No New Refineries in 29 Years

by Jad Mouawad, New York Times May 9th, 2005

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.

Another 2005 report:
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn54956.htm

First new US refinery in 30 years to be built in Arizona

22-11-05 The Mexican government will permit construction and operation of a pipeline to deliver crude oil to a proposed new Arizona gasoline refinery that would be the first such project built in the United States in nearly 30 years, the company behind the project said.

From 2004, MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6019739/

As of this week (in summer 2004), the industry is producing gasoline and other end products at something like 98 percent of capacity.

But the solution — boosting refining capacity to allow a greater margin for error — isn’t easy. There hasn’t been a new refinery built in the U.S. since 1976, the result of extremely tight environmental restrictions, not-in-my-back-yard community opposition, and the high cost of new construction.

Until about the mid-1990s, we had too much capacity,” she said. “Demand finally grew into our capacity when we finally saw refiners run at full utilization after 1995


So, Dave, the claim (mistatement) that we have been building refineries is, well, WRONG. And, oh, by the way, if there is SOOOOO little oil left to drill for and find, why do companies want to drill for the oil that isn't there and then build refineries for oil they won't have?

And, as one of the articles states, we had excess capacity in the 1990s. Hmmmm, as my brain remembers it, gas was a LOT cheaper during those years we had excess capacity. Now that we can't refine it fast enough, the price goes up. I guess there is no connection there.......


I've given up on you ever admitting you 'could' be wrong; I just don't want you to convince anyone else that your viewpoint is flawless.

There IS another point of view, and it isn't hard to find the information to support it.

I know I've said this before about new refineries. It always gets ignored, possibly because it's so obvious and because [insert your favorite political talk show host] wants to blame the other side of the aisle and debate what, exactly, qualifies as a "fact."

So why would oil companies build more refineries? If anyone can find just one good reason, I'm all ears (eyes?).

Would they build a new refinery to...

...drive down their profits because right now, gas has a limited supply?
...use up their vast interest-earning capital building a $30+ billion refinery?
...build something that will be obsolete and/or useless before they're done paying for it?

How about we socialize oil and gasoline production? Would that be better? How about we spend your tax dollars building them instead? We'll just borrow it from the Chinese and pay it off in a few decades when our money is no better than a Mexican peso.

I haven't been using debatable sources or partisan websites to make my point. I've been using logic and common sense and following the (really obvious) trail of money. The reasons are 90% economic and 10% political. That 10% isn't going to push anything either way. If it could, Ralph Nader would be president.

We need to stop making this a political football, guys--it's hurting us all. All Americans are hurting from gas prices just as you are. Don't you think the people on the other side of the aisle enjoy their hobby cars as much as you do? Aren't their groceries just as expensive? Isn't it just as expensive to heat their houses in the winter? We need to unite if problems are going to be solved. Blaming the other side only results in a lot of nothing that prolongs the agony. Plus, it makes us all sound like idiots and crybabies.

As far as putting animals ahead of people, don't we have any perspective at all? We're talking about killing and/or driving to extinction animals simply because we don't like paying $4 for gas! How pathetic is that? Medical research, sure, but gas money for our SUVs?!? Didn't the Valdez make you angry, especially when you got the bill? Guess whose money is going to pay for a clean-up if something goes wrong near one of these useless holes in the ground (hint: it won't be Exxon's). And you thought the bridge to nowhere in Alaska was ridiculously expensive...

Instead of drill here, drill now, how about eliminating oil exports? There would be millions of barrels of oil right now, more than any new wells will produce in the next 20-30 years (nearly 10% of our daily needs, in fact). In 20-30 years, who knows, we may not even need them. Want to make this political? Try this: Bush (and the conservative congress he had for 6 of his 8 years that you guys are conveniently forgetting) could have done this 4 years ago when the problem started to really show. But he didn't. I wonder why?

Oh, yeah, he and his best friends all own oil companies and if there's a global market instead of a captive one, crude oil prices go up. Who benefits from that, I wonder...

Logic, not politics, boys. We can be better people and a better country if we get over the politics that are eating us all like a cancer. Our problems are nobody's fault--they're everybody's.

That's all I have to say about that.

You've just spent a very large post attacking the way I phrased one part of one sentence. You can look up where all the other refineries that have been built are, if you want too.

I haven't bothered to read the last couple posts, and responding to them only legitimizes their content for some. Their material content so far speaks for themselves. However misquoting me just to continue being irrationally contrary needs to be addressed.

Cutting and pasting your quotes verbatim isn't misquoting you.

...is misquoting and misleading when you don't do it in context.

Besides if you had cut and pasted them they'd have been in all capital letters.

This has not been an honorable exchange.

Matt, Great post. To bad it makes sense and will probably be ignored.

Yeah, I think Matt about summed it up right there.

Ron,
We went to the moon in 8.5 years! Why is it that everyone insists on making these 10, 15, 20, 30, and 40 year estimates on when we could drill oil somewhere? If America could be like it was during the 40's-early 60's when we were the leaders in innovation and in the world, we could drill within 5 years, if we put our minds to it. Here is what we should do:
Put high tariffs on imports namely in the car industry

Repeal Nafta

Encourage people to enter the sciences

Actually put money into places like Nasa and other scientific exploration depts. of the government.

"Want to make this political? Try this: Bush (and the conservative congress he had for 6 of his 8 years that you guys are conveniently forgetting) could have done this 4 years ago when the problem started to really show. But he didn't. I wonder why?

Oh, yeah, he and his best friends all own oil companies and if there's a global market instead of a captive one, crude oil prices go up. Who benefits from that, I wonder..."


Dont forget Bill Clinton's 8 years! Also, this 'conservative congress' had a thin majority and many of the 'Republican' Congressman and senators are very liberal as well! And remember in at least 4 of those Bush years, gas was not a bad price like it has gone up in the past 2-3 years or so. Pilosi and Reed have been in charge for almost 2 of those years. A little known fact is that Congress approves the budget, the President just proposes one. So, the economy is not all of Bush's fault, as the Democratic congress has approved at least 2 of his budgets and remember, they ran in 2006 and won, because they promised to get us out of Iraq (which was unrealistic) and did they? No! In addition, instead of helping to lower gas prices and fix the economy, they are seriously (Pilosi spoke about it the other day, saying 'it is a real possibility')looking at impeaching President Bush! When he only has 6 months left! . That is probably why they have a 14% approval rating! At least the President has 22%!

Securing the drilling rights, generating studies as to where exactly to drill, project engineering and construction of these multiple rigs including the ability to handle and transport the oil will take many years. Bush commented yesterday the it would take 30 years and not the 18 years as quoted by many.

It really doesn't matter, it goes to the high bidder on the world market. By then the American dollar will be worth less then the peso the way it is heading.

Speaking of NASA, their budget has been hacked away to nothing and they are only a shell of what they used to be.

We could speed up the beurocracy if we wanted to. But, they wont, because everyone wants to make a buck. It is terrible what they have done to NASA.

We didn't have to drag hundreds of miles of pipeline with us into space. And a refinery is just as complicated a machine that costs just as much as a rocket ship. It isn't just drilling a hole in the ground and catching what comes out, it's processing it into usable crude (it'll be full of rocks and water and silt and other crap), then somehow transporting it through some of the most remote, hostile places on earth. How long did the Alaskan pipeline take to build, and that's just a pipe. We're talking that plus a bunch of oil derricks and processing plants...


What about the cars being built locally by foreign manufacturers? Toyota and Honda sell more US-built cars built by Americans than cars imported from overseas. What about the Germans, English and Italians who sell cars here, too? How long until other countries do the same thing to us and stop letting our products in? With the weak dollar, US goods are much more affordable all over the world. If other countries start taxing our imported goods, fewer people will buy them, no?

What about imported parts? There are no 100% built-in-the-US vehicles. Zero. This punishes the consumer because all cars will get more expensive. And if you only tax whole cars, why not import the parts and put them together here?

And then you get the other industries, such as the steel industry, demanding protectionist policy, too. What about them?

Slippery slope, my friend.


Kind of the same thing as above. What about the domestic-brand cars being built in Canada and Mexico? I don't personally like NAFTA, but now that we're in bed, it's pretty hard to untangle the sheets.


How?


I love NASA and outer space. I love talking to my neighbor who is an actual NASA rocket scientist. Unfortunately, NASA is a 98% money loser. If you want to fix the economy and domestic industry, spending more tax money won't do it. They can only employ so many scientists. Besides, the free market is much better at inventing useful, marketable products than the government, no matter how much tax money we use.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Nearly 10 years later and you're still trying to pull a but...but...Clinton! on us?!?

Of all this discussion, that's the part you chose to pull out and discuss? You've perfectly illustrated exactly the point I was trying to make. Finger pointing gets us nowhere, and divisions and blame games like this are why we're swirling the bowl with no clear direction.

If anyone thinks the "other side" thinks and feels any differently than they do, they're sadly mistaken. People are people. When can Americans be Americans again?

You should have quoted this part of my post instead:

Just reading these posts one has to wonder why America is in the sad shape it's in........what a shame..........

Matt, this isn't directed solely at you, I just replyed on the last post.

I think most of you guys are way too young to realize how it was then and how it is now................

All I can say is.......

OIL IS DOWN THREE DAYS IN A ROW.

And the beat goes on.....

I was thrilled to see that, too, and cautiously optimistic. The best part is that the market seems to be cooling off because the speculators believe that usage is going to down in the coming months. That's the best possible reason for a price drop. It means the investor gravy train may be nearing the station...

Fine Clinton was unfair (though if drilling would have been allowed to grow, we would have had enough oil, but, that is another discussion) Ok, in that case, since Clinton is off of the table, (Personally, I like Bill Clinton) how about Nancy Pilosi and Harry Reid? and the 12% approval rating! They are in control and have done nothing about oil prices!

SkyKing, I agree. Five gallons of gas now costs more than my first and second car. The youngsters who started driving in the '80's or '90's my not know how this has changed and are probably just used to it..

George Bush? Bill Clinton? You need to go back a few presidents, back to Jimmy Carter. The time is 1980 and the Windfall Profit Tax, a complicated excise tax of 15-70% on "profits" based on the difference between the governments' so-called fair price and the selling price on every barrel at the refinery. Anyhow it killed the oil industry and economy in oil producing states. Shortly after WPT, imports started rising from 32% and have not stopped rising.
My family had some land leased to an oil company and one well was drilled producing 5 barrels a day. It was no longer profitable after the WPT and was shut down, capped and abandoned. No other wells were drilled. Fast forward to today: 5 barrels at $130=650/day=4550/week=236,600/year should be profitable without the WPT. But guess what...there are no drillers looking to lease, no drilling rigs and no rigs to revive old wells. Scrapped years ago.
The only thing that killed the WPT was falling oil prices on imported oil and the tax was more expensive to administer than revenue generated.
Six years ago I bought gas locally for less that $1/gal. There seemed to be plenty of oil then and cheap. Maybe too cheap since it was the last nail in the coffin of our domestic oil industry. I would say that the Saudis and others have won: killed our domestic oil industry then jacked up the prices. Thank you Jimmy Carter for getting it all started.
I can hear ole "MOON" now...5 barrels a day will contribute nothing. One flea on a big ole hairy dog will not suck much blood, but many will even to the point of significant blood loss or gain from the fleas perspective.
Willie

For the dreamers, what the world really looks like:

Oooh, I feel all warm & fuzzy!!!! You're welcome!!!! And now to inject some much needed humour: The sad part is, we're to scared to NOT sell to you guys because you may just invade us!!!

Very, very interesting discussion by all. Me? I just pays me monies & sigh.

Johan

Moon
Best I can make out your "dream" map is a 2004 assessment. You picked that one to bolster your "doom and gloom" philosphy. I'm sure you found THIS source but ignored it. Completely different!
Willie

I guess all these people are dreaming too.............I think I'd rather be called a dreamer than someone from the peanut gallery.

Yak Yak Yak! Our big problem is to much red tape and taxes, w/o Tax on my gas here in CA, and the stupid 'special blend' gas would be in the 3$ range here! We have about 70 cents a gallon of taxes + the special blend costs. Also, if we had more Ethyl stations, which we have NONE! In or within 300 miles of L.A. that would help to! Also, if we raze Wilmington (a dump here in L.A.) they are sitting on a very large oil reserve, and they would probably rather live somewhere else and have $ anyway!

Read it carefully. The Wikipedia page agrees absolutely with the map I posted, even though it comes from a less reliable source. There were very few changes between 2004 and 2007, none of them meaningful. There've been very few changes since the mid-1970s for that matter.