"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:Ij02f.465927$xm3.216500@attbi_s21...
The question was rhetorical. The point is, it's a bit disingenuous for
the oil companies to claim they need to build new refineries when they
are the ones who have chosen to close the ones they had.

Source?

What do you mean "source"? You posted the source. Duh.

It will make fascinating reading, trying to discern the real reasons that
an oil company would close a badly needed oil refinery.

I agree.

The fact that the refineries were closed is indisputable. So either they
closed a badly needed refinery, or they closed a refinery they didn't need.
Dozens of times. If you have information that suggests "the real reasons
that an oil company would close a badly needed oil refinery", I'm all ears.

Personally, I think the more likely answer is that the oil refinery wasn't
all that badly needed in the first place.

In any case, whether the refineries are needed now or not, that doesn't
justify blatantly violating the legislative rules for lawmaking, nor does it
show that the oil companies need the US government to bend over backwards to
subsidize their refineries.

Pete