"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"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.


It is the run it at 100% capacity rule. If you are only running at 60% capacity then you have too much capacity...in the
eyes of the company. As far as critical infrastructure is concerned however the gov't should mandate that some capacity
be held in reserve, just like they do with other critical industries...