Gas Prices -- Help at last?

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:bFN2f.424183$_o.410547@attbi_s71...
It is they who have suffered the brunt of the crazy, over-blown
environmental regulations. That smell you and I haughtily disdained
was the smell of money to them and their families.

Right, cost of labor has nothing to do with losing all those blue-collar
jobs. And it probably really was environmental regulations that led to
the average American hourly labor rate of $18 plus benefits versus about
$1.50 in China.

Of course, there are many facets to the problem -- wages being one of
them.

Such as the fact that dealing with environmental regulations requires
hundreds of people, not merely making $18 an hour, but six figures, just
to deal with paperwork before a single iota of work gets done?

And this is necessarily a bad thing? What is it that bothers you? The fact
that PHd's who study ecology and the impact of man-made disturbances are
fairly compensated for their efforts? No, that can't be it because you are a
free-market proponent, and in the free market they are being paid what they
are worth. The fact that environmental impact studies are done at all?
Should we simply stand by and let whoever can produce the cheapest
product/service win, regardless of any consequences? If that is the case, we
made a big mistake wiping out slavery in this country.

Michael






But that's a different thread.

Not really!
--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:fK_2f.5263$Iq3.2156@trndny01...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"In 1981, the U.S. had 324 refineries with a total capacity of processing
18.6 million barrels of crude per day. Today just 149 refineries have a
daily capacity of 16.8 million barrels."

Well, they said *output* is the important thing. Another post said that in
1981 the refineries were producing at 81% of capacity and they are now
producing at 96% of capacity. That means that production has increased by
1.055 million barrels of crude per day.

The statement is "a total capacity".

Capacity, the 18.6Mbbl and 16.8Mbbl, is measured at 100%. Overall capacity
has dropped around 10% and the # of refineries has dropped about 55%. Thus,
the refineries are running about 40% more product, but with little
allowance for downtime or maintenance. As the article states, the existing
refineries have been expanded (hence the 40% increase in production), but
how much is it feasible to keep running old technology? Old technology is
much less environmentally friendly? Remember, too, that these were built
using 1970s technology. How old is your computer?

In the 1970's, a powerful automobile engine was 350-450 cubic inches and
250-300HP (using today's calculations); today, a 3.5L (217 c.i.) generates
the same HP, gets about double the MPG and has a fraction of he emissions,
The refining technology is likely on parallel.

Would you run your engine just below redline for 30 years? For 30 years
without oil changes (no pun intended) or overhauls?
Remember, too, that many of these were built using 1970s technology. How old
is your computer?

Also, the trend is downward regarding number of refineries. More will close
in the coming years. Remember , too, what happened when Katrina hit a
localized area and took out 20% or so of the overall capacity.


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:vN_2f.4165$vi2.342@trndny04...
Matt Barrow wrote:

As well, what amount of finished product did we import in the past?
AIUI, it was zero until the past few years.

Certainly not zero. Hess (for one) has been importing gasoline since the
mid 70s. Not sure when BP got their shoe in the door.

During the 1970's crunch? With the costs of transporting gasoline vs. raw
petroleum, that would not have made economic sense once the oil bust hit in
the 80's.

How much more does it cost to transport gasoline (explosive) as opposed to
raw crude (merely flammable)? What would the economies be in importing prior
to the past few years?


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:bFN2f.424183$_o.410547@attbi_s71...
It is they who have suffered the brunt of the crazy, over-blown
environmental regulations. That smell you and I haughtily disdained
was the smell of money to them and their families.

Right, cost of labor has nothing to do with losing all those
blue-collar jobs. And it probably really was environmental regulations
that led to the average American hourly labor rate of $18 plus benefits
versus about $1.50 in China.

Of course, there are many facets to the problem -- wages being one of
them.

Such as the fact that dealing with environmental regulations requires
hundreds of people, not merely making $18 an hour, but six figures, just
to deal with paperwork before a single iota of work gets done?

And this is necessarily a bad thing? What is it that bothers you? The fact
that PHd's who study ecology and the impact of man-made disturbances are
fairly compensated for their efforts?

To write 8000 page EIS's? For ten years running?

No, that can't be it because you are a free-market proponent, and in the
free market they are being paid what they are worth.

To produce...what?

The fact that environmental impact studies are done at all?

They're bogus!

Should we simply stand by and let whoever can produce the cheapest
product/service win, regardless of any consequences?

You were on track until that last part.
If that is the case, we made a big mistake wiping out slavery in this
country.

Geez, you're one non-sequitur after another (not to mention other things).
--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

On 2005-10-12, Matt Barrow wrote:
refineries have been expanded (hence the 40% increase in production), but
how much is it feasible to keep running old technology? Old technology is
much less environmentally friendly? Remember, too, that these were built
using 1970s technology. How old is your computer?

Are the refineries really using old technology? New ones might not have
been built but old ones may have been upgraded with newer technology
(possibly how they have output increased per refinery).

The guts of my computer are just under 3 years old. However, trivial
parts (case, CD-ROM drive, monitor, keyboard) are over twice this age.
Is it not possible that refineries haven't undergone refits like my
computer has - so the ironwork might be from the 1970s, but the guts are
much newer?

Some machinery in any case is built to last. Railway locomotives, ships,
airliners, power stations, telephone exchanges etc. are often built to
have a nominal life span of over 30 years. I would expect the same to be
true of a refinery.

Remember, too, that many of these were built using 1970s technology. How old
is your computer?

You make that comparison again, but I don't think it's valid - Moore's
Law (really observation) which drives the computer market is really an
exception rather than the norm. In any case as we're starting to run
into physical limits right now (and generally, desktop computers remain
useful for longer - for the typical office job - an 833MHz Pentium 3
computer made 6 years ago is still more than adequate, but using a 6
year old computer 6 years ago was often very painful).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

You've actually got me thinking about it, John. I only realized what
a perfect candidate I was for riding my bike to work after this
thread.

Good on you, you environmental whacko! ;^)

Let us know how it goes.

Sylvain wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

anyway. Lines will appear in the very near future, just as rolling
blackouts and brownouts began to appear a few years ago. We are
running out of energy generating capacity,


actually we weren't running out of energy generating capacity,
but the analogy is good since this is another example of
price gouging...

Sorry, but we are running out of electrical generating capacity and
gasoline refining capacity. You don't have to believe it now, but you
will in the not too distant future.

Matt

Sylvain wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

anyway. Lines will appear in the very near future, just as rolling
blackouts and brownouts began to appear a few years ago. We are
running out of energy generating capacity,


actually we weren't running out of energy generating capacity,
but the analogy is good since this is another example of
price gouging...

California is certainly a leading indicator, but it certainly isn't the
only place that will have this problem.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip61.htm

Martin Hotze wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:


Maybe this equation has changed with better technology, but I really wonder.


this will change as soon as there is no oil available. it might be 50 or
100 or 200 years, but the day will come.

But the solution will still not be biofuels as you will have no
pretroleum left to make the fertilizers to grow the fuel crops nor run
the tractors to harvest them. And if the energy required to grow the
crops really is more than the yield, then your answer can't be to power
the tractors with biofuel. :-)

The only real source of energy that is for all practical purposes
unlimited, is solar energy or a derivative of it such as the wind. I
suppose you could also put tidal sourced energy into that category as
well as long as the moon keeps spinning around us.

Matt

Matt Barrow wrote:

Would you run your engine just below redline for 30 years?

That has absolutely nothing to do with running a business or a plant. The
Japanese taught us well -- the idea is called "just in time." The general idea
is that you minimize inventory and don't keep idle machinery. You *do* keep a
margin which is called "percent fill at relief" in the telecom world, but no
sane person keeps nearly 20% of their plant idle (as was the case in the early 80s).

And, yes, if I owned a manufacturing plant, I would run it as close to 100%
capacity as I could. That would make me the most money.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.