Gas Prices -- Help at last?

Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...

Did you READ the article? There hasn't been a new refinery built in the
U.S. since I was a senior in high school -- 29 years ago!

Gee, don't you think that *maybe* we might have gone a wee bit too far with
gubmint regulations?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...


Did you READ the article?

Of course he didn't, the facts might get in the way of a preconceived
notion.

"Newps" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:
Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...

Did you READ the article?

Of course he didn't, the facts might get in the way of a preconceived
notion.

Apparently neither of you read the article.

The lack of new refineries means nothing, except (as Dave S pointed out)
that the oil companies don't need new refineries to meet their demand and
they don't feel like investing in their own future, except if they can get
taxpayers to subsidize it, and if they can be released from their
obligations to the environment.

The article, which neither of you apparently read, pointed out that not only
have no new refineries been built, oil companies have CLOSED refineries
already built. If they need refineries so badly, why did they close the
ones they had?

Furthermore, whether passing this bill was the right answer or not, the
article points out that it was done in a very underhanded way. At one
point, they had 424 votes, against the bill. Somehow, they managed to
REDUCE the vote count (to 422) and yet increase the number of "ayes". In
what world is it reasonable to just keep recounting the votes until you get
the answer you want? (Please, no one from Washington State answer that one
). The House voting rules provide for five minutes to count the vote,
and yet the Representative standing in for the oh-so-honorable Tom DeLay
held the vote open for more than 40 minutes, waiting until he and his
friends were able to pork-barrel the votes their way.

All of the above is in the article. Why didn't either of you notice those
facts?

Thankfully, the bill did retain the environmental protections required of
the oil companies. But otherwise, it's a huge win for the oil companies,
and unlikely to be much of a real benefit for consumers. We probably do
need more refineries, if for no other reason than to provide backup capacity
for situations like the hurricanes. But oil companies make plenty of
money...there's absolutely no reason they can't provide their own investment
in their own future.

Any taxpayer that thinks that they will wind up paying less money overall by
funding new refineries is fooling themself.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Newps" wrote in message ...
Jay Honeck wrote:
Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a better handle on what subsidies look like and
what profits are for...

Did you READ the article?

Of course he didn't, the facts might get in the way of a preconceived notion.

Apparently neither of you read the article.

The lack of new refineries means nothing, except (as Dave S pointed out) that the oil companies don't need new
refineries to meet their demand and they don't feel like investing in their own future, except if they can get
taxpayers to subsidize it, and if they can be released from their obligations to the environment.

The article, which neither of you apparently read, pointed out that not only have no new refineries been built, oil
companies have CLOSED refineries already built. If they need refineries so badly, why did they close the ones they
had?

Furthermore, whether passing this bill was the right answer or not, the article points out that it was done in a very
underhanded way. At one point, they had 424 votes, against the bill. Somehow, they managed to REDUCE the vote count
(to 422) and yet increase the number of "ayes". In what world is it reasonable to just keep recounting the votes
until you get the answer you want? (Please, no one from Washington State answer that one ). The House voting rules
provide for five minutes to count the vote, and yet the Representative standing in for the oh-so-honorable Tom DeLay
held the vote open for more than 40 minutes, waiting until he and his friends were able to pork-barrel the votes their
way.

All of the above is in the article. Why didn't either of you notice those facts?

Thankfully, the bill did retain the environmental protections required of the oil companies. But otherwise, it's a
huge win for the oil companies, and unlikely to be much of a real benefit for consumers. We probably do need more
refineries, if for no other reason than to provide backup capacity for situations like the hurricanes. But oil
companies make plenty of money...there's absolutely no reason they can't provide their own investment in their own
future.

Any taxpayer that thinks that they will wind up paying less money overall by funding new refineries is fooling
themself.

Pete


Thanks Peter, all points covered. I stand by my original comments...

Peter Duniho wrote:

The article, which neither of you apparently read, pointed out that not only
have no new refineries been built, oil companies have CLOSED refineries
already built. If they need refineries so badly, why did they close the
ones they had?

They close them because it reduces supply and allows them to charge more. Of
course, they really prefer it if they can force *another* company to close
*their* refineries (as Mobil Oil did in California) rather than closing their own.

The rest of Pete's post matches the report of the vote on "All Things
Considered" (NPR) the other day.

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.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:TLZ1f.1668$Uj2.1379@trndny03...
They close them because it reduces supply and allows them to charge more.

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.

[...]
The rest of Pete's post matches the report of the vote on "All Things
Considered" (NPR) the other day.

I guess whether that's a good thing or not depends on the person considering
that coincidence.

Pete

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?

It will make fascinating reading, trying to discern the real reasons that an
oil company would close a badly needed oil refinery.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"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

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 03:41:28 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

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

Because meeting EPA regulations costs more than the refined products
could ever pay back.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

If they need refineries so badly, why did they close the
ones they had?

EPA.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com