Gas Prices -- Help at last?

"Dave S" wrote in message
nk.net...


Matt Barrow wrote:


No, they haven't; they are just as susceptible to federal and local
regulations as ever.

And older plants are COSTLY to operate, mainly due to maintenance costs.

If they are all so costly, then why havent they built new capacity?

I'll let you figure that out (Hint: capital expenditure that might not
produce a drop of fuel for ten years)

The law doesn't outlaw building them, just says you need to build it to
meet modern environmental standards. That makes the older GRANDFATHERED
units "cheap".

It costs (say) $25 billion to build a new one, ten years playing
bureaucratic games and in the mean time, the old one costs $1 billion
additional in operating costs. You figure it out.




Tis is all about profits.


Or an agenda.


The oil companies havent gone into bankruptcy in droves over 20 odd
years, if anything they have made money hand over fist.


In most years they make less profit than the Feds and states take in fuel
taxes.

Considering in Texas I pay 38.5 cents/gallon in taxes to the State and
Federal Governments on my auto gas, and it's been at that tax rate for a
very long time (years), I am not surprised that the Fed's make more money
on the gas than do the oil companies. When gas was $2.00/gal, that amounts
to 20% going to uncle sam. When its at $3.00/gal like it is now, the
gubmint only is taking in maybe 12% of the gross. Thats just from the gas
sales, and doesnt count taxes paid on the property, inventory and income
by the oil companies to the state, local and federal governments.

Well, HALLELUGHA!!



I somehow don't feel sorry for the oil companies because they aren't
making a clean 12-20% profit on their product after ALL their expenses.

Thats because at heart your a parasite and a whiney, bitchy kid (or act like
one).

Saying the companies make less in profit than the government does in taxes
isn't telling the whole story.

Well, enlighten us from your vast public academia/MSM repertoire.



They have not increased their refining capacity because it would
decrease their overall PROFIT margin. Building new refining capacity to
"standard" would drive their incremental cost of production UP, and eat
into the stockholders dividends. But make no mistake, it would still be
PROFIT.


So why should they use their profits and capital to build more capacity
when so many just squeal and whine?

I didn't say they should. The status quo serves them the best. And now
they are about to benefit (if passed) from legislation that will let them
modernize their capacity (WITHOUT environmental protection requirements)
and improve their profit MARGINS. Perhaps the government should get into
the production and refining business and offer some "competition" or
incentive to the oil industry.

HAHAHAHAHAH


Christ almighty....you are _really_ dense!!!


Any government profits could be used to support the general fund or any
other lawful government endeavor.

Okay, time to bring in someone fairly sane,

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:38:26 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

If they are all so costly, then why havent they built new capacity?

Because we won't let them!

The one in Arizona is going on ten years now, and the environmental
lobby is looking to stretch out approval for a few more months, until
the clock runs out on the existing environmental impact statement.
Then the company can start all over again.


-- 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

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:38:26 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

If they are all so costly, then why havent they built new capacity?

Because we won't let them!

That's true, but that quote isn't mine.

Mind your P's and snips :~)


The one in Arizona is going on ten years now, and the environmental
lobby is looking to stretch out approval for a few more months, until
the clock runs out on the existing environmental impact statement.
Then the company can start all over again.

Can't let people take priority over those rats and snails ...

The law doesn't outlaw building them, just says you need to build it to
meet modern environmental standards. That makes the older GRANDFATHERED
units "cheap".

No, it doesn't, because you have to retrofit the old and probably
uneconomical plant.

Imagine if you had to meet current automobile tailpipe emissions on
your ancient 172.


-- 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