Gas Prices -- Help at last?

The goal of preserving a clean environment is certainly worthy, sharply
limiting industrial pollution =is= consistent with a free society, since
"your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", the likely
outcome of eliminating "onerous environmental regulations" would be
unfettered pollution and a country that smells like 1960s New Jersey.

Not that I have any interest in seeing America return to an industrial
economy, but there a millions of under-educated Americans who desperately
needed those long-gone blue-collar jobs.

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.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Not that I have any interest in seeing America return to an industrial
economy, but there a millions of under-educated Americans who desperately
needed those long-gone blue-collar jobs.

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.

That somebody profits from destroying the environment is no reason to
let it be so. The same arguments can be made for casinos, logging the
redwoods, and cocaine as a legitimate business.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:0al2f.415579$x96.414573@attbi_s72...
The goal of preserving a clean environment is certainly worthy, sharply
limiting industrial pollution =is= consistent with a free society, since
"your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", the likely
outcome of eliminating "onerous environmental regulations" would be
unfettered pollution and a country that smells like 1960s New Jersey.

Not that I have any interest in seeing America return to an industrial
economy, but there a millions of under-educated Americans who desperately
needed those long-gone blue-collar jobs.

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.
--

Those jobs are gone for good. Even if there were no enviornmental
regulation, low skill jobs are gone to low wage places.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

(You mentioned that refining capacity has grown despie the reduced number of
actual refineries)

(18.6 Mbbl in 1981 vs 16.8Mbbl today)

http://www.investors.com/editorial/I...0051010&view=1

/excerpt

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., falsely claimed that the "major
oil companies haven't even tried to build one single new refinery in this
country in 30 years" and that they "do not really want to expand refinery
capacity because it would cut into their record-setting profits."

The fact is they increased capacity and use at least on a
refinery-by-refinery basis. 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.

The refineries are doing more than ever, but their numbers are dwindling and
no new ones are being built. The reason is not greed, but cost and
regulations. From 1994 to 2003, the refining industry spent $47.4 billion
not to build new refineries, but to bring existing ones into compliance with
environmental rules. That's where those "profits" go.

The last refinery built in the U.S. was in Garyville, La., in 1976.

Twenty-nine years later, approval of a new refinery could require as many as
800 different permits.

And just where would you build it? After Hampton Roads Energy Corp. proposed
a refinery near Portsmouth, Va., in the late 1970s, environmental groups and
local residents fought the plan. After court battles in front of federal and
state regulators, the firm gave up and canceled the project in 1984.

/end excerpt

Here is the official data:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petro.../gasoline.html

Go there, then to the Production XLS file under History. Gasoline
production is up substantially in the past 20yrs as you would expect from
the increased number of cars and increased population.

The reason no new refineries have been built is that it is cheaper to expand
existing ones because they already have all the infrastructure for bringing
crude in, the real estate is already owned and they are often close to large
markets. The return on capital by increasing capacity at an existing
refinery might be double the return of building a new refinery. It doesn't
take a genius CEO to figure that one out. Is enviornmental and other
regulation a factor? Of course it is, but is not a big factor when
considering a multi-billion dollar refinery.

Mike
MU-2


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

(You mentioned that refining capacity has grown despie the reduced number
of actual refineries)

(18.6 Mbbl in 1981 vs 16.8Mbbl today)

http://www.investors.com/editorial/I...0051010&view=1

In article et,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

Here is the official data:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petro.../gasoline.html

Go there, then to the Production XLS file under History. Gasoline
production is up substantially in the past 20yrs as you would expect from
the increased number of cars and increased population.

The reason no new refineries have been built is that it is cheaper to expand
existing ones because they already have all the infrastructure ...[snip]

At what point will it become too expensive to expand existing refineries?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
Here is the official data:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petro.../gasoline.html

Go there, then to the Production XLS file under History. Gasoline
production is up substantially in the past 20yrs as you would expect from
the increased number of cars and increased population.

Lets see: 1982-83 average is 6800bbl/day (at 81% capacity), 2004-05 avg is
8800 (at 96% capacity). Not quite 30%. I would suspect that more efficient
process and equipment has been a factor as well.

Now, since 1982, how much as US consumption of gasoline and other fuels
increased?

How much has the importation of gasoline (as oopsed to raw petroleum)
increased? I suspect that transportation of gasoline is much more costly
than petroleum since gasoline is explosive rather than merely flamable,
correct?


The reason no new refineries have been built is that it is cheaper to
expand existing ones because they already have all the infrastructure for
bringing crude in, the real estate is already owned and they are often
close to large markets.

When they expand, does it not require additional EPA compliance? How much
could they expand in the areas they already occupy?

The return on capital by increasing capacity at an existing refinery might
be double the return of building a new refinery.

Probably even more, like four or five times given the length of time before
a ROE is realized.

But how much can one enhance equipment when the refinery was built using, at
the latest, 35 year old technology?

It doesn't take a genius CEO to figure that one out. Is enviornmental
and other regulation a factor? Of course it is, but is not a big factor
when considering a multi-billion dollar refinery.

Ten years (minimum) delay and $billions$ before a single drop of fuel comes
out of the pipe is a big factor I'd say.

So why have they allowed more than half to close, given all that
infrastructure and accessibility?

Also, how many of our remaining 149 refineries are in either hurricane
zones, or hitching a ride on the San Andreas fault in California?


(18.6 Mbbl in 1981 vs 16.8Mbbl today)

http://www.investors.com/editorial/I...0051010&view=1

"
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., falsely claimed that the "major
oil companies haven't even tried to build one single new refinery in this
country in 30 years" and that they "do not really want to expand refinery
capacity because it would cut into their record-setting profits."

The fact is they increased capacity and use at least on a
refinery-by-refinery basis. 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.

The refineries are doing more than ever, but their numbers are dwindling and
no new ones are being built. The reason is not greed, but cost and
regulations. From 1994 to 2003, the refining industry spent $47.4 billion
not to build new refineries, but to bring existing ones into compliance with
environmental rules."

------------------------------------------------------------

So, again, are there costs with EPA/OSHA/et al compliance for _expanding_
existing refineries?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:0al2f.415579$x96.414573@attbi_s72...

Not that I have any interest in seeing America return to an industrial
economy, but there a millions of under-educated Americans who desperately
needed those long-gone blue-collar jobs.

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.

Michael

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.

But that's a different thread.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"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?


But that's a different thread.

Not really!
--
Matt

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