Reply With Quote
But... but... somebody on a left-wing blog pointed this out to Dan! If you can't trust Daily Kos, who can you trust?
Dan has dignity? WTF?
But... but... somebody on a left-wing blog pointed this out to Dan! If you can't trust Daily Kos, who can you trust?
...Seems to me Stout's just sore because he got taken to school...that said, I will defer this round to our resident oil expert Scott...although in this post 911 world, I think that gas is of vital national security interest to our country...I mean, lets get serious, you want to decapitate the U.S. economy, hit the refineries....So, yeah, I have a problem with 'cost margins' being at play to a commodity that is so important to our economy....and yes, I have a problem with oil companies raising prices on consumers every time they run into operational problems or 'unexpected surges' in consumption...
Uhhh, who go taken to school dan?
You are one cool dude. You throw enough post some
are bound to stick. I use the word post loosely.
And then want the appearance of the resident expert in
all matters.......gotta hand it to you.
I don't mind being corrected by scott, who knows what he is talking about in fine detail. But it was really funny for you to say that American oil companies aren't doing any expansions, when I have at least one headhunter per week calling me about a refinery expansion job in one of about 14 states.
But thank you for finally being honest about your agenda. You think the oil industry should be nationalized.
Last edited by Extra Stout; 12-13-2007 at 02:45 PM.
"the oil industry should be nationalized."
turn about is fair play.
The oil industry has already privatized the govt (as in purchased it), so that the govt will not seriously support non-oil alternatives.
When the industry retools every ing year, it's takes 13 more years to get to 35 MPG? GMAFB
================
May 24, 2007
Oil Industry Says Biofuel Push May Hurt at Pump
By JAD MOUAWAD, NT Times
Gas prices are ing again
And some oil executives are now warning that the current shortages of fuel could become a long-term problem, leading to stubbornly higher prices at the pump.
They point to a surprising culprit: uncertainty created by the government’s push to increase the supply of biofuels like ethanol in coming years.
In his State of the Union address in January, President Bush called for a sharp increase in the use of biofuels, along with some improvement in automobile fuel efficiency to reduce America’s use of gasoline by 20 percent within 10 years. Congress is considering legislation calling for a nearly fivefold increase in the use of ethanol.
That has forced many oil companies to reconsider or scale back their plans for constructing new refinery capacity.
In hearings before Congress last year, oil executives outlined plans to increase fuel production by expanding existing refineries. Those plans would add capacity of 1.6 million to 1.8 million barrels a day over the next five years, for an increase of 10 percent, according to the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.
But those plans have since been scaled back to more than one million barrels a day, according to the Energy Information Administration, an arm of the federal government.
“If the national policy of the country is to push for dramatic increases in the biofuels industry, this is a disincentive for those making investment decisions on expanding capacity in oil products and refining,” said John D. Hofmeister, the president of the S Oil Company. “Industrywide, this will have an impact.”
The concerns were echoed in a recent report by Barclays Capital, which said the uncertainty about the ethanol growth “will do little to accelerate desperately needed investment in complex United States refining units.”
“Indeed, it is likely to deter and further delay investment, if not rule out many refinery investments completely.”
Even so, the current cost of gas which in real terms is approaching the old peak of $1.42 a gallon in March 1981, or $3.31 adjusted for inflation has renewed su ions that the oil industry is looking for ways to keep profits high by delaying much-needed investments. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, began hearings yesterday on the topic “Is Market Concentration in the U.S. Petroleum Industry Harming Consumers?”
And the House voted yesterday by a narrow margin to penalize any oil companies, traders or retailers found to be charging “unconscionably excessive” prices for gasoline and other fuels. President Bush will probably veto the measure because the White House has said such legislation would amount to price controls.
Experts point to many short-term reasons the United States is running low on gasoline, causing prices to rise: many oil companies are doing maintenance work on refineries; new federal rules make fuels cleaner but costlier; and a string of delays, fires and accidents in the industry have reduced supplies just when drivers are starting to hit the road for summer vacations. Many analysts predict prices will keep rising, then soften later in the summer as demand trails off.
Energy executives dismissed any suggestions that they were intentionally keeping gasoline off the market.
The oil companies say their views on the longer-term prospects for fuel reflect simple economics. Because of the enormous investments required to expand refineries, they say they have no other choice but to re-examine their plans in light of the calls for more ethanol fuel, regardless of how realistic they may be.
“The policy environment has shifted dramatically,” said Mike Wirth, head of global refining business for Chevron. “There is a great risk that has been introduced to projects, predicated upon increasing supplies, that the demand may not be there.”
Refineries are a choke point in the nation’s supply of fuel. Because they have not invested enough in refineries to increase gasoline supplies, oil companies have been unable to meet the country’s growing demand in recent years. That has forced them to rely on imports, which are more expensive than fuel refined domestically.
The fragility of the refining system became apparent after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. At the time, President Bush offered to reopen some military bases as sites for constructing refineries and Congress passed legislation to encourage refiners.
But oil companies rejected the idea of constructing new refineries in the United States, saying it would be impractical and too expensive.
As a result of the push for biofuels, and encouraged by federal subsidies and grants, dozens of ethanol distilleries are being planned. These investments should double the annual production of ethanol from corn to 15 billion gallons by 2012 from about 6 billion gallons today.
But given farmland constraints and the need to use corn for food, that is as much ethanol as can possibly be produced from corn, according to the ethanol industry’s own calculations. Ethanol producers recognize that it is not clear how an additional 20 billion gallons of ethanol President Bush has called for 35 billion gallons of biofuels by 2017 would be produced from cellulose or biomass.
“The current thinking is that based on today’s technology, we suspect corn-based ethanol will generate at least 15 billion gallons,” said Brian Jennings, the executive vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol, an association of ethanol and corn producers. “Beyond that, it’s uncertain. The marketplace will make that determination on where it will come from.”
Yet some members of Congress would like to make the president’s goal for biofuels a mandatory target the equivalent of 2.3 million barrels a day that would, in effect, create an ethanol industry roughly the size of world-class oil producers like Kuwait or Nigeria.
The economics of cellulosic ethanol, made from nonfood crops and agricultural waste, are also unclear. Since cellulosic ethanol, still at an experimental stage, is twice as expensive as corn-based ethanol, there are currently no commercial-scale cellulosic plants.
Lawrence Goldstein, an energy analyst at the Energy Policy Research Foundation, an industry-financed group, has been warning for nearly a year that the government’s twin goals of encouraging refiners to increase production and promoting increased supplies of biofuels work against each other.
“These two policies are not complementary,” Mr. Goldstein said. “These policies are in conflict.”
In addition, Mr. Goldstein said, an emphasis on ethanol might lead to increased volatility in fuel prices.
“If we get a bad corn crop, we will end up paying for it at the pump and on the food shelves,” he said. “We are not buying security. We are increasing volatility.”
Clay Sell, the deputy secretary of energy, acknowledged the concern, but said that rising energy consumption meant both biofuels and additional refining capacity would be needed in the long term.
“One can think that these goals are potentially in conflict,” Mr. Sell said. “But demand growth supports the need for investments in biofuels and growth in refining capacity. Are we concerned about it? Yes. But do we believe these concerns are well founded? No.”
Until the mid-1990s, the United States had significant spare refining capacity. But because of consolidation in the industry, the number of refineries declined while unprofitable operations were shut. As demand grew, however, and capacity remained flat, the picture changed. In recent years, refineries in the United States have been running at or close to full capacity.
Domestic refineries can now process about 17.5 million barrels of crude oil each day, much of it imported. But with consumption now close to about 21 million barrels a day, more imports of refined products are also needed.
In recent weeks, refiners point out that they have been increasing output: gasoline production in the United States is at its highest level ever, 8.85 million barrels a day.
Also, by increasing output from existing refineries, oil companies say they have expanded their production by 200,000 barrels a day since last year. Expansion of existing plants has added the equivalent of 10 new refineries over the last 10 years.
The refining industry has also spent vast amounts more than $50 billion in the last 10 years to meet requirements to produce cleaner fuels, according to the American Petroleum Ins ute, the industry’s main trade group.
But demand is outstripping supply. In the first three quarters of the year, gasoline use grew by 2 percent, nearly twice last year’s pace. Domestically produced supplies, though, have increased by only 0.5 percent a year on average.
Some consumers, meanwhile, are trying to drive less or are simply absorbing the higher cost. “I’m already driving the minimum,” said Dennis Zygnowicz, 51, of Garden City, Mich., who recently stopped at a S station and paid about $12 to put less than four gallons in his GMC Jimmy. “The only way I could do any less would be to ride a bike.”
Another driver, Tamar Bittelman, a kindergarten teacher from Berkeley, Calif., says her daily commute gives her little choice. “It’s unbelievable to me how much I’m paying for gas,” said Ms. Bittelman, who recently paid $3.56 a gallon to fill her 1998 Subaru Legacy wagon. “I’m just much more aware of how much every trip to the grocery store is costing us.”
Lisa Alcalay Klug and Nick Bunkley contributed reporting.
Last edited by boutons_; 12-13-2007 at 02:53 PM.
So what is your solution, that we subsidize oil companies so that they can earn normal rates of return on their dollars invested? Or that they are nationalized and subsidized by tax payers? Neither sounds particularly attractive, since (as you've already stated) we have the refining capacity coming online to meet anticipated future demand.
Second...
It's basic supply and demand, what exactly is your complaint?I have a problem with oil companies raising prices on consumers every time they run into operational problems or 'unexpected surges' in consumption...
And for the record, my intention is not to "school" anyone (and I'm unaware of any at ES's expense)... just clear up the facts. This is only one of three subjects I know anything about, so I'm able to contribute.
Manny has no punch as a one-line cynic. He needs to revert to Manny 2005 IMO. Remember the halcyon days of Manny 2002-4? Gone, those days are.
BTW, Saudis doing business in Texas is nothing new.
That's what I was thinking too.
Partisanship makes you stupid.
Why do you guys always have to play the Nationization card? Not only would that be unsound economic policy, it would also be rather futile in these ole' United States....what I want is some sort of protection for the consumer...I'm not particularly sure what that should be, but preferably it would start a sound national energy policy that doesn't involve invading other countries to soak up their resources, and I'd also over-stress energy conservation and efficiency, especially by automobiles, even subsidize it, but absent that in the current administration...I'm kinda leaning toward the windfall profit tax, but I would only ins ute it on profits over a certain percentage over market price...for instance gas has gone up 100% just since Dubya came into office.....instead of lining the pockets of greedy CEO's, at least 35% of that increase paid by consumers should have gone to a windfall profit tax that funded alternative energy, light-rail in major cities, and the creation of a Manhattan style project, with some of the greatest minds in the world, that worked to solve the nations long-term energy needs - absent oil....So what is your solution, that we subsidize oil companies so that they can earn normal rates of return on their dollars invested? Or that they are nationalized and subsidized by tax payers? Neither sounds particularly attractive, since (as you've already stated) we have the refining capacity coming online to meet anticipated future demand.
At least $1 per every gallon sold in the U.S., billions and billions of dollars, is added on profit because the U.S. grab for oil in Iraq and its saber-rattling toward Iran has destabilized the world energy market...that's led to Venezuela and Russia nationalizing their energy resources..(i.e...market inefficiency)...so on top of putting the war in Iraq on our kids credit card, consumers are paying at the pump for the Neocon's over-reach in the Middle East...ut it was really funny for you to say that American oil companies aren't doing any expansions, when I have at least one headhunter per week calling me about a refinery expansion job in one of about 14 states.
...the Bush administration has had 6 years to deal with this problem, instead their energy policy has made it far worse, by 2012 we may or may not need added production capacity (probably will with toll roads, but that's another story)...
Dude you ask for a windfall profits tax then you complain about market inefficiency in the next post? You're all over the place and inconsistent as .
Nah, I just don't want all the money going to the oil comps. from something the oil industry doesn't want either, prices above a certain equilibrium, but if they have to happen, then lets do something productive with the money so that we're just not repeating history and expecting a different result...Dude you ask for a windfall profits tax then you complain about market inefficiency in the next post? You're all over the place and inconsistent as .
..and now this: Bush Petro coins
And that will end my 2007 participation in the Politics Forum. See ya next December. I'll leave you with this, Dan-o.
Let's face it Dan. You once again, like XRay says, just throw posts to see what sticks.
I really wish you would do some homework and find the truth behind this propaganda you constantly regurgitate.
Here's the deal. If you want to stop buying and supporting a Saudi company in the USA, then pe ion people to stop buying oil from S stations!
"Nah, I just don't want all the money going to the oil comps...but if they have to happen, then lets do something productive with the money"
Anyone who doesn't want oil money...going to oil companies, is completely insane.
Like saying..."Food is vital to our national economy...but, I don't want any windfall profits from food producing companies going to food producing companies. I want some of it!"
wtf??
"oil money...going to oil companies, is completely insane."
US Govt should tax transport fuels into the $5 - $7 range, indexed to inflation with the tax revenues reserved for energy conservation. This would keep 100s of $Bs in windfall profits out of the hands of oilcos and into the US treasury.
The demand for transport fuel would drop, dozens of transport alternatives would become viable. And the US could quit wasting $Ts invading and occupying for decades other countries with oil.
WTF are oilcos getting $15B in insane tax breaks and subsidies every ing year? Because the oilcos own enought (Repug) legislators, not because the oilcos need the welfare.
......
Couldn't have defined liberal and government greed better than this statement.
Classic
bull , the "free market" is no longer free, if it ever were outside of academia, but is now fully gamed by the corps to their advantage.
The ONLY countervailing power available to restrain cors is govt. But govt itself is corrupted by the corps, so the situation is hopeless. Guess who gets ed in corp vs individuals? But keep on fantasizing about free markets, invisible hands, and the benefits of corps.
This is too good.
Actually business's using the free market to their advantage.
Spoken like a person who has no concept of free markets...or of freedom itself.
And if you hadn't noticed (like most liberals)...it's the governments who own the corporations...not vice versa.
Ask any tobacco company, Oil Company, Microsoft, IBM, ad nauseum.
Government sues and taxes/fines the outta them. It owns them, and they have to kneel down at the altar, or die horribly at their hands. Govt sucks these companies like the monster leech from alpha centauri.
And that goes for any small company...as well as you and me. Our government runs the largest extortion racket in the world. And people like you are it's biggest supporters.
Blindness, ignorance, or stupidity. Or even if it's the greed of a true idealist. Liberals are fascilitators of the biggest theives in World History.
^^Microsft is a prime example of that. They didn't
play the political game so Uncle Sugar took a little
action against them. Now the play big time. Or should
I say pay big time to the two parties.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
