[NYCFarmboy]

as our nation faces a shortage of gasoline because of lack of refining capacity...Democrats step up to the plate to keep gasoline prices artificially high.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171593,00.html


Refinery Bill Passes Amid Partisan Split
Friday, October 07, 2005


WASHINGTON — The House narrowly approved a Republican-crafted energy bill Friday aimed at encouraging construction of new refineries, although opponents said it would do nothing to ease energy prices while handing unneeded benefits to a profit-rich oil industry.

Supporters of the measure said that hurricanes Katrina and Rita made clear that the country needs more refineries, including new ones outside of the Gulf region. Critics argued it would allow the oil industry to avoid environmental regulations that would lead to dirtier air.

The bill passed 212-210. Its prospects in the Senate were uncertain.

The vote, which was supposed to be taken in five minutes, lasted more than 40 minutes as GOP leaders searched for the last two votes they needed to get the bill approved. They buttonholed lawmakers for last-minute lobbying as Democrats complained loudly that the vote should be closed. Finally two GOP lawmakers switched from "no" to "yes," giving the bill's supporters the margin of victory.

During the fight, some Democrats who had supported the legislation also switched their votes to "no." In the end, no Democrats voted for the legislation.

Rep. Joe Barton (search), R-Texas, said the bill streamlines the maze of permitting requirements for expanding or building refineries and directs the president to single out federal land where a refinery may be built. The changes could lead to construction of a new U.S. refinery within a year, he predicted.


But opponents said the legislation fails to address the rising cost of natural gas -- which will cause heating costs to soar this winter -- or deal with high prices motorists are paying at the pump. Instead, they argued, it will allow the oil industry to avoid environmental rules and force states and communities to accept refineries they don't want.

"Using Hurricane Katrina as their excuses the Republicans are again pushing their special interest agenda," said Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, including "all the special favors to the industry that were too extreme" for Congress last summer when it passed energy legislation.

But Barton said the need for more refineries was made obvious by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The hurricanes shut down a dozen refineries and disrupted a fifth of the country's gasoline supply.

The GOP legislation would give the federal government greater say in locating a refinery, at times, critics said, over community or state objections. It directs the president to select a number of closed military bases and other federal land available for refineries.

The bill also would limit to six the different blends of gasoline and diesel fuel that refiners would be required to produce, reversing a trend of using so-called "boutique" fuels to satisfy clean air demands. State officials complained the provision could limit states' ability to implement federal clean air requirements.

"The bill weakens state and federal environmental standards ... and gives a break to wealthy oil companies while doing little or nothing to affect oil prices," complained Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., one of 13 Republicans who voted against the measure.

With prices soaring, "oil companies now have all the profits and incentives they need to build new refineries" without government help, he maintained.

Barton countered that the legislation would give industry more "certainty" that a refinery project will not be delayed "without lessening any environmental law now on the books. ... The bill sets in motion a chain of events for lowering gas prices for Americans."

Attempts to add requirements that automakers increase vehicle fuel economy and a measure aimed at producing more natural gas were thwarted by GOP leaders who strictly limited the ability of lawmakers to amend the bill.

"Natural gas is an issue this (Congress) needs to deal with," said Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., who was prevented under House rules for the bill from offering a proposal that would have opened offshore natural gas resources to drilling.

Among the groups trying to kill the bill were the National League of Cities (search), nine state attorneys general, most environmental organizations and groups representing state officials in charge of implementing federal clean air requirements. They said the bill would hinder their ability to ensure clean and healthy air.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

as our nation faces a shortage of gasoline because of lack of refining capacity...Democrats step up to the plate to keep gasoline prices artificially high.

Didn't/wouldn't click on your link.

But your first sentence makes economic sense to me.

[GSixZero]

The question is not why the democrats voted against it, as that's pretty normal. But why did 13 republicans vote against it? Why did 3 republicans have to have their arms twisted in a 50 minute long five minute roll call, vote in order for it to pass?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

Didn't/wouldn't click on your link.

But your first sentence makes economic sense to me.

?

If refining capacity wasn't there, wouldn't the laws of supply and demand automatically keep the prices high without resorting to doing it artificially?

[goMac]

Here is what a Republican said about it:

""The bill weakens state and federal environmental standards ... and gives a break to wealthy oil companies while doing little or nothing to affect oil prices," complained Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., one of 13 Republicans who voted against the measure."

Please change the topic title to Looney Democrats and Republicans. Thanks.

[GSixZero]

Yes, and companies would open more refineries to profit from the increased prices, and the increased supply would lower prices some.

[NYCFarmboy]

lol ..... so you think not allowing more refineries to be built is the solution?

Refining capacity currently is just about maxed out which is causing the high prices....not lack of crude oil.

BECAUSE regulations currently prevent any new refineries from being built.

Just hating the oil industry and the fact that they make profits like any other business selling something consumers want, is not the answer.

[GSixZero]

"The bill weakens state and federal environmental standards ... and gives a break to wealthy oil companies while doing little or nothing to affect oil prices," complained Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., one of 13 Republicans who voted against the measure.

With prices soaring, "oil companies now have all the profits and incentives they need to build new refineries" without government help, he maintained.

Concentrate on the second paragraph. The laws of supply and demand will catch up soon enough that oil companies will bill the clean refineries that they need to up production,

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

as our nation faces a shortage of gasoline because of lack of refining capacity...Democrats step up to the plate to keep gasoline prices artificially high.

Or one could say the Republican party, beset by cronyism and servitude to the highest bidder tries to use the New Orleans tragedy to push a bill which would give further financial relief to their "supporters" in the oil industry by reducing or eliminating the environmental regulations required to build new or expand existing refineries. The notion that refinery capacity is incapable of meeting demand because of environmental regulations is absurd considering the oil industry itself is monopolistic and colludes to keep oil prices high.

Let's look at what happened after Katrina. Ten percent at best of oil production was shut down. That's 10 percent of 1/4 of what the US uses. Yet prices rose 25-35%. And during the same time period world oil prices saw a 10% decrease.

For this we are going to eliminate environmental protection standards for what, a 10cent saving at the pump? How about we all conserve just 10 percent of what we use and decrease demand, thus increasing supply and reducing prices. It's better than increasing the amount of toxic soup we put out into the air. If you want to think about it in monetary terms most refineries are built in areas where the surrounding population is poor, most do not have insurance and when their childhood cancer and other illness rates increase it's the rest of the nation who'll foot that bill.

Of course I'm also making a play on your compassion, you know, it's not morally right to dump more pollution on the poor just because they are poor. I mean, you guys are compassionate conservatives, right?

[rambo47]

I heard an interview on Bloomberg Radio yesterday with an oil anylist. He said one company waited 7 years for the necessary approvals to build a new refinery. By the time the necessary clearances had been granted they no longer could afford to build it, so no new refinery.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by Doofy

?

If refining capacity wasn't there, wouldn't the laws of supply and demand automatically keep the prices high without resorting to doing it artificially?

Exactly! That's why the thread title and topic is silly.

You win.

[OldManMac]

Oil production is peaking. There is still lots of oil left, but it is getting much more expensive to extract. Building more refineries isn't the solution. Sending our billions to the ME, so that we can fund the terrorists who try to kill us is the problem. People starting to realize that we can't use 25% of the world's resources, with 5% of its population, without extreme consequences, is the solution.

[spacefreak]

Then let us drill as well. We have some of the biggest oil reserves in the world.

[RIRedinPA]

[QUOTE=NYCFarmboy]as our nation faces a shortage of gasoline because of lack of refining capacity...Democrats step up to the plate to keep gasoline prices artificially high.{/QUOTE}

Dude, did you even read this article:

"The bill weakens state and federal environmental standards ... and gives a break to wealthy oil companies while doing little or nothing to affect oil prices," complained Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., one of 13 Republicans who voted against the measure.

With prices soaring, "oil companies now have all the profits and incentives they need to build new refineries" without government help, he maintained.

Attempts to add requirements that automakers increase vehicle fuel economy and a measure aimed at producing more natural gas were thwarted by GOP leaders

Someone else mentioned that 13 GOPers opposed this Bill and three had to be arm twisted to support it. Sounds to me like it's just another bit of pork barrel politics being piggy backed on public fears of gas prices and public sympathy of a natural disaster.

[RIRedinPA]

Double posting SOB.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Then let us drill as well. We have some of the biggest oil reserves in the world.

Nah, the problem is refining capacity but its not because of environmental regs that keeps the oil industry from building more its the idea of keeping supply low in a high demand market to keep prices high.

Here's a link to some internal oil companies' (Mobil, Chevron and Texaco) where they discuss keeping refining capacity low.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/

Some of the highlights:

From Mobil:

Needless to say we would all like to see Powerine stay down. [Powerine was trying to get an indendent small refinery started and it seems had problems with financing and the equipment they needed being shipped to India). Full court press is warrented in this case and I know Brian and Chuck are working this hard. One other thought, if they do start up, depending on circumstances it might be worth buying out their production and marketing ourselves. Especially if they start to market below our incremental cost of production. Last year, when they were dumping RFG at below cost of MTBE we bought out all their avails...and marketed ourselves which I believe was a major reason RFG premium last year went from 1CPG in Jan to 3-5CPG through to their shutdown. We'll have to see how this plays out, however if they do start up I would seriously consider this tactic.

FYI: We vigorously opposed the small refiner exemption when it was proposed back in 1993. We also participated in a law suit with other majors to oppose the exemption.

While the exemption was adopted and the law suit was not successful, Chuck Morgan was able to get some significant requirements put into the regs that had to be met before an exemption could be granted.

Chuck and Randy are working the issue of these applications with CARB and we're contacting our lobbyists to see what else can be done.

From Texaco:

As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical
factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the
surplus gasoline production capacity. The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining
industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery
margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist
in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline.

From Chevron

A senior energy analyst at the recent API (American Petroleum Institute) convention
warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn’t reduce its refining capacity, it will never
see any substantial increase in refining margins…However, refining utilization has been
rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low.

Poor ole oil companies, they just want to do what is right for America but us evil greenies are keeping them from doing so. Please.

[tie]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

as our nation faces a shortage of gasoline because of lack of refining capacity...Democrats step up to the plate to keep gasoline prices artificially high.

How are prices "artificially high"? Are you alleging price fixing? If so, then how will subsidizing oil companies discourage it?

How will subsidizing oil companies reduce prices anyway? They are already extremely heavily subsidized, and they are already fabulously profitable. They like high prices. It's an inelastic market.

I don't hate the oil industry and the fact that they are profitable. Of course not. But we have a capitalist economy and they can play the game the same as the rest of us. The Republican philosophy of heavily subsidizing every big campaign contributer is insane and offensive.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

as our nation faces a shortage of gasoline because of lack of refining capacity...Democrats step up to the plate to keep gasoline prices artificially high.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171593,00.html


Refinery Bill Passes Amid Partisan Split
Friday, October 07, 2005


WASHINGTON — The House narrowly approved a Republican-crafted energy bill Friday aimed at encouraging construction of new refineries, although opponents said it would do nothing to ease energy prices while handing unneeded benefits to a profit-rich oil industry.

Supporters of the measure said that hurricanes Katrina and Rita made clear that the country needs more refineries, including new ones outside of the Gulf region. Critics argued it would allow the oil industry to avoid environmental regulations that would lead to dirtier air.

The bill passed 212-210. Its prospects in the Senate were uncertain.

SNIP

The GOP legislation would give the federal government greater say in locating a refinery, at times, critics said, over community or state objections. It directs the president to select a number of closed military bases and other federal land available for refineries.

The bill also would limit to six the different blends of gasoline and diesel fuel that refiners would be required to produce, reversing a trend of using so-called "boutique" fuels to satisfy clean air demands. State officials complained the provision could limit states' ability to implement federal clean air requirements.

SNIP

Interesting that the party of smaller government and states rights feels the need to increase the Federal government's role in this area by passing legislation that could limit individual states rights.
Farmboy, any thoughts on this dichotomy?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Interesting that the party of smaller government and states rights feels the need to increase the Federal government's role in this area by passing legislation that could limit individual states rights.
Farmboy, any thoughts on this dichotomy?

I've been asking variations on that question for years, and nobody seems to be able to answer it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by KarlG

I've been asking variations on that question for years, and nobody seems to be able to answer it.

It seems like party roles are shifting. Not only are Republicans moving away from smaller governments, but they are also picking up the religious crowd, which used to be a Democrat thing back in the day. Perhaps it's a giant political party gerrymander of some sort

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

Looney Democrats vote against lower gasoline prices..

Seems to me, upon actually reading the article, a less troll-like title would be:
"Democrats and Republicans vote against lower gasoline prices.."

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y.

With prices soaring, "oil companies now have all the profits and incentives they need to build new refineries" without government help, he maintained.

This is pretty ignorant on his part. While the oil companies have plenty of profits, what possible incentive do they have to build refineries? If it were in their best interest to build refineries then they would have done so.

I do agree that it is ridiculous to point to the environmental laws as a main reason why they haven't built any in 30 years. They have a powerful enough lobby that if they really wanted to they could have done it years ago.

This bill is needed to help influence the oil companies to build new refineries because THEY DON'T WANT NEW REFINERIES. How else do you propose to get them built? FORCE the oil companies to build them? If we want new refineries built there are only a few ways to get it done: kiss their ass, force them, or have the government build them. Of the choices I'd rather kiss their ass. The other two remind me too much of certain other failed forms of government.

[Ratm]

I'm sleepy.

[besson3c]

Not that this article is particularly bad, but given that we are all intelligent people here, why would anybody want to support Fox News by reading/watching their infotainment? I haven't spent much time on the Foxnews website. Is it much different than the garbage they put on TV?

It's time that we demand more from our news sources, regardless of whether you are Republican and are so heavily invested in your love of your party that you enjoy the reinforcement that Fox provides to your already existing beliefs, and can't stand anything else. It's crappy news.

Again, perhaps it is unfair of me to judge their website the same way I do their broadcast media outlet.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by smacintush

This is pretty ignorant on his part. While the oil companies have plenty of profits, what possible incentive do they have to build refineries? If it were in their best interest to build refineries then they would have done so.

I do agree that it is ridiculous to point to the environmental laws as a main reason why they haven't built any in 30 years. They have a powerful enough lobby that if they really wanted to they could have done it years ago.

This bill is needed to help influence the oil companies to build new refineries because THEY DON'T WANT NEW REFINERIES. How else do you propose to get them built? FORCE the oil companies to build them? If we want new refineries built there are only a few ways to get it done: kiss their ass, force them, or have the government build them. Of the choices I'd rather kiss their ass. The other two remind me too much of certain other failed forms of government.

Except for the first sentence in the last paragraph, you're right. The oil companies are making enough money to build refineries if they choose to do so. Even with current environmental standards and all that, it's not like they need subsidies right now.

I find it peculiar that you say, the last choice reminds you of communism. Just take a look at England or Finland, I guess they're quite successful Kissing big companies' ass will put them at your mercy which is not a position I (or you) would want to be in. It also doesn't make sure they will do as you want them to do.

[zerostar]

NO ONE is stopping anyone from building refineries, you just need to meet environmental standards, well uh you USED to now i guess you can do whatever you want, have you seen the cancer rates of pre-law refineries? I hope to hell none of these come to your towns, I KNOW they won't come to mine.

It's all about the money, even the Repubs recognized that, why should they pay extra and build cleaner refineries when they can pass a new law and flush the **** in to your drinking water.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by smacintush

This is pretty ignorant on his part. While the oil companies have plenty of profits, what possible incentive do they have to build refineries? If it were in their best interest to build refineries then they would have done so.

I do agree that it is ridiculous to point to the environmental laws as a main reason why they haven't built any in 30 years. They have a powerful enough lobby that if they really wanted to they could have done it years ago.

This bill is needed to help influence the oil companies to build new refineries because THEY DON'T WANT NEW REFINERIES. How else do you propose to get them built? FORCE the oil companies to build them? If we want new refineries built there are only a few ways to get it done: kiss their ass, force them, or have the government build them. Of the choices I'd rather kiss their ass. The other two remind me too much of certain other failed forms of government.

You can say he's ignorant all you want, but I did a summer internship in Boehlert's Utica office when I was an undergrad contemplating law school (although I only met him personally once or twice) and I can tell you he doesn't say things uninformed. He demands to be kept up (unless he's changed drastically) on what's going on, and seems to make his decisions based on what is best for his constituents, unlike so many other Congressional "leaders" these days. The guy is sharp, and he doesn't snap to the party line. That alone gets him respect in my book.

If you think kissing the ass of the oil companies is a good idea, well, I just don't know what to say to that. They hold all the cards, and you just want to keep bending over for them. Here's an idea, how about we break our dependance on oil? And maybe then we can all drive to work for less than three dollars a gallon. There's your incentive for them to quit raping the general public and start building the refineries.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

You can say he's ignorant all you want, but I did a summer internship in Boehlert's Utica office when I was an undergrad contemplating law school (although I only met him personally once or twice) and I can tell you he doesn't say things uninformed. He demands to be kept up (unless he's changed drastically) on what's going on, and seems to make his decisions based on what is best for his constituents, unlike so many other Congressional "leaders" these days. The guy is sharp, and he doesn't snap to the party line. That alone gets him respect in my book.

If you think kissing the ass of the oil companies is a good idea, well, I just don't know what to say to that. They hold all the cards, and you just want to keep bending over for them. Here's an idea, how about we break our dependance on oil? And maybe then we can all drive to work for less than three dollars a gallon. There's your incentive for them to quit raping the general public and start building the refineries.

Well I can't say that I have all of the answers, I was just giving my own impression from my limited knowledge of the subject. You make some good points. How do you suppose that we reduce our oil dependency in the short term? (beyond conservation)

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

…Kissing big companies' ass will put them at your mercy which is not a position I (or you) would want to be in. It also doesn't make sure they will do as you want them to do.

Oh I totally agree, I just don't think that I want to go down the other road. The strength of our economy depends on government NOT micro-managing corporations. Maybe this case is an exception, who am I to say? The problem is that too often with our government the exception becomes more and more the rule.

[olePigeon]

You really think it's going to lower the gas prices?

Less than a year ago gas prices were under $2.00 a gallon (average.) $1.69 or so in Sacramento at a cheap Arco.

Then it skyrocketed to as high as $3.49 a gallon in my area, practically doubling in price.

So this bill passes. New refineries are built and gass "falls" to $2.49 a gallon. The morons are happy because the gas prices have gone "down." But they're still almost a full dollar more than when this crap started.

It's a win/win situation... for the oil companies. They get a crap load of money from infalted oil prices AND they get a crap load of money with new refineries.

[OreoCookie]

There are two ways to counter this, and those two can be combined: 1. make it a strategic priority for the government to enter to some degree in the market and 2. support the development of technologies which would make the world more independent from oil.

For years, that was just something most people would call a treehuggers' agenda, but now the prices are so high that it is an economic priority even in the States (just remember, in Europe we roughly pay twice as much as you do).

So you could either choose to try to cling to a lifestyle you can't sustain anymore (trying to have the oil companies build more refineries or whatever) or readjust your lifestyle to accomodate.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Oh I totally agree, I just don't think that I want to go down the other road. The strength of our economy depends on government NOT micro-managing corporations. Maybe this case is an exception, who am I to say? The problem is that too often with our government the exception becomes more and more the rule.

But it's also a weakness. Look at the the electricity problem in California a couple of years ago. The state needs to have a strategic interest in the essentials of a state -- that's not just the military, but in our civilized world, it's electricity, gas/oil, water, postal service, phone and, to a lesser extent, internet access. The state needs to ensure to keep those available as it needs to maintain a military.

In Germany, the government regulates those things, so companies can't offer their services at dumping prices. For phones, this has worked very well, prices in Germany are pretty cheap now, with very little risk of your (primary) supplier going bankrupt. The philosophy is not so much to get into the micromanagement, but to prevent price dumping without strangling competition.

[mojo2]

8/16/05 ABC Evening News (with the terrific, Charlie Gibson)

Quote:
Thanks to ABC News' Betsy Stark.

149 US oil refineries process appx. 17 million barrels of sweet, light, crude oil a day, which, btw, leaves us about 10% short of what we need daily. We make up the difference by importing gasoline from other nations. The last new US oil refinery went on line 30 years ago and despite a greater demand than ever before, because of the boom and bust nature of the oil business there are fewer refineries now than in 1981 when 324 US refineries processed almost 19 million barrels/day.

New refineries would ease gas prices but current refineries are maxxing out and making record profits so the owners are less interested in plowing those profits into new processing plants.
Eventually they'll have to though, because some of the current plants are starting to break down, causing even greater shortages, which supports higher prices at the pump.

Especially promising would be new refineries which are able to process the heavy crude oil. Heavy crude is harder and more costly to refine than sweet, light crude but the heavy crude is $14/bbl cheaper and there are millions of barrels available but few refineries today are capable of processing the stuff.

Analysts agree that a few big refineries could help bring down gas prices but building new capacity is a daunting task.

Because of government red tape and EPA requirements and etc., one company, Arizona Clean Fuels will have spent 15 years trying to get a relatively small refinery built by the time their first product is sold in 2010.

And even more of a problem is that despite the hue and cry for lower gas prices no one wants a refinery built in THEIR 'backyard.'


The strain on the country's 149 refineries is showing. Months of operating at full throttle, of trying to satisfy record demand has produced a summer of fires, accidents and shutdowns, creating worries about supply shortages which drive up the prices.

The futures market determines the price for oil as investors and the oil companies themselves bet on the price per barrel at a point in the future. That price is determined by market factors, global news events, newly discovered supplies, increased or decreased worldwide production capacity and the like.

Other than the profiteering which may or may not be going on from place to place, the price at the pump has been determined months ago, on the futures market.

As far as alleviating current high prices, there is pressure on refinery owners to build new facilities, but relief isn't around the corner.

Years ago, analysts predicted consumer conservation and driving habits wouldn't begin until pump prices reach $4.00/gal.

[olePigeon]

I think we should all visit Italy some time, then complain about high prices.

[itistoday]

I didn't read past the first sentence, I stopped at:

Democrats step up to the plate to keep gasoline prices artificially high.

As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), gas prices are actually being kept artificially low due to the government subsidizing it.

In addition, I think if gas prices are high, it'll encourage more companies to create more environmentally friendly cars, and it'll discourage idiots from buying disgusting SUVs and Hummer H2's.

[NYCFarmboy]

well to those opposed to "big fat oil companies" building these refineries to make profits.......

get off your @ss and build one yourselves then... this is America... no one is stopping you now except for the Democrats in Congress.

it is supply and demand... build one and you will have a product that people will want and use.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by itistoday

In addition, I think if gas prices are high, it'll encourage more companies to create more environmentally friendly cars, and it'll discourage idiots from buying disgusting SUVs and Hummer H2's.

It already does. There was a thread in the regular Lounge about that a while ago.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

get off your @ss and build one yourselves then... this is America... no one is stopping you now except for the Democrats in Congress.
.

Do they have that much power...WOW!!!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

get off your @ss and build one yourselves then... this is America... no one is stopping you now except for the Democrats in Congress.

Last time I checked, the Republicans had a majority in the House, in the Senate and a Republican President. Any regular law can be passed without being obstructed by the Democrats, and on the other hand, if something is screwed up, it's clear who has to take the blame

If the Republicans have trouble convincing their own of their laws and ideas … well, that's their problem.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Last time I checked, the Republicans had a majority in the House, in the Senate and a Republican President. Any regular law can be passed without being obstructed by the Democrats, and on the other hand, if something is screwed up, it's clear who has to take the blame

If the Republicans have trouble convincing their own of their laws and ideas … well, that's their problem.

ok, lets see what the Dems in the Senate do then if they don't fillibuster it, then great!..we will all be enjoying the benefits of lower gasoline prices very soon then!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

ok, lets see what the Dems in the Senate do then if they don't fillibuster it, then great!..we will all be enjoying the benefits of lower gasoline prices very soon then!

NO, we will be enjoying the benefit of lower gasoline prices in about 4-5 years, after the new refineries get built. Of course, by that point in time, natural market forces might have brought about a correction in the Supply/Demand equation which would bring down prices.

Although, like olePigeon said, gasoline prices that drop back down to $2.50/gallon range will seem like an improvement. But compared to where they were in the sub-$2.00 range not too long ago we would still be paying significantly more for our gasoline. And that money still goes to the oil companies who will likely have yet another year of record profits.

So, subsidizing extra refining capacity is not going to guarantee that gasoline will become cheaper over all. It is likely to give just the appearance of decreased cost to the consumer, in relative terms (i.e.: gas at $2.50/gallon is cheaper than gas at $3.25/gallon) without decreasing prices in absolute terms.

But thankfully, we are NEVER going to return to the era of cheap gas in this country.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

ok, lets see what the Dems in the Senate do then if they don't fillibuster it, then great!..we will all be enjoying the benefits of lower gasoline prices very soon then!

Maybe they don't need to filibuster it and just convince enough Republicans to vote no? It almost happened in the House

Very soon is very much far from the truth, too. It takes years to plan, build and operate a refinery. Especially since the oil companies don't seem to be keen on building new ones (otherwise they would have). This bill is an illusion of the prospect of lower gas prices in the short term with very little (environmental) consequences when it is actually the opposite.

It does 0 to reduce the gas prices in the short term, it does not even guarantee that oil companies will build (sufficiently many) refineries to increase capacities in the mid/long term. Those companies have the money to build refineries complying to current standards, but they decide against it. That's capitalism for you

[NYCFarmboy]

lol.. dcmacdaddy..so "thankfully" prices will remain high?

in other words you enjoy making people pay more for gas, taking away money they might be spending for medicine, a vacation, a night out at a restaurant with their family? those are bad things to be discouraged by you?

[NYCFarmboy]

oreo:

the reason gas prices are high is that gasoline traders don't foresee any changes to the supply problem..

I don't understand why improving gasoline supplies, even if it takes 5 years to build is a bad thing... what on earth are you going to do then? do you really think somehow magically we will need less gasoline in 5 years?

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

lol.. dcmacdaddy..so "thankfully" prices will remain high?

in other words you enjoy making people pay more for gas, taking away money they might be spending for medicine, a vacation, a night out at a restaurant with their family? those are bad things to be discouraged by you?

Stop buying SUVs and get a hybrid. Or buy yourself a nice bike and lose those american-fat-pounds that are on you. Use public transportation. You have many options, so "hopefully" they don't artificially lower prices even more than they are already doing, so that stupid-dumb-mother-f*cking-sockermoms (and the like) stop buying Hummer H2s and Ford Excursions!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

lol.. dcmacdaddy..so "thankfully" prices will remain high?

in other words you enjoy making people pay more for gas, taking away money they might be spending for medicine, a vacation, a night out at a restaurant with their family? those are bad things to be discouraged by you?

I am thankful that high gas prices will cause people to re-evaluate their use of gasoline with the hopes of changing their lifestyle to require less gasoline.

As for your examples, we all have choices we make every day with our financial decisions, why should choosing to spend money on something like gasoline be any different. So, the people in your hypothetical example who choose to spend money on gas instead of medicine, or a vacation, or time out with their family have established their priorities by their choices. For your hypothetical individuals, consumption of gasoline is more important than the other items you mentioned; Why are you opposed to them having to make that choice?

What's the big deal here? It's a free country with free-market capitalism. And the laws of Supply and Demand which underlie that capitalistic system have caused the price of a commodity to rise dramatically. If the laws of Supply and Demand were responsible for the price of said commodity increasing then they can/will be responsible for the price of said commodity to decrease as well.


There is nothing that says oil companies couldn't have built new refineries all along. They had the funds--remember the past few years with record-setting profits--what they didn't have was an economic incentive to build new refineries. New refineries would not have increased their profits, quite possibly the reverse would have happened. As new refineries came online the bottleneck in the gasoline production process would be reduced. As the bottleneck gets minimized the economic forces that were causing the restriction in Supply (the # of refineries) would begin to be ameliorated. As these economic forces become ameliorated a greater degree of equilibrium returns to the Supply/Demand balance that applies to gasoline. In the end, less constraints on Supply means the Demand would not be as great. So, when Demand for a product decreases the price can/will drop. So, it is quite likely that the oil companies were not building new refineries because doing so would effect their large profits.


Oh, and are you going to respond to the content of my post regarding the time-frame in which new refineries can be built. That was the point I was trying to make: You claimed passing this legislation would have an effect "very soon" on gasoline prices and I argued that the legislation would not have such an effect for several years. Care to discuss or counter that supposition?

[OreoCookie]

@NYCFarmboy
Yes, the gas prices already do have an effect on consumer habits, sales of SUVs plummeted this year (30-50 %). There is no gas shortage, as you may make it sound like, you can always take your car to a gas station of your choice and fill her up.

There will be more pressure from the customers to release more fuel economic cars which implies smaller engines, less horsepower, more reasonable cars. My hostmom sold her SUV (a Ford Explorer) three or four years ago already and got something along the lines of a Ford Taurus, because it was eating up her pay cheque. Her kids are out of the house, her boyfriend has a car of his own (obviously) and the biggest thing she has to take with her is her Newfoundland.

Also this won't solve your problem of oil dependence: if the price for crude oil is still high, having more refinery capacity won't help much to reduce it.

[NYCFarmboy]

LOL LOL LOL

I knew the libs would expose themselves for wanting to control how others live their lives.

LOL LOL LOL

you just don't get it do you.. there are not subway trains in Wyoming, and a farmer would have a hard time putting a cow in one of those hybrids.

oy vey...

yes I agree though, actually cars should be banned in cities with mass transit...specifically here in NYC... there is no need for private cars.. subways/buses/taxis work just fine

but please for those that are outside the cities that need large trucks, don't try to impose restrictions that would be rediculous.

I was once asked that here in the city why people out in the country didn't just take the subway like everyone else.

LOL LOL LOL

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

you just don't get it do you.. there are not subway trains in Wyoming, and a farmer would have a hard time putting a cow in one of those hybrids.

Someone should develop a hybrid truck then. Sounds like there will be demand for it soon enough.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

LOL LOL LOL

I knew the libs would expose themselves for wanting to control how others live their lives.

LOL LOL LOL

you just don't get it do you.. there are not subway trains in Wyoming, and a farmer would have a hard time putting a cow in one of those hybrids.

oy vey...

yes I agree though, actually cars should be banned in cities with mass transit...specifically here in NYC... there is no need for private cars.. subways/buses/taxis work just fine

but please for those that are outside the cities that need large trucks, don't try to impose restrictions that would be rediculous.

I was once asked that here in the city why people out in the country didn't just take the subway like everyone else.

LOL LOL LOL

You Republicans never cease to make me laugh.

Anybody who doesn't bat for your team gets generalized, or labeled "insert insulting label here". So aggressive, simple minded, and shallow.


Wait, I just created an insulting label! I wonder how people will react to it... hmmm... oh well, it will surely advance this conversation, and maybe be persuasive in getting people to bat for my team... It's all about competition... you know: DEMOCRATS KICK ASS BABY, and Republicans drool. I will be the winnah!! Screw checks and balances, I will wipe away all Republicans with my killer logic and reasoning. I'll just tell it like it is, and maybe knock some sense into everybody. Then I'll be the winnah!!!111!!

Wait... maybe NYCFarmey is the winnah?! I'm confused...