[turtle777]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Yeah, those damn greenies. We could have oil refineries everywhere without them. In fact, without the EPA I would be able to fill a bucket from the river and burn it in a furnace. Damn clean water regulations.

Right. I didn't know you actually were reasonable.

-t

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I thought the main problem of building new refineries was the long and uncertain approval process. I think we can thank the greenies a bit for that.

-t

What greenies? I ask only because the U.S. doesn't have a real Green movement, and definitely not one like exists in Europe. Environmental issues here are much more fragmented and local.

That said, there isn't one reason we don't have more refineries––it's not a univariate problem. One of the issues has already been noted here; refineries are expensive to build, expensive to operate and, in the current climate of encouraging short-term corporate gain over long-term profit, the oil companies just haven't been investing in them like they used to. This is actually part of a larger trend in American corporate spending. Look at the R&D budgets of most American companies and you will see a worrying trend: we don't spend nearly as much on R&D as we used to, and we don't do nearly as much pure research as we used to. Many of the companies which used to sponsor this (IBM, GE and Kodak to pick three out of the blue) now put their money elsewhere, like buying other companies.

That said, building things like refineries and power plants is a different process than it used to be, and part of this is because of new environmental regulations. But part of it (and a big part of it) is NIMBY syndrome, which isn't driven by environmental issues, but by the simple fact that, while people want power plants to be built, they don't want them in their neighborhood. This is one of the main reasons that power plants, garbage collection and recycling centers and the like tend to end up in poor(er) neighborhoods. The middle and upper classes have the money and connections to fight, while the poor and working classes don't.

Put another way, should L.A. find it desperately needs a new power generating station, you can bet it won't be built in Brentwood.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Are you sure ?

I thought the main problem of building new refineries was the long and uncertain approval process.
I think we can thank the greenies a bit for that.

Oh bullshit.

It's just WAY cheaper to buy already-refined gasoline from the European market in Rotterdam and cart that across the Atlantic, and then pass on the rising costs to the consumers, than to invest the billions in refineries.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Put another way, should L.A. find it desperately needs a new power generating station, you can bet it won't be built in Brentwood.

Which is another huge reason to combine energy use reduction with a decentralized clean solar and wind grid. Check out this micro wind in Chicago (yes, I know LA doesn't get the wind that Chicago does...)
Solid Gold - Green - dwell.com

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Oh bullshit.

It's just WAY cheaper to buy already-refined gasoline from the European market in Rotterdam and cart that across the Atlantic, and then pass on the rising costs to the consumers, than to invest the billions in refineries.

Any links ?

Because that sounds like BS to me.

Why would European market in Rotterdam take prices that make it MORE economical for US companies to buy the gasoline and just resell it, w/o any value add, and still make tons of profit ?

If that's the case, shame on the European market for setting too low prices.

That's NOT the fault of the US oil companies to take advantage of that arbitrage, it's what a capitalist company gets paid to do: find the CHEAPEST way to get stuff.

However, I don't believe things are like you portray it.

-t

[Gator Lager]

hell yes. I've been in miser mode. I've tried to ween my big ole truck off of gas. did't work.

how many have see 'who killed the electric car'. I wish I had that car now.
yep me and a billion plus other people.

now I just did a quick scan on this page. so if anyone posted about coal liquidification, then cool. back around 1980 time period, Ashland oil built one of those mentioned plants. in surprise Ashland Kentucky. and then they moth balled it. hmmmmm. wonder how many more facilities like this are laying dormant.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Any links ?

Because that sounds like BS to me.

Why would European market in Rotterdam take prices that make it MORE economical for US companies to buy the gasoline and just resell it, w/o any value add, and still make tons of profit ?

If that's the case, shame on the European market for setting too low prices.

That's NOT the fault of the US oil companies to take advantage of that arbitrage, it's what a capitalist company gets paid to do: find the CHEAPEST way to get stuff.

However, I don't believe things are like you portray it.

Oil prices are set by supply and demand here, too.

It's WAY cheaper to buy gasoline here and ship it over because the oil companies can just pass off the costs to the consumer - i.e. it's cheap for THEM because YOU'RE paying for it.

And building the necessary refining capacity in the U.S. would run into BILLIONS of dollars.

As for sources: This comes up in the European press every single U.S. holiday season, and I posted at length with sources over in the Political Lounge back before I had that cesspool blocked for my account. Quick-and-dirty search here:

From 2006: Politiker kritisieren �lkonzerne scharf | tagesschau.de

"USA ziehen viel Benzin aus Europa ab
Der EID erinnerte angesichts der hohen Benzinpreise daran, dass aus Europa zur Zeit "kräftige Benzinexporte in die USA" liefen. Grund seien die bevorstehende Driving Season und nicht ausreichende Raffineriekapazitäten in den USA. Dort fehlt vor allem mit Ethanol als Anti-Klopfmittel angereichertes Benzin. In den USA wird in der Benzinproduktion zur Zeit der unter Umweltaspekten kritisch eingestufte Zusatzstoff MTBE im Benzin durch Ethanol ersetzt."

And some more nice background in English: U.S. refiners stretch to meet demand - Oil & energy - MSNBC.com

In the meantime, the refining capacity squeeze in the U.S. is being made up by a growing level of imports — largely from refineries in Venezuela, the Caribbean and Europe. (Europeans use a greater proportion of diesel, said Shore, so those refiners have usually gasoline to spare for U.S. markets.) In recent years, imports have made about half the annual increase in demand, with expanded capacity making up the difference.

That article also cites environmental restrictions, but primarily cost as a factor inhibiting new refineries.

[turtle777]

This does make NO sense, at least not in the line of arguments you are presenting.
And your links don't prove your point.

First, the European refiners might just set the wrong price points.
I don't see this as a valid argument until someone explains to me why they couldn't change that.

It seems like the US refineries are operating at max capacity utilization, the Europeans don't w/o the added (occasional peak) volume for the US. But your link says this is only PEAK demands that's being met by European refineries.

So again, my argument was that building new capacity is hard due to regulatory hurdles.

You said that new US capacity doesn't pay because it's cheaper to buy in Europe. I have yet to see good arguments for that. Still sounds like BS to me.
And even IF the EU could do it for less money, what's wrong with the US buying in the EU rather than building new capacity, as long as there's spare capacity in the EU ? As soon as capacity will be maxed out, the EU refineries will raise prices, according to normal supply-demand economics.

-t

[analogika]

Huh?

U.S. refining capacity does NOT meet peak points (i.e. throughout the summer), necessitating the import of refined fuel from, among other places, Europe (Rotterdam being the big oil market here).

The most solid argument for importing Euro gasoline being cheaper than building new refineries is THAT IT IS DONE.

And prices DO rise over here, EVERY TIME THE U.S. TAKE THEIR SUV's ON VACATION. On the dot.

And from the second link,

But the solution — boosting refining capacity to allow a greater margin for error — isn’t easy. There hasn’t been a new refinery built in the U.S. since 1976, the result of extremely tight environmental restrictions, not-in-my-back-yard community opposition, and the high cost of new construction. Used refineries currently sell for about 30 to 50 percent of the cost of building a new one, so it’s cheaper to buy an old refinery and upgrade it. Or squeeze a little more gasoline out of the refineries you already own.

What exactly is the point you're trying to make? You're seriously just trying to lay the blame for the lack of refining capacity at the feet of "Greenies" that don't actually exist as such in the U.S.?

[turtle777]

My freaking point is EXACTLY like you just posted:

Building new refineries in the US is hard due to "extremely tight environmental restrictions, not-in-my-back-yard community opposition."

The third argument "high cost of new construction" is NOT the reason, because your link explicitly says that upgrading existing old refineries is more economical, so that's what they try to do !

YOU CLAIM THAT THE US EXPLOITS EU REFINERY CAPACITIES INSTEAD OF BUILDING OWN CAPACITIES. GIVE AS AN EFFING LINK FOR THAT!!!111!

-t

[peeb]

Turtle - the US buys oil from Europe. Why do you think they do that? As a favor? No, because it's cheaper than building a refinery (at least in the short term).

[analogika]

Um, yeah - except I think he's claiming that they CAN'T build refineries.

[peeb]

In the US? That's ridiculous. Forcing companies to clean up messes that refineries make and not put them in sensitive areas does make it a little more difficult, but the idea that the Spotted Owl is stopping oil refineries from being built is just bogus. Regulation in the EU is much tougher.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Turtle - the US buys oil from Europe. Why do you think they do that? As a favor? No, because it's cheaper than building a refinery (at least in the short term).

Originally Posted by analogika 

Um, yeah - except I think he's claiming that they CAN'T build refineries.

Are you guys retarded ?

I don't DISPUTE the US buying oil from Europe. WTF is wrong with your reading and comprehension skills. And I made it clear that balancing utilization capacities makes perfectly sense in the short run.

Also, I don't claim they absolutely CAN'T build refineries in the US, I said it's gotten very hard, due to REASONS THAT ANALOGIKA POSTED A LINK FOR.

Besides that, if you guys would bother to read the whole discussion, and not just go off on pet-peeve tangents, you would realize that my point was in reply to Glenn stating that

"shareholder return" trumping actual economic value

was the reason no new refineries were built.

So WTF is your problem ?
Are you just seeking an argument ?

-t

[Eug]

From analogika's own link:

But the solution — boosting refining capacity to allow a greater margin for error — isn’t easy. There hasn’t been a new refinery built in the U.S. since 1976, the result of extremely tight environmental restrictions, not-in-my-back-yard community opposition, and the high cost of new construction.

I think this qualifies for the No Sh!t Sherlock category. I'm surprised that some are even arguing this point, trying to claim that such green concerns don't really exist here in North America. Yes these concerns exist, and yes they represent a major barrier in North America. Sure it doesn't help that the oil companies haven't been keen to build them due to cost concerns, but having several barriers to doing so certainly doesn't help.

Also, approximately 90% of gasoline in the US is refined in the US, with historically the #2 source of gasoline being from Canada. However, US gasoline imports have declined in recent years from Canada (so that we are no longer #2), and have been increasing from places like the UK.

[analogika]

Okay, so, um...what are we arguing about?

Anybody else confused?

*looks around*

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Okay, so, um...what are we arguing about?

Anybody else confused?

*looks around*

Originally Posted by analogika

What exactly is the point you're trying to make? You're seriously just trying to lay the blame for the lack of refining capacity at the feet of "Greenies" that don't actually exist as such in the U.S.?

Not to invoke the so-called Greenies would be ignoring a big part of the barrier to building refineries in North America. It's not the only barrier of course, but it's still a big barrier... for good reason.

Plus, when you have other countries more than willing to pick up the slack, why not let them do it? Most of the gasoline made in the US is from foreign oil anyway.

Mind you there is a bit of a disconnect with the US sources of foreign oil and the US sources of foreign gasoline. Canada remains the #1 source for US's oil imports, but it is no longer the #1 source for the US's gasoline imports.

P.S. I don't know for sure why gasoline exports from Canada to the US are declining, but I do know that environmental concerns are a huge barrier to building refineries in Canada too.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Are you sure ?

I thought the main problem of building new refineries was the long and uncertain approval process.
I think we can thank the greenies a bit for that.

-t

"If it's working now, why should we replace it?" That comes first. Then there's the "but the application process is so tedious and expensive" followed by "gee it's going to take years to build this thing" which leads to "screw it, we'll keep what we've got." That ignores side issues like "if we just keep patching the old crap, we won't have to spend the extra 15% or so (that's a swag on my part) to upgrade the emissions of that part of the plant".

But the first question any board asks is "how will this affect the bottom line for our shareholders." It's their job to do this, actually. Unfortunately, they don't do this right. I'll invoke a sequence from "Mary Poppins" here, and compare most boards of directors (and investors, for that matter) to the board at the bank, and until the end, Mr. Banks. They could not "see past the nose on their faces" and ignored the larger world. So do these boards, looking only at the current quarter instead of building equity and solidifying their corporation's financial standing in case of economic variations.

[turtle777]

A good example of how to do it right is Marathon.

The PR they're doing for Garyville plant expansion is excellent.

-t

[Cipher13]

Cyclists put themselves in danger far more often than others do.

If you're cycling on the road, you've gotta make a decision - you either act like a pedestrian, or like a car. Not like both.

In Sydney, you get cyclists riding along, blocking lanes, then they get to a set of traffic lights and proceed to cross the road with the flow of pedestrian traffic.

It's gotta ****ing be one or the other. Sorry, but I hate most cyclists; they're a danger to themselves.

As for responsible cyclists: good on the few of you.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

Cyclists put themselves in danger far more often than others do...
It's gotta ****ing be one or the other. Sorry, but I hate most cyclists; they're a danger to themselves.

Excellent sweeping generalizations. Plus points for inaccuracy.