U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-29-2008, 10:03 PM
 
Location: Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania USA
2,308 posts, read 2,135,372 times
Reputation: 369

Advertisements

I believe that we have all heard the lament of the US petroleum industry that they are unable to expand crude oil refining capacity in the US due to a staggering amount of US environmental and permitting procedures that make in financially impractical to increase US crude oil refining capacity. We've heard that there hasn't been a new refinery built in the US in over 30 years.

So. haw about building refineries in off shore locations such as Cuba, Haiti, The Dominican Republican Republic and other nearby off shore locations? These off shore locations don't have any of the environmental regulations that hamstring building refineries and other petroleum processing installations. The governments of these off off shore refinery locations would benefit from the construction work afforded the local economy and partake of the revenue derived from the the refinery process and refined products. The oil and refining companies could still make a healthy profit because of the lower cost of doing business in these off shore locations and the US would be afforded additional supplies of petroleum products. With the use of supertankers, the transportation costs from the crude oil sources to the refinery location then to the US would be minimized. IMO, this is a win-win situation for the petroleum exporting companies, the off shore refinery locations and the US petroleum market.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-29-2008, 10:08 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, LA
595 posts, read 2,133,598 times
Reputation: 191
I think Haiti, Cuba, and the DR would have something to say about that as well as apply a hefty oil tax as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2008, 10:17 PM
 
Location: Southern New Jersey
1,723 posts, read 2,832,691 times
Reputation: 339
I think the environmentalists in the UN would have something to say too.

What about telling the environmentalists to stick it? I read yesterday about a process to turn coal into synthetic fuel, it would only cost $55/barrel...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2008, 10:17 PM
 
Location: Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania USA
2,308 posts, read 2,135,372 times
Reputation: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampgrrl View Post
I think Haiti, Cuba, and the DR would have something to say about that as well as apply a hefty oil tax as well.
The lower costs of construction and operating of refining facilities would offset taxes applies by the host country. Of course the host country is going to want a "cut of the action", that would be expected, but since the over cost to produce the "action" would be lower than in the US, that would be an acceptable cost of doing business. These off shore refinery locations would only refine foreign produced crude oil in-transit to the US, thereby freeing up US based refineries for domestic crude oil production.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2008, 10:18 PM
 
3,553 posts, read 6,926,235 times
Reputation: 2314
steve hazzard wrote;
Quote:
I believe that we have all heard the lament of the US petroleum industry that they are unable to expand crude oil refining capacity in the US
No, you've heard politicians and know nothings like Limbaugh and people on Fox say that. Recently 7 (IIRC) top petroleum execs testified in front of congress and said "no thanks" to expansion. As it is they're only running at about 85-90% of capacity, which has caused their profit (on the refining end) to drop.

Believe it or not we have expanded refining, A LOT in this country over the past 30 years. No one has built any new refineries true, but they've expanded the ones that were in existence. Kind of like a family that keeps adding onto its house without buying a new one. Existing refineries have the great advantage of being near; supply lines-sea lanes and pipelines, and markets-hence there's a lot of refining around Houston-ship channel and 4th largest city in the US, and New York/New Jersey-big tanker ports and big city markets.

Quit listening to politicians and talking heads, check out the energy information website of the DOE. Or perhaps check our some of Ed Wallace's writing on insideautomotive dot com.

golfgod
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2008, 10:25 PM
 
Location: Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania USA
2,308 posts, read 2,135,372 times
Reputation: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaBee View Post
I think the environmentalists in the UN would have something to say too.

What about telling the environmentalists to stick it? I read yesterday about a process to turn coal into synthetic fuel, it would only cost $55/barrel...
Unless somebody or some entity tells the Al Gore types to "stick it", we'll be paying $6 plus for gas and diesel fuel in the not-too-distant future! The US does not have the public transit system to accommodate $9 per gallon fuel like in the UK. $5-6 per gallon gas and diesel fuel will plunge this country into a deep recession and possibly the Third World War for control of petroleum sources and processes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2008, 10:29 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, LA
595 posts, read 2,133,598 times
Reputation: 191
Well I suggest we start on a national rail system immiediately, even with using existing rail lines for regional transit.

Instead of looking for pie in the sky solutions to gas cost which won't work. I hope the price continues to rise actually.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2008, 10:32 PM
 
Location: Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania USA
2,308 posts, read 2,135,372 times
Reputation: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgod View Post
steve hazzard wrote;

No, you've heard politicians and know nothings like Limbaugh and people on Fox say that. Recently 7 (IIRC) top petroleum execs testified in front of congress and said "no thanks" to expansion. As it is they're only running at about 85-90% of capacity, which has caused their profit (on the refining end) to drop.

Believe it or not we have expanded refining, A LOT in this country over the past 30 years. No one has built any new refineries true, but they've expanded the ones that were in existence. Kind of like a family that keeps adding onto its house without buying a new one. Existing refineries have the great advantage of being near; supply lines-sea lanes and pipelines, and markets-hence there's a lot of refining around Houston-ship channel and 4th largest city in the US, and New York/New Jersey-big tanker ports and big city markets.

Quit listening to politicians and talking heads, check out the energy information website of the DOE. Or perhaps check our some of Ed Wallace's writing on insideautomotive dot com.

golfgod
The core of these expanded refineries is old technology that has been in operation for many years thereby reducing the profit margin for the refining companies. Building new refineries from the ground up is the only way to expand refining capacity. Many US refineries are running at less than capacity due to aged infrastructure and equipment and frequent maintenance of the core refining processes and equipment. It's like having a tent in your back yard and deciding to add a guest house to the tent; doesn't work!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2008, 10:34 PM
 
Location: Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania USA
2,308 posts, read 2,135,372 times
Reputation: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampgrrl View Post
Well I suggest we start on a national rail system immiediately, even with using existing rail lines for regional transit.

Instead of looking for pie in the sky solutions to gas cost which won't work. I hope the price continues to rise actually.
I suggest that you should apply for the Federal Witness Protection Program!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2008, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Southern New Jersey
1,723 posts, read 2,832,691 times
Reputation: 339
Amtrak is a great example, it couldn't stay afloat without government subsidies. A national rail line isn't the issue...local transit is. Further, for those that live in the suburbs and drive to many different locations a rail system cannot accomodate them. On top of that, America loves its cars and the freedom it gives them. I have to drop my daughter off at a daycare before work, it is not on the way to work...am I expected to add 1 hour to my commute so I can hop onto several different buses? Forget it.

When gas is $4.50/gallon I bet many people and entities will be willing to tell the Al Gore types to stick it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top