Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 02-18-2011, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Upper East Side of Texas
12,498 posts, read 26,991,779 times
Reputation: 4890

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhandle View Post
It wasn't Bush's fault and it isn't Obama's fault. Americans have chosen a lifestyle that relys on the automobile. Stop whining. I fill up about every 10 weeks. Why? I have chosen to live in a place where I can walk almost everywhere and that has good mass transit. I figured that in when I chose my home. Unless you are a farmer, a waterman, a trucker or a few other lifestyles, stop whining.

What do conservatives want - govt. control of the oil companies? Let's go all the way then, remember it was a GOP president who put in wage and price controls.
Not everyone can or wants to live on the East Coast where mass transit, riding your bike, or walking is an every day part of life.

I live in Texas & wouldn't have it any other way. Most people want the American dream of being able to have that white picket fence out in the suburbs where your kids can attend decent public schools.

I've personally been without a car for going on 3 years now.

 
Old 02-18-2011, 10:52 PM
 
1,461 posts, read 1,529,023 times
Reputation: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro Matt View Post
Not everyone can or wants to live on the East Coast where mass transit, riding your bike, or walking is an every day part of life.

I live in Texas & wouldn't have it any other way. Most people want the American dream of being able to have that white picket fence out in the suburbs where your kids can attend decent public schools.

I've personally been without a car for going on 3 years now.
There you go! You show you don't need a car.

But I would not call a lifestyle dependent on a car a dream; if one chooses it, there is a price to pay. Just as there is a price to pay for any lifestyle.
 
Old 02-18-2011, 10:53 PM
 
1,461 posts, read 1,529,023 times
Reputation: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
Not allowed to build refineries.
No one wants them in their backyard. Would you?
 
Old 02-19-2011, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Gone
25,231 posts, read 16,935,949 times
Reputation: 5932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro Matt View Post
Anyone else notice this trend?

Before it was all Bush's fault. He was the oil hungry, blood thirsty war monger in the eyes of the liberals.

Now that Obama is in office no one talks about the outrageous price for a gallon of gas anymore.
Because it is not is fault or business.
Casper
 
Old 02-19-2011, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Gone
25,231 posts, read 16,935,949 times
Reputation: 5932
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
Not allowed to build refineries.
WRONG!
Casper
 
Old 02-19-2011, 08:51 PM
 
78,405 posts, read 60,579,949 times
Reputation: 49681
Quote:
Originally Posted by newhandle View Post
It wasn't Bush's fault and it isn't Obama's fault. Americans have chosen a lifestyle that relys on the automobile. Stop whining. I fill up about every 10 weeks. Why? I have chosen to live in a place where I can walk almost everywhere and that has good mass transit. I figured that in when I chose my home. Unless you are a farmer, a waterman, a trucker or a few other lifestyles, stop whining.

What do conservatives want - govt. control of the oil companies? Let's go all the way then, remember it was a GOP president who put in wage and price controls.
I'm just hoping we elect someone other than Bush in 2012 because he has been in office for over 10 years now.
 
Old 02-19-2011, 09:02 PM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
12,950 posts, read 13,339,664 times
Reputation: 14010
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata View Post
Obama's VP didn't have a previous job for a major oil extracting company. Bush's VP was (Haliburton)
Halliburton is not an oil drilling company.
 
Old 02-19-2011, 09:05 PM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
12,950 posts, read 13,339,664 times
Reputation: 14010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathos View Post
That's Texas. I spent some time there last year, and the cheap gas was wonderful yes, but you're not indicative of the rest of the country.

Anyhow, I see a lot of people saying "a president can't affect the cost of fuel!". I disagree, and I will provide two examples of presidents taking actions that changed fuel prices:

Bill Clinton: Does anybody remember sometime in 99 or 2000 when fuel was pushing 2 bucks a gallon, and then seemingly overnight it dropped to like...89 cents (Seattle prices)? I don't know the whole backstory to this, but Clinton got pissed at the oil cartels and had the government stop buying oil from them for ONE DAY, and the prices plummeted almost instantaneously. Now I'm somewhat ambivalent about Clinton as he did some things I liked and some things I hated, but this is one of the things he did that was spot-on right.

George W. Bush: Gas prices were spiraling out of control, they were getting higher by the day, tempers were reaching a breaking point. What did he do? He got behind a podium and announced that he was going to RAMP UP government purchase of oil to put into the saltmines for the Federal reserve. In a game of supply and demand (and yes, insane market manipulation by speculators), this clown actually got before the world and said "Gas prices are high....I'm gonna buy even more oil!" In a period of time when people were screaming that oil supplies were tight and supply was low, this guy was chirping about how he was going to put even more strain on supply. This idiot didn't even understand the basic concept of "buy low sell high". His concept was "Buy high....and, um.....can I go play with my toy planes now?". Result? Gas prices shot up like a rocket.

Two wholly different actions which resulted in two wholly different results.
I'll bet you didn't complain when the price of gas dropped in half before Bush left office.
 
Old 02-19-2011, 09:51 PM
 
Location: Flippin AR
5,513 posts, read 5,240,443 times
Reputation: 6243
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Gas and food are excluded from the CPI. We have no inflation..that approaching $3.00/gal gas is an illusion. The recession is OVER. The MSM will not tell anyone the truth.
Everyone knows (or should know), that the government purposely underestimates inflation, in order to minimize the cost of living increases built into entitlement programs. Yet we all know each year every one of our costs continues to go up, many significantly.

In terms of Macro Economics, I guess the fact that workers no longer get raises (or that their raises are more than offset by increased contributions for their share of benefits) is used to offset the fact that we all face increasing cost of living every year. As one Intro to Economics class once taught: increases in both wages and cost of living is called inflation. Increases in cost of living alone is nothing more than "increases in cost of living" in terms of economics.

The media only reports what it wants to, in order to tell Americans what is important, so they will do what the Media wants. Funny how towards the end of Bush's time in office, the Media would talk about the number of war deaths that day, and the cumulative total. That was when the Media (as very liberal-leaning overall) was supporting Obama for President, since he would likewise criticize Bush's pointless and uber-expensive war-mongering. Too bad the Media won't put up the day's tally of dead young American servicemen, and the new cumulative totals (over 6,000 coalition deaths). Americans might then realize that the same atrocity that warranted daily media coverage during the elections is continuing and is much worse than when Bush was at fault.
 
Old 02-19-2011, 10:31 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,163,062 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoPro View Post
Halliburton is not an oil drilling company.
Correct. It's an oil service company. It builds the rigs, platforms, wells, stem pipelines, main pipelines and maintains and services them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
Not allowed to build refineries.
They can build refineries if they want to, but there's no point in it.

The going rate right now is probably $2.5 - $3.0 Billion, and it'll take about 15-20 years (average 17 years).

The process is costly and complicated.

You would select a project manager who would form a team. The first thing they would do is prepare bid specs for site location. You'd have a 6 month closing period and then review all of the bidders' offers then select a company to find locations for you. That would take about a year.

Then you'd get your reports on about a dozen sites and your team would review them and select maybe the 6 best sites. When that's done, you're now 2 years into the project.

The you'd prepare bid specs to contract an environmental consultant to prepare environmental impact studies on the 6 locations you selected and when you get those reports you weed through them and select a primary site and an alternate site. Now you're about 4 years into the project.

After selecting your primary and two alternate sites, you'll have to post copies of the environmental impact studies for people to review. Normally you give a copy to the city council(s), county commissioners, put one at one or more public libraries and maybe in rural counties at high schools. The closing period for review and comment is typically a year, but in some places it could be 2 years. So now you're 5 years into the project and you don't even have a location yet.

So you're 1 year period for review and comment is up, and this is where the fun starts. You'll go to a meeting of the city council(s) or county commissioners and Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, NIMBY groups and other environmental groups will show up to contest your environmental impact study and they could file a lawsuit which will delay things (that's why having alternate sites works sometimes as long as they don't get bogged down in law suits).

Typically, the cities or counties involved will want to do their own environmental impact study, plus a traffic and economic study, so there's the bid spec/review/contracting process again. So now with negotiations with the municipalities and count(ies) involved and everything, you're 7 years into the project and you still don't have a location.

If everything is peachy, you have a temporary location and you can now apply to the pseudo-federal EPA for permits to build your refinery. This is a 3-year process because the EPA will do its own studies.

So 10 years into the project you finally get EPA approval and you can start building. It'll take 4-7 years depending on the size of the refinery (by capacity) and building the pipeline to connect to it etc (and the pipeline would have been included in the original and subsequent environmental impact studies).

Provided you don't get sued, you'll probably complete it on time about 15 to 17 years after you started.

You don't have any leadership at all in the White House or Congress, is the country going to electric cars? Natural gas powered cars? Are you staying with the gasoline combustion engine? What about the stupid ethanol thing? Oh yeah, I forgot about that. You can't build ethanol pipelines. You'll have to truck the ethanol in and that may require widening the roads and refurbishing bridges to handle heavier weights and Hazmat nonsense and what not. The cities and county will want you to pay for that, and pay for all the necessary traffic signals as well, plus any other conditions like sewage and water lines.

It would be best to select a site where you can build an ethanol plant adjacent to the refinery, assuming the refinery's main product will be gasoline (not all refineries produce gasoline -- in fact out of the 47 operating refineries in the US only 17 produce gasoline -- the rest produce your exorbitant extravagant life-style and standard of living).

Getting the capital to build a refinery won't be easy, especially without any leadership coming from the White House or Congress. Investors aren't going to be too keen on investing and banks not happy about loaning money to build a refinery that might not even refine a single barrel of oil.

8 years into the project, Congress might decide everyone is switching to natural gas powered cars or something. Who knows? That kind of uncertainty is bad for investment.
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.


Closed Thread


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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:21 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top