Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:20 am
muddyboots wrote:So T2, you don't think this has to do with the markets being gamed again?
My only point was that there is much, much more to oil prices than simple supply & demand.
muddyboots wrote:I'd say our high prices are due today to foks making hay while the sun shines. Being from an oil family, I KNOW they are. The supply of oil is still there. We could easily pull more out if we wanted. We could styill earn the same amount of iuncome off it, pulling more out. We don't because there is no problem with fuel shortages. The problem is in the markets right now.
I think we're in violent agreement here. There are a lot of factors that govern the oil market though. Much more than simple supply & demand. And so long as we import any of our oil, we will be subject to them.
Does that mean I think we should quit importing oil? No. It is a useful carrot and it means we'll be one of the last countries with oil when it finally does dry up.
muddyboots wrote:And the lack of refineries because the government has allowed the big oil companies to shut refineries down, because the smnaller number of refineries helps keep prices high.
No new refineries has more to do with EPA than anything else. But yes, a lack of refineries is most definitely impacting gasoline prices (we were talking about oil).
muddyboots wrote:It;s a big old circle: those with power own power. Then they make it a priceless commodity so they can make lots of cash, which gives them power, with which they control the power...
Naught you can do about this - you can nationalize everything & become communists, you can tax the hell out of it & hope to "even the score" that way, or you can work from a supply-side viewpoint. All have limitations, all have huge political impacts...
Never heard of this. Out west here, though, I do see acres upon acres of wind farms...muddyboots wrote:I awlays wondered what happened to that plan to pave large stretches of the American desert (leaving holes between the pavement for naturalfauna) and using that to generate power? We have lots of sun and desert...and no solar powerplant in the desert...Anybody remember taht one?
Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:28 pm
on the contrary.... i'd love to live by an airport!! 
Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:22 pm
You want the goverment to subsidize a new energy source?!?!?! It's already subsidizing ethanol and screwing it and the food supply system all up, now you want us taxpayers to spend more money after bad? The goverment screwed up the "energy crisis" back in the 70's, and you expect it to get it right this time? Remember when you say goverment, you mean taxpayer, you and me, are footing the bill.
Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:59 pm
T2 Ernie wrote:I think we're in violent agreement here. There are a lot of factors that govern the oil market though. Much more than simple supply & demand. And so long as we import any of our oil, we will be subject to them.
Does that mean I think we should quit importing oil? No. It is a useful carrot and it means we'll be one of the last countries with oil when it finally does dry up.muddyboots wrote:And the lack of refineries because the government has allowed the big oil companies to shut refineries down, because the smnaller number of refineries helps keep prices high.
No new refineries has more to do with EPA than anything else. But yes, a lack of refineries is most definitely impacting gasoline prices (we were talking about oil).
I thought we were on the same track, I guess I phrased it to sound like I was interrogating you, rather than asking a question and providing my own thoughts.
What's the deal with the EPA? After Katrina all I heard was that it wasn't economicallly feasable to build more, because of new controls. Like always, corporations blame government controls as opposed to the reality: When a plant goes down they can charge more because suddenly the supply goes way down, and then when the supply goes back up the prices remain the same.
Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:39 pm
muddyboots wrote:What's the deal with the EPA? After Katrina all I heard was that it wasn't economicallly feasable to build more, because of new controls. .
Not economically feasible due to EPA requirements!
There haven't been any new refineries built in probably 20-30 years because of ever more stringent EPA requirements. All the old refineries were "grandfathered" in for new rules regarding spills, containment, cleanup, emissions, etc.
Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:28 pm
Eh heh. And they've paid off the old ones by now...Oh wait, I bet the feds paid for them 
Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:10 pm
No new refineries have been built because of the time it takes to get one permitted. It's the same reason no new nuclear plants were being built. It takes 10+ years to clear the paperwork needed to build a refinery and by that point the regs have changed again. The oil companies (at the time) had plenty of excess capacity and thus had no driving need to spend the millions (if not billions) of dollars to do all of the reports (4 or 5 environmental impact studies), fill out all the paperwork (literally thousands of pages), and then start the process of actually building the refinery.
But wait. There's one problem. Where to build the refinery? There's the other problem - NIMBY. Everywhere they could build now has neighbors. And those neighbors don't want more refineries next door and in fact want the ones that are already there gone. Nevermind the economic impact (or the loss in jobs if the refineries close), they see a refinery as a dirty "blight" that is "tanking" their property values, and that's all they care about.
BTW, if you tax the living daylights out of the oil companies, guess what happens - the price of oil goes up. There's no law that says the oil companies can't pass on their hike in an already outrageous corporate tax structure to the consumer as they already are.
But wait. There's one problem. Where to build the refinery? There's the other problem - NIMBY. Everywhere they could build now has neighbors. And those neighbors don't want more refineries next door and in fact want the ones that are already there gone. Nevermind the economic impact (or the loss in jobs if the refineries close), they see a refinery as a dirty "blight" that is "tanking" their property values, and that's all they care about.
BTW, if you tax the living daylights out of the oil companies, guess what happens - the price of oil goes up. There's no law that says the oil companies can't pass on their hike in an already outrageous corporate tax structure to the consumer as they already are.
Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:09 pm
bdk wrote:Right where the nuclear material originally came from! There are storage areas deep underground used especially for this purpose. You probably don't want an airport in your backyard either, so don't move next to one!tom d. friedman wrote:somebody mentioned increasing the amount of nuclear power plants. while nuclears runs efficient & clean while in use, the fuel rods eventually have to be replaced, & where do they put those spent fuel rods?? in the ground!!!Restaurant owners pay to get that stuff hauled away now, so obviously the market is not such that you can make money manufacturing biodiesel from it. That may change if fuel prices keep rising.tom d. friedman wrote:i've seen so many innovative alternatives on the news over the years, such as the guy who runs his cars on old cooking oil that he gets from restaurants & diners for free. that idea for 1 should be expanded on.
Actually bio-diesel has become so popular in some ares here, that savy resturants have started charging people for their used oil.