Fred Weiss wrote:
> On Jun 5, 7:46 pm, DB <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Foofoo, no cites. I've already posted numbers. Capacity has been 85-90%
>> and stocks are growing. They are producing more fuels then are being
>> demanded. Here are the numbers:
>>
And:http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/crude-futures-end-one-month-low...
>
> Oh, please. You are looking at a 1-2 week "correction" in a huge run-
> up in crude prices that broke all previous records.
>
> As the cited commentator says, "coupled with slowing consumer demand
> of gasoline and a strengthening dollar, it's of little surprise to see
> crude prices back off," .
>
> So, your citing this news story is a good indication of your
> dishonesty on this issue.
You are a piece of work. I post refinery utilization and you snipped it
then you replace it with other text. Idiot.
>
> "...getting an oil refinery built is next to impossible, hence the 30-
> year construction drought. There will always be environmental
> activists who fight any new proposed refinery, regardless of where it
> might be located and how environmentally safe it is. And our
> environmental rules give them the upper hand."
>
> http://www.reason.org/commentaries/moore_20050901.shtml
One permit applied for, one permit granted.
>
> "... the chances for new refinery construction in the U.S. are slim.
> To get an idea of what it takes to build a new refinery, one can look
> at Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma. This company has been trying to build a
> new refinery for six years, and not a single shovel of dirt has moved.
> The company is still fighting its way through city, county, state, and
> federal permit procedures. Between various levels of government,
> environmental organizations, and community groups, there are seemingly
> endless obstacles before construction can begin. Even if the stars
> align, Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma will not be running until the end of
> the decade."
>
>
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2005/09/14/new-refineries-not-a-chance.aspx
One permit applied for, one permit granted.
> "...improving an existing refinery or building a new one is a slow and
> capital-intensive business. Firms tend to be very conservative in
> their investments, since refineries have decades-long life-spans,
> during which prices and profits can fluctuate wildly. It can also be
> difficult to find a site and obtain the right permits—one of the
> reasons why no new refineries have been built in America for over 30
> years....Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), a consultancy,
> calculates that capital costs for refineries and petrochemical plants
> have risen by 76% since 2000."
>
> http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=11453090
One permit applied for, one permit granted.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba603/
"Petroleum refiners have responded to existing and proposed expanded
ethanol mandates by canceling 40 percent of planned expansions in
capacity, reducing potential new output from 1.6 million b/d to less
than one million b/d."
Perhaps you are not getting this. The industry has the capacity they
want. If they don't apply for expansions and act on them, this is what
you get. Counting refineries is stupid on its face. With half the
refineries that existed 20 some years ago, capacity is down 8% and that
was the road the industry took. If Exxon acquires a business with
several refineries and decides to to shut some down while expanding
others, refinery count will drop. If Exxon decides to expand a refinery
outside of the U.S. and close an old one in the U.S. refinery count will
go down. But all you see is the Environmental boggy man, a need to blame
someone for a problem that does not even exist but that the industry
wants capacity to run at 85-90%. Now if you don't like the industry
running at 85-90%, take the argument up with the industry.
|
