[quote]chadman wrote:
Race Fan wrote:
jayhawk1 wrote:
The primary problem right now is a lack of refining capacity. For years oil companies refused to build excess capacity because the global price of oil was so low. Low prices, low margins. There was no incentive to boost capacity in this environment.
With the increased global demand it is now possible for the oil companies to increase capacity and if nothing else maintain pre-oil boom profit margins. In order for this to happen we need a more unified national standard for emissions, and we need to insure that these standards aren’t constantly changing so that refineries have to be retrofitted all the time.
We can tax profits from the oil copmpanies if we want to, but that will not help us lower prices. Oil will still be purchased at higher prices, which the U.S. as a net oil importer will have to pay. The poor can be shielded in this scenario through some sort of subsidy, but ultimately the US Gov. will foot the bill, and one day that bill will have to be paid with reduced Gov. services.
I think it’s a better idea to take steps to ease the refining shortage while also pursuing alternative energy resources, particularly nuclear.
This is true. There are projects in the works for expansions to increase capacity in the U.S.
Some of the hold ups include environmental permitting and real estate.
I have been told that the Valero refinery in St. Charles is planning about a 1.5 billion expansion.
The Marathon refinery is planning a $2 billion expansion.
Our company is looking at a similar expansions at our Port Arthur and Convent refineries probably about $2 billion each.
Keep in mind some of the price increases lately have to do with EPA upgrades to refineries. At just our refinery we have spent about $250 million to build new units or upgrade existing units to remove sulfur from diesel and gasoline and to reduce emissions from our processes. All of that money and not one bit is a performance upgrade.
Plus there’s NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard)
No one seems to want another plant next to where they are raising their kids. No one seems to want oil rigs off of their coastline. No one seems to want to drill in Alaska.
Wouldn’t it be great if all the billions that were being spent on expansion and all the billions that were being kept as profit were spent instead on alternative fuel sources?! Or maybe on conservation programs.
It reminds me of drug companies. There are no real profits in curing a disease, but managing it for life via drugs makes billions. Well, there’s no real incentive to get off of oil dependence unless we force the issue. Why would an oil company want to find an alternative when they already stack the deck of the only game it town?[/quote]
Excellent post, Chad.
You hit on something that is often lacking in debates, both on this site and in the world at large: there are not two sides to an argument.
For example, we should not be arguing whether abortion should be legal or illegal; we should be trying to find a way to make them incredibly rare.
In this instance, we should not be arguing over whether Exxon is gouging or providing a commodity at what the market will bear; we should be discussing why, in this day and age, we are still powering our lives with fermented dinosaur.
