I Wish I Had a Civic!

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

An overview on the issue: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0921/p11s02-usec.html
The industry perspective(so take that for what its worth): http://www.reason.org/commentaries/moore_20050901.shtml
Very fair and balanced look at the issue: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/200 ... on_ab.html
How refineries have stretched production despite fewer facilities: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6019739/

I do not blame ALL of the issue on environmental groups, but they are certainly a major factor. Believe it or not, refineries are not automatically owned by oil companies, a large percentage are actually independant operations and they have EVERY incentive to step up production to take advantage of the shortages. After all, the higher the demand the higher thier profits.

And while I do not agree with much of the oil industry's behaviour, Ron Wyden(my own former Senator as I am from Eugene, OR) has had a grudge against them for years, and has launched a seemingly endless investigation of the industry with zero actual results. Its his political calling card, a way to rally angry voters, but it has little substance. In Oregon, the only thing worse than Ron Wyden is Gordon Smith. I have no idea why, but the only great Senator Oregon has had in the past couple of decades is Mark Hatfield.

Threeweight · **Joined:** Mon May 14, 2007 5:57 pm **Posts:** 679

Not to go down too much of a tangent, but...

Two of those links are to legitimate news articles, neither of which references a refinery being blocked by environmentalists. The other two are opinion columns from the Reason Foundation, which is funded in part by the oil industry.

See: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... Foundation

American Petroleum Institute is one of their largest funders.

I find it funny that I can buy B20 locally at $3.11 a gallon, but pure dino-diesel is $3.35 right next door. If refining capacity were the issue, the opposite should be true (as 80% of the B20 is from oil refiners, and the biodiesel component costs even more than the dino-diesel to produce).

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

Threeweight - I noted that the Reason one was an industry supported source prior to the link. The other one was Econbrowser, which I am not aware of as being an industry source but if it is I'll discount it similarly, however it disagreed wtih both Reason and Cato for the weighting they had given to environmental groups but agreed it was a factor. That one did however link to specific environmental campaigns against new refineries in the article, which is what I was asked to prove. One of them was on a website devoted to that cause, which itself is proof of the claim: http://www.refineryreform.org/index.htm

Once again, I don't think its the entire problem, but I do think its significant. Furthermore, while its popular to bash the oil industry, their profits have risen with consumption more than any other factor, we may as well be bashing ourselves for buying the product in such quantity when we get upset about their profit margins.

Edit: BTW, the BD issue has to do with subsidies, the B20 is subsidized as a 'biofuel' either at the pump or in production, so it ends up cheaper desite the fact that producing it cost more...

Threeweight · **Joined:** Mon May 14, 2007 5:57 pm **Posts:** 679

B20 in Oregon is from Sequential Biofuels, made from waste vegi oil. No farm subsidies there.

Our legislature did pass subsidies this past summer to encourage increased biofuels refining capacity and encourage farmers to grow canola and other feedstock crops. There was also a small personal income tax credit included for consumers who use biodiesel. None of this has really kicked in yet.

The Econbrowser blog posting is by James Hamilton, who cites Reason.org as one of his sources (that was what I was noting). Looks like the Yuma plant did run into environmental obstacles in getting a clean air permit to operate, but that isn't it's biggest problem. See:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... ery19.html

One would think that one would want to have identified a source of oil before making plans to build a refinery.

Profit should certainly rise in relation to consumption. The beef people have with the oil industry is that profit has risen far in excess of consumption, with little investment in new technology or infrastructure.

To try and bring this back around full circle... concern about dependence on fossil fuels is the main reason I bought the CRD, and it seems a lot of other folks acted on the same values. I am more than a little grumpy that after 9/11 occured (with the support of Saudi oil money), all Americans were encouraged to do was go shopping. If every American had been encouraged to buy the most fuel efficient vehicle that meets their needs, and instead of "I support the troops" ribbons in 15 mpg soccer-mom Suburbans we had "I support the troops" ribbons on 25-30 mpg diesel SUV's (and 40-50 mpg diesel cars), the country would be in a lot better shape. And we'd be paying a lot less for fuel.

Cowcatcher · **Posted:** Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:34 pm

While environmentalists may be a factor in new refinery's, NIMBY's are a greater factor. In anycase that is a straw dog if anyone was responding to my original post which was focused on consolidation of the refinery's among a few oil companies and the subsequent clousure of many, and a huge amount of refining capacity closed.

The only significantly new capacity that is currently being added is ethonol and bio-diesel production.

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

Well we are about 90% on the same page. The NIMBY factor certainly is a large one as well. But ultimatly my point was that looking at the refinery situation as some sort of oil industry conspiracy requires a fairly narrow view of how the industry works. That does not mean there is no culpability at that level, but I do not believe that the industry is responsible for China buying all the oil it can get its hands on, environmental groups and NIMBY's preventing new refinery construction, or that Ethanol/BioDiesel are not energy positive. That gets into conspiracy territory and I just do not buy into that kind of mentality.

Desert_Busa · **Posted:** Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:40 pm

Not saying it's going to happen or not, but has anyone seen Crude Awakening?

It is a documentary on what is happening with oil. There's are some interesting views on the current situation, which leads to the fact we are running out of oil. It is hard to argue with, but I am going to keep doing what I can afford and not worry about it.

Even if diesel goes to 10 cents a gallon I'll be commuting by bike.

Hopefully some form of energy will become widely available like oil.

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

Not that its the best plan environmentally, but Fischer-Tropsch can manufacture oil from coal at about $35-45/barrel. Its used widely in South Africa. The US has some of the largest coal deposits in the world, and Montana alone could supply the entire US oil needs for at least 40 years. So while we may not be drilling as much oil from the ground, we are nowhere near the end of the oil based economy. Unfortunatly.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:57 pm

I believe what Cowcatcher was referring to was back in the mid-90's when certain oil companies bought up 50 independent refineries and closed them down. According to the GAO, there was no environmental or regulatory reason for having to close these refineries - their conclusion being that the only logical reason was that it was a business decision by the new owners to reduce refinery capacity, tighten supply, and attempt to maintain fuel prices above a certain level.

I remember watching reports on this on the nightly news. They displayed copies of e-mails between oil industry execs where they discussed in plain English buying up these refineries and shutting them down for this very reason postulated by the GAO.

While this type of business dealing may not have been illegal, given it's effect on the economy and nation as a whole due to higher fuel prices, I'd say there's plenty of room to argue whether or not it was ethical.

What's particularly galling in light of what happened back then, is that now the oil companies are literally demanding further tax credits and subsidies - on top of the billions they already receive each year and record profits as well - if the nation wants them build new refineries and expand capacity.

Why bother spending their own money on refurbishing and reopening any of the 50 refineries they shut down (provided they all haven't been torn down by now), when they can get John Q Taxpayer to pay for building them an entirely new set of refineries?

I will concede that the oil companies aren't the only ones who's actions over the years have been less than ethical or motivated by profit and self-interest. Anyone who's stood to profit from the status quo, and also those often opposed to it, have been more concerned with their own agendas than finding a workable solution.

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

One thing that you will never hear me oppose is getting rid of subsidies. I do believe its ridiculous to subsidize oil companies at any level, especially in light of the extreme profitability of the business(and virtually guaranteed cash flow). I could even buy into some arguments to treat them as a regulated utility, honestly, as they are just as critical now to the national economy.

Of course I also believe in eliminating farm subsidies, the overwhelming majority of which go to large corporations or property developers who build on land zoned for agricultural use. All of the money being put into such subsidies would be better spent on energy research and new nuclear power plants.

Cowcatcher · **Posted:** Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:07 pm

I wish I had a Civic! :lol:

Threeweight · **Joined:** Mon May 14, 2007 5:57 pm **Posts:** 679

I wish I had a Jetta TDI... hey wait...

I Wish I Had a Civic!

Who is online