• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oil rises above $90 amid US crude supply drop

From Utah Bill's link post #999:

In 1982 - 301 operable oil refineries processing 17.9 million barrels of oil per day.
Today - 149 refineries processing 17.4 million barrels.


How do you think they got the same output with fewer physical facilities. Expansion and efficiency. This began in the '80s by shutting down facilities that were incapable of being upgraded for downstream processing and/or 'debottlenecking' or were unable to meet environmental requirements or commercial requirements while expanding and making the remaining facilities more efficient.

Over that time, the facility I worked for doubled it's unleaded gasoline production and just before I left they added a new crude still, a new coker and a sulphur plant. Other companies were doing the same thing. No new refineries were built, but capacity kept up with demand.

The 'no new refineries built since..', is nothing but a 'fits on a bumper sticker talking point' championed by the 'drill baby drill' crowd.

In refining, except in rare instances, the run doesn't exceed capacity.

This link is to a graph to explain what I'm talking about. Although it only goes up to 2004, it also go back to 1973 to show the history of the U.S. having the capacity to process the crude it needs.

U.S. Refining Capacity, Crude Runs, and Utilization Rate
 
are there even any proposed? Here is a scary article....

There will be no new refineries

This pretty much says it all (from your article):

"Oil companies won't be building more refineries, because there won't be enough oil left to refine by the time new refineries could pay for themselves."
 
This pretty much says it all (from your article):

"Oil companies won't be building more refineries, because there won't be enough oil left to refine by the time new refineries could pay for themselves."

I have 2 bikes, several spare tires and tubes, and flat repair kit, and extra pairs of shoes. And everything I need is less than 5 miles from my house....:2razz:
 
Drill, baby, drill fails: Oil prices soar in spite of sharp increase in U.S. production under Obama

"Yet Haley Barbour, right wing try to blame Obama for high prices, still push policies that EIA says will have no impact on price.

US oil production last year rose to its highest level in almost a decade….

As a result, analysts believe the US was the largest contributor to the increase in global oil supplies last year over 2009, and is on track to increase domestic production by 25 per cent by the second half of the decade.


Domestic oil production is soaring, but so are global prices. It should be obvious that yet more drilling can’t have any significant impact on oil prices — particularly since the U.S. Energy Information Administration has been making that precise point for years now (see EIA: Full offshore drilling will not lower gasoline prices at all in 2020 and only 3 cents in 2030!).

The only thing that can protect Americans from the inevitably increasing oil shocks of Peak Oil is an aggressive strategy to reduce the country’s oil intensity (oil/GDP), including a steady increase the fuel efficiency of our vehicles — policies that conservatives have fought for decades.

But that doesn’t stop those same conservatives — including former Big Oil lobbyist Haley Barbour — from trying to blame Obama for high oil prices. ThinkProgress has a rundown of all the absurd attacks:

Political opportunists in the Republican Party have already sought to blame this inherently unstable situation on President Obama. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) — a possible 2012 presidential candidate and former oil industry lobbyist — has suggested that not only are increased prices Obama’s fault, but that he desired and created them. “His administration’s policies have been designed to drive up the cost of energy in the name of reducing pollution, in the name of making very expensive alternative fuels more economically competitive,” Barbour told the U.S Chamber of Commerce last week. “Their policy is to drive up energy prices.” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), chair of the House Tea Party Caucus and also a potential 2012 presidential candidate, said of high gas prices, “This is exactly what the ambition of the Obama administration is, because they want to move people toward green energy.” In a post on Redstate.com titled “Blame the Democrats for High Gas Prices,” CNN political commentator Erick Erickson argued that “Democrats have been politicizing and blocking expanded oil drilling for quite some time.” Similarly, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) blamed Democrats’ unwillingness to open up more domestic drilling sites for the spike. “We seem to have our hands behind our back,” Johnson said. “And this lack of permitting — this lack of going after resources that we have right here in America — is indicative of a failed energy policy.

That is all pure BS, the exact opposite of the truth. As the Financial Times reported:

The revival of US production has been made possible by a rush of small and mid-sized companies into onshore regions such as the Bakken shale in North Dakota, the Permian Basin in west Texas and the Eagle Ford shale in south Texas.

North Dakota’s production has doubled since 2008, reaching 355,000 b/d in November. Extraction of oil reserves in these regions was thought to be uneconomic, but has been made commercially viable by the transfer of techniques successfully used to extract shale gas; in particular, long horizontal wells and “fracking”, pumping water under high pressure to crack the rock and enable the oil to flow.

Dave Hager, vice-president for exploration and production at Devon Energy, one of the companies pioneering the development of the new onshore fields, said new technology had transformed production economics at its mixed gas and oilfields in north Texas.

Like it or not, Obama actually campaigned on opening up oil production in the Bakken shale, so he is delivering on a campaign promise there."
Drill, baby, drill fails: Oil prices soar in spite of sharp increase in U.S. production under Obama « Climate Progress
 
Last edited:
Well one thing most people don't realize is most countries, the price of gas is far more than what ours is due to their full reliance on getting it from OPEC countries and these countries regulate. Our prices are driven up by OPEC cost as a way to stay competitive and to me that is very annoying. If you look at any country that gets all of their oil from their own country, their gas prices are dramatically lower, some, Saudi Arabia for example pay $1USD or less per gallon. Since we have a mix of foreign and domestic I think that is what still keeps us down below the international average for gas prices. You also have to consider that what has happened in Japan, and the recent uprisings in the Middle East make the market nervous and they will of course, artificially inflate the price.

I think that it should be a goal of any president for as long as I live to completely eliminate the need for oil from foreign country, and reduce our overall dependency of it as well. A bad side effect of that of course, is less money to be made so these companies will raise the prices of the gas with cars that get 50MPG coming down the line, and several cars within the next 5 years won't even depend on gas.
 
Well one thing most people don't realize is most countries, the price of gas is far more than what ours is due to their full reliance on getting it from OPEC countries and these countries regulate. Our prices are driven up by OPEC cost as a way to stay competitive and to me that is very annoying. If you look at any country that gets all of their oil from their own country, their gas prices are dramatically lower, some, Saudi Arabia for example pay $1USD or less per gallon. Since we have a mix of foreign and domestic I think that is what still keeps us down below the international average for gas prices. You also have to consider that what has happened in Japan, and the recent uprisings in the Middle East make the market nervous and they will of course, artificially inflate the price.

I think that it should be a goal of any president for as long as I live to completely eliminate the need for oil from foreign country, and reduce our overall dependency of it as well. A bad side effect of that of course, is less money to be made so these companies will raise the prices of the gas with cars that get 50MPG coming down the line, and several cars within the next 5 years won't even depend on gas.

The price of oil is directly related to the relative value of the US dollar because most of our OIL is imported. We must compete with foreign currencies and our poor economic policies have dropped the dollar value to 2/3rds of what it was in year 2000. The USDollar was worth 120 in 2000 and 74 today. Most of that drop occurred under GWsh*tforbrains stewardship, but not all. Could have something to do with deficits. Ya' think. Jimmy Carter said we must fight against foreign reliance on energy as if it is a war. Ronny Reagan took the solar panels off the White House and gutted the National Energy Conservation Policy Act. A very reliable sock puppet, don't you think?
 
Well one thing most people don't realize is most countries, the price of gas is far more than what ours is due to their full reliance on getting it from OPEC countries and these countries regulate. Our prices are driven up by OPEC cost as a way to stay competitive and to me that is very annoying. If you look at any country that gets all of their oil from their own country, their gas prices are dramatically lower, some, Saudi Arabia for example pay $1USD or less per gallon. Since we have a mix of foreign and domestic I think that is what still keeps us down below the international average for gas prices. You also have to consider that what has happened in Japan, and the recent uprisings in the Middle East make the market nervous and they will of course, artificially inflate the price.

I think that it should be a goal of any president for as long as I live to completely eliminate the need for oil from foreign country, and reduce our overall dependency of it as well. A bad side effect of that of course, is less money to be made so these companies will raise the prices of the gas with cars that get 50MPG coming down the line, and several cars within the next 5 years won't even depend on gas.

That was our goal in the 70's. We had a plan to make us free from foreign oil dependence. That plan was scrapped by Reagan as soon as he came into office, and we passed peak oil in this country in 1971. This administration has provided more funding for development of alternatives to foreign oil than any other in history. We actually have someone now as the head of the energy department that is a scientist and not a politician. There is much to be hopeful about but we must realize we are starting 40 years later than we should have. Now that we are facing World peak oil in the next few years, we had better learn to adapt quickly, or it is going to be a very bumpy ride.
 
I have 2 bikes, several spare tires and tubes, and flat repair kit, and extra pairs of shoes. And everything I need is less than 5 miles from my house....:2razz:

You mean like the Fog Horn Chicken House?
 
:applaud
That was our goal in the 70's. We had a plan to make us free from foreign oil dependence. That plan was scrapped by Reagan as soon as he came into office, and we passed peak oil in this country in 1971. This administration has provided more funding for development of alternatives to foreign oil than any other in history. We actually have someone now as the head of the energy department that is a scientist and not a politician. There is much to be hopeful about but we must realize we are starting 40 years later than we should have. Now that we are facing World peak oil in the next few years, we had better learn to adapt quickly, or it is going to be a very bumpy ride.

Can I hear a hand for Capitalism!!:applaud
 
anybody watch "Power Surge" on Nova last night?
 
:applaud

Can I hear a hand for Capitalism!!:applaud

Yes. A hand for Capitalism and a loud raspberry and a kiss of the big brown spot for Corporatism!
!
 
Ah, the battle cry of the communist. Thanks for the predictable....

Its the battle cry of those who don't wish their country to fall to fascism.
 
Missed it, what was the jist of it?

we have to do it all, and we have to start now, no more quibbling over what is "best".....
All sources are on the table, clean what we can...
New nukes are going up in 4 years in China, the plants are standardized and pre-fabbed as much as possible. There is a 3 day supply of cooling water in a tank that sits on top of the reactor vessel in the newest design being built.
China has dirty coal, they are building lots of nukes, but are also using lots of solar cells, wind, etc.
The future speaks chinese, at the moment....
Synfuels for cars are $100K per teaspoon at the moment.....
a lot was said about "efficiencies", meaning conserving by building better cars and buildings, etc.
 
we have to do it all, and we have to start now, no more quibbling over what is "best".....
All sources are on the table, clean what we can...
New nukes are going up in 4 years in China, the plants are standardized and pre-fabbed as much as possible. There is a 3 day supply of cooling water in a tank that sits on top of the reactor vessel in the newest design being built.
China has dirty coal, they are building lots of nukes, but are also using lots of solar cells, wind, etc.
The future speaks chinese, at the moment....
Synfuels for cars are $100K per teaspoon at the moment.....
a lot was said about "efficiencies", meaning conserving by building better cars and buildings, etc.

I agree! :sun
 
Am I supposed to be surprised that the Conservatives are once again trying to block progress? :sun

jay rockefeller and carl levin?

conservatives?

LOL!

cap and trade is dead, epa is in the crosshairs of 60 senators

where's jimmy carter when you need him
 
jay rockefeller and carl levin?

conservatives?

LOL!

Yeah that's funny, a few Blue dog democrats, but every single Republican opposes it. Guess which party those concerned about our environment are going to support?

Great point you made! :sun
 
Back
Top Bottom