[QUOTE=tengineer1;140032]I think the entire affair reflects poorly on the intelligence of the average US citizen. Remember when gas prices were high and they were shouting, “drill baby drill”? Remember Obama was the enemy of oil? Well, we are now drilling in the GOM at levels far surpassing anything under the so called oil guy in the WH. We’re fracking anything that looks like it might have oil or gas and Dakota is a giant pin cushion of drill bits. We are exporting oil by way of a loophole already. The price at the pump is up. Why isn’t there a great hue and cry about high gas prices now? I mean the Tea Party ought to be all over this because we should be able to burn a LOT of cheap US produced oil since global warming is a hoax there are no consequences anyway…What is Fox and CNN reporting about this?? The only thing I can figure is the same bunch that owns the government owns the TV media too. Therefore the average US citizen is too ignorant to see they are being raped going and coming because they only watch TV or follow parrot websites of their own political beliefs.[/QUOTE]
Refinery permits are the US problem, if more refinery permits were; well permitted, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
[QUOTE=roundabout;140035]Refinery permits are the US problem, if more refinery permits were; well permitted, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.[/QUOTE]
Ah, look again to how commodities like oil and gas are marketed. Oil and gas are bought and sold on a global market. While I do agree that our existing refinery inventory needs improvement, especially from a safety standpoint (think BP and Texas), such improvements in capacity and safety will do little to improve price at the pump.
Its all about supply and demand. If US refined gasoline and diesel could not be exported outside of North America, there would be less demand than capacity and prices at the pump would fall.
Lower energy costs would give the US a competitive advantage. The main thing driving US manufacturing now are much lower natural gas prices than anywhere else in the world.
[QUOTE=catherder;140044]Ah, look again to how commodities like oil and gas are marketed. Oil and gas are bought and sold on a global market. While I do agree that our existing refinery inventory needs improvement, especially from a safety standpoint (think BP and Texas), such improvements in capacity and safety will do little to improve price at the pump.[/QUOTE]
I see your thinking catherder, however, since 1975 the US has only opened/built 15 refineries, only 3 of those have real capacity (over 100,000 barrels/day), how many have been closed? In the U.S. there are approximately 139 operating crude oil refineries and this number is way down from the high in the 1950’s and down from the early 1980’s when there were about 300. Oil & Gas like most anything these days is bought and sold on a global market, but to be independent, which we could of our own oil supply would be a simple feet with the capacity to refine what we need here @ home. Proof is in the pudding, not to discount inflation but the number of refineries in 1950 and the number today compared to price @ the pump is not a coincidence. Of course you can’t discount the rich getting richer either.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;140049]Its all about supply and demand. If US refined gasoline and diesel could not be exported outside of North America, there would be less demand than capacity and prices at the pump would fall.
Lower energy costs would give the US a competitive advantage. The main thing driving US manufacturing now are much lower natural gas prices than anywhere else in the world.[/QUOTE]
Currently, our domestic refinery capacity is not quite up to snuff with our domestic demand. In my previous job, I have attended tanker vessels discharging refined product at Cove Point, MD, Wilmington, DE and Philadelphia, and learned that pertinent fact by talking to the Master and Cheng, and sometimes the Agent. Crude loaded in the US and refined in England, only to be discharged back in the US. That is but one place we send crude for refining into gasoline and distilled diesel. One can blame the “enviros” but when you look back at at the blowdown drum explosion at that BP refinery in Texas some years back, and numerous other incidents, you can’t but shake your head at the lack of initiative and willingness to improve conditions in-house so that not only we have more efficient refinery capacity, but an assurance that refinery workers will come home alive and in one piece.
This in the light of fact that all of the major energy companies make plenty of profits. Nothing much at all stopping them from making changes, but their own shareholders and board of directors/management.
[QUOTE=catherder;140055]Currently, our domestic refinery capacity is not quite up to snuff with our domestic demand. In my previous job, I have attended tanker vessels discharging refined product at Cove Point, MD and learned that pertinent fact. Crude loaded in the US and refined in England, only to be discharged back in the US. One can blame the “enviros” but when you look back at at the blowdown drum explosion at that BP refinery some years back, and numerous other incidents, you can’t but shake your head at the lack of initiative and willingness to improve conditions in-house so that not only we have more efficient refinery capacity, but an assurance that refinery workers will come home alive and in one piece.[/QUOTE]
Hence my original argument for new refinery permits. NEW being the important thing here. Operating all the older refineries is just fuel for the fire for the tree huggers smoking up LA and making environmental laws for the rest of us to have to live by. I am all for safe working conditions, but it is hard to improve on a 40 year old facility that can’t be permitted to upgrade at the very least. I’ve seen the same as you on the ships going and coming, my previous employer of 10 years was VP @ “The Big V” as he called it, mind you we were chugging around the world on his 30 million dollar boat. Just pay us more is the answer I guess.
I think it is important to realize that there are three large US produced sources of crude in play here…the GoM, the North Slope and the Bakken region. The GoM crude is close to the refineries on Texas and Louisiana and thus can be transported, refined, transported again and then marketed in the US relatively cheaply and profitably. It appears that there is no desire to sell any of that to foreign buyers. The North Slope crude must be transported to the US market via US crude carriers to the West Coast refineries but I do not believe that there is a shortage of capacity in any of those to refine Alaskan oil to product and the western US (especially California) is a large, viable and highly profitable market. The Bakken crude is far from refineries and requires transport via limited pipeline capacity or by rail which is itself very expensive (more than ships) to the available refineries. It is this crude that is often spoken of as being that which the producers want to sell overseas since the GoM refineries cannot refine that oil as well as the GoM produced crude. If we need new refineries anywhere it is in the plains closer to the source so it only then needs to be moved as product instead two times over long distances.
Now, since Senator Murkowski is from Alaska, I imagine that she is speaking of selling Alaskan crude to foreign buyers in Asia? It is intuitive to think that it what she wants to happen and would that be to then create a false shortage of oil to the western US to create a condition where the price at the pump in the west continues to be always higher than the remainder of the US and thus even more profitable on the downstream side of the equation? Call me cynical, but I think this is what is being attempted here to the detriment of the economies of the western states. This is why North Slope crude should be prohibited from being exported. Of course, the same goes for any US produced crude and I stand with maintaining the law prohibiting it.
We need more new refineries in the north and for those in existence all over the US to be modernized. Give tax breaks to the producers if we must to incentivize them to do this and relax the laws which make this process so time consuming and expensive however the best way to get these is to force the oil to stay in the US so the producers must increase the capacity to refine US produced crude.
The first thing you could do is build out the infrastructure to use the gas from the bakken formation, billions of dollars worth of gas it’s just wasted every year. It’s like the US don’t care about money.
Roundabout has hit on a very critical part of the debate. We haven’t built a new refinery in this country since about 1977. The snail lovers and tree huggers at the EPA keep shooting down permits. We have more than enough natural resouces within our borders where we could tell every other energy producing nation or cartel to pound sand down their oil wells. As to the American consumer “wasting oil” Define wasting. Does it mean I can drive the 35 miles each way to walmart whenever I feel like saving $0.10 on an item.? I probably won’t do that. Lower domestic fuel prices and less energy exports are good for our economy. Domestic usage fuels domestic spending. I am still more likely to shop local and buy American made goods than I am to travel the 70 miles roundtrip to my nearest wally world.
[QUOTE=Kraken;140083]The first thing you could do is build out the infrastructure to use the gas from the bakken formation, billions of dollars worth of gas it’s just wasted every year. It’s like the US don’t care about money.[/QUOTE]
Awhile ago Al Gore was on a TV news show. He showed a sat photo of North Dakota taken at night from five years ago. It was dark. Then he showed a current photo that was all ablaze from gas flaring. This should be stopped.
On the North Slope of Alaska the oil companies are not allowed to flare off gas. They must compress it and reinject it into the oil bearing formations to keep the pressure up.
Oil companies will do anything they can get away with for a little extra profit this quarter. They must be regulated.
[QUOTE=Kraken;140091]Wasting oil is when you drive around in a hummer instead of a leaf because you can “afford” it.[/QUOTE]
Hummers are not a problem because they are crappy cars that very few people want to drive. The typical oil company lets more gasoline evaporate in a day than all the Hummers consume in a year. Pick up trucks are more of a problem. They usually get worse mileage than a Hummer and there are millions of them. Ninety percent of the people driving trucks do not need one. Taxes have to come from somewhere. A higher gas tax and lower income tax would be a good idea.
But the most important way to conserve energy is by making buildings more energy efficient.
The best way to save the environment and not regulate lifestyle choices is to increase high efficiency transportation (shipping) by using small container ships to move more boxes between American ports instead of trucking. I’ll throw in refining closer to the source as well.
[QUOTE=steeltoesonplanes;140098]The best way to save the environment and not regulate lifestyle choices is to increase high efficiency transportation (shipping) by using small container ships to move more boxes between American ports instead of trucking. I’ll throw in refining closer to the source as well.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely.
There is one huge problem preventing eco-friendly short sea shipping in the US ---- ridiculously overpaid and inefficient longshoremen that make it cheaper to use trucks.
It seems like a no brainer to build refineries near the oil fields. I certainly don’t understand why the Canadians are putting up with Obama’s bullshit instead of building new refineries in Alberta. They have not hesitated to build new refineries in New Brunswick and Newfoundland. The eco-freaks would prevent any attempt to build a new refinery in North Dakota.
There is one huge problem preventing eco-friendly short sea shipping in the US ---- ridiculously overpaid and inefficient longshoremen that make it cheaper to use trucks…[/QUOTE]
The case could also be made that ridiculously overpaid and inefficient seamen make it cheaper to use trucks. Actually thanks to mechanization longshoreman cost to the port operator is less than many years ago per ton moved and the longshoremen make a very good wage. Considering one longshoreman does the work of 10 in earlier years I don’t begrudge them their pay. The problem with short sea shipping is once unloaded you still need a truck to move it inland and since most of the USA is inland, well you get the idea.
[QUOTE=c.captain;140079]I think it is important to realize that there are three large US produced sources of crude in play here…the GoM, the North Slope and the Bakken region. The GoM crude is close to the refineries on Texas and Louisiana and thus can be transported, refined, transported again and then marketed in the US relatively cheaply and profitably. It appears that there is no desire to sell any of that to foreign buyers. The North Slope crude must be transported to the US market via US crude carriers to the West Coast refineries but I do not believe that there is a shortage of capacity in any of those to refine Alaskan oil to product and the western US (especially California) is a large, viable and highly profitable market. The Bakken crude is far from refineries and requires transport via limited pipeline capacity or by rail which is itself very expensive (more than ships) to the available refineries. It is this crude that is often spoken of as being that which the producers want to sell overseas since the GoM refineries cannot refine that oil as well as the GoM produced crude. If we need new refineries anywhere it is in the plains closer to the source so it only then needs to be moved as product instead two times over long distances.
Now, since Senator Murkowski is from Alaska, I imagine that she is speaking of selling Alaskan crude to foreign buyers in Asia? It is intuitive to think that it what she wants to happen and would that be to then create a false shortage of oil to the western US to create a condition where the price at the pump in the west continues to be always higher than the remainder of the US and thus even more profitable on the downstream side of the equation? Call me cynical, but I think this is what is being attempted here to the detriment of the economies of the western states. This is why North Slope crude should be prohibited from being exported. Of course, the same goes for any US produced crude and I stand with maintaining the law prohibiting it.
We need more new refineries in the north and for those in existence all over the US to be modernized. Give tax breaks to the producers if we must to incentivize them to do this and relax the laws which make this process so time consuming and expensive however the best way to get these is to force the oil to stay in the US so the producers must increase the capacity to refine US produced crude.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kraken;140083]The first thing you could do is build out the infrastructure to use the gas from the bakken formation, billions of dollars worth of gas it’s just wasted every year. It’s like the US don’t care about money.[/QUOTE]
There’s been enough natural gas in South Marsh Island and Mobile Bay wasted the last 30 years to run the world! If people would listen to T-Boone we would be ahead of the curve on natural gas usage and I would imagine just the fact that we were running our vehicles, ships, trains on it would bring down the price of gas & diesel. Speaking of which, why has diesel become higher than gas when it’s much less expensive to refine?
I have lived a few years in 3rd world countries that were set up to run on propane and find it ridiculous we don’t make a better attempt at it than we did 30 years ago with a few municipalities putting in their own pumps and equipping their fleets. I don’t know how many times in Venezuela, Ecuador and the Dominican Republic, I’ve pulled into what I thought was a gas station and all they were selling was LP, though it appeared like a regular Raceway gas station. The gas prices as most know were way below what we pay in both Venezuela & Ecuador, why, yep, new refineries. Just last year in Ecuador gas was $1.00 US/gallon.
[QUOTE=tengineer1;140106]The case could also be made that ridiculously overpaid and inefficient seamen make it cheaper to use trucks. Actually thanks to mechanization longshoreman cost to the port operator is less than many years ago per ton moved and the longshoremen make a very good wage. Considering one longshoreman does the work of 10 in earlier years I don’t begrudge them their pay. The problem with short sea shipping is once unloaded you still need a truck to move it inland and since most of the USA is inland, well you get the idea.[/QUOTE]
If you really looked at the cost of moving a container from Hong Kong to Denver you would discover that most of the labor cost is American longshoremen.
Truck drivers make a little less than seamen. It takes 300 drivers to truck 300 containers. Five guys on a tug can haul 300 containers. The labor cost for trucking is much higher then the labor cost for seamen. Longshoremen have huge gang sizes and longshoremen are paid a lot more than seamen.
Compare fuel costs for one tug vs 300 trucks.
Tug and barge has the lowest cost per ton mile. Air is the highest. Trucking is second highest to air.
Something is eating up all the cost advantages of waterborne transportation, but it sure as hell isn’t seamen’s wages
[QUOTE=tugsailor;140095]Hummers are not a problem because they are crappy cars that very few people want to drive. The typical oil company lets more gasoline evaporate in a day than all the Hummers consume in a year. Pick up trucks are more of a problem. They usually get worse mileage than a Hummer and there are millions of them. Ninety percent of the people driving trucks do not need one. Taxes have to come from somewhere. A higher gas tax and lower income tax would be a good idea.
But the most important way to conserve energy is by making buildings more energy efficient.[/QUOTE]
tugsailor I will agree on two of your points, and am assuming when you say pickup trucks you are grouping all the high end SUV’s (Tahoes, Escalades, suburbans etc) the status symbols of a car envious nation. Buildings are a good contribution as well as all the hypocrites driving the gas guzzlers. I drive a diesel pickup that averages 16.4/mpg around town and 20mpg on a road trip, so I get the benefits of the vehicle I need, with comfort and what I consider decent mpg’s. My F150 before got 13mpg around town.
I however have to totally disagree that we need higher gas taxes. The economics behind a gallon of gas are pretty straightforward. It’s the policies behind access to U.S. energy resources that are less certain – but critical to our energy future.