15 National Parks for sale

[Fer Echegaray]

EPA protections are a bit overbearing, but there's no need for a friggin' overhaul. Pass legislation to allow the oil companies to build at least a dozen new refineries in more than one region of the country.

The energy "crisis" we're in is a simple question of economics - supply and demand. Our refineries are almost at capacity, yet no new ones are built. This puts enormous pressure on the resource, as the various types of fuel and petroleum products that must be made and can't be made simultaneously creates artificial shortages. Oil isn't in short supply - OPEC complained of a surplus in February as prices continued to rise. The problem is our ability to refine fuels of various sorts is limited. This drives up prices. Build more refineries, and suddenly you have plenty of capacity to refine certain products, and added capacity to absorb temporary shortages from storms/fires/strikes, etc., thus preventing the sharp price increases we've seen in the past.

 

[Bill V]

Fer--In general, I agree. But if there are devices and techniques available that can build those refineries in a way that they emit less pollution, isn't that worth pursuing, even if the cost of those devices/techniques make the gas a nickel or dime more expensive? I realize that some people will say "no"--but I, for one, think it's worth it. That said, I do agree that some of the other permit requirements are resulting in nothing more than a bunch of beaurocratic paper pushing.

 

[j Schmidty]

Even if permits were issued and the new refineries were built, Gas prices would continue to shoot upwards on order to pay for the cost of building the new refineries. So, gas would go up because there is lots of money to be made.

What would happen if gas was raised to $10/ gallon tommorow? Nothing, except a reworking of a lot a family budgets. We currently have no realistic alternatives to driving a gas powered vehicle.

 

[John Mastrocco]

If the oil companies really wanted to build new refineries they would have done so in Mexico just over the US-Mexican border years ago. Those environmental regulations don't exist there.



They are using US environmental rules as one of many excuses not to build or new refineries or expand new existing ones. Adding new refinieries reduces the percentage of peak capacity existing refineries run at which reduces profit. They want to run at 95+% peak capacity as long as it meets (or comes close to meeting) demand. And they don't want to exceed demand as that would cause a drop in refined product prices.



And, no, they won't add capacity until they believe that adding refineries will increase profit enough to offset the building cost.



As for the posted story - if it was up to some legislators there would be no national parks at all. Goodbye Yellowstone. Goodbye Grand Canyon. Goodbye anything that didn't make a buck for whomever was contributing to their campaign fund. Think this is an environmentalist fantasy? At one time (1966) there was a plan to dam the entire Grand Canyon to help the economic expansion of the southwest (especially Arizona). The Sierra Club and other 'environmentalist whackos' managed to get enough grass roots support from common citizens to make sure Congress rejected that idea.



This is just another attempt by special interests to use a natural disaster to cheaply expand their own economic interests.



And when it comes to special interests they are all equally bad for the common good. It doesn't matter if they are 'environmentalist whackos' or 'greedy oil comnpanies'. That is why they are special interests - they only care about their own interests.

 

[Deleted deleted]

Yeah, I like hiking INSIDE the Grand Canyon, not water skiing on it!



[Broken External Image]:

 

[Paul Maurer 2]

How about a novel, wacky idea-CONSERVE. We rail against government interference for penalizing Exxon Mobil for price gouging, now we should pass special legislation to help them build more refineries so we can continue to suck down oil like Big Gulps, and not be inconvenienced by rising prices? As gas prices continue to rise, the economic benefits of conservation begin to overcome the costs- monetary and otherwise- of implementing these measures. No matter what we do, the supply of oil is finite(most would agree) but I haven't seen any realization of that basic idea. I was recently in Paris, and the average size car there is considerably smaller than I see here, probably due to the fact that gas prices there have been much higher than ours for years.

 

[TrainTrac]

I'm sure there are some national parks or other Federal property that could be sold off, although maybe not necessarily for energy development. Take the Adak National Forest for example. It's composed of about 20 or so trees.:lol: I've been there, it's nothing to write home about!



[Broken External Image]:

 

[Gene Marshall]

Have you all forgotten that the oil companies have closed refineries to drive the price up?





Group: Internal memos show oil companies limited refineries to drive up prices

RAW STORY







Internal Texaco memo, March 1996



The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) today exposed internal oil company memos that show how the industry intentionally reduced domestic refining capacity to drive up profits, RAW STORY has learned.



The three internal memos from Mobil, Chevron and Texaco illustrate how the oil juggernauts reduced refining capacity and drove independent refiners out of business in an effort to increase prices. The highly confidential memos reveal a nationwide effort by American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying and research arm of the oil industry, to encourage major refiners to close their refineries in the mid-1990s.

 

[TrainTrac]

Gene,



If this were true, why haven't the major media news outlets pounced all over this story? They usually jump at the chance to report any story that would make large companies, especially the oil industry, look bad. Can you cite any other sources beside the FCTR?



As a rebuttal, see my four posts in the thread below.

 

[John Mastrocco]

Old news?

 

[Gene Marshall]

Not really worth getting into a pi**ing contest about but it did happen. I have put this link to a senate hearing about refinery closings. This is not something new, it started in the 90's



Refinery Capacity Lost Due to Refinery Closures Between 1995 - 2001

< Numbers in Barrels per Calendar Day >

1995 191,750 bbl/cd 16

1996 268,750 bbl/cd 17

1997 87,100 bbl/cd 18

1998 123,650 bbl/cd 19

1999 51,000 bbl/cd 20

2000 25,700 bbl/cd 21

2001* 80,515 bbl/cd 22

Total Capacity Lost: 828,465 bbl/cd

 

[Bill V]

Darin--The problem with your statement is that so much of the Grand Canyon IS waterski-able. It's called Lake Mead. When they built Hoover Dam, they flooded much of the Canyon, including most of the best rapids (for those who enjoy rafting) and tons of terrific waterfalls, caves, and side caverns. The 1966 Sierra Club effort only saved the portion of the Canyon that wasn't already flooded--but definitely was not able to save the whole thing.