Gas Prices -- Help at last?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Newps" wrote in message ...
Jay Honeck wrote:
Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a better handle on what subsidies look like and
what profits are for...

Did you READ the article?

Of course he didn't, the facts might get in the way of a preconceived notion.

Apparently neither of you read the article.

The lack of new refineries means nothing, except (as Dave S pointed out) that the oil companies don't need new
refineries to meet their demand and they don't feel like investing in their own future, except if they can get
taxpayers to subsidize it, and if they can be released from their obligations to the environment.

The article, which neither of you apparently read, pointed out that not only have no new refineries been built, oil
companies have CLOSED refineries already built. If they need refineries so badly, why did they close the ones they
had?

Furthermore, whether passing this bill was the right answer or not, the article points out that it was done in a very
underhanded way. At one point, they had 424 votes, against the bill. Somehow, they managed to REDUCE the vote count
(to 422) and yet increase the number of "ayes". In what world is it reasonable to just keep recounting the votes
until you get the answer you want? (Please, no one from Washington State answer that one ). The House voting rules
provide for five minutes to count the vote, and yet the Representative standing in for the oh-so-honorable Tom DeLay
held the vote open for more than 40 minutes, waiting until he and his friends were able to pork-barrel the votes their
way.

All of the above is in the article. Why didn't either of you notice those facts?

Thankfully, the bill did retain the environmental protections required of the oil companies. But otherwise, it's a
huge win for the oil companies, and unlikely to be much of a real benefit for consumers. We probably do need more
refineries, if for no other reason than to provide backup capacity for situations like the hurricanes. But oil
companies make plenty of money...there's absolutely no reason they can't provide their own investment in their own
future.

Any taxpayer that thinks that they will wind up paying less money overall by funding new refineries is fooling
themself.

Pete


Thanks Peter, all points covered. I stand by my original comments...

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 00:27:36 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

Just to keep things pure, next time I'll make the subject "AVgas Prices --
Help at Last?"

so they will refine 100LL at the new site?

#m
--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

"Dave S" wrote in message
nk.net...


Matt Barrow wrote:


No, they haven't; they are just as susceptible to federal and local
regulations as ever.

And older plants are COSTLY to operate, mainly due to maintenance costs.

If they are all so costly, then why havent they built new capacity?

I'll let you figure that out (Hint: capital expenditure that might not
produce a drop of fuel for ten years)

The law doesn't outlaw building them, just says you need to build it to
meet modern environmental standards. That makes the older GRANDFATHERED
units "cheap".

It costs (say) $25 billion to build a new one, ten years playing
bureaucratic games and in the mean time, the old one costs $1 billion
additional in operating costs. You figure it out.




Tis is all about profits.


Or an agenda.


The oil companies havent gone into bankruptcy in droves over 20 odd
years, if anything they have made money hand over fist.


In most years they make less profit than the Feds and states take in fuel
taxes.

Considering in Texas I pay 38.5 cents/gallon in taxes to the State and
Federal Governments on my auto gas, and it's been at that tax rate for a
very long time (years), I am not surprised that the Fed's make more money
on the gas than do the oil companies. When gas was $2.00/gal, that amounts
to 20% going to uncle sam. When its at $3.00/gal like it is now, the
gubmint only is taking in maybe 12% of the gross. Thats just from the gas
sales, and doesnt count taxes paid on the property, inventory and income
by the oil companies to the state, local and federal governments.

Well, HALLELUGHA!!



I somehow don't feel sorry for the oil companies because they aren't
making a clean 12-20% profit on their product after ALL their expenses.

Thats because at heart your a parasite and a whiney, bitchy kid (or act like
one).

Saying the companies make less in profit than the government does in taxes
isn't telling the whole story.

Well, enlighten us from your vast public academia/MSM repertoire.



They have not increased their refining capacity because it would
decrease their overall PROFIT margin. Building new refining capacity to
"standard" would drive their incremental cost of production UP, and eat
into the stockholders dividends. But make no mistake, it would still be
PROFIT.


So why should they use their profits and capital to build more capacity
when so many just squeal and whine?

I didn't say they should. The status quo serves them the best. And now
they are about to benefit (if passed) from legislation that will let them
modernize their capacity (WITHOUT environmental protection requirements)
and improve their profit MARGINS. Perhaps the government should get into
the production and refining business and offer some "competition" or
incentive to the oil industry.

HAHAHAHAHAH


Christ almighty....you are _really_ dense!!!


Any government profits could be used to support the general fund or any
other lawful government endeavor.

Okay, time to bring in someone fairly sane,

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:EcP1f.410391$_o.119605@attbi_s71...
The oil companies havent gone into bankruptcy in droves over 20 odd
years, if anything they have made money hand over fist. They have not
increased their refining capacity because it would decrease their overall
PROFIT margin. Building new refining capacity to "standard" would drive
their incremental cost of production UP, and eat into the stockholders
dividends. But make no mistake, it would still be PROFIT.

You say that like it's somehow wrong. That, my friend, is the Capitalist
system.

And that's evidently what he despises!

WHINE !! BITCH!! MOAN!! NOT IN MY BACK YARD!! I want gas! I want cheap gas!!
I want this I want that!

Grow the **** up, America!!

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 12:46:28 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

(And ours is NOTHING compared to most systems. You
should see Britain's Parliament in action!)

Jay, what do _you_ know about the British system?

#m

--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 12:46:28 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

I'm not one to defend the oil companies, and I'm as ****ed about gas prices
as anyone.

really? last time I was in the US (2002) I paid less for gas than for
bottled water ... either your gas price is too low or you're asking too
much for (bottled) water.

#m

--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

Martin Hotze wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 12:46:28 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:


I'm not one to defend the oil companies, and I'm as ****ed about gas prices
as anyone.


really? last time I was in the US (2002) I paid less for gas than for
bottled water ... either your gas price is too low or you're asking too
much for (bottled) water.

#m


Heh... and this is really the punchline. Think about it: crude oil is
far and away our civilizations most precious natural resource and it's
being sold for less than drinking water (or it had been up until now). I
don't think anyone really believes that prices like that are
sustainable, especially given that the oil supply is finite and
non-renewable.

Also, as someone else pointed out, them thar refineries ain't cheap. In
fact, those things cost buttloads of money to build, run and maintain.
Huge buttloads...... Not only that, don't forget about those oil rigs
down in the gulf that broke off their moorings during the hurricanes and
are now Galveston beachfront resorts. Those things are going to cost a
hell of a lot to replace too......

I hate to say it, but we're lucky to be paying only 3 bucks a gallon
given our current situation.....

LS
N646F

(And ours is NOTHING compared to most systems. You
should see Britain's Parliament in action!)

Jay, what do _you_ know about the British system?

Why, only what they taught us at St. Catherine's High School, the
University of Wisconsin, what I read and, of course -- hilariously --
what I see on TV.

Those Brits are NUTS, God love 'em -- in a good way, of course.

:-)

Why?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
http://www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I'm not one to defend the oil companies, and I'm as ****ed about gas prices
as anyone.

really? last time I was in the US (2002) I paid less for gas than for
bottled water ... either your gas price is too low or you're asking too
much for (bottled) water.

Bottled water in America is a very effective I.Q. test.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Heh... and this is really the punchline. Think about it: crude oil is
far and away our civilizations most precious natural resource and it's
being sold for less than drinking water (or it had been up until now). I
don't think anyone really believes that prices like that are
sustainable, especially given that the oil supply is finite and
non-renewable.

Interesting.

a. In one corner we've got folks saying that the big, bad Oil Companies
are making obscene, HUGE profits at current prices.

b. In the other corner, we've got guys like you saying that the price
is too low, and shouldn't be so cheap.

If supply and demand is in action here, (a) and (b) can't co-exist.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"