Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
stamps

Keystone Pipeline XL passes first hurdle

Recommended Posts

Now if only they would trim the EPA’s regs on new refinery production….

point of clarification: in keeping with this threads refinery attachments, you seem to have properly narrowed your statement's focus to the new related EPA regulations concerning standards of performance for petroleum refineries... however... when you speak to, as you say, "new refinery production", are you speaking to the issue of:

- 1. new regulations concerning production associated with 'new refineries' (re: post 06/2007, relative to construction, reconstruction or modification), or are you speaking to

- 2. new regulations concerning new production associated with 'existing refineries'?

given your attention in clarifying the aforementioned '1 vs. 2', what is the relevance and applicability of your statement to the tarsands/KL pipeline, particularly your vague qualification to what "trim" implies. More pointedly, it's unclear upon what you base your aspiration/hope for your unqualified "trim" suggestion. Please advise - thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

given your attention in clarifying the aforementioned '1 vs. 2', what is the relevance and applicability of your statement to the tarsands/KL pipeline, particularly your vague qualification to what "trim" implies. More pointedly, it's unclear upon what you base your aspiration/hope for your unqualified "trim" suggestion. Please advise - thanks in advance.

Geez...can't people shoot off at the mouth without having a clue what they're talking about anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peeves

point of clarification: in keeping with this threads refinery attachments, you seem to have properly narrowed your statement's focus to the new related EPA regulations concerning standards of performance for petroleum refineries... however... when you speak to, as you say, "new refinery production", are you speaking to the issue of:

- 1. new regulations concerning production associated with 'new refineries' (re: post 06/2007, relative to construction, reconstruction or modification), or are you speaking to

- 2. new regulations concerning new production associated with 'existing refineries'?

given your attention in clarifying the aforementioned '1 vs. 2', what is the relevance and applicability of your statement to the tarsands/KL pipeline, particularly your vague qualification to what "trim" implies. More pointedly, it's unclear upon what you base your aspiration/hope for your unqualified "trim" suggestion. Please advise - thanks in advance.

Funny, when I see oil sands referred to as "Tar" sands, I automatically suspect a bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

point of clarification: in keeping with this threads refinery attachments, you seem to have properly narrowed your statement's focus to the new related EPA regulations concerning standards of performance for petroleum refineries... however... when you speak to, as you say, "new refinery production", are you speaking to the issue of:

- 1. new regulations concerning production associated with 'new refineries' (re: post 06/2007, relative to construction, reconstruction or modification), or are you speaking to

- 2. new regulations concerning new production associated with 'existing refineries'?

given your attention in clarifying the aforementioned '1 vs. 2', what is the relevance and applicability of your statement to the tarsands/KL pipeline, particularly your vague qualification to what "trim" implies. More pointedly, it's unclear upon what you base your aspiration/hope for your unqualified "trim" suggestion. Please advise - thanks in advance.

Option 1 To clarify, the construction of new refineries.......

As for relevance, I’d say the as of yet unattainable “standards” under the clean air act for oil production burn off………My hope, an increase in not only drilling, but the production of the end product will reduce the price at retail outlets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

Geez...can't people shoot off at the mouth without having a clue what they're talking about anymore?

I do retainer work for Kinder Morgan………What do you do for a living?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
point of clarification: in keeping with this threads refinery attachments, you seem to have properly narrowed your statement's focus to the new related EPA regulations concerning standards of performance for petroleum refineries... however... when you speak to, as you say, "new refinery production", are you speaking to the issue of:

- 1. new regulations concerning production associated with 'new refineries' (re: post 06/2007, relative to construction, reconstruction or modification), or are you speaking to

- 2. new regulations concerning new production associated with 'existing refineries'?

given your attention in clarifying the aforementioned '1 vs. 2', what is the relevance and applicability of your statement to the tarsands/KL pipeline, particularly your vague qualification to what "trim" implies. More pointedly, it's unclear upon what you base your aspiration/hope for your unqualified "trim" suggestion. Please advise - thanks in advance.

Option 1 To clarify, the construction of new refineries.......

As for relevance, I’d say the as of yet unattainable “standards” under the clean air act for oil production burn off………My hope, an increase in not only drilling, but the production of the end product will reduce the price at retail outlets.

excellent - thanks. As you've then made (several) pointed references to (new - post 06/2007) refineries... distinct from (new) wells... in the context of this thread, I'm just not particularly well-versed in (new) refineries as might be presumed to handle/process the pipeline product - please advise.

as another point of clarification: when you speak to, as you say, "oil production burn off"... are you referencing more to shale and related natural gas 'flaring' (to get at the oil)... and if so, how is that particularly relevant to this threads focus on the tarsands? If the flaring isn't your actual reference could you please elaborate on your complete meaning, particularly in terms of your described "(as yet) unattainable" wording, particularly in terms of the actual new EPA regulation and effective date therein.

as for your expressed (generalized) hope for resultant reduced retail pricing, without regard to you offering distinction between Canada vs. U.S., that same degree of generalization would presume upon you (also) presuming upon, at large, 'oil/transport companies', effectively, passing on lower end costs to retail customers. Please correct me if I've extended upon and taken liberties with my interpretations on your altruistic positioning of 'oil/transport companies', proper. As well, appreciate a Canada vs. U.S. distinction I will offer for your comment, particularly as might affect your expressed hope for resultant reduced retail pricing; specifically, TransCanada's Keystone application (section 3.4.3), reflecting upon pricing impacts to the U.S. Midwest (PADD II)... additionally, do you interpret U.S. Senator Wyden's call for a Federal Trade Commission investigation as simple 'politicking'; i.e., that there's really no foundation to suggestions of collusion towards impacting increased U.S. Midwest retail pricing? More pointedly, with all this "to-do" about the PADD III refinery production being targeted at Gulf ports to open up the tar sands to the global/China market, do you recognize any of that market penetration having a corollary impact on domestic retail pricing, U.S. and/or Canada?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny, when I see oil sands referred to as "Tar" sands, I automatically suspect a bias.

funny, when I see someone making pointed distinction of this kind, I automatically suspect a bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

excellent - thanks. As you've then made (several) pointed references to (new - post 06/2007) refineries... distinct from (new) wells... in the context of this thread, I'm just not particularly well-versed in (new) refineries as might be presumed to handle/process the pipeline product - please advise.

as another point of clarification: when you speak to, as you say, "oil production burn off"... are you referencing more to shale and related natural gas 'flaring' (to get at the oil)... and if so, how is that particularly relevant to this threads focus on the tarsands? If the flaring isn't your actual reference could you please elaborate on your complete meaning, particularly in terms of your described "(as yet) unattainable" wording, particularly in terms of the actual new EPA regulation and effective date therein.

Instead of me cutting in pasting their document, from the horses mouth:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/petrefine/mactdoc1.pdf

Section 4 has the new emissions regulations that came into affect under the Clinton administration.

Again, to clarify, many of these new regulation require emissions controls that either the technology is not mature or economically viable as of yet. Why would business invest in newer technology such as carbon capture when they receive no direct benefit?

as for your expressed (generalized) hope for resultant reduced retail pricing, without regard to you offering distinction between Canada vs. U.S., that same degree of generalization would presume upon you (also) presuming upon, at large, 'oil/transport companies', effectively, passing on lower end costs to retail customers. Please correct me if I've extended upon and taken liberties with my interpretations on your altruistic positioning of 'oil/transport companies', proper.

As to why I feel increased refining well result in a net benefit for the North American consumer (We can include Mexico also) is simple supply and demand. An increase of refined oil will naturally lower the world price, and if this is achieved within North America, our (Canada/US/Mex) demand won’t be affected by the whims of OPEC nations and/or instability within the Middle East.

Obviously this will require some nudging and fiscal support by our three governments to get the oil companies onboard, but if the North American voter wants cheap gas, this is one way to achieve it. One could also argue the benefits for the oil companies, in that having a cheaper, and more stable product than the middle east/OPEC, might make our oil more attractive to growing markets in Asia (Red China) and in turn we could see further investment dollars from them as opposed to our taxpayers in a round-about way.

As well, appreciate a Canada vs. U.S. distinction I will offer for your comment, particularly as might affect your expressed hope for resultant reduced retail pricing; specifically, TransCanada's Keystone application (section 3.4.3), reflecting upon pricing impacts to the U.S. Midwest (PADD II)... additionally, do you interpret U.S. Senator Wyden's call for a Federal Trade Commission investigation as simple 'politicking'; i.e., that there's really no foundation to suggestions of collusion towards impacting increased U.S. Midwest retail pricing?

I don’t know enough about the controversy created by the Senator Wyden to comment intelligently, but from reading the storey you provided, I would guess, that based on the party he represents, politics does come into play to some extent.

More pointedly, with all this "to-do" about the PADD III refinery production being targeted at Gulf ports to open up the tar sands to the global/China market, do you recognize any of that market penetration having a corollary impact on domestic retail pricing, U.S. and/or Canada?

Again, it would go back to your belief in supply and demand…….It would, in my opinion, stand to reason that if North America increased the amount of “product” on the world market, the other producers (OPEC) would have to lower their selling cost per barrel….Alberta oil works the same as Saudi oil in my truck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if only they would trim the EPA’s regs on new refinery production….

You're asking the Obama administration to be sensible. Not bloody likely.

Fortunately that problem ends 12 noon on January 20, 2013.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

You're asking the Obama administration to be sensible. Not bloody likely.

Fortunately that problem ends 12 noon on January 20, 2013.

Well I'm no fan of Obama, and I agree that he do a Carter fairly soon, if this passes (The pipeline) I will give his admistration some credit........Kind of like a broken clock.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead of me cutting in pasting their document, from the horses mouth:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/petrefine/mactdoc1.pdf

Section 4 has the new emissions regulations that came into affect under the Clinton administration.

Again, to clarify, many of these new regulation require emissions controls that either the technology is not mature or economically viable as of yet. Why would business invest in newer technology such as carbon capture when they receive no direct benefit?

and you're offering a link to a dated/original (now revised several times since) MACT... offered in a broad-sweeping "hand-wave" without any exacting detail/specification to direct relevancy. More to the point, that MACT (and any existing revisions of), reference to "traditional" toxins and have nothing... nothing... to do with the current focus on GHG emissions. More pointedly, the EPA has just recently sent all U.S. operating petroleum refineries an information request asking for updated air emission inventories (per newest protocols)... with returned refinery submissions to be used by the EPA to update new standards and MACT regulations... ultimately, what you're presuming to speak to hasn't even, yet, been drafted by the EPA for industry review.

now, if you really want to speak to relevancy... something actually germane to the current focus, we could extend upon this EPA white paper... as intended to be used as industry reference. Available and Emerging Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Petroleum Refining Industry As you can see, section 3, Table 1 offers a convenient summary assessment including, as available/applicable, payback periods as well as whether the measures have been shown in practice. Your pointed reference to CCS is mentioned, and given the relatively early stages/progress of CCS, one shouldn't be surprised at the EPA reference. I'm also not clear why, in the context of presumed eventual regulation, you interpret automatic "compliance" towards something in its relative early stages. Perhaps you could elaborate on that... Equally, given your comment along the lines of "what`s in it for the oil companies" (in regards CCS), you may want to question those current U.S. companies actively engaged in real world deployments in China... we`ve spoken to those particulars in other previous MLW climate change related threads.

As to why I feel increased refining well result in a net benefit for the North American consumer (We can include Mexico also) is simple supply and demand. An increase of refined oil will naturally lower the world price, and if this is achieved within North America, our (Canada/US/Mex) demand won’t be affected by the whims of OPEC nations and/or instability within the Middle East.

Obviously this will require some nudging and fiscal support by our three governments to get the oil companies onboard, but if the North American voter wants cheap gas, this is one way to achieve it. One could also argue the benefits for the oil companies, in that having a cheaper, and more stable product than the middle east/OPEC, might make our oil more attractive to growing markets in Asia (Red China) and in turn we could see further investment dollars from them as opposed to our taxpayers in a round-about way.

obvious nudging and fiscal support??? You mean more subsidies for BigOil? :lol: It begs the question, particularly given your acknowledgment to the emphasis on "Red" China (Red? Really?)... as it's been demonstrated quite convincingly, the same ultimate increased throughput for the new (extended) Keystone pipeline, could have been realized with the existing Keystone pipeline... the capacity is there. However, of course, the new pipeline extension is what gets it all down to the Gulf and out to those global/China markets. Any comment on that?

I don’t know enough about the controversy created by the Senator Wyden to comment intelligently, but from reading the storey you provided, I would guess, that based on the party he represents, politics does come into play to some extent.
the "controversy" was most certainly not started by Wyden... he's a particular late comer to the issue. The real "controversy" reflects back upon TransCanada and revelations at the NEB hearings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

and you're offering a link to a dated/original (now revised several times since) MACT... offered in a broad-sweeping "hand-wave" without any exacting detail/specification to direct relevancy. More to the point, that MACT (and any existing revisions of), reference to "traditional" toxins and have nothing... nothing... to do with the current focus on GHG emissions. More pointedly, the EPA has just recently sent all U.S. operating petroleum refineries an information request asking for updated air emission inventories (per newest protocols)... with returned refinery submissions to be used by the EPA to update new standards and MACT regulations... ultimately, what you're presuming to speak to hasn't even, yet, been drafted by the EPA for industry review.

now, if you really want to speak to relevancy... something actually germane to the current focus, we could extend upon this EPA white paper... as intended to be used as industry reference. Available and Emerging Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Petroleum Refining Industry As you can see, section 3, Table 1 offers a convenient summary assessment including, as available/applicable, payback periods as well as whether the measures have been shown in practice. Your pointed reference to CCS is mentioned, and given the relatively early stages/progress of CCS, one shouldn't be surprised at the EPA reference. I'm also not clear why, in the context of presumed eventual regulation, you interpret automatic "compliance" towards something in its relative early stages. Perhaps you could elaborate on that... Equally, given your comment along the lines of "what`s in it for the oil companies" (in regards CCS), you may want to question those current U.S. companies actively engaged in real world deployments in China... we`ve spoken to those particulars in other previous MLW climate change related threads.

You tell me, why aren’t new refineries being built in the United States?

obvious nudging and fiscal support??? You mean more subsidies for BigOil? It begs the question, particularly given your acknowledgment to the emphasis on "Red" China (Red? Really?)... as it's been demonstrated quite convincingly, the same ultimate increased throughput for the new (extended) Keystone pipeline, could have been realized with the existing Keystone pipeline... the capacity is there. However, of course, the new pipeline extension is what gets it all down to the Gulf and out to those global/China markets. Any comment on that?

Again, it’s evident with these investments made by “Big Bad Oil”, that they see coming potential for production from within North America………Perhaps the expansion of Keystone will also coincide with a further development of the Bakken fields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You tell me, why aren’t new refineries being built in the United States?

dunno... wadda ya think? :lol:

Again, it’s evident with these investments made by “Big Bad Oil”, that they see coming potential for production from within North America………Perhaps the expansion of Keystone will also coincide with a further development of the Bakken fields.

again, you seem to be skirting my pointed questions... since existing capacity is there today to handle increased throughput from the tarsands (without the new Keystone extension to the Gulf), just how does shipping all that additional capacity... to new foreign markets... actually translate to new domestic U.S. refineries (intended for domestic retail)?

I note you appear to have backed off on your earlier presumed significance of that original MACT - yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

dunno... wadda ya think? :lol:

I note you appear to have backed off on your earlier presumed significance of that original MACT - yes?

Nope, I’ve given my opinion…….Yours is based on a relationship between a former President and Saudi royalty....ok....Why haven’t any been built in the 90s under Clinton? Or now under Obama……When was the last one built? In the 70s?

again, you seem to be skirting my pointed questions... since existing capacity is there today to handle increased throughput from the tarsands (without the new Keystone extension to the Gulf), just how does shipping all that additional capacity... to new foreign markets... actually translate to new domestic U.S. refineries (intended for domestic retail)?

I’m skirting questions? As I’ve said, increased production, puts more product on the world market, thus lowering prices.........

Perhaps an increase in North American production will overwhelm existing capacities…….Why do feel “Big Bad Oil” is doing it?

So aside from the Bush/Saudi connection, why aren’t refineries being built within the United States?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

An interesting editorial, which I share the writer’s viewpoint:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/08/24/yes-rick-perry-deserves-credit-for-the-texas-economy/

The first and foremost reason cited by Slate is “Texas has lots of oil and gas … pain at the pump helped the few states with lots of fuel to sell and commodity-related jobs. Oil-rich North Dakota, most notably, barely noticed the downturn. And Texas felt it less than most other states.” The New York Times and other left-leaning media outlets have made the same argument.

It is encouraging that the political left is finally beginning to realize that energy production can and does make the difference between energy producing states like North Dakota and Texas experiencing job growth and relative prosperity while the rest of the nation suffers the worst economic conditions in over 70 years. But Perry detractors completely miss the facts when they assert, as did the Slate article, “So what does it all mean for other states? Well, they cannot produce oil out of thin air.”

Make no mistake, many states are well positioned to realize the same energy production benefits as North Dakota and Texas. These include, at a minimum, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming — each of which has ready access to abundant resources of the same shale oil and shale gas that is fueling economic growth in North Dakota and Texas. Energy production and economic strength in North Dakota and Texas are the results of wise and courageous policy decisions designed to encourage rather than stifle energy production (something that fellow Forbes columnist Joel Kotkin pointed out in his recent piece on Texas). Going forward, the question is which leaders in which states have the political courage to stand up to environmental activist groups and their media allies who routinely vilify energy production?

As I noted in last week’s column, the Sierra Club and other environmental activist groups are urging New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ® to sign a bill passed by the heavily Democratic New Jersey legislature that would ban shale gas production in the state. Environmental activist groups similarly protest oil and gas production in every other state, as well as on federal lands where energy production could create valuable jobs and earn the federal government much-needed revenues while simultaneously relieving prices at the pump. What sets North Dakota and Texas apart from many other states (and the federal government) is political leaders who will courageously endure heated criticism from environmental activist groups in order to provide jobs and a healthy economy for state residents.

Is it really the oil companies stifling themselves and the public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, I’ve given my opinion…….Yours is based on a relationship between a former President and Saudi royalty....ok....Why haven’t any been built in the 90s under Clinton? Or now under Obama……When was the last one built? In the 70s?

that pic was a handy stab at the overall U.S.-Saudi relationship... one not necessarily targeted at any particular administration. In any case, I'm not really clear what your opinion is. You offered up a dated MACT document that associates back to "traditional" toxic emissions (while, uhhh... making pointed attachment to Clinton), and then proceeded to speak to industry inabilities to meet regulatory standards with a current focus (which is on GHGs... which you also confirmed by addressing CCS). As I emphasized, you can't presume to suggest industry inabilities to manage regulations, when those (new/updated) MACT associated with GHGs haven't even been formulated yet. So the foundation of your opinion is... what?

why not be clear and precise since you appear to really have something to say, but are thrashing about attempting to say it... why don't you state, unequivocally, why you believe no new refineries have been built in the U.S..

I’m skirting questions? As I’ve said, increased production, puts more product on the world market, thus lowering prices.........

uhhh... about those OPEC type thingees... The questions you seem to be ignoring relate more to me questioning why the pipeline extension is even being built. Again, you were emphasizing domestic retail... as I am aware, the new capacity will be for foreign markets. I offered you suggestions of collusion affecting PADD II Midwest states to manipulate supply affecting increased pricing... you simply shrugged that off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

that pic was a handy stab at the overall U.S.-Saudi relationship... one not necessarily targeted at any particular administration. In any case, I'm not really clear what your opinion is. You offered up a dated MACT document that associates back to "traditional" toxic emissions (while, uhhh... making pointed attachment to Clinton), and then proceeded to speak to industry inabilities to meet regulatory standards with a current focus (which is on GHGs... which you also confirmed by addressing CCS). As I emphasized, you can't presume to suggest industry inabilities to manage regulations, when those (new/updated) MACT associated with GHGs haven't even been formulated yet. So the foundation of your opinion is... what?

why not be clear and precise since you appear to really have something to say, but are thrashing about attempting to say it... why don't you state, unequivocally, why you believe no new refineries have been built in the U.S..

I did state my belief as to why new refineries are not being built, excessive government regulation. Sure, I provided an old document (1995), and for the sake of argument, let’s say things have since improved for the oil companies in terms of regulation………Still, not one refinery built in 16 years? Why is that?

uhhh... about those OPEC type thingees... The questions you seem to be ignoring relate more to me questioning why the pipeline extension is even being built. Again, you were emphasizing domestic retail... as I am aware, the new capacity will be for foreign markets. I offered you suggestions of collusion affecting PADD II Midwest states to manipulate supply affecting increased pricing... you simply shrugged that off.

What drives up the price? Demand……….If China purchases oil from Texas,and/or makes motion that it will, as opposed to relying on middle eastern oil, what will happen to the price of middle eastern oil? If there’s a reduction in the world market price, you don’t feel that will affect the domestic North American market?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did state my belief as to why new refineries are not being built, excessive government regulation. Sure, I provided an old document (1995), and for the sake of argument, let’s say things have since improved for the oil companies in terms of regulation………Still, not one refinery built in 16 years? Why is that?

2 new refineries are on the books... apparently on the way... Arizona Clean Fuels in Yuma Arizona & Hyperion Energy Center in Union County, South Dakota. Go Bama Go!!! :lol:

however, yours is an apparent disingenuous position - have you heard of... increased capacity through expansion of existing plants?

No new refineries built in decades? True or false?

"There have been no new refineries built since 1976" is a phrase commonly placed in stories revolving around high gasoline prices, refinery problems, or oil prices. There seems to be, however, more than meets the eye to this claim. While the phrase is technically correct, there are some glaring omissions that mislead motorists into thinking there has been no capacity added to refineries since the last new facility was brought online in 1976.

The simple truth (which may be hard to believe given that oil companies are generally looked down on), is that oil companies have been busy adding new capacity in the last decade—expansions of all sizes are underway or have recently been completed. The size of some of these expansions adds more than double the capacity of an average refinery.

Let's take, for example, Motiva's Port Arthur, Texas expansion project. Already underway since 2006, this expansion project would add 275,000 barrels of capacity per day to this facility. For reference, the current average size of a U.S. refinery stands at nearly 129,500 barrels per day. The expansion project in Port Arthur would be like adding more than two refineries in this country! The project is slated to be complete and operational in 2012.

While the number of operating refineries has fallen from 254 in 1982 to 137 in 2011, the operating capacity of today's 137 facilities is over 830,000 barrels per day more than it was in 1982. Basically, while we've watched 117 refineries close, capacity has risen. (The Energy Information Administration's earliest records date to 1982.)

Moreover, since 1985, when refinery capacity hit a low of 14.7 million barrels per day, we've seen over three million barrels of capacity added, or the equivalent to 23 average modern day facilities. A stark contrast to the misleading tidbit about having no new refineries built since the 1970's.
So while we haven't seen new refineries open in new locations, we have virtually added the capacity of 23 of today's average size facilities—and that is nothing to scoff at
.

apparently... all that excessive government regulation you speak of, hasn't affected expansion one diddly... the effective new capacity equivalency to 23 new refineries! Oh my!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

2 new refineries are on the books... apparently on the way... Arizona Clean Fuels in Yuma Arizona & Hyperion Energy Center in Union County, South Dakota. Go Bama Go!!! :lol:

however, yours is an apparent disingenuous position - have you heard of... increased capacity through expansion of existing plants?

apparently... all that excessive government regulation you speak of, hasn't affected expansion one diddly... the effective new capacity equivalency to 23 new refineries! Oh my!

Two new refineries and the expansion of existing refiners, equaling 23 new refineries…impressive….for a total production of ~ 18 million barrels a day………Still behind the ~21.5 million barrels a day the United States uses…….Does your link mention what state(s) has seen the expansions of current facilities? Whats keeping production below actual usage? Energy independence indeed….Go Bama :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...