OT. New Oil Terminal Approved

[Dean Hoffman]

The Biden administration is at least glimpsing reality. No mention of how the terminal will be supplied.
<https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3748603-biden-administration-approves-gulf-oil-terminal-opposed-by-texas-city/>

[Dr Mickey Mallard Eye Nose and Ugly]

On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 5:36:25 AM UTC-8, dean...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Biden administration is at least glimpsing reality. No mention of how the terminal will be supplied.
> <https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3748603-biden-administration-approves-gulf-oil-terminal-opposed-by-texas-city/>

Yep, reality is biting.

Calif just extended permits for its sole remaining nuke plant to continue providing 9% of the states power.

[bruce bowser]

California Grid Set Record of 97% Renewable Power on April 3, 2022
Solar Power Worldwide -
-- https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2022/04/california-grid-set-record-with-97-percent-renewable-power-april-3/

[Frank]

On 11/25/2022 8:36 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
> The Biden administration is at least glimpsing reality. No mention of how the terminal will be supplied.
> <https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3748603-biden-administration-approves-gulf-oil-terminal-opposed-by-texas-city/>

Not reality when Brandon says Venezuelan oil is good and US oil is bad.

[Frank]

Sure, sounds good but a day where the sun don't shine, wind don't blow
and it gets cold would create a shit storm in California.

The greenies are more left than the commies.

[Ed Pawlowski]

What is the alternative? Just keep burning up natural gas and oil until
it is used up?

It is far from a perfect system but a start. Your grandchildren and
their children will thank you. Remember recently we paid $5 for gas?
They will probably be paying the equivalent of $10 or $15 if they can
get it as the easy stuff is gone.

[Scott Lurndal]

Frank <Frank@frank..net> writes:
>On 11/27/2022 8:12 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
>> California Grid Set Record of 97% Renewable Power on April 3, 2022
>> Solar Power Worldwide -
>> -- https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2022/04/california-grid-set-record-with-97-percent-renewable-power-april-3/
>
>Sure, sounds good but a day where the sun don't shine, wind don't blow
>and it gets cold would create a shit storm in California.

Actually, that's turned out to be not the case. But then,
you've never actually posted anything factual, just mindless
namecalling.

[Scott Lurndal]

Again with the factually incorrect (prima facia) nonsense. There have
been more domestic drilling permits issued in the first year of
the Biden administration than the first year of the Trump debacle.

https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/new-data-biden-slays-trumps-first-year-drilling-permitting-by-34-2022-01-21/

[Cindy Hamilton]

Frank <Frank@frank..net> writes:
>Not reality when Brandon says Venezuelan oil is good and US oil is bad.

You really are an idiot.

It's not about good or bad. It's about what kind of oil U.S. refineries
are set up to process.

U.S. refineries are mainly set up to process heavy crude (mainly from
Canada and Venezuela). Most of the oil pumped in the U.S. is light
crude, so much of it is exported.


--
Cindy Hamilton

[trader_4]

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 10:43:23 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 11/27/2022 8:37 AM, Frank wrote:
> > On 11/27/2022 8:12 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
> >> California Grid Set Record of 97% Renewable Power on April 3, 2022
> >> Solar Power Worldwide -
> >> --
> >> https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2022/04/california-grid-set-record-with-97-percent-renewable-power-april-3/
> >
> > Sure, sounds good but a day where the sun don't shine, wind don't blow
> > and it gets cold would create a shit storm in California.
> >
> > The greenies are more left than the commies.
> What is the alternative? Just keep burning up natural gas and oil until
> it is used up?

Yes, when we have a short term crisis and enough natural gas and oil
to last at least a hundred years.

>
> It is far from a perfect system but a start. Your grandchildren and
> their children will thank you. Remember recently we paid $5 for gas?
> They will probably be paying the equivalent of $10 or $15 if they can
> get it as the easy stuff is gone.

Funny how oil and gas disappeared soon as Biden came into office with his
screwy radical lib ideas. If we had a Republican president and Congress
it would be drill, baby drill. And just like when Reagan came into office
and undid Carter's stupidity, oil was at $7 a barrel in a few years. This Biden
dumb SOB somehow thinks that it's OK to buy oil from Saudi Arabia or
Venezuela, as if that's somehow clean and good, but US oil and US oil
companies are bad.

[trader_4]

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 11:51:40 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> Frank <Frank@frank..net> writes:
> >Not reality when Brandon says Venezuelan oil is good and US oil is bad.
> You really are an idiot.
>
> It's not about good or bad. It's about what kind of oil U.S. refineries
> are set up to process.

So, according to you, US refineries can't process US crude, but can process
Saudi and Venezuelan crude? Even if that were true, then where is the Biden
crash program to work with the oil industry to get refineries updated so they could
process it or build new ones? Crickets. Instead Biden is at war with the US oil
industry, while groveling for oil from the Saudis. And where was this alleged
refinery problem from 2016-2020, when gas was $2.40?

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 11/27/2022 12:10 PM, trader_4 wrote:
> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 10:43:23 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 11/27/2022 8:37 AM, Frank wrote:
>>> On 11/27/2022 8:12 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
>>>> California Grid Set Record of 97% Renewable Power on April 3, 2022
>>>> Solar Power Worldwide -
>>>> --
>>>> https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2022/04/california-grid-set-record-with-97-percent-renewable-power-april-3/
>>>
>>> Sure, sounds good but a day where the sun don't shine, wind don't blow
>>> and it gets cold would create a shit storm in California.
>>>
>>> The greenies are more left than the commies.
>> What is the alternative? Just keep burning up natural gas and oil until
>> it is used up?
>
> Yes, when we have a short term crisis and enough natural gas and oil
> to last at least a hundred years.
>

Depends on who you ask:
How many years of oil does the world have left?
That being said, at current consumption, we have by some accounts an
estimated 47 years of oil left to be extracted. That equates to
somewhere in the region of 1.65 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves.
Other sources up this estimate a bit, but most agree we have around 50
years left, give or take.

https://drillers.com/how-much-oil-is-left-in-the-world/

You an I will be dead by them but what about those still here? Do we
care about our future generations?

Do we start finding alternatives now or just wait 46 years and then start?

I have three great grandkids that will be the head of their family 47
years from now and if the number is correct, greatly impacted.

[Ed Pawlowski]

There is something to that
https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/blog/2018/06/14/why-the-us-must-import-and-export-oil

Since the U.S. energy renaissance has accelerated, however, most of the
4.8 mb/d of new U.S. oil production the past six years has been light
oil. With U.S. refining capacity geared toward a diverse crude oil
slate, a key implication for U.S. petroleum trade is that it would be
uneconomic to run refineries solely on domestic light crude oil.
Consequently, the United States:

Must import crude oil of different qualities to optimize production,
given its mix of refining capacity; and,
Has more light crude oil than it can handle domestically, while this
same quality of oil is in high demand in Asia Pacific and other regions
that mainly have simple refineries (without conversion capacity).
Therefore, differences among crude oils are important reasons why the
U.S. continues to import oil in an era of domestic abundance and export
light oil that can be problematic, operationally and financially, to
handle with existing U.S. refinery capacity (but also is of great value
to refineries globally). This leads our third consideration.

[Scott Lurndal]

trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> writes:
>On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 10:43:23 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 11/27/2022 8:37 AM, Frank wrote:
>> > On 11/27/2022 8:12 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
>> >> California Grid Set Record of 97% Renewable Power on April 3, 2022
>> >> Solar Power Worldwide -
>> >> --
>> >> https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2022/04/california-grid-set-record-with-97-percent-renewable-power-april-3/
>> >
>> > Sure, sounds good but a day where the sun don't shine, wind don't blow
>> > and it gets cold would create a shit storm in California.
>> >
>> > The greenies are more left than the commies.
>> What is the alternative? Just keep burning up natural gas and oil until
>> it is used up?
>
>Yes, when we have a short term crisis and enough natural gas and oil
>to last at least a hundred years.

1) it's not a short-term crisis.
2) If you wait to run out before developing alternatives, it
is too late, since it takes energy to make energy.
(See the wiki on EROI, and https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/)
3) Provide citations that show there is enough economically recoverable
fossil fuel sources to last 100 years (given historical 2.3% annual
growth in consumption worldwide).

>Funny how oil and gas disappeared soon as Biden came into office with his
>screwy radical lib ideas.

Funny how the Biden administration approved far more drilling permits
in the first year than his idiot predecessor. This is a inconvenient
fact for your ranting.

[Scott Lurndal]

And the harder it is to get, the more energy it takes to extract it,
if the ratio (in the early 1900s, 1 barrel of oil was required to
extract 100 barrels of oil. Today, 1 barrel of oil[*] can extract
up to 1.5 barrels from shale oil,
five barrels of oil from oil sands or around 20 barrels for
marine wells, and significantly less for fracking wells) drops
below 1:1, it takes more energy to extract the oil than you
get from using the oil.

Energy Return on Investment (EROI).

Not to mention the chemical and fertilizer industries that rely
on CH4 inputs.

>
>Do we start finding alternatives now or just wait 46 years and then start?

Most first world countries have already started finding and implementing
alternatives. Europe and California are leaders in this space (I personally contribute
more to the electric grid than I consume annually thanks to solar panels).

[*] Or the energy equivalent.

[rbowman]

Brandon might be right this time. Venezuela produces heavy, sour crude
that many refineries are set up for rather than light sweet from the
Bakken and other US plays.

It costs money to reconfigure a refinery, which might not be a good
investment with the administration declaring a war on fossil fuels.

[Frank]

You must be right.

All the left wing sites say the problem they had in Texas with a freeze
was not caused by all the renewables.

[rbowman]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 09:14:04 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote:

> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 11:51:40 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> Frank <Frank@frank..net> writes:
>> >Not reality when Brandon says Venezuelan oil is good and US oil is
>> >bad.
>> You really are an idiot.
>>
>> It's not about good or bad. It's about what kind of oil U.S. refineries
>> are set up to process.
>
> So, according to you, US refineries can't process US crude, but can
> process Saudi and Venezuelan crude? Even if that were true, then where
> is the Biden crash program to work with the oil industry to get
> refineries updated so they could process it or build new ones?

Do the research. You don't switch a refinery from heavy sour to light
sweet overnight, particularly if the administration's policies make it
look like a losing investment.

[Frank]

Yes, we will run out of natural resources. Conservation is good as is
lower pollution.

Question is, do we have to use draconian measures to get there?

The earth has been warming and cooling over its history, far before Fred
Flintstone walked the earth. It does not happen overnight. We are not
in a crisis.

The left is pushing a State of Fear on us to gain control.

[Frank]

Did not think you were as radical left as Scott here.

Does not matter where the oil goes as it is a world wide commodity.

With Brandon shrinking our production OPEC took over. It only took a 2%
decrease in their production to cause the price hike. If OPEC were US
corporations they would be jailed for price fixing.

[Frank]

On 11/27/2022 12:14 PM, trader_4 wrote:

> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 11:51:40 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> Frank <Frank@frank..net> writes:
>>> Not reality when Brandon says Venezuelan oil is good and US oil is bad.
>> You really are an idiot.
>>
>> It's not about good or bad. It's about what kind of oil U.S. refineries
>> are set up to process.
>
> So, according to you, US refineries can't process US crude, but can process
> Saudi and Venezuelan crude? Even if that were true, then where is the Biden
> crash program to work with the oil industry to get refineries updated so they could
> process it or build new ones? Crickets. Instead Biden is at war with the US oil
> industry, while groveling for oil from the Saudis. And where was this alleged
> refinery problem from 2016-2020, when gas was $2.40?
>
>

I had friends at the EPA overseeing the refinery here and Cindy is dead
wrong about this.

[Bob F]

Only if YOU completely ignore reality.

[Bob F]

Yes. Most of the power losses were caused by frozen natural gat power
facilities.

But don't let FACTS ever come between your aimless rants and reality.

[Peeler]

On 27 Nov 2022 18:24:50 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> Do the research. You don't switch a refinery from heavy sour to light
> sweet overnight, particularly if the administration's policies make it
> look like a losing investment.

You did do the research, didn't you, American superhero? You read
Pawlowski's article! LOL

--
Gossiping "lowbrowwoman" about herself:
"Usenet is my blog... I don't give a damn if anyone ever reads my posts
but they are useful in marshaling [sic] my thoughts."
MID: <iteioi...@mid.individual.net>

[Peeler]

On 27 Nov 2022 18:21:00 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

>> Not reality when Brandon says Venezuelan oil is good and US oil is bad.
>
> Brandon might be right this time. Venezuela produces heavy, sour crude
> that many refineries are set up for rather than light sweet from the
> Bakken and other US plays.
>
> It costs money to reconfigure a refinery, which might not be a good
> investment with the administration declaring a war on fossil fuels.

Why don't you just tell him to read Pawlowski's article where you got your
info from? Ah, yes, you couldn't hear yourself talking in your beautiful
grandiloquent style. LOL

[trader_4]

There were similar projections back in the 70s when oil prices were high.

>
> Do we start finding alternatives now or just wait 46 years and then start?

You should know from my posts here that I'm not opposed to alternatives.
But the fact remains that we have a short term crisis, people are suffering,'
the economy is in jeopardy and we need to pursue more oil short term.
Biden begging other countries to supply it, we're still using it, whether they
supply it or we pump it here. Better to be creating good paying American jobs,
tax revenue and lessening the trade deficits, instead of creating jobs overseas.
Biden is simply a coward, unable to stand up to the crazies in his own party.
Biden and the Democrats keep this up and you'll wind up with Trump or DeSantis
as president and Republicans in control of Congress. What do you think is going
to happen then? They deny there is any climate problem, no need to move to
alternate fuels at all.

[trader_4]

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 1:02:08 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> writes:
> >On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 10:43:23 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> On 11/27/2022 8:37 AM, Frank wrote:
> >> > On 11/27/2022 8:12 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
> >> >> California Grid Set Record of 97% Renewable Power on April 3, 2022
> >> >> Solar Power Worldwide -
> >> >> --
> >> >> https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2022/04/california-grid-set-record-with-97-percent-renewable-power-april-3/
> >> >
> >> > Sure, sounds good but a day where the sun don't shine, wind don't blow
> >> > and it gets cold would create a shit storm in California.
> >> >
> >> > The greenies are more left than the commies.
> >> What is the alternative? Just keep burning up natural gas and oil until
> >> it is used up?
> >
> >Yes, when we have a short term crisis and enough natural gas and oil
> >to last at least a hundred years.
> 1) it's not a short-term crisis.

Right, that's what Jimmy Carter said too. The crisis ended when Reagan reversed
his stupid policies and encouraged drilling, instead of attacking the oil industry.

> 2) If you wait to run out before developing alternatives, it
> is too late, since it takes energy to make energy.

Nonsense. This is the alarmist BS that is hurting Americans, especially the
poor. Next you libs will want to send $2000 to everyone to offset what you've
created.

> (See the wiki on EROI, and https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/)
> 3) Provide citations that show there is enough economically recoverable
> fossil fuel sources to last 100 years (given historical 2.3% annual
> growth in consumption worldwide).
> >Funny how oil and gas disappeared soon as Biden came into office with his
> >screwy radical lib ideas.
> Funny how the Biden administration approved far more drilling permits
> in the first year than his idiot predecessor. This is a inconvenient
> fact for your ranting.

Funny how you left out the rest of the story.....

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/15/drilling-permits-spiked-then-plunged-under-biden-00016814


"Drilling permits spiked then plunged under Biden

The number of oil and gas permits approved by the Bureau of Land Management for drilling on public lands declined to its lowest number under the Biden administration in January.

The Bureau of Land Management in January approved just 95 permits for oil and natural gas wells across federal lands in the United States, a plunge from the zenith of 643 issued last April, according to a review of data by E&E News."

And then we have the administration and the rest of the crazy libs hostile to the oil
industry, throwing roadblocks into every step of the process, issuing a permit is but
one part. Where is the Biden summit, calling oil industry leaders to the WH and asking
what needs to be done to get more oil? That there is none, speaks volumes. And why
would investors risk their money on new oil projects, when Biden fucked the investors
on the XL pipeline after they had invested billions? There is a huge difference between a
president that works with the oil industry and one that fucks them over and then blames
them.


https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/exploration-and-production/drilling-down-on-the-federal-leasing-facts

[trader_4]

This is Rush Limbaugh level of denial and ignorance. The earth is warming
overnight, in geological terms, right now and it's directly tied to the release of CO2
over the last 100+ years from the burning of fossil fuels. CO2 is now higher than
it's been in 800,000 years. It's risen 33% in the last hundred years, 50% since the start
of the industrial revolution. The past natural cycles, that took tens of thousands
of years or more. Just because there have been natural swings does not mean
that this one is not being driven by manmade CO2, the science is well established
at this point.

[Ed Pawlowski]

The meteorologist on our local TV station did a 2 minute presentation of
how it works. The ocean is a big heatsink and is warming, thus the more
drastic weather we have been seeing.

It is science, not politics. Of course you have people that see all the
snow in Buffalo last week so they deny warming.

[Scott Lurndal]

trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> writes:
>On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 1:02:08 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:

>> 2) If you wait to run out before developing alternatives, it
>> is too late, since it takes energy to make energy.
>
>Nonsense. This is the alarmist BS that is hurting Americans, especially the
>poor. Next you libs will want to send $2000 to everyone to offset what you've
>created.

Please avoid labels and putting words in other people's mouths.

And the idea that the current oil scarcity issues have anything to
do with Mr Biden's policies is horseshit. They're due to the
pandemic (refineries shut down and haven't yet restarted or were
repurposed), the war in Ukraine and Russian sanctions.

And you haven't acknowleged the significant declines (20%) in gas prices
over the last couple of months.

And the idea that refineries can be converted between light and
heavy crude in any short amount of time is not viable; likewise,
it takes between 5 and 20 years to design, build, permit and activate a
new refinery, so even if new ones were started now, they will
have zero effect on the current situation. It takes up to
12 months to bring a new well on-line.

>
>
>> (See the wiki on EROI, and https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/)

Ah, did you read the 'energy-trap' post referred to? Please enummerate
your issues with Dr. Murphy's analysis.... I disagree with your characterization
of the physics as "BS".

[Su Nombre]

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> And you haven't acknowleged the significant declines (20%) in gas prices
> over the last couple of months.

ROFLMAO!
Trump gas was $2.10/gal. when the dems stole the 2020 election.
Biden gas is still over $4 here. Try again.

[Scott Lurndal]

It is difficult to convey the science in two minutes. While it is
true that the ocean sinks heat, it also sinks CO2 (which makes the water
less basic, more acidic, i.e. reduces the pH [which means there are more
Hydrogen ions in the water]).

The ocean is warming by absorbing excess heat from the atmosphere,
which is caused by the added CO2 scattering the outbound long-wave
infrared emitted by the planet towards space, where some of the
scattered IR returns to the planet, warming it.

>
>It is science, not politics. Of course you have people that see all the
>snow in Buffalo last week so they deny warming.

Weather is not Climate.

[Ed Pawlowski]

With driving way down during the Trump pandemic years they could nto
give the oil away so gas was dirt cheap. Production was cut.

When people started driving, prices shot up. Had nothing to do with who
was sitting in the White House.

Don't let facts get in the way of your sill rant though.

[Oscar]

Just 7 miles up (where your wealthy libturd overlords fly their gas-guzzling private jets) it is -40F.

Did you know heat rises?

[Chubby Johnson]

trader_4 wrote:
> Biden and the Democrats keep this up and you'll wind up with Trump or DeSantis
> as president and Republicans in control of Congress. What do you think is going
> to happen then? They deny there is any climate problem, no need to move to
> alternate fuels at all.

We need Trump and DeSantis as a team,
one could work on repairing the democrats fucking mess and the other could MAGA.

[Dean Hoffman]

Do you ever look at this site?
<https://wattsupwiththat.com/>

[Scott Lurndal]

What about it? An ex-TV-weatherman with delusions doesn't mean that it is in any
way accurate, scientific or even reasonable.

[Ed Pawlowski]

I guess you did not take physics (or common sense) classes
The basic answer is that the farther away you get from the earth, the
thinner the atmosphere gets. The total heat content of a system is
directly related to the amount of matter present, so it is cooler at
higher elevations

[trader_4]

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 10:09:22 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> writes:
> >On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 1:02:08 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> >> 2) If you wait to run out before developing alternatives, it
> >> is too late, since it takes energy to make energy.
> >
> >Nonsense. This is the alarmist BS that is hurting Americans, especially the
> >poor. Next you libs will want to send $2000 to everyone to offset what you've
> >created.
> Please avoid labels and putting words in other people's mouths.
>
> And the idea that the current oil scarcity issues have anything to
> do with Mr Biden's policies is horseshit. They're due to the
> pandemic (refineries shut down and haven't yet restarted or were
> repurposed), the war in Ukraine and Russian sanctions.

Russia is still apparently selling all the oil it want to sell, there are buyers
like India and China. Biden entered office by cancelling the XL pipeline
which screwed our ally Canada and it's investors out of billions. Funny how
you libs had your hair on fire when Trump was screwing with Canada with
words and tariffs, but Biden just totally screws investors, costing them their
entire investment and that's A-OK. That sent a powerful message to the oil
industry and investors as to where Biden stands. Why risk your money only
to have this senile buffoon screw you and you lose? He's been at war with the
oil industry ever since. And he's still at it:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/biden-declares-drilling-during-last-minute-rally-democratic-gov-kathy-hochul

While wrapping up the speech, a climate protester shouted something at Biden that made him seem visibly annoyed.

"No more drilling," Biden said.

After the protester continued to shout at him, he shot back, sounding even more irritable: "There is no more drilling. I haven’t formed any new drilling."

TIKTOK HIRES FORMER BIDEN CAMPAIGN PRESS SECRETARY, PENTAGON SPOKESMAN FOR TOP GIG AT CHINESE-OWNED VIDEO APP

The protester could then be heard making objections to "offshore drilling" in the Antarctic and the Gulf of Mexico.

"That was before I was president. We’re trying to work on that to get that done," Biden responded.

>
> And you haven't acknowleged the significant declines (20%) in gas prices
> over the last couple of months.

They sure have not come down 20% here. High was around $3.95, it's $3.65 now.
Whatever they have come down, BFD. This is like the senile old guy claiming that
inflation was zero this month, because the actual 8% number is no worse than the
8% number from the month before. And he also pumped out almost half of our
strategic reserve in a desperate attempt to influence the election. That law needs
to be changed, which is exactly what you would be howling about had Trump or a
Republican done it.

>
> And the idea that refineries can be converted between light and
> heavy crude in any short amount of time is not viable; likewise,
> it takes between 5 and 20 years to design, build, permit and activate a
> new refinery, so even if new ones were started now, they will
> have zero effect on the current situation. It takes up to
> 12 months to bring a new well on-line.

Assuming that's true, then why isn't Biden issuing exec orders and doing
everything possible to cut through all the red tape? That's what a Republican
president will be doing in 2 years. This is the same tired old lib BS. When it
comes to drilling, pipelines, refineries, it's always no, don't do that, it will take
too long. But when it comes to green energy pipe dreams that will take decades,
funny how that isn't a problem.

[trader_4]

So look at gas prices from 2015 up until early 2020, before Covid. They averaged $2.50.
Now it's about 50% higher. Are that many more people driving now than in 2019? I don't think so.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/204740/retail-price-of-gasoline-in-the-united-states-since-1990/

[Ed Pawlowski]

Your ink wanted me to pay $39 to see the numbers. This one is free

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=m

Adjusted for inflation, the $2.20 price is $2.81 today.

Yes, there are other factors but it is far more than who happens to be
president

[Cindy Hamilton]

If only the President actually could affect prices. That would be a
fine thing. At best, the actions he can take are analogous to pushing
on a string.

--
Cindy Hamilton

[Scott Lurndal]

Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.xxx> writes:
>On 11/30/2022 10:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:
>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 11:14:34 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 11/28/2022 10:25 AM, Su Nombre wrote:
>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> And you haven't acknowleged the significant declines (20%) in gas prices
>>>>> over the last couple of months.
>>>>
>>>> ROFLMAO!
>>>> Trump gas was $2.10/gal. when the dems stole the 2020 election.
>>>> Biden gas is still over $4 here. Try again.
>>> With driving way down during the Trump pandemic years they could nto
>>> give the oil away so gas was dirt cheap. Production was cut.
>>>
>>> When people started driving, prices shot up. Had nothing to do with who
>>> was sitting in the White House.
>>>
>>> Don't let facts get in the way of your sill rant though.
>>
>> So look at gas prices from 2015 up until early 2020, before Covid. They averaged $2.50.
>> Now it's about 50% higher. Are that many more people driving now than in 2019? I don't think so.
>>
>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/204740/retail-price-of-gasoline-in-the-united-states-since-1990/
>
>Your ink wanted me to pay $39 to see the numbers. This one is free
>
>https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=m

Indeed, this was my source for the 25% decrease since the peak
this summer (5.032 in june, -> 3.799 in November).

This chart also shows that the price per gallon was considerably higher during
the tail end of the GWB administration even when adjusted for inflation.

I would also point out this chart:

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_rac2_dcu_nus_m.htm

Which shows the crude price has dropped by 20% over the last
five months as well.

Then there is:
"A review of oil refiner shareholder reports shows
California oil refiners made an average of 32 cents per
gallon annually from 2001 - 2021 compared to unprecedented
profits of between 79 cents per gallon and $1.01 per gallon in
the second quarter of 2022."

https://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/investor-data-20-years-shows-ca-oil-refiners-tripled-their-average-annual-profits-2022

"Oil refineries are making nearly five times as much money from
refining petrol as they did year ago, data show. A lack of
capacity to refine petrol and diesel from crude oil has helped
to push fuel prices to record levels, and increased profits for
refinery owners."

Clearly the refiners have no interest in adding capacity, so Trader's
suggestion that the current adminstration relax "red tape"[*] to
encourage new refinery construction is likely to have little
effect.

[*] A common complaint from the right; but they never enumerate
exactly which regulations they wish to relax. Is he suggesting
that the air and water pollution prevention regulations should
be eliminated? How about local permitting and land usage
regulations (not something the president has any ability to
unilaterally abrogate anyway)?

Refineries need to be colocated with the crude production
or import points (mainly sea-port communities). Where does
Trader think that there is any spare land to build a new
cost-effective refinery anyway?

And it's clear we have enough refinery capacity already
so long as the existing capacity is fulling being used,
which hasn't been the case for several years.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 30 Nov 2022 17:54:02 GMT,

sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

>Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.xxx> writes:
>>On 11/30/2022 10:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 11:14:34 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 11/28/2022 10:25 AM, Su Nombre wrote:
>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> And you haven't acknowleged the significant declines (20%) in gas prices
>>>>>> over the last couple of months.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROFLMAO!
>>>>> Trump gas was $2.10/gal. when the dems stole the 2020 election.
>>>>> Biden gas is still over $4 here. Try again.
>>>> With driving way down during the Trump pandemic years they could nto
>>>> give the oil away so gas was dirt cheap. Production was cut.
>>>>
>>>> When people started driving, prices shot up. Had nothing to do with who
>>>> was sitting in the White House.
>>>>
>>>> Don't let facts get in the way of your sill rant though.
>>>
>>> So look at gas prices from 2015 up until early 2020, before Covid. They averaged $2.50.
>>> Now it's about 50% higher. Are that many more people driving now than in 2019? I don't think so.
>>>
>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/204740/retail-price-of-gasoline-in-the-united-states-since-1990/
>>
>>Your ink wanted me to pay $39 to see the numbers. This one is free
>>
>>https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=m
>
>Indeed, this was my source for the 25% decrease since the peak
>this summer (5.032 in june, -> 3.799 in November).

Heard on the radio today, it's 3.47 in Baltimore, down 12 cents from
last week and that was 10 cents loweer than the previous week, 3.69.
Been dropping every week since June.

It's an article from a week ago, Nov. 23, and it says that last week the
price was $0.25 higher than last year, at the same time. I don't know
what the price was a year ago this week. 25 cents doesn't seem like
much.

https://stacker.com/maryland/how-gas-prices-have-changed-maryland-last-week

>This chart also shows that the price per gallon was considerably higher during
>the tail end of the GWB administration even when adjusted for inflation.
>
>I would also point out this chart:
>
>https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_rac2_dcu_nus_m.htm
>
>Which shows the crude price has dropped by 20% over the last
>five months as well.
>
>Then there is:
> "A review of oil refiner shareholder reports shows
> California oil refiners made an average of 32 cents per
> gallon annually from 2001 - 2021 compared to unprecedented
> profits of between 79 cents per gallon and $1.01 per gallon in
> the second quarter of 2022."

!!!

[rbowman]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 17:51:15 GMT, Cindy Hamilton wrote:


> If only the President actually could affect prices. That would be a
> fine thing. At best, the actions he can take are analogous to pushing
> on a string.

It would have been just as well if he hadn't drawn down the strategic
reserves. I don't think trying to influence the midterms is exactly an
emergency.

[Peeler]

On 1 Dec 2022 03:19:55 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> It would have been just as well if he hadn't drawn down the strategic
> reserves. I don't think

I know! You just babble and babble and babble... Your big gob obviously has
a life of its own. LMAO

[trader_4]

Of course what a president does can affect oil prices. If Biden was replaced by a
Republican who came into office with an aggressive program to increase domestic drilling,
you would see oil futures react right away and prices start to decrease. We know
for example that Saudi Arabia adjusts output to avoid other supply coming online
in other parts of the world. At times they have increased output to screw other producers
to protect their market share. Knowing that the US was going to drill baby drill,
they might decide to do it again to try to make money while they can and avoid
a bigger price plunge. And if a president can't affect oil prices, was Biden lying all
this time saying that he was using the US strategic reserve to lower prices?

[Frank]

Think we have said all this before. These folks are just too biased and
dense to understand.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 30 Nov 2022 12:35:52 -0500, Ed Pawlowski

AIUi gasoline prices are now lower than before the pandemic

[Jim Joyce]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2022 22:49:43 -0500, micky <NONONO...@fmguy.com>
wrote:

That seems to be true in my area, here in Mississippi. I paid $2.54/gal
today.

[trader_4]

That's wrong too. Gasoline averaged $2.64 in Dec 2019 and Jan 2020. But keep
trying. Meanwhile we have a Democrat president that is hostile to the oil industry
and wants to end drilling.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 06:26:55 -0800 (PST), trader_4

Yes, sorry for my mistake. I misremembered what the radio said. They
said it again this morning. It's that gasoline prices are now lower
than a year ago. Before the war in Ukraine and one or two other things
raised prices