PDA

View Full Version : Greenies may not have been responsible for lack of oil refineries after all....


oldandslow
09-07-2005, 08:41 AM
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.

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.

"Large oil companies have for a decade artificially shorted the gasoline market to drive up prices," said FTCR president Jamie Court, who successfully fought to keep Shell Oil from needlessly closing its Bakersfield, California refinery this year. "Oil companies know they can make more money by making less gasoline. Katrina should be a wakeup call to America that the refiners profit widely when they keep the system running on empty."


An internal 1996 memorandum from Mobil demonstrates the oil company's successful strategies to keep smaller refiner Powerine from reopening its California refinery. The document makes it clear that much of the hardships created by California's regulations governing refineries came at the urging of the major oil companies and not the environmental organizations blamed by the industry. The other alternative plan discussed in the event Powerine did open the refinery was "....buying all their avails and marketing it ourselves" to insure the lower price fuel didn't get into the market.

An internal Chevron memo states; "A senior energy analyst at the recent API convention warned that if the US petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins."

The Texaco memo disclosed how the industry believed in the mid-1990s that "the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus of refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. (The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry.) Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline. One example of a significant event would be the elimination of mandates for oxygenate addition to gasoline. Given a choice, oxygenate usage would go down, and gasoline supplies would go down accordingly. (Much effort is being exerted to see this happen in the Pacific Northwest.)" As a result of such pressure, Washington State eliminated the ethanol mandate - requiring greater quantities of refined supply to fill the gasoline volume occupied by ethanol.

htismaqe
09-07-2005, 08:44 AM
You do realize that this thread will be moved to DC shortly?

FYI, I talked to my uncle from Texas yesterday, he has a buddy who has worked in a refinery in Okla for two decades (I think he said Tulsa). His buddy told him they were ramping up production in the days before Katrina hit and the federal government came in and told them to keep production levels flat. FWIW.

Brock
09-07-2005, 08:48 AM
Huh - I thought you said there really was a gas shortage. Now you're saying it's artificial? Make up your mind.

jspchief
09-07-2005, 08:48 AM
OPEC has been doing the same thing for decades.

Hopefully Katrina will expose some of this, but odds are the money and power of the oil lobbyists will overcome public outrage.

Gaz
09-07-2005, 08:59 AM
Put this in the DC Forum where it belongs, please.

xoxo~
Gaz
Looking for some relief.

oldandslow
09-07-2005, 09:00 AM
'mage...

I did not mean for this to be political.

Brock...

My argument is that both are going on at the same time. The oil companies do not build more refineries because they KNOW we are at or close to peak oil.

Lzen
09-07-2005, 09:00 AM
Didn't somebody post something about refineries that used to be located in Arkansas City, KS and Kansas City that were closed? This does sound plausible to me. At any rate, it should definitely be investigated. Something needs to be done about our refining capacity to lower gas prices. Do you have a link for that, oldandslow?

Saulbadguy
09-07-2005, 09:02 AM
You do realize that this thread will be moved to DC shortly?

FYI, I talked to my uncle from Texas yesterday, he has a buddy who has worked in a refinery in Okla for two decades (I think he said Tulsa). His buddy told him they were ramping up production in the days before Katrina hit and the federal government came in and told them to keep production levels flat. FWIW.
Thats outrageous. I'm not doubting what your buddy said, I'm just amazed by it..if its true.

oldandslow
09-07-2005, 09:13 AM
Link

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/pr/?postId=5110

Sorry, I should have provided it.

Since I was not talking about Bush or Clinton or moonbats or wingnuts I do not see why this had to be moved.

But, so be it.

jspchief
09-07-2005, 09:14 AM
Jesus christ. There has been nothing political about this thread, but you pussies need it moved in the off chance that it gets there?

God forbid the rest of the BB can participate in a discussion on a topic that affects all of us.

The mods can eat a dick.

htismaqe
09-07-2005, 09:16 AM
I knew it would be moved.

I didn't move it though.

Saulbadguy
09-07-2005, 09:17 AM
Always the same with you mod's..."I didn't do it!"

gblowfish
09-07-2005, 09:23 AM
We had a CP thread on this a few months back, when gas topped $2 a gallon. There was an excellent series of articles in the KC Star about refineries. Basically said the same thing. Refining capacity has been systematically and purposely decreased over the past 20 years by big oil to create demand, and higher prices. Oil industry insiders call this decade "The golden age of refining" because its such a cash cow.

Brock
09-07-2005, 09:25 AM
We had a CP thread on this a few months back, when gas topped $2 a gallon. There was an excellent series of articles in the KC Star about refineries. Basically said the same thing. Refining capacity has been systematically and purposely decreased over the past 20 years by big oil to create demand, and higher prices. Oil industry insiders call this decade "The golden age of refining" because its such a cash cow.

I agree with that. It is a typical oligopoly and the free market never enters into the equation.

Iowanian
09-07-2005, 09:29 AM
This is an issue that pisses me off.

I don't care WHO is responsible, but its time for someone to get kicked in the nuts if true, and I don't doubt it a bit, after a conversation with my senator the other day, in which I was informed that 1 single Oil Lobbyist in Iowa, was responsible for the lack of distribution of the 85% ethynol.......something about not being able to insure the storage tanks or something.

I hope if nothing else good comes from Katrina....the hammer gets dropped on this issue.

Taco John
09-07-2005, 09:48 AM
Put this in the DC Forum where it belongs, please.

xoxo~
Gaz
Looking for some relief.




:rolleyes:

How stupid. This isn't a political topic. If you need relief, try something to clear up that tight ass plumming. I hear exlax does wonders.

Phobia
09-07-2005, 09:58 AM
OPEC has been doing the same thing for decades.

Hopefully Katrina will expose some of this, but odds are the money and power of the oil lobbyists will overcome public outrage.

This post is the reason the thread was moved to D.C.

The choice of thread title was also a contributing factor.

There are 3 people who "can't" participate on a thread in D.C. There are 5,955 other people with whom you may discuss the price of oil, OPEC, greenies, and lobbyists in D.C.

I don't understand the lashback. What difference does it make if a thread is moved. You guys act like my moving a thread to where I think it belongs is hitting you in the pocketbook. I don't arbitrarily move threads around the board. There's usually a pretty good reason.

Christ.

Saulbadguy
09-07-2005, 10:05 AM
Christ.
Interesting nickname you have came up for yourself.

Lzen
09-07-2005, 10:12 AM
I think people tend to forget how good of a job the mods do on a regular basis. There's no need to bitch about one thread being moved. I really don't have a problem with it in DC.

dirk digler
09-07-2005, 10:18 AM
I think people tend to forget how good of a job the mods do on a regular basis. There's no need to bitch about one thread being moved. I really don't have a problem with it in DC.

I agree and if Denise found this thread on the main forum it would have moved eventually any way.

Mr. Laz
09-07-2005, 10:20 AM
why is everyone surprise to hear the energy companies are manipulating the market?


:shrug:



i thought it was pretty obvious ... most companies try to control their market.

mlyonsd
09-07-2005, 10:22 AM
Why would anyone think an oil company would want to build more refineries seeing they already have record profits? Lowering the price of gas does nothing for them.

penchief
09-07-2005, 11:11 AM
'mage...

I did not mean for this to be political.

It's inevitible. It's impossible for it not to be. I wouldn't possibly be able to express my feelings about the oil industry or those who cater to it without my statements being interpreted as political. It is what it is.

Mr. Laz
09-07-2005, 11:14 AM
Why would anyone think an oil company would want to build more refineries seeing they already have record profits? Lowering the price of gas does nothing for them.
b,bu,buh,but the reason there aren't more refineries is because of all the stinkin' libbies ................... remember?!?

BigMeatballDave
09-07-2005, 11:17 AM
You do realize that this thread will be moved to DC shortly?

FYI, I talked to my uncle from Texas yesterday, he has a buddy who has worked in a refinery in Okla for two decades (I think he said Tulsa). His buddy told him they were ramping up production in the days before Katrina hit and the federal government came in and told them to keep production levels flat. FWIW.If that is true, whoever is responsible for that should be taken out back and shot...
:shake: :cuss:

BigMeatballDave
09-07-2005, 11:20 AM
Why would anyone think an oil company would want to build more refineries seeing they already have record profits? Lowering the price of gas does nothing for them.WOW! I never even considered that...
:doh!:

Brock
09-07-2005, 11:20 AM
b,bu,buh,but the reason there aren't more refineries is because of all the stinkin' libbies ................... remember?!?

If you're saying environment wackos aren't a factor, you'd be wrong.

Radar Chief
09-07-2005, 12:11 PM
This post is the reason the thread was moved to D.C.

The choice of thread title was also a contributing factor.

There are 3 people who "can't" participate on a thread in D.C. There are 5,955 other people with whom you may discuss the price of oil, OPEC, greenies, and lobbyists in D.C.

Holly SHIT! Planet member ship is THAT high?! :eek: I had no idea.

I don't understand the lashback. What difference does it make if a thread is moved. You guys act like my moving a thread to where I think it belongs is hitting you in the pocketbook.

:shrug: (btw it’s “backlash”). ;)

I don't arbitrarily move threads around the board. There's usually a pretty good reason.

Christ.

Right, that’s never happened with Phil at the helm. Uh-uh, nope, never. :p

Saulbadguy
09-07-2005, 12:12 PM
Why would anyone think an oil company would want to build more refineries seeing they already have record profits? Lowering the price of gas does nothing for them.
Because it will **** them in the end. The bubble will burst.

mlyonsd
09-07-2005, 12:29 PM
Because it will **** them in the end. The bubble will burst.

Exactly.

The oil companies don't want to built refineries. That's the bottom line.

go bowe
09-07-2005, 12:33 PM
Didn't somebody post something about refineries that used to be located in Arkansas City, KS and Kansas City that were closed? This does sound plausible to me. At any rate, it should definitely be investigated. Something needs to be done about our refining capacity to lower gas prices. Do you have a link for that, oldandslow?there used to be a refinery in sugar creek, by independence...

it's been closed for several years now...

iirc, it was a texaco facility...

gblowfish
09-07-2005, 01:18 PM
there used to be a refinery in sugar creek, by independence...

it's been closed for several years now...

iirc, it was a texaco facility...
Actually, up until the early 1980's there were two large oil refineries in KC. Phillips 66 had a refinery in Fairfax, Amoco (Standard Oil) had a huge refinery in Sugar Creek. Both have been totally dismantled. The Sugar Creek refinery is an EPA Superfund site. Benzene and heavy metals have leached into the water table from 80 years of oil refining, and the creeks and gullies all ooze with orange and dark green sludge from the migration of toxins from the site. There's been an unusually high number of people who have died from leukemia, multiple sclerosis and various cancers ( http://tinyurl.com/8b469 ) in the neighborhoods that surround the refinery site in Sugar Creek and Northwest Independence. Dozens of test wells have been put in place by the EPA and BP-Amoco to track the migration of the waste sludge from the site. The City of Sugar Creek wants to turn the site into an office park. Think they'll call it "Dioxin Ridge" or some snappy name like that.

That's another reason why there's fewer refineries now. "NIMBY."

Donger
09-07-2005, 01:41 PM
Exactly.

The oil companies don't want to built refineries. That's the bottom line.

Absolutely. If you were an oil executive, WTF woukld you want to go through the hassle? All of the red tape and BS has forced the oil companies to become more efficient in their refining process, and has also forced them to simply expand their exisiting refineries.

Existing refineries are profitable. If by some miracle, a new refinery broke ground today, it would take about $10 billion and up to 10 years before it were producing deliverable product, and therefore beginning the road to profit.

'We've' reaped what 'we've' sown.

memyselfI
09-07-2005, 01:57 PM
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.

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.



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. You mean the oil companies would allow the environmentalist movement to be unfairly blamed while they created artificial barriers that drove up prices????

Surely, you jest. :doh!:

htismaqe
09-07-2005, 02:21 PM
Absolutely. If you were an oil executive, WTF woukld you want to go through the hassle? All of the red tape and BS has forced the oil companies to become more efficient in their refining process, and has also forced them to simply expand their exisiting refineries.

Existing refineries are profitable. If by some miracle, a new refinery broke ground today, it would take about $10 billion and up to 10 years before it were producing deliverable product, and therefore beginning the road to profit.

'We've' reaped what 'we've' sown.

Yeah. Oil executives don't have time to deal with it. They're too busy dealing with the red tape it takes to make sure they don't have to compete with biodiesel and ethanol refineries...

:rolleyes:

Donger
09-07-2005, 02:25 PM
Yeah. Oil executives don't have time to deal with it. They're too busy dealing with the red tape it takes to make sure they don't have to compete with biodiesel and ethanol refineries...

:rolleyes:

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Have the oil companies chosen to not build refineries? Absolutely.

Have the oil companies chosen to expand exisitng refineries rather than deal with the red tape of building new ones? Absolutely.

Have they figured out how to make the refining process more efficient, thereby still meeting demand without building new refineries?
Absolutely, and you should be glad they have.

What am I missing?

htismaqe
09-07-2005, 02:37 PM
Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Have the oil companies chosen to not build refineries? Absolutely.

Have the oil companies chosen to expand exisitng refineries rather than deal with the red tape of building new ones? Absolutely.

Have they figured out how to make the refining process more efficient, thereby still meeting demand without building new refineries?
Absolutely, and you should be glad they have.

What am I missing?

That they're spending an inordinate amount of time, money, and effort in the political process trying to "outlaw" alternative forms of energy instead of making their product better from a competitive standpoint.

It's expressly ANTI-capitalistic.

Donger
09-07-2005, 02:43 PM
That they're spending an inordinate amount of time, money, and effort in the political process trying to "outlaw" alternative forms of energy instead of making their product better from a competitive standpoint.

It's expressly ANTI-capitalistic.

Protecting their market from competition is 'anti-capitalistic?' Why would you expect them to invest inordinately in forms of energy that would (in a perfect world) compete directly with their primary product (e.g., petroleum products)?

htismaqe
09-07-2005, 02:48 PM
Protecting their market from competition is 'anti-capitalistic?' Why would you expect them to invest inordinately in forms of energy that would (in a perfect world) compete directly with their primary product (e.g., petroleum products)?

Ahem.

Protecting their market by lobbying Washington to obstruct and/or outlaw the use of alternative fuels is NOT capitalism, no matter how you want to spin it.

I'm not suggesting they should invest in alternative fuels. Perhaps they should invest in ways to improve their product, or more efficiently produce it, in order to stave off competition and improve profits?

Donger
09-07-2005, 02:51 PM
Perhaps they should invest in ways to improve their product, or more efficiently produce it, in order to stave off competition and improve profits?

Considering the fact that there hasn't been a new refinery built since 1976, and over a hundred refineries have been closed since that time yet they've still been able to meet increased demand, I'd argue that they've done a tremendous job of finding ways to 'more efficiently produce it.'

Wouldn't you agree?

htismaqe
09-07-2005, 02:57 PM
Considering the fact that there hasn't been a new refinery built since 1976, and over a hundred refineries have been closed since that time yet they've still been able to meet increased demand, I'd argue that they've done a tremendous job of finding ways to 'more efficiently produce it.'

Wouldn't you agree?

It's a start, sure.

So why is it necessary to lobby competition out of existence? Because the profit they make isn't enough? Because they "can"?

It seems to me that the profit they make from their product speaks for itself. Or does it?

:hmmm:

Adept Havelock
09-07-2005, 03:03 PM
Funny, I don't recall Adam Smith ever discussing the role of using Govt. to limit competition in his writings on Free Enterprise.

Donger
09-07-2005, 03:03 PM
It's a start, sure.

So why is it necessary to lobby competition out of existence? Because the profit they make isn't enough? Because they "can"?

It seems to me that the profit they make from their product speaks for itself. Or does it?

:hmmm:

Until it makes fiscal sense for them to embrace alternative sources of energy, you shouldn't expect them to from a capitalistic POV, should you?

These companies are not in business for any reason other than to make a profit, and to continue that for as long as possible. You don't get more capitalistic than that.

Adept Havelock
09-07-2005, 03:04 PM
I agree with that. It is a typical oligopoly and the free market never enters into the equation.

Ding Ding! We have a winner. Give that dog in the avatar (another) cigar!

htismaqe
09-07-2005, 04:44 PM
Until it makes fiscal sense for them to embrace alternative sources of energy, you shouldn't expect them to from a capitalistic POV, should you?

These companies are not in business for any reason other than to make a profit, and to continue that for as long as possible. You don't get more capitalistic than that.

Again, I'm not suggesting they should EMBRACE alternative sources of energy. If they have confidence in their product, they should welcome the competition with open arms, knowing that in the end, they will win the competition.

The problem is that they know they can't win fair and square and it jeopardizes their stranglehold on middle America.

A free market economy is about FOSTERING COMPETITION. Not using bureacracy to PREVENT COMPETITION.

Saulbadguy
09-07-2005, 04:48 PM
If the oil companies keep raping people with price gouging, control of the flow of oil, and not encouraging a free market, it will bite them in the ass over time.

We won't be able to afford it.

Donger
09-07-2005, 05:49 PM
If the oil companies keep raping people with price gouging, control of the flow of oil, and not encouraging a free market, it will bite them in the ass over time.

We won't be able to afford it.

And, I'm of the opinion that they may just be aware of that, and may be looking at making a profit on the next resource.

Does anyone disagree with this analysis? Does anyone really think that they'll just go belly up?

Sure, right now they are focusing on the tremendously profitable resource they have at their disposal. Who wouldn't? But to think that they aren't thinking ahead to the inevitable is short-sighted, IMO.

Ari Chi3fs
09-08-2005, 07:22 AM
Arguing with Donger is like arguing with a toddler to share his/her toys... it aint happening. Donger is best viewed with ignore... He frustrates people less that way. Now that I only see his posts when others quote him, I find I dont want to cut off his head, as much...

Amnorix
09-08-2005, 08:41 AM
You do realize that this thread will be moved to DC shortly?

FYI, I talked to my uncle from Texas yesterday, he has a buddy who has worked in a refinery in Okla for two decades (I think he said Tulsa). His buddy told him they were ramping up production in the days before Katrina hit and the federal government came in and told them to keep production levels flat. FWIW.

Out of mere curiosity, what right or authority do the feds have to do that?

Amnorix
09-08-2005, 08:50 AM
Don't confuse the various theories underlying capitalism with specific rules against monopolies.

In a pure, true, capitalistic society, where there is NO government regulation of businesses (effectively), monopolies would in fact be created. Adam Smith was writing at a time when huge monolithic companies that dominated a single basic necessity was really beyond the scope of possibility.

It took Standard Oil, which effectively controlled the vast majority of American oil, to make us wake up and smell the coffee regarding the fact that "pure" capitalism isn't really such a great idea. Therefore, we introduced anti-monopoly laws.

Unfortunately, of course, oligarchy's still exist.

And, as Donger says, logic more or less dictates that big oil not build more refineries. Like any other company, big oil is incented to maximize short and long term profit. Building additional refining capacity does neither.

oldandslow
09-08-2005, 08:58 AM
Wonderful post Amnorix...

Smith would have taken great exception to the creation of corporatization and monopoly.

There really is little difference between centralized planning from the state or from the corporation. Both undermine the essence of Smith's philosophy.

htismaqe
09-08-2005, 11:37 AM
Out of mere curiosity, what right or authority do the feds have to do that?

Honestly, I don't know what "right" they have to do it.

But my uncle has known the guy for the better part of 3 decades, they evidently HAVE the "authority".

Calcountry
09-08-2005, 11:42 AM
Arguing with Donger is like arguing with a toddler to share his/her toys... it aint happening. Donger is best viewed with ignore... He frustrates people less that way. Now that I only see his posts when others quote him, I find I dont want to cut off his head, as much...ROFL Am I the only one that finds irony in this post.

Calcountry
09-08-2005, 11:44 AM
Funny, I don't recall Adam Smith ever discussing the role of using Govt. to limit competition in his writings on Free Enterprise.Why do Unions limit competition for labor?

Mr. Laz
09-08-2005, 11:53 AM
so which is it guys...

are the environmentalists to blame for the lack of oil refineries or is it simply capitalism?

Mr. Laz
09-08-2005, 11:53 AM
Why do Unions limit competition for labor?
greed

htismaqe
09-08-2005, 01:41 PM
Why do Unions limit competition for labor?

Unions are yet another institution that have outlived their usefulness...

Saulbadguy
09-08-2005, 01:43 PM
so which is it guys...

are the environmentalists to blame for the lack of oil refineries or is it simply capitalism?
The only people who blame the environmentalists for the majority of the blame are morons. Plain and simple.

Mr. Laz
09-08-2005, 01:44 PM
Unions are yet another institution that have outlived their usefulness...
:clap: :clap: :clap:

Boyceofsummer
09-08-2005, 01:55 PM
The only people who blame the environmentalists for the majority of the blame are morons. Plain and simple.

Watched a few minutes this morning. Blamed the environmentalists from California for the high price of gasoline and lack of new refineries. I'll pray for the religious pricks! At least I'm not bitter about it.

BIG_DADDY
09-08-2005, 02:42 PM
The only people who blame the environmentalists for the majority of the blame are morons. Plain and simple.

Bush has been all about BIG money from the very beginning.

BLACK-GOLD BLUES
Big Oil's secret strategy
to gush profits exposed
Memos purportedly show refiners sought to limit ops to spike price of gasoline

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 8, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Joe Kovacs
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com


A consumer group is publicizing a series of memos marked "highly confidential" alleging major oil companies – including Mobil, Chevron and Texaco – intentionally limited their refining capacity in order to raise gasoline prices and increase profits.


Map shows path of Hurricane Katrina. Oil rigs are marked in black, with refineries as colored barrels (courtesy iMap Data Inc.)


The revelation comes as Americans have seen a major spike in prices at the pump in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, while "the oil industry blames environmental regulation for limiting number of U.S. refineries."

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights released three memos that purportedly demonstrate a nationwide effort by the American Petroleum Institute to encourage major refiners to close refineries in the 1990s.

"Large oil companies have for a decade artificially shorted the gasoline market to drive up prices," said Jamie Court, president of the FTCR, who successfully fought to keep Shell Oil from needlessly closing its Bakersfield, Calif., refinery this year. "Oil companies know they can make more money by making less gasoline. Katrina should be a wakeup call to America that the refiners profit widely when they keep the system running on empty."

The internal memoranda themselves have been made public before, in a 2001 investigative report by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who this week said the primary reason for sky-high prices is that "the government isn't in the consumer-protection business anymore."


Much of U.S. paying at least $3 per gallon in wake of Hurricane Katrina

The memo from Chevron states: "A senior energy analyst at the recent API convention warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins. ... However, refining utilization has been rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low."

It continued to discuss how major refiners were shutting down their refineries.

The Texaco memo disclosed how the industry believed in the mid-1990s that "the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus of refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. (The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry.) Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline. One example of a significant event would be the elimination of mandates for oxygenate addition to gasoline. Given a choice, oxygenate usage would go down, and gasoline supplies would go down accordingly. (Much effort is being exerted to see this happen in the Pacific Northwest.)"

The state of Washington subsequently did away with its ethanol mandate, requiring greater quantities of refined fuel to fill the gasoline volume occupied by ethanol.

FTRC says the Mobil memorandum from 1996 evinces the company's successful plan to keep smaller refiner Powerine from reopening its California refinery. It notes much of the hardships created by California's refinery rules came at the urging of the major oil companies, not the environmental groups blamed by the industry. The other alternative plan discussed in the event Powerine did open the refinery was "... buying all their avails and marketing it ourselves" to insure the lower price fuel didn't get into the market.

Meanwhile, the API is urging Americans to adjust their driving habits to consume less fuel.

"We know that Hurricane Katrina's effects on our industry are having a nationwide impact through skyrocketing prices for gasoline and other fuels," API president Red Cavaney told the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday.

But he warned, "Congress should not repeat the mistakes of some past energy policies by trampling the structures of the free marketplace by imposing new controls, allocation schemes, or other obstacles, which will only serve to make a bad situation much worse."

U.S. refineries were thrust into the spotlight after Hurricane Katrina plowed through the Gulf of Mexico last week, impacting operations for at least four refineries.

"Those four that appear to have suffered major damage, it will be a matter of months [for repairs]," said Guy Caruso, head of the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Bob Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, is hoping the refineries can return to service as soon as possible, but he told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, "Employee safety and overall safe startup and operation concerns are paramount. Significant flooding and damage still affects some facilities.

"However, some refiners with operating facilities have indicated that they will be able to ramp up production from currently reduced levels at refineries near the affected areas, which should have a positive impact on product supplies."

Regarding reports of price gouging, Slaughter said, "Each alleged situation should be thoroughly investigated by the appropriate state and federal authorities and prosecuted when the law has been broken."

According to the Minerals Management Service, oil output from the Gulf of Mexico has been cut by 861,000 barrels per day, a 57 percent reduction from before Katrina's arrival Aug. 29.

Donger
09-08-2005, 08:19 PM
Arguing with Donger is like arguing with a toddler to share his/her toys... it aint happening. Donger is best viewed with ignore... He frustrates people less that way. Now that I only see his posts when others quote him, I find I dont want to cut off his head, as much...

I frustrate people? Why?

Pitt Gorilla
09-08-2005, 08:30 PM
This is an issue that pisses me off.

I don't care WHO is responsible, but its time for someone to get kicked in the nuts if true, and I don't doubt it a bit, after a conversation with my senator the other day, in which I was informed that 1 single Oil Lobbyist in Iowa, was responsible for the lack of distribution of the 85% ethynol.......something about not being able to insure the storage tanks or something.

I hope if nothing else good comes from Katrina....the hammer gets dropped on this issue.
Exactly. E85 should be mandated for all new car engines (they also burn regular gas).

Radar Chief
09-09-2005, 06:55 AM
I frustrate people? Why?

Got me. :shrug:

Radar Chief
09-09-2005, 07:02 AM
Exactly. E85 should be mandated for all new car engines (they also burn regular gas).

:hmmm: :shrug: :redface:

Google is awsome.

http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/e85.php?topic=E85101

105 Octane?! :eek: I’ll take some of that. :thumb: