.... and judging by posts hereabouts on crude prices the past few months,
that a goodly percentage of wRec participants are more capable than congress
of making valid judgments regarding the why's and wherefores of national
energy policy:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080910/...il_speculation

IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit enough
judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sep 10, 4:03*pm, "Swingman" wrote:

IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit enough
judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.

That observation could only be compounded by the facts uncovered in
this report:

http://tinyurl.com/6k4juz

Nothing like a little drilling in the afternoon, eh?

It is a shame, but I know the folks involved probably won't even get
much more than a reprimand for their crimes. (If you are knocking off
some hide having some lobbyist practice the kazoo on the tax payer's
dollar, you are breaking the law.)

Those folks sure sound like the professionals I want overseeing
standards, policies and contract placement in the extremely tough
times for Americans fighting energy costs.

They should nail the doors shut on their office building and turn on
the gas. (Little energy pun, there..)

At any rate, if anyone still believes (like some politicians do) that
the profiteers speculating on the oil business didn't drive pricing
up, look at today's prices in context of our global situation.

Wednesday, OPEC announced it was going to CUT production, yet oil fell
another dollar despite this. In the heavy days of speculation, this
would have caused a $4-$5 rise per barrel.

A recent spate of storms and hurricanes have caused temporary
shutdowns of not only Gulf of Mexico drill platforms, but refineries
as well. Yet, despite total shut downs of the wells, the price of oil
continues to go down.

Threats by Iran to cut our oil have caused outright panic before
causing a few dollars a day increase when it looked like they might do
it. And yet, with the USA threatening military action against Iran
for continued flirtation with nuclear power, their threats to cut off
our oil are now largely unnoticed. Oil continues to drop in price.

So, read Swing's reference.

If all the situations listed above that SHOULD affect oil prices go
completely ignored, what is left? Why, when in the direct and
immediate face of these threats to the supply does the price of oil
continue to go down?

It's pretty easy. The speculators have their fill of easy cash now,
the market has been raped, and they are on to greener pastures. All
this was to them was a bonanza.

I'd like to thank the government for being as usual the last to know
about this situation. And in keeping with their fine tradition of
doing nothing in the face of adversity, I appreciate the fact they did
absolutely nothing about this whole speculation business except talk
about it between vacations.

Robert


Robert

wrote in message
...
On Sep 10, 4:03 pm, "Swingman" wrote:

IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit enough
judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.


Garfield has the answer....

http://alaskagranny.spaces.live.com/...7CE5!273.entry

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:41:51 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



At any rate, if anyone still believes (like some politicians do) that
the profiteers speculating on the oil business didn't drive pricing
up, look at today's prices in context of our global situation.

Wednesday, OPEC announced it was going to CUT production, yet oil fell
another dollar despite this. In the heavy days of speculation, this
would have caused a $4-$5 rise per barrel.

A recent spate of storms and hurricanes have caused temporary
shutdowns of not only Gulf of Mexico drill platforms, but refineries
as well. Yet, despite total shut downs of the wells, the price of oil
continues to go down.

Threats by Iran to cut our oil have caused outright panic before
causing a few dollars a day increase when it looked like they might do
it. And yet, with the USA threatening military action against Iran
for continued flirtation with nuclear power, their threats to cut off
our oil are now largely unnoticed. Oil continues to drop in price.

So, read Swing's reference.

If all the situations listed above that SHOULD affect oil prices go
completely ignored, what is left? Why, when in the direct and
immediate face of these threats to the supply does the price of oil
continue to go down?

It's pretty easy. The speculators have their fill of easy cash now,
the market has been raped, and they are on to greener pastures. All
this was to them was a bonanza.

Uh, I think before you draw the conclusions you have drawn above, you
may want to look at the global demand charts. As is intended in the
free market, supply and demand , continue to be the major driver in
the price of crude. For the first half of this year U. S. demand was
lower, but the impact was not felt because non western economies were
offsetting the drop causing a world wide demand increase. All of a
sudden the demand prediction for those economies dropped off the chart
and the price has responded. Of course the down side is global
recession.

I'm not saying speculation is not a factor, just saying speculation
can only exist within the supply/demand trends as it is the key
driver. All those mutually exclusive potential events you mention
above get assigned a probability factor and in the face of
significantly falling demand, they become meaningless.

And you fail to mention the strengthening dollar, a major factor in
the price of any commodity that is used globally but priced in
dollars.

With regard to the part I snipped, it is my view, that any transfer of
money, privelege or power put in the hands of any government agency is
guaranteed to drive corruption on both sides of the transfer.
Guaranteed.

Frank

"Frank Boettcher" wrote

I'm not saying speculation is not a factor, just saying speculation
can only exist within the supply/demand trends as it is the key
driver. All those mutually exclusive potential events you mention
above get assigned a probability factor and in the face of
significantly falling demand, they become meaningless.

However, it is inarguably "speculation" when the mere rumor of a storm
hitting the Gulf a week in advance is enough to drive up prices within 24
hours; likewise it is such speculation that keeps prices, already falling on
your valid "supply and demand" issues, from falling further.

IOW, the effect of "supply and demand" on prices has demonstrably been
trumped by "speculation" in this regard.

Most will agree that "supply and demand" generally takes some bit of time to
effect prices, but the effects of "speculation" on prices, driven by
innuendo, rumor, greed, and fear, take effect before you wake up the next
day.

To declare that "supply and demand" is not part of the big picture is as
equally foolish as blaming it all on speculation, but it's been clear for
sometime that the driving force in the past year has been fear/greed based
speculation, and with much of the speculative index trading done on margin.

It's amazing how little "speculation" there is when you have to put up your
own cold hard cash to practice it.

That is one of the controls I would like to see the CFTC take an interest in
installing.

All the above notwithstanding, my original point was the planned paralysis
of the corrupt *******s supposedly leading this nation.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:39:07 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote

I'm not saying speculation is not a factor, just saying speculation
can only exist within the supply/demand trends as it is the key
driver. All those mutually exclusive potential events you mention
above get assigned a probability factor and in the face of
significantly falling demand, they become meaningless.

However, it is inarguably "speculation" when the mere rumor of a storm
hitting the Gulf a week in advance is enough to drive up prices within 24
hours; likewise it is such speculation that keeps prices, already falling on
your valid "supply and demand" issues, from falling further.

IOW, the effect of "supply and demand" on prices has demonstrably been
trumped by "speculation" in this regard.

Most will agree that "supply and demand" generally takes some bit of time to
effect prices, but the effects of "speculation" on prices, driven by
innuendo, rumor, greed, and fear, take effect before you wake up the next
day.

To declare that "supply and demand" is not part of the big picture is as
equally foolish as blaming it all on speculation, but it's been clear for
sometime that the driving force in the past year has been fear/greed based
speculation, and with much of the speculative index trading done on margin.

It's amazing how little "speculation" there is when you have to put up your
own cold hard cash to practice it.

No doubt requiring "some skin in the game" would go a long way toward
curtailing speculation. Would also have helped in the
mortgage/housing/banking crisis. You have to get to the very end of
the financing "pass it on chain" before anyone has any skin in the
game and, as we have seen, by the time you get there the taxpayers are
left holding the bag.

That is one of the controls I would like to see the CFTC take an interest in
installing.

All the above notwithstanding, my original point was the planned paralysis
of the corrupt *******s supposedly leading this nation.

"Swingman" wrote in message
news
... and judging by posts hereabouts on crude prices the past few months,
that a goodly percentage of wRec participants are more capable than
congress of making valid judgments regarding the why's and wherefores of
national energy policy:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080910/...il_speculation

IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit enough
judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)


I have said this time and again. When the oil companies started to merge
they cut out 1/2 the competition. If pricing was truly the result of supply
and demand we all would have been sitting in lines to gas up like we did
back in the 70's.

Speculation and "What the market will Bare" is what's going on here. US oil
consumption was down 6 months before prices shop up to $4.00 per gallon.
The demand began it's decline in the fall of last year.

Hey, if you are willing to pay $4.00 per gallon there is certainly plenty to
go around, same goes at $3.25 per gallon.

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:41:51 -0700 (PDT), "


Uh, I think before you draw the conclusions you have drawn above, you
may want to look at the global demand charts. As is intended in the
free market, supply and demand , continue to be the major driver in
the price of crude. For the first half of this year U. S. demand was
lower, but the impact was not felt because non western economies were
offsetting the drop causing a world wide demand increase. All of a
sudden the demand prediction for those economies dropped off the chart
and the price has responded. Of course the down side is global
recession.

I looked at the charts earlier this year. World consumption is down
compared to 3 or 4 years ago. 3rd world countires are using more but over
all the world demand is lower.





I'm not saying speculation is not a factor, just saying speculation
can only exist within the supply/demand trends as it is the key
driver. All those mutually exclusive potential events you mention
above get assigned a probability factor and in the face of
significantly falling demand, they become meaningless.

Demand has been down for over a year, supply this summer has been
interrrupted by hurricanes. Many refineries still do not expect to be back
up and running to capacity for several more weeks because of Gustov and
price of oil and gas continues to drop.



And you fail to mention the strengthening dollar, a major factor in
the price of any commodity that is used globally but priced in
dollars.

While the dollar is strengtening, oil prices began dropping befor the dollar
went up. Oil prices going down will strengthen the dollar.


With regard to the part I snipped, it is my view, that any transfer of
money, privelege or power put in the hands of any government agency is
guaranteed to drive corruption on both sides of the transfer.
Guaranteed.

Agreed.

Leon wrote:
....
While the dollar is strengtening, oil prices began dropping befor the dollar
went up. Oil prices going down will strengthen the dollar.
....

Which is a positive feedback mechanism...

--

dpb wrote:
Leon wrote:
...
While the dollar is strengtening, oil prices began dropping befor the
dollar went up. Oil prices going down will strengthen the dollar.
...

Which is a positive feedback mechanism...

An interesting observation - and, by implication, a serious warning.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
dpb wrote:
Leon wrote:
...
While the dollar is strengtening, oil prices began dropping befor the
dollar went up. Oil prices going down will strengthen the dollar.
...

Which is a positive feedback mechanism...

An interesting observation - and, by implication, a serious warning.

True, if were only feedback/controlling mechanism.

It works both ways, too, of course. It's actually _a_good_thing_ in
this period of high prices on the way back down to help accelerate that
which has to be good overall for the entire world economy, not just the
US. OTOH, the declining dollar did exacerbate the the rise in oil
prices and that wasn't a good thing...

I've not researched it, but I suspect there have detailed analyses that
attempt to break out portions of rises that can be attributed to various
factors--I'd guess this one isn't in the noise but isn't the dominant,
either, but somewhere in the middle of the pack.

--

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:03:07 -0500, Swingman wrote:

... and judging by posts hereabouts on crude prices the past few months,
that a goodly percentage of wRec participants are more capable than congress
of making valid judgments regarding the why's and wherefores of national
energy policy:

Well, we may not agree on a lot of things, but we have proven we're
literate :-).

I saw an ad on TV this morning for an auger to drill holes in your garden.
Order it and you got a free "high-power" cordless drill. Had a "value of
$1??.00 for only $19.95 plus (unspecified) S&H".

Consider that the marketeers felt there were enough customers out there to
more than pay for the cost of the ad.

Should people stupid enough to fall for that ad be allowed to vote?
Should we force the "it slices, it dices" crowd to provide their customer
lists and use them to purge the voting rolls? Hmmmm - I may be on to
something here :-).

Larry Blanchard writes:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:03:07 -0500, Swingman wrote:

... and judging by posts hereabouts on crude prices the past few months,
that a goodly percentage of wRec participants are more capable than congress
of making valid judgments regarding the why's and wherefores of national
energy policy:

Well, we may not agree on a lot of things, but we have proven we're
literate :-).

I saw an ad on TV this morning for an auger to drill holes in your garden.
Order it and you got a free "high-power" cordless drill. Had a "value of
$1??.00 for only $19.95 plus (unspecified) S&H".

Consider that the marketeers felt there were enough customers out there to
more than pay for the cost of the ad.

Should people stupid enough to fall for that ad be allowed to vote?
Should we force the "it slices, it dices" crowd to provide their customer
lists and use them to purge the voting rolls? Hmmmm - I may be on to
something here :-).


For most of those items, the S+H charge covers both the S&H costs plus
the wholesale cost of the item. What you pay then is pure profit, and
even if you send it back, all they're out is the profit, they still have
the S+H and the original item which can be resold.

scott

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:05:03 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:41:51 -0700 (PDT), "


Uh, I think before you draw the conclusions you have drawn above, you
may want to look at the global demand charts. As is intended in the
free market, supply and demand , continue to be the major driver in
the price of crude. For the first half of this year U. S. demand was
lower, but the impact was not felt because non western economies were
offsetting the drop causing a world wide demand increase. All of a
sudden the demand prediction for those economies dropped off the chart
and the price has responded. Of course the down side is global
recession.

I looked at the charts earlier this year. World consumption is down
compared to 3 or 4 years ago. 3rd world countires are using more but over
all the world demand is lower.

As of December the IEA was forecasting a worldwide increase in the
demand for crude. In May they revised that figure down, but still an
increase, based on slowing economies. I think, most recently because
of the worldwide economic slowdown, the demand is actually predicted
to fall.

Yes, if you go back in history, anytime there has been an economic
slowdown demand drops. A slice in time. That's what is happening
now.





I'm not saying speculation is not a factor, just saying speculation
can only exist within the supply/demand trends as it is the key
driver. All those mutually exclusive potential events you mention
above get assigned a probability factor and in the face of
significantly falling demand, they become meaningless.

Demand has been down for over a year, supply this summer has been
interrrupted by hurricanes. Many refineries still do not expect to be back
up and running to capacity for several more weeks because of Gustov and
price of oil and gas continues to drop.

You better check your facts, worldwide demand has not been down for
over a year.

Refineries have to do with the price of refined products not with the
price of crude, although if refineries are down for a lengthy period,
and unrefined crude stacks up that could temporaily lower the price of
crude by raising unrefined inventories.



And you fail to mention the strengthening dollar, a major factor in
the price of any commodity that is used globally but priced in
dollars.

While the dollar is strengtening, oil prices began dropping befor the dollar
went up.

I believe you are mistaken.

Oil prices going down will strengthen the dollar.

I would suggest that you've got that backwards.



With regard to the part I snipped, it is my view, that any transfer of
money, privelege or power put in the hands of any government agency is
guaranteed to drive corruption on both sides of the transfer.
Guaranteed.

Agreed.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:55:58 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


"Swingman" wrote in message
news
... and judging by posts hereabouts on crude prices the past few months,
that a goodly percentage of wRec participants are more capable than
congress of making valid judgments regarding the why's and wherefores of
national energy policy:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080910/...il_speculation

IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit enough
judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)


I have said this time and again. When the oil companies started to merge
they cut out 1/2 the competition. If pricing was truly the result of supply
and demand we all would have been sitting in lines to gas up like we did
back in the 70's.

Since I was one of those working in the industry and became part of
the "competition" that was eliminated, I would agree wholeheartedly

Speculation and "What the market will Bare" is what's going on here. US oil
consumption was down 6 months before prices shop up to $4.00 per gallon.
The demand began it's decline in the fall of last year.

I still think you are confusing crude supply/demand curves with
refined product costs. U. S. Oil consumption is only one part of the
demand curve. When you buy that Chinese whatever in Walmart, you are
living in the USA and driving up crude demand in China.

When the consumer quit driving, U. S. Demand went down. When the
consumer quit spending, worldwide demand went down.

Hey, if you are willing to pay $4.00 per gallon there is certainly plenty to
go around, same goes at $3.25 per gallon.

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news

I looked at the charts earlier this year. World consumption is down
compared to 3 or 4 years ago. 3rd world countires are using more but
over
all the world demand is lower.

As of December the IEA was forecasting a worldwide increase in the
demand for crude. In May they revised that figure down, but still an
increase, based on slowing economies. I think, most recently because
of the worldwide economic slowdown, the demand is actually predicted
to fall.

The key work you used here Frank is "forcast". A forcast is not a sure
thing. The figures I was looking at were not forcasts rather actual figures
for the last several years. IIRC the percentage of increase of 3rd world
countries has been up significantly ofer the last 10 years where as the
usage by large industrial nations has been dropping for 4 or 5 years. I
will say that I don't recall the source of those figures, probably "MSNBC"
however the article that included that actual world usage chart was actually
trying to explain that the rising oil and gas costs were a direct result of
supply and demand. I suspect a 2nd year college drop out was piecing
together information he found on the internet. While supply and demand is
certainly a part of the pricing/any product pricing actually, I would say
it has about 10% effect on the current situation.


Yes, if you go back in history, anytime there has been an economic
slowdown demand drops. A slice in time. That's what is happening
now.

Here in the US drop in demand has been going on for the last 4 or 5 years/

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

I have said this time and again. When the oil companies started to merge
they cut out 1/2 the competition. If pricing was truly the result of
supply
and demand we all would have been sitting in lines to gas up like we did
back in the 70's.

Since I was one of those working in the industry and became part of
the "competition" that was eliminated, I would agree wholeheartedly

Speculation and "What the market will Bare" is what's going on here. US
oil
consumption was down 6 months before prices shop up to $4.00 per gallon.
The demand began it's decline in the fall of last year.

I still think you are confusing crude supply/demand curves with
refined product costs. U. S. Oil consumption is only one part of the
demand curve. When you buy that Chinese whatever in Walmart, you are
living in the USA and driving up crude demand in China.

Well I probably blur the lines occasionally however my son has been studying
world economies in college and has learned that China has been hoarding oil
for the Olympics. Thier demand should deminish. Either way I see and have
seen no shortages of any thing oil related.

Leon wrote:
....
Well I probably blur the lines occasionally however my son has been studying
world economies in college and has learned that China has been hoarding oil
for the Olympics. Thier demand should deminish. Either way I see and have
seen no shortages of any thing oil related.
....

Their demand isn't going to diminish unless the world economy goes into
a far deeper recession than it has so far. Their "hoarding" for the
Olympics has been accomplished in large part by rationing the consumer
market. Once that has returned to pre-Olympic status the demand for
more vehicles and their continuing expansion of electricity production
will more than make up for small drops in consumer goods production for
the short term and longer term their demand will only continue to
skyrocket (as will India and the rest of SE Asia).

While there haven't (at least yet) been severe restrictions in supply,
that supply is extremely tight is clear if one looks at overall world
production/consumption data.

Last I looked, US production was still flat at best if not slightly
decreasing. The higher prices have brought some old production back
online that was marginally or unprofitable before, but new production
hasn't yet increased significantly enough to really make a big impact on
turning around the longtime trend of lowered production from mature fields.

If prices will stabilize at a level that isn't recession-inducing yet
still above the "do-nothing" inducing values of the previous 20 years,
we should gradually see the positive impact of increased production.
The difficulty is, of course, that there's always the risk of the
"boom/bust" cycle if, for example, OPEC were to flood the market as some
have asked them to do.

--

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:10:20 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news

I looked at the charts earlier this year. World consumption is down
compared to 3 or 4 years ago. 3rd world countires are using more but
over
all the world demand is lower.

As of December the IEA was forecasting a worldwide increase in the
demand for crude. In May they revised that figure down, but still an
increase, based on slowing economies. I think, most recently because
of the worldwide economic slowdown, the demand is actually predicted
to fall.

The key work you used here Frank is "forcast". A forcast is not a sure
thing. The figures I was looking at were not forcasts rather actual figures
for the last several years. IIRC the percentage of increase of 3rd world
countries has been up significantly ofer the last 10 years where as the
usage by large industrial nations has been dropping for 4 or 5 years. I
will say that I don't recall the source of those figures, probably "MSNBC"
however the article that included that actual world usage chart was actually
trying to explain that the rising oil and gas costs were a direct result of
supply and demand. I suspect a 2nd year college drop out was piecing
together information he found on the internet. While supply and demand is
certainly a part of the pricing/any product pricing actually, I would say
it has about 10% effect on the current situation.


Forecast demand is what current price is built around.

for actual world demand through 2007

World Total 63,113.57 60,943.79 59,543.24
58,778.20 59,815.17 60,085.13 61,808.95
63,095.12 64,965.31 66,077.79 66,689.10
67,295.81 67,489.45 67,609.63 68,930.00
70,133.12 71,670.75 73,426.90 74,052.94
75,727.16 76,711.90 77,443.55 78,089.42
79,660.39 82,407.67 83,818.93 84,948.77


Read across then down, figures in thousands of barrels per day


Yes, if you go back in history, anytime there has been an economic
slowdown demand drops. A slice in time. That's what is happening
now.

Here in the US drop in demand has been going on for the last 4 or 5 years/


Well not quite.

The U. S. figures are

United States 17,056.00 16,058.00 15,296.00
15,231.00 15,725.61 15,726.42 16,280.63
16,665.05 17,283.31 17,325.15 16,988.50
16,713.84 17,032.86 17,236.73 17,718.16
17,724.59 18,308.90 18,620.30 18,917.15
19,519.34 19,701.08 19,648.71 19,761.30
20,033.50 20,731.15 20,802.16 20,687.42
20,680.38

Large spike up in '04, increase in '05 two years of very slight
declines 2006 and 2007, and more than likely 2008 will come in as a
decline because of the reaction to high gas prices and the slowing
economy, so by year end three years, but made up for up till possibly
this year by the world demand.


Keep in mind this in the shadow of "forecasted"declining production
which affects the supply side of the equation and also puts pressure
on pricing.

Swingman wrote:

IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit enough
judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.

We already knew that :-)

Does anyone have any info on new refining capacity under construction or
in the process of being brought on line in the near future?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
Swingman wrote:

IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit
enough judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.

We already knew that :-)

Does anyone have any info on new refining capacity under construction or
in the process of being brought on line in the near future?

There's a new refining facility planned in SE NE (because our intrepid
Governor is so anti-business the developers moved it out of NE KS ).

It'll be sizable and include a new large capacity pipeline to collect
crude from central US and distribute at least some product.

Exact timeline I'm not sure of...I'll see what I can dig up; I sorta'
lost interest when they moved out of state.

--

dpb wrote:
....
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wrpupus2w.htm

There has been roughly a 1.5%/yr increase in total petroleum products
supplied (which equates to usage as very little percentage-wise is
stored long term) over the period from 1991 thru 2007; ...

Intended to make an additional note--the above link has weekly data
plotted--if select the 4-wk average, the weekly variations are smoothed
significantly and the effects on demand of the economic contraction
following 9/11 are vividly evident as is the shorter downturn at the
beginning of 2000.

--

dpb wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Swingman wrote:

IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit
enough judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.

We already knew that :-)

Does anyone have any info on new refining capacity under construction
or in the process of being brought on line in the near future?

There's a new refining facility planned in SE NE (because our intrepid
Governor is so anti-business the developers moved it out of NE KS ).

It'll be sizable and include a new large capacity pipeline to collect
crude from central US and distribute at least some product.

Exact timeline I'm not sure of...I'll see what I can dig up; I sorta'
lost interest when they moved out of state.


OK, what I learned is it is probably going to be in SD just across the
border from NE if it goes--they have bought land there and had a
successful rezoning. There's questions on the viability of their
financing, however, apparently. The plan is for the Alberta shale oil
pipeline to be the primary source. The project would be roughly $8-10B
if it comes off.

--

dpb wrote:
dpb wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Does anyone have any info on new refining capacity under construction
or in the process of being brought on line in the near future?

There's a new refining facility planned in SE NE (because our intrepid
Governor is so anti-business the developers moved it out of NE KS ).

It'll be sizable and include a new large capacity pipeline to collect
crude from central US and distribute at least some product.

Exact timeline I'm not sure of...I'll see what I can dig up; I sorta'
lost interest when they moved out of state.

OK, what I learned is it is probably going to be in SD just across the
border from NE if it goes--they have bought land there and had a
successful rezoning. There's questions on the viability of their
financing, however, apparently. The plan is for the Alberta shale oil
pipeline to be the primary source. The project would be roughly $8-10B
if it comes off.

Thanks. I was hoping that there might already be a couple in the works.
It would appear that we might be in for a bit of discomfort if even just
one or two are taken out of service due to hurricane damage. :-(

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
....
Thanks. I was hoping that there might already be a couple in the works.
It would appear that we might be in for a bit of discomfort if even just
one or two are taken out of service due to hurricane damage. :-(

No hope for that in today's business climate.

It's possible it just _may_ be beginning to change, but it's going to be
hard slogging and nobody's gonna' do nuttin' 'til after electioneering
is over now, of course, in order to see which way that wind blows.

It's likely there's going to be some damage altho the track they've got
it on should be south of the largest concentrations so hopefully nothing
too severe.

Of course, that's a hope for everybody in the path, for what little good
that is...


--

dpb wrote:
dpb wrote:
...
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wrpupus2w.htm

There has been roughly a 1.5%/yr increase in total petroleum products
supplied (which equates to usage as very little percentage-wise is
stored long term) over the period from 1991 thru 2007; ...

Intended to make an additional note--the above link has weekly data
plotted--if select the 4-wk average, the weekly variations are smoothed
significantly and the effects on demand of the economic contraction
following 9/11 are vividly evident as is the shorter downturn at the
beginning of 2000.

One last note on these data...any conclusion that demand has tapered off
over the last several years could only be drawn by blindly looking at
the numbers pre- and post- 9/11. If only the values were in front of
one, it's possible one might draw a conclusion to that effect, but the
graph clearly shows what happened was a significant retraction over the
period of roughly a year or so after which the growth was again at
essentially the same rate as previously.

This continued until a new peak demand was reached in the 2006/07 time
frame and has since tapered off owing to the high prices and associated
economic slowdown.

Really quite a revealing graph...

--

"Morris Dovey" wrote:

Does anyone have any info on new refining capacity under
construction or in the process of being brought on line in the near
future?

You are probably not going to like this response, but it is reality.

There has not been a "grass roots" refinery built in the USA in over
30 years, and hopefully, there will NEVER be another built, at least
until after some usable form of alternate energy is developed.

Why?

If we don't get serious and start developing alternative energy
sources NOW, our $700M+/month expenditure for foreign oil will just
get larger.

BTW, the source of that $700M+/month number comes from T Pickens.

He may have his own axe to grind, but he is in the neighborhood.

I don't know what you call it, but I call it a $700M+/month TAX being
paid to offshore countries, most of which, don't particularly like us.

If I'm going to pay that $700M+ TAX every month, would jut a soon see
it paid in the USA to develop alternative energy.

$4-$5/gallon gasoline is a bitter pill to swallow, but it seems the
only way to get at our oil gluttony problem.

Our economy has been built on cheap oil.

The gays of cheap energy, especially oil, are history.

Time to get up off our dead and dying, and get to work.

Now, if we can only get an alternate energy policy established by our
gov't to create and nurture alternate energy development.

Without a stable environment over the long haul, private capital will
NOT invest the billions needed to solve the energy problem(s).

Lew

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

Thanks. I was hoping that there might already be a couple in the works. It
would appear that we might be in for a bit of discomfort if even just one
or two are taken out of service due to hurricane damage. :-(


More refineries could not hurt but there are several that are still off line
because of the storm that hit LA last week. Gas prices were still going
down until the threat of Ike became evident.

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

Does anyone have any info on new refining capacity under construction or
in the process of being brought on line in the near future?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris,

There is a new refinery being built in Douglas, WY and also one in Tulsa,
OK.

I'd like to comment on the "no new refineries have been built in the last 30
years" line. What is being left out is that existing refineries have
expanded so as to be equivalent to having built ten new refineries.

Also, the "let's build new refineries" line needs some consideration. Let's
not build too many. What happens when a scarce resource (crude oil) is
sought by 'x' number of businesses (refineries) and then several new
businesses come along wanting to have that same scarce resource. That's
right! The bidding begins and the price goes up.

I won't get into 'the oil companies know we are in a post-peak oil period
and don't want to build refineries that will soon not have enough resources
to operate at near maximum capacity."

(Is peak oil my hobby? Yes. I read Matt Savinar and James Howard Kunstler;
and Energy Bulletin and Running on Empty2 (Yahoo groups) and Energy
Resources (Yahoo groups). I've read Twilight in the Desert, The Road, and
World Made by Hand.)

Lew Hodgett wrote:
....
You are probably not going to like this response, but it is reality.

There has not been a "grass roots" refinery built in the USA in over
30 years, and hopefully, there will NEVER be another built, at least
until after some usable form of alternate energy is developed.
....
That's sheer stupidity...to not process shale or sand oil while waiting
on some yet-to-be-discovered magic "alternative" fuel would be asinine.

And, of course, while that's true on building "clean site" refinery
capacity, actual capacity has more than double in that time frame by
combinations of expansion and process improvement. So, while it's
important that new refinery capacity be built, the significant factor of
the proposed facility is that it will be processing shale oil.

"alternative energy" will become available as it becomes economically
viable, not before, in large quantities, anyway.

--

"dpb" wrote:
..
That's sheer stupidity...to not process shale or sand oil while
waiting on some yet-to-be-discovered magic "alternative" fuel would
be asinine.

Who said anything about not processing known reserves?

A new "grass roots" refinery is not required.

And, of course, while that's true on building "clean site" refinery
capacity, actual capacity has more than double in that time frame by
combinations of expansion and process improvement.

That works as a short term solution.

"alternative energy" will become available as it becomes
economically viable, not before, in large quantities, anyway.

If $4-$5/gallon doesn't get the job done, maybe $8-$10/gal will.

Either way, it's going to require gov't involvement to provide a
stable environment for private industry to to the job.

Bottom line..............................

If we don't get started, one of these days we are going to wake up
broke and with the boot of some sheik planted squarely on our Adam's
apple.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote:

Does anyone have any info on new refining capacity under
construction or in the process of being brought on line in the near
future?

You are probably not going to like this response, but it is reality.

There has not been a "grass roots" refinery built in the USA in over
30 years, and hopefully, there will NEVER be another built, at least
until after some usable form of alternate energy is developed.

Time to get up off our dead and dying, and get to work.

Cut me a little slack, Lew. I've been working for a little over six
years to help make it happen - first with solar heating panels to keep
people warm up here in "cold country", then with direct solar-powered
(non-electrical) stationary engines for pumping and (if I can get the
@!%# pump running the way I think it should), direct solar-powered
air-conditioning to keep people cool in "hot country". I'd have taken on
more but my resources were a bit on the thin side.

The government and industry don't appear to be interested in any
technology that doesn't produce ongoing revenues capable of providing
mega-salaries to top execs and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
campaign contributions.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"dpb" wrote:
.
That's sheer stupidity...to not process shale or sand oil while
waiting on some yet-to-be-discovered magic "alternative" fuel would
be asinine.

Who said anything about not processing known reserves?

A new "grass roots" refinery is not required.
....
I'd believe it is to handle shale oil--afaik there's no existing
facility that has the capability which is why there's interest in doing it.

....

Either way, it's going to require gov't involvement to provide a
stable environment for private industry to to the job.

All the government really needs to do is get out of the way and it will
happen in the most economically viable fashion far better than some set
of suits in DC can try to forecast what should be done.

--

Morris Dovey wrote:
....
The government and industry don't appear to be interested in any
technology that doesn't produce ongoing revenues capable of providing
mega-salaries to top execs and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
campaign contributions.

I don't believe that for a minute.

You talked to EPRI or responded to DARPA or DOE RFPs on Advanced
Technology? You sent concept proposals to the National Labs for
cooperative research? You talked w/ various research
centers/deans/department heads at State universities? Looked at the
various Foundations who sponsor advanced research? There are zillions
of options for funding but it does takes work to go find them.

--

"Lew Hodgett" wrote

The gays of cheap energy, especially oil, are history.

I knew you were a Californian, but ...



--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote:

I knew you were a Californian, but ...

Naw, just a displaced Buckeye who can't type.

By definition:

Before you ask, a Buckeye is defined as a worthless nut.

dpb wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
...
The government and industry don't appear to be interested in any
technology that doesn't produce ongoing revenues capable of providing
mega-salaries to top execs and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
campaign contributions.

I don't believe that for a minute.

You talked to EPRI or responded to DARPA or DOE RFPs on Advanced
Technology? You sent concept proposals to the National Labs for
cooperative research? You talked w/ various research
centers/deans/department heads at State universities? Looked at the
various Foundations who sponsor advanced research? There are zillions
of options for funding but it does takes work to go find them.

Eh? I'm not in business to produce concepts. If I were, then your
suggestions would make sense.

The national labs want me to pay them. Hell - if I could afford to pay
them, then I wouldn't need them at all. :-)

I've already been the university route once. It cost $80K (in 1978
dollars), resulted in proprietary technology being leaked into the
public domain by people who wouldn't/couldn't respect intellectual
property, and never did produce the contracted- and paid-for result. I
guess I should mention that the project ran almost a year over the
promised schedule and terminated because there was no way to continue
funding the (unproductive) effort. Ugh - I'm not interested in repeating
that experience. It's a "doesn't work in the real world" because the
people involved don't have any skin in the game.

There /are/ a zillion options for donating both what I already have and
what I'm working on - and bloody few for promoting what's already
completed and for accelerating development of proven concepts into
finished (marketable) products.

My projects aren't the point though, it's the entire approach to the
alternative energy that's incredibly inadequate, and I've lost hope that
anything will change significantly until there is a bona fide crisis. We
just don't have enough Pickens-types to get the job done.

I'll keep at it until I burn out, then dumpster the works and enjoy the
retirement I should have started in July of 2007.

I haven't minded the work to find options, but finding is the easiest
part - it's the overhead they bring with them that's the killer.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote:

Cut me a little slack, Lew. I've been working for a little over six
years to help make it happen - first with solar heating panels to
keep people warm up here in "cold country", then with direct
solar-powered (non-electrical) stationary engines for pumping and
(if I can get the @!%# pump running the way I think it should),
direct solar-powered air-conditioning to keep people cool in "hot
country". I'd have taken on more but my resources were a bit on the
thin side.

The government and industry don't appear to be interested in any
technology that doesn't produce ongoing revenues capable of
providing mega-salaries to top execs and hundreds of millions of
dollars worth of campaign contributions.

Taking on a project as committee of one is like pushing on a rope.

It's a tough process.

Tell me about it! Still, I've managed to push a couple of pieces of this
rope farther than I expected when I started.

Have you tried to seek out R&D funds from private foundations or
gov't research grants?

Private foundations - no. Government grants - yes, until it was made
clear that I'd need to spend more than half of my time providing proof
that I was sticking to a well-defined action/budget plan that had to be
nailed down before the funds would be made available - and until I
learned that any deviation (for example, shifting resources from an
activity that needed less to complete than budgeted to another that
needed more than budgeted) from that plan could land me in prison. Two
other items that couldn't be covered by the grant were construction
(necessary for testing) and advertising (essential to
commercialization). I said thanks and backed away.

Lots of digging req'd, but funds are out there.

I don't have a lot of time available for digging, but I'm sure you're
right. So far, the sources I've found have all had an associated
overhead that would slow, rather than accelerate, the work to be done. I
figure I'm already going slow enough.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Morris Dovey" wrote:

I don't have a lot of time available for digging, but I'm sure
you're right. So far, the sources I've found have all had an
associated overhead that would slow, rather than accelerate, the
work to be done. I figure I'm already going slow enough.

At this poimt in time, what is your objective?

Has it changed from when you started?

Lew

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:46:22 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:



Either way, it's going to require gov't involvement to provide a
stable environment for private industry to to the job.


Lew


Those are without a doubt the scariest words I've read here in quite
some time.

Frank