'Cause I just heard someone make the following claims, and I'd really like to verify them, as they don't pass the "makes sense" test.
1) That from 1975-2000, the EPA only received one application to build a new refinery in the US, which was approved.
2) From 2000-now, 10,000 new drilling permits have been issued for domestic oil exploration which have not been used.
My brain is tired right now and I can't think of where on an official site with real statistics I could fact check these.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
Consider the source, but I don't see why'd they lie when it could be checked pretty easily.
US appears to have built its last refinery
12-06-01 No new refineries have been built in the US in the past 25 years. And petroleum industry experts say anyone would have to be crazy to launch such an effort -- even though present refineries are running at nearly 100 % of capacity and local gasoline shortages are beginning to crop up.
Why does the industry appear to have built its last refinery?
Three reasons: Refineries are not particularly profitable, environmentalists fight planning and construction every step of the way and government red-tape makes the task all but impossible. The last refinery built in the US was in Garyville, Louisiana, and it started up in 1976.
Energy proposed building a refinery near Portsmouth, Virginia, in the late 1970s, environmental groups and local residents fought the plan -- and it took almost nine years of battles in court and before federal and state regulators before the company cancelled the project in 1984.
Industry officials estimate the cost of building a new refinery at between $ 2 bn and $ 4 bn -- at a time the industry must devote close to $ 20 bn over the next decade to reducing the sulphur content in gasoline and other fuels -- and approval could mean having to collect up to 800 different permits. As if those hurdles weren't enough, the industry's long-term rate of return on capital is just 5 % -- less than could be realized by simply buying US Treasury bonds.
"I'm sure that at some point in the last 20 years someone has considered building a new refinery," says James Halloran, an energy analyst with National City Corp. "But they quickly came to their senses," he adds.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn12966.htm
Looks like they must have at least received some applications.
http://www.refineryreform.org/News_YumaSun_041505.html
And this is anecdotal, but my mom is an engineer in East Texas, and I know for a fact she's built a couple of NGL processing plants. And those don't process crude into gasoline.
thanks!
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
there is currently 1 refinery being built (in Texas)
and 1 refinery in the development/planning stages (Alaska)
“If a team is to reach its potential, each player must be willing to subordinate his personal goals to the good of the team.”
Bud Wilkinson
Could you provide more detail please? Link?Originally Posted by soonerboomer93
TIA!
While we're at it, I heard on C-Span different Democrat congressmen stating that over 60 million acres of drilling are available but not being used by big oil. I wondered where they got their facts from as well.
Hyperion is planning one is South Dakota just north of the Sioux City Area. They just got the rezoning done last week and have options on enough land to build.
For the good old American lifestyle: For the money, for the glory, and for the fun... mostly for the money.
But is there even any oil on the land they are addressing? You can't just drill anywhere and expect a gusher.
This is always a good place to start: Energy Information Administration.
I'm not happy until you're not happy.
Don't have a link, don't need one. I'm working on 1 of them already and was in discussions with a client about the second one.
“If a team is to reach its potential, each player must be willing to subordinate his personal goals to the good of the team.”
Bud Wilkinson
For $430, you can download the Worldwide Refinery Construction Projects Survey here: http://ogjresearch.stores.yahoo.net/worrefproj.html.
And it looks like they're expanding the Garyville refinery, referenced earlier.
http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.c...villerefinery/
most current refinery work is only expansion. I've stated before, a lot of refineries are under going some expansion. Some are merely undergoing maintenance or upgrades of older equipment.
“If a team is to reach its potential, each player must be willing to subordinate his personal goals to the good of the team.”
Bud Wilkinson
The U.S. EPA does not issue Refinery permits. So, they would not have received any applications to build a refinery.
There are specific processes, operations, and waste handling that are subject to permitting requirements in a refinery, as in other industrial plants. However, these permitting requirements have, typically, been delegated to individual States. The U.S. EPA retains an oversight capacity of the State programs and it would be a very rare instance, if at all, the Feds would, or could overrule a State decision on a delegated program.
The greatest problems in building new industrial facilities are the NIMBYs. They can draw out the permitting process, much in the same manner as the Nuclear power plant industry, to where it becomes unprofitable for the corporation to pursue construction of the plant.
The sad thing about nuclear power plants and NIMBYism is that I know the the perfect place to build one where the few people there probably wouldn't mind. The Oklahoma Panhandle. There is a slight problem, though...very little water for cooling the reactor
There is a river in the panhandle...the only one with 'live' water in it...the Palo Duro. It is about the same size as one of the creeks that go through Quail Creek Golf Course.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
- Fred Bastiat
The sad thing about nuclear power plants and NIMBYism is that I know the the perfect place to build one where the few people there probably wouldn't mind. The Oklahoma Panhandle. There is a slight problem, though...very little water for cooling the reactor
There is a river in the panhandle...the only one with 'live' water in it...the Palo Duro. It is about the same size as one of the creeks that go through Quail Creek Golf Course.
Yeah, water is kinda important.
actually, they're about to start building nuclear reactors again. we should see several in the next few years
(just an educated guess in part)
“If a team is to reach its potential, each player must be willing to subordinate his personal goals to the good of the team.”
Bud Wilkinson
It's all economics, really.
All those misguided individuals talking about regulations. Mostly it is just BS and stupid. Refineries are making so much money now that it is paying for all those years of low margins.
In the past, the refineries had narrow margins and the only way to make profit in those thin margins was to have a contracted off-take. That is why the large retailing chains with the gas pumps were so important to the refiners.
The worm turned a couple years ago and refinery output and capacity utilization wasn't the big issue. They could sell everything and their margins jumped 10 fold.
Trust me, they are expanding now.
Don't get confused about it and blame a Democratic congress. That has really nothing to do with it.
Who was blaming the Democratic mis-led Congress for not building refineries? Most of the regulations were enacted under previous administrations/Congress. The Sierra Club and other arms of the left-wing minority in the U.S. (such as the Refinery Reform organization dorks identified in an earlier post) are the ones deploying the anti-growth and development agenda.
What the Democratic mis-led Congress IS being blamed for is their denial of allowing the U.S. to explore/exploit the nation's hydrocarbon resources, particularly, the oil and gas along the Atlantic Shelf, California coast, and Anwar; plus, the mining of oil shale in Colorado. And, the Democratic mis-lead Congress introducing silly bills to raise gasoline taxes, at a time when gasoline prices are already at record levels.
Too bad, the Democratic mis-led Congress will not allow bills to come forward that increase the minimum margin from 5% to a much greater lever, for the speculative trade market. Could that have anything to do with, the convicted felon, George Soros being the largest contributor to their left-wing causes and the rest of the spec. industry, overwhelmingly contribute to the Dems? Haliburton has got nothing on these speculators and George Soros, when it comes to buying influence with the Democratic mis-led Congress.....
If there really was a sinister right-wing shadow group who does things, like, convince Bush to invade Iraq and steal their oil, or steer a huge hurricane into a city full of Democrats, then Soros would be a dead man.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
- Fred Bastiat
And no major transmission lines...yet.
I'm not happy until you're not happy.
Posting Permissions
