http://gamingtrend.com
August 29, 2014, 04:48:44 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: [RP] President says "suffer" to gas prices  (Read 9406 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21054



View Profile WWW
« Reply #120 on: April 29, 2006, 08:44:29 PM »

Quote from: "Doopri"
i dont know that graph is pretty damning.  i was aware that the 1990s saw some record lows in oil prices and that the industry was struggling - however i wasnt aware that at the low point of that "struggle" the industry was still pulling down 10 BILLION dollar profits.  wow.

if all industries required better than 10 billion in profits at the low point, and upwards of 6 percent returns to invest, our stores would look like soviet russias and capitalism would have been dead a long time ago


Yea, I think that chart is doing the reverse of what you want it to do.  It puts the 'gas shortage' of the 80s in a while new light of profiteering if they were pulling 10 billion a year.
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #121 on: April 30, 2006, 02:12:53 AM »

Quote from: "Knightshade Dragon"
Quote from: "Doopri"
i dont know that graph is pretty damning.  i was aware that the 1990s saw some record lows in oil prices and that the industry was struggling - however i wasnt aware that at the low point of that "struggle" the industry was still pulling down 10 BILLION dollar profits.  wow.

if all industries required better than 10 billion in profits at the low point, and upwards of 6 percent returns to invest, our stores would look like soviet russias and capitalism would have been dead a long time ago


Yea, I think that chart is doing the reverse of what you want it to do.  It puts the 'gas shortage' of the 80s in a while new light of profiteering if they were pulling 10 billion a year.


Oil is a massive industry.   In the scope of things that is not huge.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3612


View Profile
« Reply #122 on: April 30, 2006, 04:24:44 AM »

Quote from: "msduncan"
Quote
But that's the problem... we ARE giving money to the oil industry. Not just at the pump, but the government is giving them quite a bit of corporate welfare.


And these laws were from when? The 1990's when the oil industry was struggling. If they are out of date then we should let them expire, but don't try to spin it like Bush is passing money giveaway laws to the profitable oil industry. These laws were passed when they were in serious trouble.


Where do those "serious trouble" years appear on your graph?

-Autistic Angel
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #123 on: April 30, 2006, 07:50:59 PM »

Well thanks, MSD.  Now I feel a lot better regarding the Republicans giving $14,000,000,000.00 in corporate welfare to the oil industry last year.

Public Health Care is "too expensive", but adding to Exxon's bottom line with our tax dollars is A-OK!
Logged
whiteboyskim
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7848


Hard partier


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: May 01, 2006, 01:24:45 AM »

Why don't we all calm down and recognize that the solution is right here in this PSA from Red Vs. Blue.
Logged

Behold the glory of my new blog!
Filmmaking is vision plus faith plus balls, all 3 of which Hollywood knows little about.
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #125 on: May 01, 2006, 02:31:34 PM »

Concerning the construction of refineries in Mexico --

From what I've read...there is too much risk to invest such massive capital in Mexico due to labor instabilities, security, and the risk that the Mexican government could conceivably federalize the refinery and take over assets.

Refineries are massive capital expenses.
Logged
Little Raven
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 47


View Profile
« Reply #126 on: May 01, 2006, 08:33:03 PM »

Quote from: "msduncan"
Concerning the construction of refineries in Mexico -.

Of course there's risk. There's risk no matter where you build it. An earthquake or a hurricane can always come knocking.

But do you really think our government is going to allow Mexico or Haiti seize assets that are vital to national security?

Of course not. And I'm not talking military action...we have lots of cards we could play long before things reached that point. Those governments simply don't have the clout to oppose us that way.

It's not fear of Mexican commies that keeps investors from building new refineries. It's the simple fact that building new refineries only makes sense AFTER prices reach (and stay at) record levels. Building them before that point just means lower profits.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #127 on: May 01, 2006, 10:13:41 PM »

Quote from: "msduncan"
Concerning the construction of refineries in Mexico --

From what I've read...there is too much risk to invest such massive capital in Mexico due to labor instabilities, security, and the risk that the Mexican government could conceivably federalize the refinery and take over assets.

Refineries are massive capital expenses.


Wow, pardon me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are now doing a complete 180 in your argument.  You started by saying the government was PROHIBITING the oil industry from building new refineries, and now you are saying they are just expensive, and the oil industry doesn't feel like making the required capital investment.

So, which one is it?
Logged
drifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1250


View Profile
« Reply #128 on: May 02, 2006, 02:53:22 AM »

But do you really think our government is going to allow Mexico or Haiti seize assets that are vital to national security?

Yes they can do that, take a look at Venezuala every now and then they talk about nationalizing the oil industry there.
Logged
Little Raven
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 47


View Profile
« Reply #129 on: May 02, 2006, 04:38:06 AM »

Quote from: "drifter"
Yes they can do that, take a look at Venezuala every now and then they talk about nationalizing the oil industry there.

We don't have nearly the pull with Venezuala that we do with either Mexico or Haiti. Proximity still counts for a lot. In the case of Haiti, we regularly prop up the government. Whoever is in charge is naturally pretty grateful. And Mexico simply has too much to lose to risk upsetting us by seizing a refinery.

South America does seem to be slipping away from us. But the loyalty of our more immediate neighbors is still assured.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #130 on: May 02, 2006, 07:00:24 AM »

Quote from: "drifter"
But do you really think our government is going to allow Mexico or Haiti seize assets that are vital to national security?

Yes they can do that, take a look at Venezuala every now and then they talk about nationalizing the oil industry there.


That's a red herring.  We are talking about a REFINERY, not an oil well.  Nice try, though!

Mexico is about as likely to nationalize a refinery as they are a Wal-Mart.  You bring oil in, turn it into gasoline or whatever, and truck it out.  No oil wells involved, no Mexican natural resources involved.

Also, I may be wrong, but I believe the oil industry in Venezuela IS nationalized.  I'll tell you one thing: Hugo Chavez sure isn't preaching some bullshit like "deficits don't matter" right now!  No sir!  That is one nation that is pretty flush with money at the moment.  No multi-trillion dollar deficit there, that's for sure.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #131 on: May 02, 2006, 08:00:05 PM »

Quote from: "unbreakable"
Quote from: "msduncan"
Concerning the construction of refineries in Mexico --

From what I've read...there is too much risk to invest such massive capital in Mexico due to labor instabilities, security, and the risk that the Mexican government could conceivably federalize the refinery and take over assets.

Refineries are massive capital expenses.


Wow, pardon me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are now doing a complete 180 in your argument.  You started by saying the government was PROHIBITING the oil industry from building new refineries, and now you are saying they are just expensive, and the oil industry doesn't feel like making the required capital investment.

So, which one is it?


Are you girding for a fight from me or something?

I said the government in THIS coutry makes it hard and the homeowners makes it hard for refineries to be built.

I ASKED if mexico allowed foreign companies to build refineries because their biggest one is state-owned.

Then I assumed they could based on a response to my question and then proposed that companies still might see it as a risk to invest such high dollar facilities there.

Look what happened in Bolivia today...   the government declared all the natural gas facilities state-property and sent troops in.
Logged
Little Raven
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 47


View Profile
« Reply #132 on: May 02, 2006, 09:19:57 PM »

Quote from: "msduncan"
I said the government in THIS coutry makes it hard and the homeowners makes it hard for refineries to be built.

Actually, that's not what you said.
Quote from: "msduncan"
We don't have enough refineries. Why don't we have enough refineries? Because Democrats in congress continue to block, sink, and otherwise sabotage bills in congress that would pave the way for more refineries. (emphasis mine)

I agree that homeowners take a dim view of refineries. But Republican homeowners are every bit as bad as Democratic ones in this regard, a fact you failed to mention in your orignal post.
Quote from: "msduncan"
Look what happened in Bolivia today...   the government declared all the natural gas facilities state-property and sent troops in.

Notice, however, who the fields belonged to. slywink
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #133 on: May 02, 2006, 10:28:20 PM »

Quote from: "msduncan"
Quote from: "unbreakable"
Quote from: "msduncan"
Concerning the construction of refineries in Mexico --

From what I've read...there is too much risk to invest such massive capital in Mexico due to labor instabilities, security, and the risk that the Mexican government could conceivably federalize the refinery and take over assets.

Refineries are massive capital expenses.


Wow, pardon me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are now doing a complete 180 in your argument.  You started by saying the government was PROHIBITING the oil industry from building new refineries, and now you are saying they are just expensive, and the oil industry doesn't feel like making the required capital investment.

So, which one is it?


Are you girding for a fight from me or something?


No, but I'm sorry that proving you wrong provokes such hostility from you.  I would advise someone to stop being wrong, but you are free to pursue whatever solution you see fit.

Quote
I said the government in THIS coutry makes it hard and the homeowners makes it hard for refineries to be built.

I ASKED if mexico allowed foreign companies to build refineries because their biggest one is state-owned.


Really?  Because I just looked at what you wrote, which is quoted up there at the top... and I don't see a single question there.

Quote
Then I assumed they could based on a response to my question and then proposed that companies still might see it as a risk to invest such high dollar facilities there.

Look what happened in Bolivia today...   the government declared all the natural gas facilities state-property and sent troops in.


As is their right to do.  But, as I already pointed out, a REFINERY does not pull any natural resource out of the land it is built on, does it?  It is REFINING, not PUMPING.  So you are comparing two entirely different issues and trying to blend them into the same issue, when they are not.

Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #134 on: May 03, 2006, 12:11:40 AM »

Quote from: "unbreakable"
Quote from: "msduncan"
Quote from: "unbreakable"
Quote from: "msduncan"
Concerning the construction of refineries in Mexico --

From what I've read...there is too much risk to invest such massive capital in Mexico due to labor instabilities, security, and the risk that the Mexican government could conceivably federalize the refinery and take over assets.

Refineries are massive capital expenses.


Wow, pardon me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are now doing a complete 180 in your argument.  You started by saying the government was PROHIBITING the oil industry from building new refineries, and now you are saying they are just expensive, and the oil industry doesn't feel like making the required capital investment.

So, which one is it?


Are you girding for a fight from me or something?


No, but I'm sorry that proving you wrong provokes such hostility from you.  I would advise someone to stop being wrong, but you are free to pursue whatever solution you see fit.

Quote
I said the government in THIS coutry makes it hard and the homeowners makes it hard for refineries to be built.

I ASKED if mexico allowed foreign companies to build refineries because their biggest one is state-owned.


Really?  Because I just looked at what you wrote, which is quoted up there at the top... and I don't see a single question there.

Quote
Then I assumed they could based on a response to my question and then proposed that companies still might see it as a risk to invest such high dollar facilities there.

Look what happened in Bolivia today...   the government declared all the natural gas facilities state-property and sent troops in.


As is their right to do.  But, as I already pointed out, a REFINERY does not pull any natural resource out of the land it is built on, does it?  It is REFINING, not PUMPING.  So you are comparing two entirely different issues and trying to blend them into the same issue, when they are not.



that's funny...because every reply to any of my posts have been dripping with seething sarcasm and baiting.    

In any case.... what difference does it make to a government that doesn't abide my US laws or influences anyway whether it's a refinery or not?   Mexico certainly doesn't respond to our immigration concerns.
Logged
drifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1250


View Profile
« Reply #135 on: May 03, 2006, 02:30:59 AM »

For Unbreakable:

That's a red herring. We are talking about a REFINERY, not an oil well. Nice try, though!

You must have missed the news for a while where the Venesualan government had troops sieze an oil tanker when the worker went on strike.

Just keep up the shouting and eventually people just give in and stop the dialog.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #136 on: May 03, 2006, 02:34:46 AM »

Feel free to point out how I debate with you any differently than anyone else.  Any hostility you sense has to be you projecting your own feelings upon my writing.


Quote
In any case.... what difference does it make to a government that doesn't abide my US laws or influences anyway whether it's a refinery or not? Mexico certainly doesn't respond to our immigration concerns.


You are again trying to illogically combine two separate issues.  It's isn't the nation of Mexico's responsibility to prevent it's citizens (or anybody, actually) from leaving the country.  If the USA has a problem with people entering the country, that would be the USA's problem to deal with.  

There are a great many nations in the world which seem to be prospering without draconian border crossings.  Like all of Europe.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #137 on: May 03, 2006, 02:37:04 AM »

Quote from: "drifter"
For Unbreakable:

That's a red herring. We are talking about a REFINERY, not an oil well. Nice try, though!

You must have missed the news for a while where the Venesualan government had troops sieze an oil tanker when the worker went on strike.

Just keep up the shouting and eventually people just give in and stop the dialog.


Venezuela exports oil, does it not?  So please explain what this has to do with a REFINERY.

Typical response, however.  Since you cannot prove yourself correct, you just make excuses.  Yes, you must be right.  Your inability to prove your point is because I'm waiting you out.  It's all part of my evil master plan.

Maybe you can explain how one shouts with text in an internet forum.
Logged
drifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1250


View Profile
« Reply #138 on: May 03, 2006, 02:48:01 AM »

Unbreakable this started with you disagreeing that a foreign country can decide to nationalize an industry and that this was a reason for oil companies not building refineries in Mexico.  A foreign country can indeed decide to nationalize an industry if they so choose, so I used Venezuala as an example of nationalization possibilities on an industry.  I do not care one iota if it has anything to do with a refinery the refinery isn't the point, the point is a sovereign nation can decide to nationalize an industry.  Mexico nor Venuzuala is not going to care that unbreakable says they cant do that.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #139 on: May 03, 2006, 02:50:26 AM »

Quote from: "drifter"
Unbreakable this started with you disagreeing that a foreign country can decide to nationalize an industry and that this was a reason for oil companies not building refineries in Mexico.  A foreign country can indeed decide to nationalize an industry if they so choose, so I used Venezuala as an example of nationalization possibilities on an industry.  I do not care one iota if it has anything to do with a refinery the refinery isn't the point, the point is a sovereign nation can decide to nationalize an industry.  Mexico nor Venuzuala is not going to care that unbreakable says they cant do that.


Yes, and the USA can decide to nationalize an industry, so your statement adds zero to the discussion.  We aren't discussing possibility, we are discussing probability.

What I am saying is that these countries have been doing so because their NATURAL RESOURCES are being used.

Border town refineries would not be drilling up oil and refining it.  They would have oil piped in or trucked in, and piped out or trucked out.  Without an oil supply, a refinery is just a pile of metal.

Also, this "started" because msd claimed that the government was PROHIBITING the oil industry from building refineries in the USA, but forgot that Mexico is a little bit south of our country and would probably be pretty happy to have a refinery built there.

Then he changed his story from the government prohibiting refineries, to them being too expensive.  Then when the "too expensive" claim didn't work, the moving target justification drifted to privatization concerns.

I'm just saying it's time for the moving target to keep moving.  Privatization concerns aren't winning the "hearts and minds".

PS- everyone keeps misspelling Venezuela
Logged
drifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1250


View Profile
« Reply #140 on: May 03, 2006, 01:35:48 PM »

You could not be more wrong.

Political climates in countries have major impacts on business decisions.  If there is a potential to lose your investment companies will not invest in a solid infrastructure.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #141 on: May 03, 2006, 02:05:40 PM »

I can tell you that I wouldn't invest in company that didn't take foreign political climate, security, and regulations into consideration.   I also wouldn't make the business decision to build a massive capital investment in a third would nation that might decide they want to impose all sorts of nasty regulations upon my business.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #142 on: May 03, 2006, 06:53:26 PM »

OK, please name a single industry Mexico has nationalized.  Also find examples of 'excessive regulation' from the Mexican government.

To recap:
1.  the US government is not "prohibitting" refineries from being built
2.  refineries are not "too expensive" to build, since if you are selling gasoline, it has to be refined.  If you can't pay, don't play.
3.  there is NOTHING preventing the oil industry from building refineries across the US/Mexican border.
Logged
drifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1250


View Profile
« Reply #143 on: May 03, 2006, 07:03:23 PM »

You are missing the point of they do not have to build any more refineries if they choose not to.

Oil is a finite resource and will run out, how long until it runs out is debatable and no one has a real good answer for it.  I do not know how long it would take to build a refinery and then how long it would take to recoup the cost of it, perhaps that is part of the decision making of the oil companies.
Logged
drifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1250


View Profile
« Reply #144 on: May 03, 2006, 07:09:41 PM »

Mexico's post-revolution history is marked by the tenacity of a single political party, the Partido Revolucionario Institutional, or PRI. The party was founded by Plutarco Elias Calles, who took over as president when Obregon was assassinated (quite possibly by a Calles plot) in 1928. But the party's most loved president was General Lazaro Cardenas in 1934. Cardenas instituted widespread land reform, strengthened unions, and nationalized the petroleum industry.

http://www.geographia.com/mexico/mexicohistory.htm
Logged
Little Raven
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 47


View Profile
« Reply #145 on: May 03, 2006, 07:35:26 PM »

Quote from: "drifter"
Mexico's post-revolution history is marked by the tenacity of a single political party, the Partido Revolucionario Institutional, or PRI. The party was founded by Plutarco Elias Calles, who took over as president when Obregon was assassinated (quite possibly by a Calles plot) in 1928. But the party's most loved president was General Lazaro Cardenas in 1934. Cardenas instituted widespread land reform, strengthened unions, and nationalized the petroleum industry.

Dude, that was over 70 years ago. In 1934 we were busy coming up with the New Deal. Times have changed. Mexico is pretty solid in terms of investment, as a little research will show. In 2000 alone, almost 13 billion dollars was poured into Mexico from abroad, and those numbers continue to grow.

American companies have build auto factories, power plants, and every kind of maquiladora plant under the sun in Mexico, all without any problem whatsoever. Mexican commies are not what's kept Exxon from building refineries there.

There simply has been no profit motive to do so. It's not clear that there's a profit motive to do so NOW, with gas prices reaching all-time highs. And oil companies are in the business of making profit.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #146 on: May 03, 2006, 08:27:33 PM »

Quote from: "drifter"
You are missing the point of they do not have to build any more refineries if they choose not to.


Other people seem to have other opinions:

Quote from: "Graham"
The reason that there haven't been any new refineries built is because of the prohibitive costs put onto building them by the environmentalists.  Because of environmentalists we can't drill in ANWR, you can't drill in the Gulf of Mexico or off the California coast, and you can't build more refineries to refine the oil.  Yes, we need to look at future technologies, but we should try to do what we can with what we have.  We even have NY Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman hoping that oil reaches $100 a barrel.


Which is, of course, a tangled mix of rhetoric which confuses oil costs, those evil environmentalists, and the America-hating people who complain about the price of gas.  God bless Big Oil!

Quote from: "msduncan"
1.  We don't have enough refineries.    Why don't we have enough refineries?   Because Democrats in congress continue to block, sink, and otherwise sabotage bills in congress that would pave the way for more refineries.    Before you say 'minority party', please remember that in our government's case, the minority party holds a tremendous amount of tools to control bills.    The start of which are riders on bills that cause the majority to vote against them.    They've been sinking attempts at paving the way for more refineries for 15 years, and it takes a while to build these facilities so even if they passed a bill tonight it would be a while before you saw the results.

Quote
6.  Gormet Gasoline --  yet again, overzelous goverment (this time state level) has created a scenario in which environmentalists in various states have managed to get the governments to pass laws that alter the fuel mix of gas sold in that state.    This means refineries can't produce at full production one type of gas.   They have to shut refineries down to retool them to produce multiple types of gas.    this means less production.   This means higher prices.


Again, escapist fantasy which ignores the price of OIL.  Also, another reason gasoline costs so much is because of inflation (which doesn't exist despite the fact that everything costs more) and the declining value of the USD relative to every other foreign currency.

I also find it hilarious that a multi-billion dollar corporation is completely bummed out because they have to make... GASP!... thirty different products!  OMG, how TERRIBLE!!!!  How can a huge multinational monopoly be expected to make 30 different products?  Doesn't that violate some kind of economics rules or something?  Oh, and ignore the fact that they are willingly making three unnecessarily different grades of unleaded gasoline.  And somehow managing to turn a tiny profit.

So you guys need to get together with Karl Rove and decide what he wants you to say- is the problem not having enough refineries because of the evil environmentalists and the government which is biased against conservatives, or is it simply because more refineries are unnecessary?
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #147 on: May 03, 2006, 09:01:13 PM »

And I should probably add that if more refineries are unnecessary, it can hardly be used as a pretext for raising gas prices.
Logged
Graham
Managing Editor
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 4015


View Profile WWW
« Reply #148 on: May 04, 2006, 12:04:03 AM »

Quote from: "unbreakable"
I also find it hilarious that a multi-billion dollar corporation is completely bummed out because they have to make... GASP!... thirty different products!  OMG, how TERRIBLE!!!!  How can a huge multinational monopoly be expected to make 30 different products?  Doesn't that violate some kind of economics rules or something?  Oh, and ignore the fact that they are willingly making three unnecessarily different grades of unleaded gasoline.  And somehow managing to turn a tiny profit.


Do you even know how much it costs the oil companies to make all of these different blends?  How about the equipment and the chemicals for them?  How much labor does it cost for the switch?  Why don't you find out and then you might understand how gas companies make ten cents a gallon.

I don't expect a logical answer, just more rambling responses as usual.
Logged

Partial Owner of the World Champion Green Bay Packers
drifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1250


View Profile
« Reply #149 on: May 04, 2006, 02:57:02 AM »

As usual you ignore what is actually posted.

And I should probably add that if more refineries are unnecessary

No one said unnecessary, I said they can choose to not build more.  It is a business and they do not have to increase the number of refineries if they choose not to.  The reason could be many, expense, litigation over environmental concerns, too long to recoup cost what ever.  I NEVER said not needed.


For you little Raven

Dude,

As far as nationalizing an industry there was another example I found with a simple Google search and it was only privatized as part of NAFTA.
Logged
Little Raven
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 47


View Profile
« Reply #150 on: May 04, 2006, 03:37:06 AM »

By all means, Drifter, post it. Pwn me silly. Don't keep all the good stuff to yourself. slywink

And then, if you'd be so kind, explain why Mexico's rampant disregard of private property didn't stop Betchtel from building a $350 million dollar power plant in Baja, or Intergen from building a $750 million dollar facility in Mexicali. Enlighten us on why GM is willing to dump $600 million into a new auto factory in San Luis. Ruminate on why DaimlerChrysler is willing to dump $1 BILLION dollars into its Toluca plant in Mexico city.

If, as you say, Mexico is a property seizing monster that cannot be trusted with foreign investments, why are so many people willing to dump so much money into it?
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #151 on: May 04, 2006, 03:59:24 AM »

Quote from: "Graham"
Do you even know how much it costs the oil companies to make all of these different blends?  How about the equipment and the chemicals for them?  How much labor does it cost for the switch?  Why don't you find out and then you might understand how gas companies make ten cents a gallon.

I don't expect a logical answer, just more rambling responses as usual.


That's my point.  If it's so much work, why are they continuing to make three different flavors of the exact same thing?

I suspect it's so some moron can feel sorry for them only making $15.7 billion in profit.  Those poor, poor little oil companies.  They are ONLY making more profit in one quarter than any other company in the history of the world.  Poor, poor little oil companies.

The world's tiniest violin, playing just for them --> .
Logged
drifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1250


View Profile
« Reply #152 on: May 04, 2006, 01:22:55 PM »

When voters elect the latest gladhander to their municipal and state governments, the chemical makeup of the gas down at their local pump is not usually high on their list of priorities. BUT if youíre an agricultural activist who wants to sell corn to the government to produce Ethanol, or an environmentalist who believes you possess the magic formula for reducing baby-killing smog in western cities, well, thatís a different story. These groups are extremely effective at lobbying government at the state and local level to create a "boutique" gasoline formula to further their cause. As a result, Missouri gas isnít good enough to burn in California, whose gas cannot legally be sold in New York City or parts of Arizona.

According to Michael Ports of the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of Americas, "Twenty years ago, there were two blends of gasoline offered in three octane levels, and essentially one blend of diesel fuel. Today, there are more than 18 unique blends of gasoline mandated across the nation -- again offered in three octane grades -- and at least three different blends of diesel fuel." Okay, letís do the math. I make it... 59 different blends of gasoline spread out over 50 states. Just to make things that much more complicated, no one refinery produces all 59 blends of gas; nor is any refinery typically dedicated to any one grade.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/content/11292058241518084276/index.php
Logged
drifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1250


View Profile
« Reply #153 on: May 04, 2006, 01:25:03 PM »

littleraven as usual you ignored the original point.  I was asked to provide an example of Mexico ever nationalizing an industry and I did so.
Logged
Little Raven
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 47


View Profile
« Reply #154 on: May 04, 2006, 03:04:24 PM »

Quote from: "drifter"
littleraven as usual you ignored the original point.  I was asked to provide an example of Mexico ever nationalizing an industry and I did so.

Ummm....yay for you. But I'm not playing a trivia game. I'm trying to explain why there haven't been any refineries built.

Your example, while interesting in a scholarly sense, is meaningless when it comes to the refinery shortage. The United States nationalized all railroads during WWI. Does that mean that the US doesn't respect private property? Does it mean that the US is unsafe for foreign investment today?

Of course not. Times have changed. The fact that the US has nationalized industries in the past does not scare modern investors. Nor does the fact that Mexico has nationalized industries in the past scare investors today. In fact, investors are eager to invest in Mexico, because it's a fantastic place to manufacture goods for the US market while avoiding US regulations. It would be a wonderful place to say, build a refinery, if you were interested in doing so.

But nobody is, for simple economic reasons.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #155 on: May 04, 2006, 03:12:58 PM »

Quote


But getting an oil refinery built is next to impossible, hence the 30-year construction drought. There will always be environmental activists who fight any new proposed refinery, regardless of where it might be located and how environmentally safe it is. And our environmental rules give them the upper hand.

The environmental impact-report process mobilizes the "not in my back yard" elements to oppose any proposed refinery, but it does not mobilize people or groups who are looking at national energy needs. You wind up with a very lopsided discussion where potential problems are thoroughly and perhaps overly represented, but the only group pointing out the benefits of the refinery is the "evil" oil company asking to build it - even though every automobile driver would benefit.

Consider the example of Arizona Clean Fuels, which has been trying to build a small refinery outside Yuma for almost 10 years. It took five years just to get air-quality permits. Now they hope to be operational in 2010, 15 years after they started the project.



http://www.reason.org/commentaries/moore_20050901.shtml
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #156 on: May 04, 2006, 03:16:09 PM »

Quote

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.



Source: Investor's Business Daily
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: May 04, 2006, 03:17:40 PM »

You know... I catch a lot of flack (and sometimes rightly so) for immediately pointing the finger of accusation at Democrats or Liberals.

However, I think people are equally guilty of immediately thinking corporate 'greed' or 'evil' is to blame for the world's problems.   Sometimes the answers are closer to common sense than that.
Logged
Little Raven
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 47


View Profile
« Reply #158 on: May 04, 2006, 03:23:47 PM »

I hope you don't include me in that category, my friend.

There's nothing evil about not wanting to build a new refinery because it's not likely to make money. There's nothing evil about high gas prices. (or supply and demand) Collusion might be evil, but nobody has come anywhere near demonstrating anything like that.

Yes, pain at the pump sucks. But there's no evil force behind it. Just basic economics.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #159 on: May 04, 2006, 03:29:06 PM »

Quote from: "Little Raven"
I hope you don't include me in that category, my friend.

There's nothing evil about not wanting to build a new refinery because it's not likely to make money. There's nothing evil about high gas prices. (or supply and demand) Collusion might be evil, but nobody has come anywhere near demonstrating anything like that.

Yes, pain at the pump sucks. But there's no evil force behind it. Just basic economics.


I don't include you in this LR.   You never jumped up and down about how Big Oil was screwing us.   You just have stated a profit argument rather than a situational argument.    There is a big difference.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.193 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.053s, 2q)