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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Y'know what? I'm sorry, you walk out of school / work? Fire 'em. Suspend 'em.

You think the penalty for missing one day of school should be to miss *more* days of school?

-Autistic Angel

Uhh... if they are illegal they shouldn't be in our schools at all unless their parents have a permit to be here.

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.

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.

Do you think oil industry profits have always been this lucrative?   They haven't.    



It takes years to build a refinery.    With profits unpredictable they way they were in the 1990's, is it any wonder we have a shortage of them now?   They would have had to have started building these refineries BEFORE the current consistent rise in oil prices.[/url]

More notes on the resistance, regulations, etc that consistently stand in the way of construction of refineries...

http://www.mexidata.info/id627.html

http://bajainsider.com/environment/ensenada-gas-terminal.htm

http://www.tierramerica.net/english/2006/0304/iarticulo.shtml

And according to this article, we might both be wrong:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/20/AR2006042000594.html

On my search for US refineries on Mexican soil, all I could find is state-controlled refineries in Mexico.    Are you sure that the Mexican government allows US companies to build oil refineries in Mexico?   It looks like the mexican refineries are all state-owned.

[Partly]

Dude, look at your own quote!

The current refinery squeeze has been building for years. For the past two decades, deregulation and low profits have combined to push the industry into consolidation. Partly because of environmental regulations, it was cheaper to expand existing refineries than to build new ones. In 1981, the US had 324 refineries with a total capacity of 18.6 million barrels per day, the Department of Energy reports. Today, there are just 132 oil refineries with a capacity of 16.8 million b.p.d., according to Oil and Gas Journal, a trade publication.

Now look at what you originally posted:

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.

You aren't even making a base attempt to be consistent. You haven't addressed even one of my posts, when I'm asking a very simple question.

One would almost suspect you don't like the answer.

Haven't directly responded to your post because I'm digging the google for the answers.   Please give me time.

Drop the cats in a good neighborhood.    Someone will take them in.

[10]

I had a long post, but my damn browser ate it.

Anyway, the jist of it was that MSD continues stating how regulation is destroying the oil industry's ability to make money, but has still not even attempted to back this claim up.  I'm going to come right out and state that it's complete and total B.S.

To this point I've provided as many sources as you have.    But here are some for your enjoyment:  

http://www.npc.org/reports/refining.html

And here is a quote:

The current refinery squeeze has been building for years. For the past two decades, deregulation and low profits have combined to push the industry into consolidation. Partly because of environmental regulations, it was cheaper to expand existing refineries than to build new ones. In 1981, the US had 324 refineries with a total capacity of 18.6 million barrels per day, the Department of Energy reports. Today, there are just 132 oil refineries with a capacity of 16.8 million b.p.d., according to Oil and Gas Journal, a trade publication.

This bottleneck is expected to keep pressure on gas prices - and politicians. Both parties are weighing measures to loosen environmental and permitting constraints for refineries.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0921/p11s02-usec.html

Another thing: there is not one shred of data showing that having to make 30 different blends is destroying their business.  Does McDonald's only make one product?  Last I noticed, they were still making money.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/Refining_text.htm

Refiners therefore strive to run the optimal mix (or "slate") of crudes through their refineries, depending on the refinery's equipment, the desired output mix, and the relative price of available crudes.  In recent years, refiners have confronted two opposite forces -- consumers' and government mandates that increasingly required light products of higher quality (the most difficult to produce) and crude oil supply that was increasingly heavier, with higher sulfur content (the most difficult to refine).

And finally, if such is really the case, why don't they just stop making 3 tiers of gas?  If they are getting destroyed by making regualar, special, and extra special, stop doing it!
...wait... that means they would only have 10 different blends to make.  OMG, I JUST REALIZED A WAY THE OIL INDUSTRY CAN INCREASE THEIR PROFITS BY 50000000%!!!!!!!  I'VE JUST SINGLEHANDEDLY SAVED THE OIL INDUSTRY!!!!!

Uhh.... Octane is probably the easiest factor.   But if you want to blanket dismiss my statements and position, and then internet-mock it by using all caps, that's fine with me.

okay how about this? instead of us all arguing over whos liberal, whos conservative etc etc etc and conducting marketing for oil industry / environmentalists, etc we offer our best solution and then write our congresspeople with the suggestion?

here's mine - tax the oil company profits - i have no clue how much, but theres quite a bit there to tax.  because youre taxing profits and not revenue there is NO WAY this can be passed onto consumers because it will blatantly smack of price manipulation.  use the proceeds from the tax to build the most up to date modern environmentally friendly refinery.  and if youre totally opposed to govt ownership, sell it back to someone, hell sell it at cost, sell it below whatever - the bottom line is the refinery will be built.  i was watching history channel about a month or two ago and it still amazes me that the bay bridge was built in 16 months (or was it 26?) i dont know the point is man did govt construct an amazing thing in a short amount of time that is still used today! AND it was under budget - lets get that productive capacity into some refineries!

Government is not the answer.   LESS government is the answer.  Socialist solutions will not help the problem.   What we need is less government intervention and regulations.     The government-hands-on approach is exactly what got us to this point with gas prices (along with the uncontrollables like India and China).

I'm always amazed when someone finds the concept of corporate greed *less* believable than the concept of a vast, shadowy conspiracy of liberal activists who lurk on the fringes of public awareness and sew anarchy just for anarchy's sake.

-Autistic Angel

There's nothing conspiracy about it -- Liberals have been quite up front and open about their opposition to any sort of oil exploration and refinery construction.      No need for a conspiracy when they don't hide it.

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.

And what data is this conclusion based upon?  I haven't seen any analysis backing this up.  Even stock market analysts come out and say this as B.S.

And where is your analysis backing this up?    

The problem isn't environmental laws, the problem is local: nobody wants a refinery in their backyard.  And, since the oil indsustry refuses to address pollution concerns, this will never change.  They are in a trap of their own making, and oh what a profitable trap it is.

Doesn't this fly in the face of you previous assertion that the oil companies aren't building refineries because they are expensive and they just don't want to spend the money?    Doesn't this also support the argument that regulations (be it federal, state, OR local due to concerned homeowners) are keeping these refineries from being built?

Boohoo.  A multi-billion dollar corporation has to make more than one product.  Oh the horror.

Should I respond to this?    Each of these dozens of blends costs extra because the process is different.   That extra cost is going to jack the prices.    There shouldn't BE dozens of different blends.   It's ridiculous.

So you claim there is ZERO oil anywhere except ANWAR?  Nowhere except Yellowstone?  Nowhere except other Federally protected lands?  I find that hard to believe.

ANWAR holds the largest oil reserve in the United States.   Period.    It is far greater than anywhere in Montana, Texas, etc.   Why shouldn't we be using this resource?       Did I say that there was Zero oil anyplace else?   I said that ANWAR was our largest reserve by far.    It's the place that makes the most economic sense to invest in long term drilling.   You set up smaller drilling sites all over the US and it yields less and costs more.       Do people forget that Alaska was purchased for these types of resources in the first place?

Links to what?  To this?  How about you showing that the billions given to the oil industry this year was actually spent on research?  Refineries are still primarily using technology from the 1950s.  They spend more money on lobbists to fight legislation than they do trying to comply with the law.  It's the trademark Republican dodging of legality we all know and love.  Pick and choose what laws you follow!  The law is only a buffet!

Haha!   Nice.    The regulations they must fight against constantly are keeping the industry from oil exploration and extraction -- not to mention refining.    This industry was in dire straights 10 years ago.    Why is it suddenly different, because prices have gone up due to China, India, and a shortsighted government (and pseudo-anarchist environmental groups)?

Oh, poor little oil companies are forced to obey the law.  I'll start playing the world's smallest violin, just for them.

Face facts: these guys produce a product which harms the environment and contributes to global warming.  How sad that addressing this problem costs them a tiny fraction of the world record setting profits they can put out..

Never have understood the vitrolic hatred for a company or industry.

That's their problem.  The fact is their profit is built on destruction of our environment.  I find it sad that you love oil companies more than you love the planet.

LOL!   I don't care a lick about the oil industry.   I don't even own stock.    Your rabid environmentalism may have warped your sense of reality.

[too damn little]

As msduncan said, you do realize that the vast majority of what you're complaining about here is the government's fault, not the oil companies, right?  I'm sure the oil companies want to build new refineries and not make 30+ different gasoline blends, but the government won't let them.

Absolutely!  Because an increase of 49% in profits (which is elaborated to be $4 billion in just three months) is just too damn little to afford to build new refineries.

Poor Chevron.  To think, they could've avoided earning such small profits if those evil environmentalists just wouldn't be so restrictive on them!

I don't think you are even reading my posts.   Government regulations are prohibiting them from building new refineries.

Yeah but according to that link, at this stage in their lives they are pack hunters.    No I'm not kidding.

That's pretty cool for a stink bug.

Got an answer for you from Smoove_B over at OO:

The tricky part is that you're not looking at an adult version.

What you've found is a 3rd or 4th instar of the Florida Predatory Stinkbug.

Probably more information about the beast than you ever wanted to know.

Edit:  Oops!  The link didn't transfer in the quote (of course!)

http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/beneficial/e_floridanus.htm

And a photo:

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060428/D8H8ODE05.html

"While Exxon Mobil executives are popping champagne and celebrating their record profits, American families are popping antacids under the strain of searing gas prices," said Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.,

I think the governments taxation of the oil companies should ratchet up exponentially when it's obvious they're making far too much money off us poor saps. Stick the screws to them like they are doing to us.

Links please?  (other than a Democrat giving a dramatic quote in an election year)

And exactly what part of taxing a corporation is going to lower prices for goods?     Why don't we just tax China and India since they are the main source of this problem (/sarcasm)

So let me get this straight-

* The oil industry closes down a significant percentage of refineries.
* The oil industry has not built even ONE new refinery in decades.
* The oil industry has been making billions without reinvesting one red cent back into their business.

I'm guessing you are referring to me?    I never said we should 'give' the oil industry anything at all.   Refineries haven't been being built because restrictions and regulations prohibiting and making it next to impossible for them to be built.

Refineries are going off line for long periods to retool the mixes for this gourmet blends.


One red cent?   They've been begging to do oil exploration everywhere from Alaska to the Guilf of Mexico.    Somehow the same people that scream every time they want to drill somewhere are the same people that scream about them not reinvesting any money.

 which has gone right into the pockets of their investors.

Links please?

* The oil industry has failed to invest ANY money into new technologies to make refineries pollute less, or to improve their methods.

Links please?   The oil industy has made leaps and bounds of progress in pollution controls over the last 20 years.     I'll dig up an article from msnbc about this tomorrow and link it here.

Does it cost too much to make 30 different blends?  Fine, then work on a 'common denominator' blend, and just go with that.  Heaven forbid a multi-billion dollar industry be inconvenienced with making more than a dozen different products!  Oh, the humanity

These blends are enforced by state regulations.   This is not the fault of the oil companies.


I relalize it's easy for some people to fall into the 'evil oil company' trap.   They make lots of money so people hate them.    It's common human nature.   However, these problems are NOT the industry's fault.   These companies would make more money if they could produce more oil and refine more oil.   How in God's name can even common logic make people think that they would decide a certain level of production was too much?  They're selling it as fast as they can produce it.    It's as simple as that.

Well and that's where our States probably differ.    In Georgia we pay an ad valorem tax of a couple hundred dollars a year per vehicle depending on the vehicle's value.    The roads here are very well maintained.    They repair roads they don't NEED to repair in this state.

I don't know but they scare me whatever they are!

There is a combination of things going on to make gas prices as high as they are right now, and none of them have to do with the current President of the United States.

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.

2.  ANWAR -- Again -- Democrats led by environmentalists have been sinking any bill to allow oil exploration here for years.   We're feeling the effects.

3.  Gulf of Mexico --  Jeb Bush is mostly at fault this time.    Bowing under the pressure of beach front property owners allied with environmentalists, Jeb helped pass laws in Florida that prohibited offshore oil rig exploration in the Gulf.    The main real reason for this was landowners that didn't want their 'view' spoiled by the site of a distant oil rig.

4.  Government --  on average a 50 cent per gallon tax.    In Europe it's worse, sometimes climbing to $5.00 a gallon or more.   Still 50 cents is 50 cents.

5. China --  forget futures on oil, China and India are consuming massive amounts more RIGHT NOW.    These pressures weren't as great 5 years ago, and they aren't being helped by items 1-4 above.    China's economy grew 10% in the last quarter of last year ALONE.    They are also exempt from treaties restricting pollution and such because of their status as a developing nation.   They can burn coal and oil all they want with little to no restrictions, and since their ecnomoy is growing exponentially, it's suddenly put tremendous pressure on the oil market.

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.


I know the hip thing to do these days is to blame the President and throw that whole 'in bed with big oil' conspiracy out there, but please recognize when he is at fault for something and when he isn't.    This time he isn't.    He could no more control this situation than the man on the moon.

I'm already back. Just read what Punisher posted concerning his point number seven and would sort of agree.

I wonder what would happen if she moved her right arm back a bit to cover up the chest fold over illusion, which would also have the added benefit of raising the chest a little bit as well.

Another idea concerning the arms, taking into account the previous addition of moving her right back, would be to have her left arm bent so that her hand was doing something with her hair. Not necessarily running fingers through it, perhaps pushing it up a bit giving the sort of messy look (Seems like that was what you said you were going for), or even tweaking a small portion of hair.
Keeping with the smile thing, which I'm liking more, and this different pose maybe have her give more of a lazy kind of smile with her eyes a bit more closed. Which again, keeping to a previous comment you made, make her look a bit more relaxed than usual.

Yep.   As I said with Punisher -- it was a wierd shadow effect.    Good idea though and I'll definately get some smiles in there.

I am curious about some things...

1) What is the intent on posting this? To get better at picture taking? lighting? posing? etc... Serious question.

2) What were you trying to accomplish with the pictur itself? was it supposed to be sexy, cute, etc... If we know your intent, we can make sure that we are commenting on the correct thing.

3) Do you plan on making photography a job or hobby? Do you plan on different subject matter or stay specifically with people in general or your wife(?) specifically?

4) Did the picture include postwork? If so, what?

5) The background looks "wierd".

6) Lighting seems good except on her left arm.

7) The pose makes her chest area look unnatural and "folded over"

Tatoo should eithe rbe hidden or (if appropriate) shown.

9) Hair style should expose more of her face, but the half hidden eye does look interesting.

10) If you plan on doing this more often, you should post small series of pictures to help illustrate your strengths and weaknesses. Different lighting, poses, etc...

Hey Punisher.  Thanks for the questions:

1.  Yes.  To get advice on how to better pose her, lighting, etc.   The standard stuff.   I'd post it on a photography forum, but I know you guys much better than anyone on some strange forum and thus I somehow feel more comfortable posting it here (and thought the same about OO before the trolls showed up).

2.  sexy/sultry

3.  It's a recent hobby for me.   My whole gallery that includes other shots are at www.pbase.com/msduncan

4.  Yes.  The colors were very reddish/warm.   I did some color correction to get it right.  Other than that, none.

5.  Yeah... gotten several responses that mention the background 'clutter'.   Will work on fixing that with maybe a backdrop or something.

6.  The shadows under the arms were major problems.   Especially making her breasts appear strange for some reason.  I didn't see it until after I downloaded the pictures to the computer.

7.  Yeah.  She hated that part.   I think it was the shadows or something.   Her breasts don't look like that in person.   I also didn't notice this until post-editing.

8.  So don't half-do the tattoo.  Hide it or completely show it.   Gotcha.  Probably acts as a distraction if it's only partly shown because people try to make out what it is....

9.  That's the most common remark thus far.   Will be corrected in the next shoot.   Thanks!

10.  Great idea!

Thanks for the questions/feedback.   Very very good.   Very helpful.

I think she'd look better in a "cute" picture as opposed to this "sulty" one.  Flip the hair a little bit, let her SMILE, and I think you'd have yourself a great picture.

That's some advice I've read several times now.   Next shoot I'm going to go that angle.

[do not come into the thread just to say that]

If you don't think its the best idea, do not come into the thread just to say that. If you don't think its the best idea, do not come out of your permanent lurker mode just to pile on MSD. There is no need for this thread to get out of hand.

MSD, shes a pretty lady. I don't care much for the hairstyle in the pic, but that might just be her choice.

Thanks for the support.

Actually she didn't care for the hair either...it was my idea.   Was just toying around with different styles for the photos.

Thats your wife again?

Ok ill start with my opinion. Keep in mind I just got a camera about 2 years ago myself so my opinions are just that..my own dumb stuff

Model:

Different hairstyle. Perhaps all over to one side or a pony tail.

Different panties. Id say something that lets you see the full tattoo back there. A solid red T-Back would look nice...or even better a pair of Tangas..they are very small lace shorts. A nice solid white or red in those.

The shot:

Id say pull back somewhat. Enought to get all of her in it. The pose she is in is a good start. Have her bend her knees up so her feet are in the air and crossed and closer to her head. Move slightly more to her front. Have her on her elbows. Not enough to show full breasts or even nipple..just high enought to see cleavage and get a good smile on her

Have her chin propted on her  hands so that its resting on the heel of her hands with her fingers curled up. Perhaps a pouty look and pursed lips.


Ok thats it. Might conside a cheap tripod or minipod for the camera. Im going to be making me a homemade one from a soda bottle, bolt, and some tape

Great feedback!   Thanks!

The hairstyle -- I was going for unkempt look -- perhaps hinting of heavy petting prior to the shot or something?   Dunno... seen it done in ads and stuff before so I tried it.

Hair, "the look", angle of head, all look awesome.

Not enough definition on the rear. Too blurry and the way its cropped makes it look not as flattering as it should be. Don't really care for the style of underwear (or whatever they are) either. I think a solid color would have worked a lot better, maybe a beige or maroon looking at the other colors. A little cleavage would have been nice up front also, just a little tease, nothing major.

Yeah those underwear are the new hottest thing at Victoria Secrets.   The next photo session I'm going to try her with black panties.

Pigtails. Definitely pigtails.

:lol:

Hey guys.   I'm not sure how many of you saw the debacle that ultimately culminated in my letting a couple people on OO have a piece of my mind and getting a temporary ban out of the deal, but it started with the thread I'm going to re-post here.

This seems to be a little bit of a better climate than OO, and thus I trust that I can post my photos here and get feedback from those shutterbugs among us (and any of you that would like to comment respectfully feel free).

Demonstrating that I can learn my lesson, I'm going to request now that the comments please remain at least somewhat respectful (I mean you can say 'hawt', or 'nice but not my cup of tea' or even 'i'd hit it' or something... but please leave the whore comments out of this and anything else that is pointedly insulting -- and if you that don't understand what I'm getting at just visit the OO metaforum to find out what happened in the sister thread to this one over there a couple weeks back).

Anyway... here is the photo in question!



I look forward to your comments/advice/suggestions/observations!

Here's the specs on the machine I'm getting Tuesday:

Intel® Pentium® M Processor 780 (2.26 GHz/2MB Cache/533MHz FSB)
2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz 2 Dimm
256MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ Go 7800 GTX

msduncan - what brand laptop are you getting?  I'm currently configuring one from Sager with very similar specs (see my "Alienware Rip-Offs thread in Hardware).  I'm curious.  I'm going with the 2.0GHz Pentium M because I can't justify the $300 price jump going from the 2.0 to the 2.26.

Thanks!

Dell XPS m170

oh... and because of this advice I'm going to pick up a Lapcool4 to help cool my lappy for this thing.

I actually have a LapCool 2 I'm not using if you'd want to trade or buy.  I'd undercut  the cheapest price you could find on the internet.

Appreciate it, but apparently my brother had one too!    :p   He's going to give it to me for the bargain price of free!  

oh... and because of this advice I'm going to pick up a Lapcool4 to help cool my lappy for this thing.

Thanks guys!

I won't drudge up a bunch of it here to spare the community and the mods the headache...

But basically I got a 2 week ban for calling the 'assf*cks' out onto the carpet finally.

The mods were all very nice to me... but they had to take action for what I said.   It's all in the OO Metaforum.     I have a few days left on my ban timer (thursday night if I remember correctly).

Hey guys....   Since my ban from OO a week ago, I wound up canceling my Alienware computer in favor of a Dell XPS machine.   Long story --  concerns over AW support and turnaround time, reliability, etc.

Anyway...  I'm very much looking forward to Oblivion, and I preordered for the PC.   However, I'm wondering how even a Desktop Replacement Laptop will be able to handle it.  

Here's the specs on the machine I'm getting Tuesday:

Intel® Pentium® M Processor 780 (2.26 GHz/2MB Cache/533MHz FSB)
2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz 2 Dimm
256MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ Go 7800 GTX

This thing pulls around 6700 3dmark05 scores (over 7000 with auto overclock on).  

Will this thing handle Oblivion, or will I need to get it for the Xbox 360?

I see msduncan slipped ahead of me by 100 points for a brief period of time....well sorry to say msduncan, but your victory was short lived!

I'm now up to 79,325  

Ahahahahahahahh!

Before you even send me the message and logged off, I saw that you slipped ahead of me and I topped it by posting a score over 100,000!

Have fun!

 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Better check the retro leaderboard again, msduncan and Laner....

64,775 baby!

Beat that!

Actually, I already had.

Check out DestructorCG - 308,315 in Retro mode. Ranked #188 in the world.

Ah, how I've forgotten how much fun (and annoying) Geometry Wars is.

Makes note to not add Destructor to friends list so his score won't top mine....

I got one for Christmas and have had some problems with it.  I can only get it to display games in black and white, and the menu doesn't always seem to recognize controller input.

Keep meaning to find out where my mother purchased it so I can take it back and exchange for a working one, but it continually slips my mind.

Jesus!  They really ARE authentic to the originals then!  

Cool!