PDA

View Full Version : "A Big Whine from Big Oil"



fettpett
05-14-2011, 07:35 PM
EDITORIAL
A Big Whine From Big Oil
Published: May 14, 2011
RECOMMEND
TWITTER
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
REPRINTS
SHARE

With gas at $4 a gallon, oil at $100 a barrel and profits at near-record levels, it is hard to feel sympathy for the oil industry. Yet sympathy is what the C.E.O.’s of the five biggest companies asked for when they appeared Thursday before a Senate hearing on a Democratic proposal to eliminate about $2 billion in tax breaks for the Big Five.

Exxon’s Rex Tillerson called the proposal “misinformed and discriminatory.” ConocoPhillips’s James Mulva, in a letter, called the idea “un-American” because it would supposedly cost American jobs, raise consumer prices and discourage investment — a position he reasserted during the hearings.

The other three companies at the witness table, BP America, Shell and Chevron, raised similar complaints. How absurd are their claims? Utterly absurd.

Take investment. In 2005, with oil nearing $60 a barrel, Mr. Mulva and other top executives told a Senate committee that the companies did not need the tax breaks to keep exploring for oil. Congress left them in place. Now that the Senate seems serious about getting rid of them, he and his colleagues have changed their tune — even though their companies obviously need them even less at $100 a barrel.

Or take prices at the pump. In a memorandum to Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that eliminating the tax benefits would have virtually no effect on the price of gasoline. The impact on industry profits — the Big Five earned a robust $35 billion in the first quarter of this year alone — would be trivial.

The report also addressed one more industry claim: that ending the tax breaks for the oil companies alone would be discriminatory. Most of the breaks — deductions for well depletion, intangible drilling costs and the like — are unique to the industry. The exception is a deduction for domestic production, designed to encourage all manufacturing companies to invest in this country. But as the research service pointed out, industry is not going to stop drilling on American territory as long as the oil is there and yielding big dollars.

These subsidies are clearly unnecessary, and returning $2 billion to the Treasury would be a good thing. But more than anything, one has to wonder why the oil companies are fighting so hard for a comparatively small amount of cash, at least for them. The only explanation we can come up with is that they have always gotten what they wanted and expect to do so now, so why not?

The House is certainly tripping over itself to do the industry’s bidding. Last week, it passed two more irresponsible bills accelerating drilling permits and authorizing leasing in long-protected waters of the north and central Atlantic coasts, the Southern California coast and Alaska, including Bristol Bay. It is as if the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico had never happened.

It is imperative that the Senate block the House’s drilling and leasing plans, and that President Obama veto them if the Senate caves. And both the Senate and the president should keep pressing to eliminate the tax breaks. Three-fourths of Americans responding to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll said they want to end them.

Obviously, $4-a-gallon gas has something to do with this. But there is also an elemental matter of fairness here. As Mr. Obama put it in his radio address a week ago, when the oil companies are making huge profits and people are suffering and deficits are growing, “these tax giveaways aren’t right. They aren’t smart. And we need to end them.”

whoever wrote this is completely disconnected from reality

JB
05-14-2011, 08:00 PM
Why not eliminate the tax breaks?

If "corporations don't pay taxes, they just pass the cost onto the consumer", why not pass the $2 Billion onto the entire gas buying population instead of just the gas buying population that pays taxes.

This way, individuals that pay taxes and individuals that don't pay taxes get to eat the $2 Billion.

fettpett
05-14-2011, 08:19 PM
Why not eliminate the tax breaks?

If "corporations don't pay taxes, they just pass the cost onto the consumer", why not pass the $2 Billion onto the entire gas buying population instead of just the gas buying population that pays taxes.

This way, individuals that pay taxes and individuals that don't pay taxes get to eat the $2 Billion.

huh?

Tax breaks are breaks from having corps paying taxes, and are savings that are passed on.

Rockntractor
05-14-2011, 08:26 PM
huh?

Tax breaks are breaks from having corps paying taxes, and are savings that are passed on.

His logic is that everyone uses gas whether they are paying taxes or not, and this would put some more of the burden on the deadbeats.
The flaw I see there is that the economy comes to a standstill when oil prices are too high and that is bad for everyone.

JB
05-14-2011, 08:36 PM
The flaw I see there is that the economy comes to a standstill when oil prices are too high and that is bad for everyone.I imagine you mean gas prices because a good side conversation would be "Eliminating the tax breaks should have zero effect on the price of a barrel of oil".

Since oil is priced on the global maket. Or at least it should be.

Rockntractor
05-14-2011, 08:38 PM
I imagine you mean gas prices because a good side conversation would be "Eliminating the tax breaks should have zero effect on the price of a barrel of oil".

Since oil is priced on the global maket. Or at least it should be.

I meant to say fuel.

txradioguy
05-15-2011, 01:11 AM
Why not eliminate the tax breaks?

If "corporations don't pay taxes, they just pass the cost onto the consumer", why not pass the $2 Billion onto the entire gas buying population instead of just the gas buying population that pays taxes.

This way, individuals that pay taxes and individuals that don't pay taxes get to eat the $2 Billion.

You should really know what you're talking about before you hit "submit reply".


In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that's not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_kind_of_tax_breaks_does_the.html

I guess if you want to watch what is left of the U.S. oil and gas industry leave our shores...you can go ahead and side with the Libs and call for eliminating the tax breaks. You gonna hold your head up high when the Liberals in this country succeed in killing off an entire industry in the name of "the environment"?

:rolleyes:


Our Federal Government and the outrageous taxes they impose are the reason those companies need the incentives. They have to have them to remain competitive.

There isn't much incentive as it is to drill in the UlS because of the draconian taxes and regulations that are imposed purposely to keep interest in domestic production low. Eliminating the tax breaks will choke what life is left right out if it.

But then again it would give Libs new life on their constant bitch about jobs leaving our country for places like China and India.

Starbuck
05-15-2011, 09:08 AM
The oil companies receive about 2 billion in tax breaks each year. They show profits of 200 billion.

The national debt is 14 trillion.

So eliminating these tax breaks, while it should be done, will have almost no effect on paying down the debt.

Nor will it effect the price of gasoline. After all, we use about 14 Million barrels/day ( 3.3 billion barrels/yr), so we're talking about a tax break that is worth 70 cents/barrel. And for right now, that barrel costs 100$.


]The 41 U.S. oil and gas companies that break out their federal taxes said they paid Uncle Sam $5.7 billion in 2010, according to data compiled by Compustat. That's more than any other industry. Exxon alone paid $1.3 billion. (The company's total tax bill was $21.5 billion, but most of that was paid to foreign governments and states.)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43004049/ns/business-oil_and_energy/t/how-oil-industry-saves-billion-year-taxes/

JB
05-15-2011, 09:28 PM
...Do corporations pay taxes?

I don't mean do they remit payments to the US Treasury, I mean do they pay taxes? Or are taxes just costs that are built into the price of a product? Which means consumers actually pay. So, yes or no, "Do corporations pay taxes"?

Let's take a look at what's happening here:

The big five in Big Oil made $35 Billion in profit in Q1 of this year. If that holds, extrapolate that out to $140 Billion in profits for the year.

Do you honestly believe that if $2 Billion in tax cuts were eliminated that (paraphrasing your words) "the US oil and gas industry would leave our shores", that "it would kill of an entire industry", that "they would no longer remain competitve" and that "the life would be choked out of the industry"?

Do you honestly believe that? Seriously?

ExxonMobil alone has a $398 Billion dollar market cap. They are on track to do $456 Billion in gross sales this year. I really don't think $2B is going to do much damage.

Why aren't you outraged? Here's an industry that took $35B out of your one pocket and now wants to reach into your other pocket and take another $2B of your money.

Would you be so outraged if it was GeorgeSoros, Inc. that was getting breaks like this? Or are you defending BigOil because they are a bogeyman to the left and you feel you just have to defend them by default?

txradioguy
05-16-2011, 02:56 AM
uninformed drivel here

Save the stump speech for people that...like you don't know what they're talking about.

il companies when you look at their profit margin aren't very successful. They average in the 7-10% range.

While you buy into the stupid MSM hype of demonizing Exxon-Mobil and other "Big Oil" corporations they are barely considered successful when you look at the bottom line of other Fortune 500 companies.

But hey that's ok...ignore the hard truth that's been posted here about why gas prices are so high...ignore the fact that the Federal Government makes DOUBLE what any oil company does off a gallon of gasoline.

Stick tho the stuff you can spout that doesn't require any serious or deep thought.

And for those of you that despise eeeeeevil oil companies...where the fuck were you when the price of a barrel of oil was BELOW $10? When natural gas dropped BELOW $2 Mcf?

When there was a march on Austin demanding that the Gov go to D.C. and do something to save the industry?

Oh yeah...y'all didn't GIVE A RATS ASS. Doesn't matter what's happening to "Big Oil" when gas is $1 a gallon.

You don't stop to think why all those oil companies merged as long as it costs you $20 to fill up your truck.

Profit margins and earnings? Pfft...who cares gas is cheap!

Who needs to worry about draconian environmental regulations being snuck in and the fact there are only 5 gasoline refineries IN THE ENTIRE USA and they're working at 110-115% of capacity.

Never mind that the taxes alone on a gallon of gas contribute more to the high price than anything the oil company does.

As long as I can fill up my Explorer for $30 I give a DAMN.

But the moment gas prices start to rise and people start to feel a pinch in the wallet...

:rolleyes:

JB
05-16-2011, 09:04 PM
Insults and frothing, the TRG mantra. :rolleyes:
They average in the 7-10% range.Their profit margins are in that range because Oil is a highly capital intensive industry. That also means that there are huge barriers to entry into the market. That's why you don't see oil companies popping up on every corner when there's $140B in profits to be had. People would be skimming like crazy. Numbers like those would attract every Tom, Dick and Harry to enter and exit the market. But you can't. So they don't.


..ignore the fact that the Federal Government makes DOUBLE what any oil company does off a gallon of gasoline.Elementary and not necessarily true.

EIA economist Neal Davis told FactCheck.org..."that trying to reduce profit figures to a per-gallon average for gasoline would be 'heroic at best' and 'sadly misinformed' at worst." Link (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_government_really_make_more_in.html)


...the fact there are only 5 gasoline refineries IN THE ENTIRE USA and they're working at 110-115% of capacity.LMAO. Facts? What the fuck do you know about facts? There's about 150 refineries in the US and most recently they were operating at 81.7% capacity. see first pdf at this link (http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/wpsr.html)

I would guess that they haven't operated above 100% in the last five years.

And speaking of new refineries...new refineries haven't been built not because of what you believe but because no one wants to really be in the refining business. Oil companies make their money off exploration not refining. Refining is cyclical. No one wants to invest in new plant that could go underutilized when modernization and new technology allows for increased production without new plant.

To wit: "In 1982 (the earliest data provided), the United States operated 301 refineries with a combined capacity of 17.9 million barrels of crude oil each calendar day. In 2010, there were 149 operable U.S. refineries with a combined capacity of 17.6 million barrels per calendar day. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refineries#cite_note-19)

Why would anyone throw billions of dollars at a new plant when existing plants are sufficiently meeting demand?

From now on source your nonsense or we'll just assume you're full of shit until proven otherwise.

By the way...Do Corporations pay taxes?

djones520
05-16-2011, 09:12 PM
Insults and frothing, the TRG mantra. :rolleyes:Their profit margins are in that range because Oil is a highly capital intensive industry. That also means that there are huge barriers to entry into the market. That's why you don't see oil companies popping up on every corner when there's $140B in profits to be had. People would be skimming like crazy. Numbers like those would attract every Tom, Dick and Harry to enter and exit the market. But you can't. So they don't.

Elementary and not necessarily true.

EIA economist Neal Davis told FactCheck.org..."that trying to reduce profit figures to a per-gallon average for gasoline would be 'heroic at best' and 'sadly misinformed' at worst." Link (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_government_really_make_more_in.html)

LMAO. Facts? What the fuck do you know about facts? There's about 150 refineries in the US and most recently they were operating at 81.7% capacity. see first pdf at this link (http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/wpsr.html)

I would guess that they haven't operated above 100% in the last five years.

And speaking of new refineries...new refineries haven't been built not because of what you believe but because no one wants to really be in the refining business. Oil companies make their money off exploration not refining. Refining is cyclical. No one wants to invest in new plant that could go underutilized when modernization and new technology allows for increased production without new plant.

To wit: "In 1982 (the earliest data provided), the United States operated 301 refineries with a combined capacity of 17.9 million barrels of crude oil each calendar day. In 2010, there were 149 operable U.S. refineries with a combined capacity of 17.6 million barrels per calendar day. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refineries#cite_note-19)

Why would anyone throw billions of dollars at a new plant when existing plants are sufficiently meeting demand?

From now on source your nonsense or we'll just assume you're full of shit until proven otherwise.

By the way...Do Corporations pay taxes?

US Demand is 21 million barrels a day. Back in 1982 17.9 might have met demand, but it doesn't today. We're importing nearly a 5th of our daily consumption of gasoline. Think how much cheaper it could be if we didn't have to.

JB
05-16-2011, 10:08 PM
We're importing nearly a 5th of our daily consumption of gasoline. Think how much cheaper it could be if we didn't have to.That's a make or buy decision and I didn't do a search to see if it's costlier to produce a gallon of gas or buy a gallon of finished gas product.

However, I will stipulate that you are correct and that it's more expensive to import finished gasoline product. The problem is, it won't last.

As I've shown, refineries are not operating at full capacity. And over the next decade between increased fuel efficiency and renewable fuel mandates gasoline demand will decrease and the US might very well be a net exporter of finished gasoline product since we have what are probably the most efficient refineries in the world. There's just no reason to build new refineries.

I'll have to go find the info but I think your 20% import figure is too high. I thought I saw where it's 1 in 9 gallons are imported which puts it closer to 11%.

djones520
05-16-2011, 10:11 PM
That's a make or buy decision and I didn't do a search to see if it's costlier to produce a gallon of gas or buy a gallon of finished gas product.

However, I will stipulate that you are correct and that it's more expensive to import finished gasoline product. The problem is, it won't last.

As I've shown, refineries are not operating at full capacity. And over the next decade between increased fuel efficiency and renewable fuel mandates gasoline demand will decrease and the US might very well be a net exporter of finished gasoline product since we have what are probably the most efficient refineries in the world. There's just no reason to build new refineries.

I'll have to go find the info but I think your 20% import figure is too high. I thought I saw where it's 1 in 9 gallons are imported which puts it closer to 11%.

Well if American's are consuming 21 million barrels, and we're only producing 17.6 million barrels, that mean's we're importing 3.4 million barrels, which comes to be around 16.2 percent.

JB
05-16-2011, 10:39 PM
Well if American's are consuming 21 million barrels, and we're only producing 17.6 million barrels, that mean's we're importing 3.4 million barrels, which comes to be around 16.2 percent.You originally mentioned gasoline not all petroleum products but, either way, I'll give you that 16.2% figure.

Still won't change the fact that no new refineries will be built for the reasons already discussed.

Actually, there's a guy outside Phoenix trying to build one. Already cleared some of his permits. He just can't find anyone to invest. I wouldn't...invest that is.

djones520
05-16-2011, 10:49 PM
I take it your talking about Glenn McGinnis? I can't find any stories about him newer then 2006, but the latest one I found had him looking for an oil supply. He couldn't get any US oil because all that was being allowed to be drilled was already committed, so he was looking to Canada for some.

Perhaps when our fields begin to open up more, there will be people a bit more interested.

lacarnut
05-17-2011, 12:00 AM
Insults and frothing, the TRG mantra. :rolleyes:Their profit margins are in that range because Oil is a highly capital intensive industry. That also means that there are huge barriers to entry into the market. That's why you don't see oil companies popping up on every corner when there's $140B in profits to be had. People would be skimming like crazy. Numbers like those would attract every Tom, Dick and Harry to enter and exit the market. But you can't. So they don't.

Elementary and not necessarily true.

EIA economist Neal Davis told FactCheck.org..."that trying to reduce profit figures to a per-gallon average for gasoline would be 'heroic at best' and 'sadly misinformed' at worst." Link (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_government_really_make_more_in.html)

LMAO. Facts? What the fuck do you know about facts? There's about 150 refineries in the US and most recently they were operating at 81.7% capacity. see first pdf at this link (http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/wpsr.html)

I would guess that they haven't operated above 100% in the last five years.

And speaking of new refineries...new refineries haven't been built not because of what you believe but because no one wants to really be in the refining business. Oil companies make their money off exploration not refining. Refining is cyclical. No one wants to invest in new plant that could go underutilized when modernization and new technology allows for increased production without new plant.

To wit: "In 1982 (the earliest data provided), the United States operated 301 refineries with a combined capacity of 17.9 million barrels of crude oil each calendar day. In 2010, there were 149 operable U.S. refineries with a combined capacity of 17.6 million barrels per calendar day. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refineries#cite_note-19)

Why would anyone throw billions of dollars at a new plant when existing plants are sufficiently meeting demand?

From now on source your nonsense or we'll just assume you're full of shit until proven otherwise.

By the way...Do Corporations pay taxes?

The EIA also stated that taxes account for 12% for the price of a gallon of gas and big oil accounts for 7%. The Anneberg Factcheck.org article is a joke because they came to the conclusion that the gov. possibly takes a bigger share. Here are a couple of facts. The oil companies have remitted billions in corporate taxes and withholding taxes. Plus, they pay the Feds for rents, royalties and lease payments each year. The oil companies also support 9.2 million jobs.

I have no problem with taking the 2 billion away from big oil provided all subsidies like Ethanol, food crops, electric, wind and solar are also removed. Let the free market work. Not like the Magic Negro wants it to, and that is to take away from the oil companies and give it to the greenies. You have got one thing right and that is oil companies pay no taxes. However, consumer do and increasing their cost will result in higher prices. I should not give a shit because I have two oil royalties. The higher the price, the higher my monthly check.

You are the one that is full of shit if you do not think that taking away subsidies from the big oil companies will not lead to higher prices. Looks like the morons in Congress are ready to do that. Taking away from a highly profitable industry and giving it to the green industry is just so American and democratic. Only fools believe that crap.

txradioguy
05-17-2011, 04:07 AM
Insults and frothing, the TRG mantra. :rolleyes:

Insults are direted accurately at those deserving of them. No frothing just stating fact.

And it beats being a lying bullshit artist like yourself.



Their profit margins are in that range because Oil is a highly capital intensive industry. That also means that there are huge barriers to entry into the market. That's why you don't see oil companies popping up on every corner when there's $140B in profits to be had. People would be skimming like crazy. Numbers like those would attract every Tom, Dick and Harry to enter and exit the market. But you can't. So they don't.

You don't see oil companies in the same volume that you used to because the Government has made it damn near impossible as a small to medium sized operator to remain in business via regulations and taxes. Those that survived managed to do it because they also explore sell and produce Natural Gas reserves they own or through merger. The capital invested into the machinery is a part of it...and those rigs only make money if they are active. Right now there is no incentive for companies...potential start ups or otherwise to attempt nex explortion on leases...assuming they can get permission to drill because the Government and specifically this administration doesn't want any new oil production in the U.S.



Elementary and not necessarily true.

It's essential to the conversation. And you're right...it's not double, it's more.



But the fact is, the gross profit margin for a gallon of gas in America today, is what it has always been, on average, .08 cents per gallon, (2.5% at $3.00 per gallon). Though retail gas prices fluctuate with crude prices and supply vs. demand, the gross profit margin per gallon remains roughly the same at all times. (No evidence of price gouging here.)

However the federal government profits approximately .59 cents per gallon through gasoline taxes, 7 ½ times or 750% that of the oil producers themselves and 20% of the price at the pumps. Pay attention here, Washington liberals are attacking oil companies for their 2.5% gross profit margin, while Washington is profiting 20% per gallon. Democrats answer? Tax some more?

If oil companies cut their profit margins by 50%, it would drop the price of a gallon of gas by only .04 cents per gallon. If Washington law makers cut their take by 50%, gasoline would cost .30 cents per gallon less. If the federal government didn’t tax gasoline at all, the price per gallon at the pumps would be $2.40 per gallon instead of $3.00 per gallon and the oil companies would still be at a respectable 2.5% gross profit margin. Who is gouging whom?



http://jb-williams.com/4-25-06.htm

But you don't want to talk about this part because it ruins your meme about the eeeeeevil Big Oil.

God forbid that folks actually know who is really screwing them over whenthey fill up.

:rolleyes:


EIA economist Neal Davis told FactCheck.org..."that trying to reduce profit figures to a per-gallon average for gasoline would be 'heroic at best' and 'sadly misinformed' at worst." Link (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_government_really_make_more_in.html)

And yet some how it's done all the time. Been done since before you and I were born.

Sounds like FactCheck needs to check their own claims.



LMAO. Facts? What the fuck do you know about facts? There's about 150 refineries in the US and most recently they were operating at 81.7% capacity. see first pdf at this link (http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/wpsr.html)

I would guess that they haven't operated above 100% in the last five years.

I appearently know a hell of a lot more than you do. And I continue to prove it on a daily basis.

Now genius...of those 150 refineries...how many are dedicated to producing gasoline?

What it the quality of the crude that comes in? Can you make low emissions (low sulfur) gas from it? What about the special blen required for California? Chicago?

You were in such a rush to pull a gotcha on me that you didn't stop to consider that critical piece of information did you?

Just because it's an "oil refinery" you obtuse jackass...doesn't mean it makes gasoline. There are all kinds of derivitives that come from a barrel of oil and that have to be refined.

You'd know that if you actually took the time to research and learn about this stuff. Instead you get to look like a clueless moron...again.


And speaking of new refineries...new refineries haven't been built not because of what you believe but because no one wants to really be in the refining business. Oil companies make their money off exploration not refining. Refining is cyclical. No one wants to invest in new plant that could go underutilized when modernization and new technology allows for increased production without new plant.

There is so much stupid here I don't know where to begin.

The tragic thing is that you ACTUALLY believe that bullshit. Good god. When was the last time you actually talked with someone that works in the oil business? Or is it below your station in life to do such a thing?

Exploration you idiot is only profitable on successful finds. And oil companies hit several dry holes for every successful new discovery. So any profit from a successful new field has some of that money taken away to cover the expense of the unsuccesful drilling. Exporation is only the first step..and it's a baby step in drilling for oil. That you think it's where the Oil Companies make most of their money shows how little you know and understand about the business.

Environmental regularions and requirements (by the EPA and state agencies) have substantially increased the cost and complexity of getting permits and then building a new refinery, above these costs 30 years ago. There are many hoops that an oil company must jump through to build a new refinery. It is cheaper (but still quite expensive) to expand an existing refinery.

The total crude oil refining capacity in the United States is not large enough to produce enough gasoline (or diesel fuel) to meet the market demand for these fuels, particularly in the summer months when more people drive. There has not been a new refinery built in the US in about 30 years (the Marathon refinery at Garyville, LA being the last new refinery built in the US).

http://www.wisegeek.com/how-is-the-price-of-gasoline-determined.htm


The EPA has also thrown in a little caveat that if you expand an existing refinery it has to adhere to current EPA emissions standards not the ones of the existing property...which again deters because of the cost involved....expansion of current gasoline refineries.



To wit: "In 1982 (the earliest data provided), the United States operated 301 refineries with a combined capacity of 17.9 million barrels of crude oil each calendar day. In 2010, there were 149 operable U.S. refineries with a combined capacity of 17.6 million barrels per calendar day. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refineries#cite_note-19)

Why would anyone throw billions of dollars at a new plant when existing plants are sufficiently meeting demand?

First off Wiki isn't a credible source. Secondly, the 1982 date you cherry picked was at the height of the last oil "boom" in this country. Know hwat happened in 1983?

Oh and while we're refining that 17.9 million a day, we're using a little over 20.

Now to completely blow your bullshit out of the water...


But there are limits to how much gasoline these refineries can produce, based on the type of crude oil a particular refinery is using and its processing equipment. In general, gasoline makes up about half of the total output.


http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/about/energy/energyissues/pages/supply.aspx



That crude — and the products it produces — range in temperature from zero to 1400 degrees during the process. Operating pressures range from 10 pounds to 1500. Then there are the many different products that can be distilled from that barrel of crude — from gases like propane, to lighter liquids like gasoline and diesel fuel, to the heavier “residual” fuels used by power plants or ship boilers, to asphalt and “coke” — the hard black substance left after you’ve pulled everything else out of the oil.

“Different refineries — depending on how much money has been spent on them — and what processing units they have — have greater flexibility to make larger amount of gasoline out of a barrel of oil than others,” said Phillip.


And there’s little consistency to a refiner’s biggest end product — gasoline. Beyond the familiar regular, mid-grade and premium grades, there are more than a dozen “formulations” — blends with a variety of additives designed to meet a patchwork of state-by-state clean air regulations, many of which can only be sold in specific regions. Not all refineries are set up to make all blends



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6019739/ns/business-oil_and_energy/t/us-refiners-stretch-meet-demand/


You don't know what the hell you are talking about and I just proved it.



From now on source your nonsense or we'll just assume you're full of shit until proven otherwise.

That's pretty funny coming from the in-house CU liar. But ok I'll play your stupid little game.

I enjoy making your pompus arrogant ass look stupid.


By the way...Do Corporations pay taxes?

Yes and on average it's a 27.7% tax rate.

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/capital/2011/04/14/yes-america-corporations-do-pay-taxes

Now GFYS.

JB
05-17-2011, 09:36 PM
You could reduce the size of your replies by about 40% if you weren't such a rabid animal. But keep it up. It's a good look for you. Especially when you go psycho on the CU females. You are way too volatile and insecure for these messageboards. It does explain why you've been banned from several of them though. Kudos.

Now, let's have some fun:
First you said "there are only 5 gasoline refineries IN THE ENTIRE USA and they're working at 110-115% of capacity."

Then you moved the goalposts and said "of those 150 refineries...how many are dedicated to producing gasoline?I already bunked your capacity figure so I won't address that again. (you lied).

So who produces gasoline:

Exxon Baton Rouge produces gasoline. Link (http://exxonmobil.com/NA-English/PA/about_where_ref_br_refinery.aspx)
Exxon Torrance produces gasoline. Link (http://exxonmobil.com/NA-English/PA/about_where_ref_torrance.aspx)
Valero Ardmore produces gasoline. Link (http://www.valero.com/OurBusiness/OurLocations/Refineries/Pages/Ardmore.aspx)
Valero Houston produces gasoline. Link (http://www.valero.com/OurBusiness/OurLocations/Refineries/Pages/Houston.aspx)
Valero Memphis produces gasoline. Link (http://www.valero.com/OurBusiness/OurLocations/Refineries/Pages/Memphis.aspx)
Valero Texas City produces gasoline. Link (http://www.valero.com/OurBusiness/OurLocations/Refineries/Pages/TexasCity.aspx)

I'll stop right there. That's six refineries that produce gasoline. Whatta ya know, six is greater than five. It looks like more than five refineries in the US are producing gasoline. (you lied again).

Now let's do some very basic math:
The US consumes 9 million barrels of gasoline a day. Link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=23&t=10)

Let's be generous and say that 20% of that is imported. So, US refineries would need to refine 7,200,000 (= 9,000,000 * .8) barrels a day to make up the difference.

That means each of those five dedicated gasoline producing refineries (wherever they are) would need to refine 1,440,000 (= 7,200,000 / 5) barrels each . The only problem is, the largest refinery in the US, Exxon's Baytown refinery, is itself only capable of refining 567,000 barrels per day. Link (http://www.jazdoilandgas.com/top-oil-refineries-us-refineries-operable-capacity/)

It looks like you came up a few barrels short on who can refine what. You see what I'm talking about there? Should I type slower? (oh, you lied again)

Then I said no one really wants to be in the refining business but would rather be in the exploration business. You went rabid on the exploration part of my post but exploration means exploration and production or...the upstream part of the business as opposed to the downstream (refining).

But let's hear from some experts that are not TRG:

"The business of turning crude oil into gasoline, jet fuel or heating oil has rarely been a lucrative proposition. It has dismal profit margins compared with its more glamorous cousin, exploration".

"As our Kristin Miller wrote January 22nd, refiners are closing facilities, reducing output, and cutting payrolls in response to weak demand for refined petroleum products. This weak demand can be seen in falling profits—and even outright losses—being posted by the refinery operations of major global energy companies, such as Exxon and Chevron."

"Because the money is in production, not refining, that’s where energy companies are investing. Exxon increased its capital and exploration expenditures by 21 percent in 4th-quarter 2009, while Chevron has been bidding for access to new reserves in Venezuela."

"the major companies have huge operating costs to take into consideration, so it is small wonder that a lot of these refinery companies are worried for their future. Some of the people working in the refiners are worried that their company will no longer be able to cope with the high costs of refining and are predicting that many refinery companies will shut their doors. Many question how many refinery companies will survive if they do not fight to adapt to other products that do not require crude oil."

"In short, investors, like the oil industry itself, are concerned that refining will one day revert to being a barely profitable business. 'These guys don't want to put money into a business that's historically cyclical,' he said."

"The EIA says that not only has gasoline demand in the United States decreased slightly this year compared to 2010, refining in general has been less profitable than other oil industry segments since at least the 1990s.

"even though owning a refinery might be a good short-term bet, no company wants to risk getting stuck holding an under-performing asset as the market landscape changes.

"That leaves plenty of refineries in the United States, mostly in areas outside of the Midwest and the Gulf, that simply don't make enough money to move the profit needle for their owners, and may never do so again. "A lot of them are going to have to be turned into terminals or shuttered," Good says, regardless of how high -- or low -- the price of gasoline goes."Phew.
Yes and on average it's a 27.7% tax rate.
From what I've seen on here, most of CU would have said "no" to that question.

I'll probably exit this thread after you make your rabid reply. Because, like a bitch, I know you need to have the last word. My leisure time is just too valuable to be spending time making you look stupid.