Chevron CEO says there may never be another oil refinery built in the US

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  6 days ago  •  129 comments

By:   Breck Dumas (Fox Business)

Chevron CEO says there may never be another oil refinery built in the US
Chevron CEO Mike Wirth says he doubts a new oil refinery will ever be built in the U.S. again, given the federal government's policies.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T




Chevron CEO Mike Wirth says he does not expect another oil refinery to be built in the U.S. ever again, pointing to decades of federal government policies as the reason why.

"There hasn't been a refinery built in this country since the 1970s," Wirth said at Bernstein's Strategic Decisions Conference this week, when asked about the prospect of new capacity being added in the Gulf of Mexico. "I personally don't believe there will be a new petroleum refinery ever built in this country again."

Ticker Security Last Change Change %
CVX CHEVRON CORP. 154.58 +6.34 +4.28%

"Capacity is added by de-bottlenecking existing units by investing in existing refineries," he explained. "But what we've seen over the last two years are shutdowns. We've seen refineries closed. We've seen units come down. We've seen refineries being repurposed to become bio refineries. And we live in a world where the policy, the stated policy of the U.S. government is to reduce demand for the products that refiners produce."

Wirth went on to list examples such as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for fuel efficiency in vehicles that Congress first enacted in the 70s, the Renewable Fuel Standard created in 2005 requiring a certain amount of biofuels like Ethanol to replace petroleum-based fuels, and electric vehicle tax subsidies.

"At every level of the system, the policy of our government is to reduce demand, and so it's very hard in a business where investments have a payout period of a decade or more," Wirth said. "And the stated policy of the government for a long time has been to reduce demand for your products."

A view of the Phillips 66 Company's Los Angeles Refinery (foreground), which processes domestic and imported crude oil into gasoline, aviation and diesel fuels, March 11, 2022. ( REUTERS/Bing Guan / Reuters Photos)

To put things in perspective, Wirth asked rhetorically, "How do you go to your board, how do you go to your shareholders and say 'we're going to spend billions of dollars on new capacity in a market that is, you know, the policy is taking you in the other direction."

Wirth's comments come as the U.S. grapples with soaring gasoline prices that were already climbing in 2021 amid increased demand and reduced supply and were exacerbated by Western sanctions imposed on Russia, a major oil exporter, for its invasion of Ukraine.

The average price for a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. hit a fresh record high of $4.761 on Friday, according to the latest data from AAA. While U.S. crude closed at $118.87 per barrel on Friday.

Ticker Security Last Change Change %
USO UNITED STATES OIL FUND L.P. 84.05 +0.71 +0.85%
UGA UNITED STATES GASOLINE FUND LP PARTNERSHIP UNITS 71.01 +0.34 +0.47%

The Biden administration has sought to ease the rising prices by releasing a record 180 million barrels from the already-depleated Strategic Petroleum Reserve over six months starting in March, and by urging both foreign and domestic producers to increase output.

Wirth said that is just what the industry is doing.

"We raised our Permian [Basin] production growth outlook to 15% this year," he said. "So the narrative you hear that the industry is not growing production is not true. We are growing production and our industry is growing production."


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    6 days ago

Two and a half years away from a change in this terrible policy.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    6 days ago

Yea Vic, the CEO of an oil company is working to tell USA LL the TRUTH, as his company probably doubled their multi billion dollar first quarter profits, y oh y do you think he might Lie….?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Ender  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1    6 days ago

Big oil salesman. Sounds like a used car salesman.

They are afraid to refine yet they are...

Chevron's Pascagoula Refinery processes 350,000 barrels (14.742 million gallons) of crude oil a day - an amount equivalent to the size of a football field covered to a depth of 41 feet.

Chevron Pascagoula Refinery is primarily a fuels refinery, in that we mainly manufacture motor gasoline, about 130,000 barrels per day (BPD); jet fuel, 50,000 BPD; and diesel fuel, 68,000 BPD. Our other products include fuel oils such as Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), aviation gasoline, petroleum coke and sulfur.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1    6 days ago

Sounds like you've been listening to Joe Biden. He also said he wanted to end US oil production.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
1.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1    6 days ago
Yea Vic, the CEO of an oil company is working to tell USA LL the TRUTH, as his company probably doubled their multi billion dollar first quarter profits, y oh y do you think he might Lie….?

Those are short term profits that are not sustainable.  Oil has a history of boom/bust cycles.  There's no doubt the regulatory environment has become much more antagonistic toward oil producers.  Government really has adopted a policy position to eliminate oil the same as coal.  There isn't anything that suggests investments in oil production will pay off.  Governments have committed themselves to ensuring that oil has no future.

But we can't just pull the plug.  Transitioning away from oil will require decades simply because we can't produce and deploy alternatives that quickly.  The United States produces and imports about 10 million vehicles a year.  So, it will require at least a decade to transition to EVs unless we grossly distort the market which will only create bigger problems in the future.  The ramifications of a transition to EVs will extend far beyond oil.

Oil companies will need to transition to energy companies to remain in business.  And those oil profits will be needed to transition to alternatives.  The political hyperbole is focusing attention on profits made by business units, such as refineries, but that doesn't necessarily translate to overall corporate profit.    

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.3    6 days ago

doesn't necessarily translate to overall corporate profit.    

Really….?  Do tell, what other entities do share in these multi BILLION DOLLAR QUARTER PROFITS?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.4    6 days ago

Aren't many of  the US refineries, owned independently, not by the big oil companies?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.5    6 days ago

I am the one who inquired 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
1.1.7  Nerm_L  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.5    5 days ago
Aren't many of  the US refineries, owned independently, not by the big oil companies?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
1.1.8  Nerm_L  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.4    5 days ago
doesn't necessarily translate to overall corporate profit.     Really….?  Do tell, what other entities do share in these multi BILLION DOLLAR QUARTER PROFITS?

The article is focused more on European investments in alternative energy.  The oil majors are creating subsidiaries that are pursuing market share in the alternative energy markets.  

Planning by oil companies is performed by technical people rather than politicians.  The oil companies are motivated by a sustainable future for their business rather than winning the next election.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.8    5 days ago

PLEASE….do tell how

The oil companies are motivated by a sustainable future for their business rather than winning the next election.

.

How they can be separable ?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.10  Ronin2  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.9    5 days ago

Simple buy off Republicans for benefits to keep the oil and gas coming now. Buy off the Democrats for tax breaks to ensure Green energy development. 

Either way they win, either long term or short term. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    6 days ago

(NYSE: CVX) today reported earnings of $6.3 billion ($3.22 per share - diluted) for first quarter 2022, compared with $1.4 billion ($0.72 per share - diluted) in first quarter 2021. Included in the current quarter were pension settlement costs of $66 million.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Ender  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.2    6 days ago

If you ask me, they are just making up loses they had during the pandemic.

They could care less about us or the government. The government is just a scapegoat.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.2.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ender @1.2.1    6 days ago

didn’t know 1.4 BILLION profit was a loss $ loss.  Oh the humanity

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.2    6 days ago

Joe Biden's government is over 30 Trillion in debt.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.4  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    6 days ago
Using Treasury Direct's data, from the time Trump took office in January 2017 through September of this year, the national debt rose from $19.9 trillion to $26.9 trillion, which is an increase of $7 trillion in Trump's first term.
 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.2.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @1.2.4    6 days ago
through September of this year,

Why did you count through Sept of this year?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
1.2.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.5    6 days ago

It is a November 2020 article.............and I guess some would rather we hadn't spent about $3Trillion on fighting Covid and supplying vaccines as well as some everyday reliefs.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.2.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.6    6 days ago

How bout some would rather know the actual statistics that Vic is distorting 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.2.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.2.7    6 days ago

Which stats?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.9  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.6    6 days ago

Excuses. But trump had to......

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.2.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @1.2.9    6 days ago

Again, why count through Sept 2022 to calculate the debt under Trump?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.2.11  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.8    6 days ago

Which stats?

the ones Vic implied to be solely seen as Biden’s 30 TRILLION $ debt, and many will wrongly infer that Trump had not any contribution, cause inference inferred leads to implications implied

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.2.12  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.2.11    5 days ago
the ones Vic implied to be solely seen as Biden’s 30 TRILLION $ debt,

I've never thought of a balance sheet or ledger as stats, but Ok.

many will wrongly infer that Trump had not any contribution,

Please give NT's more credit than that.  We all know that total federal debt climbs under each administration.

cause inference inferred leads to implications implied

If you say so.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.12    5 days ago
We all know that total federal debt climbs under each administration.

Unfortunately for the American people.   But not everyone makes it a campaign promise:

Candidate Trump decried the national debt in 2016 and promised to eliminate it. It's only gotten bigger.   
 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.2.14  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.13    5 days ago
  • President Trump promised during his 2016 campaign that he would eliminate the national debt in eight years.
  • It was projected that he would add at least $8.3 trillion.
  • The national debt reached a high of $27 trillion in October 2020, an increase of almost 36% since President Trump took office in 2017.
  • The national debt reached a record high shortly after President Trump left office, then the debt limit was increased again under President Biden.
 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.2.15  igknorantzrulz  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.2.14    5 days ago

Notice, how I chose to leave in the final bullet point. Cause I’m about FULL CONTEXT, something rarely applied by some 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.2.16  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.13    5 days ago
But not everyone makes it a campaign promise:

I wasn't foolish enough to believe.  Over half the federal expenditures go to entitlements.  Inflation will make our cost of servicing our debt higher.  Of course the money won't be worth as much.  Maybe we can inflate our way out of debt ;>)

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.2.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.2.14    5 days ago

The sky's the limit.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.18  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.13    5 days ago

That steaming pile of shit fucks up everything it touches.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.19  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.16    5 days ago
I wasn't foolish enough to believe. 

Your belief in a campaign promise has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the promise was made and the reverse was done.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.2.20  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.17    5 days ago

To a balloon boy in a plastic Bubble Boy wrap, served with halopenois peppers and broken chips off the engine block of Ponches thrashed and crashed Harley a Davidson in the bunched, up like under wear I wore an over coated twice trench over coat , under my normal wears, n tearz, that keep crying out four more years than some could count 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.2.21  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.18    5 days ago

You mean Brandon? Yes he is the human fuck up machine. Thank you for finally stating it.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.2.22  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.19    5 days ago

So we can hold Brandon accountable for not "ending Covid" right? He made the promise; and Covid is still around. There have been more deaths under his watch than Trump's.

He also stated "Any responsible for so many Covid deaths should not remain President". Yet, Brandon hasn't resigned.

"Anyone who's responsible for that many deaths should not remain as president of the United States of America," Biden said in the opening remarks of the showdown that comes just 12 days before the election.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.23  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.22    5 days ago
So we can hold Brandon accountable for not "ending Covid" right?

Of course we can hold Biden (don't be childish) accountable for not fulfilling a campaign promise.    That is different from blaming him for the ongoing COVID-19 infections and variants.   Do you see the difference?

If one makes a campaign promise that is impossible or near impossible they should be held accountable.   One then looks at the actions to see if they helped or hurt the cause and then make an informed assessment of blame (and/or praise).

So, now, back to my example.   What actions did Trump take to eliminate the national debt and were they effective?   Trump is accountable for his campaign promise but how much is he to blame for the continuing growth of the national debt under his watch?

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
1.3  Gazoo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    6 days ago

These clowns botched the “great transition” as badly as they botched afghanistan. Battery technology still isn’t where it needs to be. The grid has not been upgraded, in fact several states are saying rolling blackouts this summer are likely.  And there is a major lack of charging stations. What they want us to transition to isn’t ready. And what are truckers supposed to transition to? Meanwhile, instead of producing oil here, they want it produced halfway around the world so machinery with one of the largest carbon footprints can ship it here. Makes perfect sense /s/.

why don’t they let battery tech advance while they update the grid and add power plants. Set money aside and start planning for charging stations because we’ll need as many of them as we have gas stations. Why don’t they try to make the transition as painless as possible? I don’t think they give a damn. Well, they will pay for their backassward ways come election time.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Gazoo @1.3    6 days ago
Why don’t they try to make the transition as painless as possible?

Because in our divisive political environment parties have to act while they momentarily have the power to force through legislation.   Thus they offer half-baked schemes that are intentionally NOT designed for a sensible, incremental deployment with self-correcting measures.

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
1.3.2  Gazoo  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.1    5 days ago

Well, it’s going to cost them dearly in the midterms and hopefully beyond.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.3  TᵢG  replied to  Gazoo @1.3.2    5 days ago

I think pretty much everyone is aware that the party in power typically loses in the midterms and that the party in power during a poor economy rarely wins elections.

So, yeah, Gazoo the Ds are clearly set to lose in the midterms.

But the loss is not because the Ds offer half-baked schemes and the Rs offer sensible, incremental deployment with self-correcting mechanisms.   It is mostly because of fundamentals:  party in power and poor economy.

And even if Biden were a popular PotUS (he is not), I would expect the Ds to lose in these midterms because of said fundamentals.

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
1.3.4  Gazoo  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.3    5 days ago

“But the loss is not because the Ds offer half-baked schemes”

then what would you call the shit show that has been biden and dem policies? Calling their policies half-baked schemes is being way to nice.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.5  TᵢG  replied to  Gazoo @1.3.4    5 days ago

I just explained this to you.   You are asking a question that I preemptively addressed.

hint: fundamentals

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
1.3.6  Gazoo  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.5    5 days ago

yeah, i’m aware of the “fundamentals”. But i think the dems “half-baked” schemes add fuel to the “fundamentals”.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.7  TᵢG  replied to  Gazoo @1.3.6    5 days ago

Yes the Ds have not done anything to help them out of their fundamentals disadvantage.   But even if they had done well, the economy + party-in-power would very likely still cause them to lose in the midterms.

The economy, by the way, is the major fundamental here.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    6 days ago
Two and a half years away from a change in this terrible policy.

Nothing is going to change here.   The USA is not likely to abandon a move to renewables and encourage companies to invest in new refineries.    Your article gave a fine timeline:   this reduction has been going on since the 1970s.   Yet you over-simplify and just blame Biden (whose policies will not have any effect for years).

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.4    6 days ago
 The USA is not likely to abandon a move to renewables and encourage companies to invest in new refineries. 

What move?

That's like people abandoning their move to space travel.


Yet you over-simplify and just blame Biden (whose policies will not have any effect for years).

Joe Biden is directly responsible for the high gas prices and inflation. It's called POLICIES!!!!!

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.4.2  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.1    6 days ago

What are these policies?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @1.4.2    6 days ago

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.4.4  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.3    6 days ago

Ha. Blaming the keystone pipeline is comical. You cannot blame something that was never in operation and the profits would have gone to Canada...

The administration plans to

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts.

Biden proposed eliminating a slew of tax benefits for oil

There was a time people thought enough is enough. Why republicans all the sudden think every thing should be tax free, it is nuts.

So they are pissed someone talked about taking away their subsidies?

Biden calls on OPEC+ producers to increase supply

Why not, they said they won't do it here. I would say it is places like OPEC that keep the price high. Oil is traded worldwide.

methane fee

The U.S. figures are sobering: More than 3.2 million abandoned oil and gas wells together emitted 281 kilotons of methane in 2018, according to the data, which was included in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s most recent report on April 14 to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That’s the climate-damage equivalent of consuming about 16 million barrels of crude oil, according to an EPA calculation, or about as much as the United States, the world’s biggest oil consumer, uses in a typical day. (For a graphic on the rise in abandoned oil wells, click t msnrt.rs/2MsWInw )

.

encouraging an investigation into oil and gas companies and retail gasoline prices. The move infuriated oil executives

Did it happen?

Biden’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposes landmark climate rules. If finalized, the rules would fundamentally overhaul how publicly listed companies divulge detailed information about their climate risks and mitigation strategies. Large companies that do business in the U.S. would be required within three years to lay bare their contributions and vulnerabilities to climate change – including, in some cases, the greenhouse gas emissions associated with their customers and suppliers. The move is designed to divert investment away from fossil fuel producers, even though investors are already planning for the energy transition using their own environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards.

So what is wrong with having companies disclose what they are doing? And if the energy companies are already moving in that direction, what would it hurt?

Most of this just still sounds like, well I won't do anything because Biden said something...Sure.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.5  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.1    6 days ago
What move?

You are unaware that the USA is moving towards renewable energy?

Joe Biden is directly responsible for the high gas prices and inflation. It's called POLICIES!!!!!

What I see is simplistic partisanship that ignores all the factors that go into the increased price at the pump and the increased costs at each level of the supply chain and blindly (and stupidly) blame it ALL on the PotUS. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.5    6 days ago
You are unaware that the USA is moving towards renewable energy?

I do. I'm interested in the interim. Punishing people to make them buy electric cars that they can't afford will be counterproductive. You'll see that come November.


What I see is simplistic partisanship 

That's what I see too.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @1.4.4    6 days ago

Nobody is going to invest billions to develop oil production under this enemy of fossil fuels.

It is going to be a LONG, LONG, LONG time before we have renewable energy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.8  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.6    6 days ago
Punishing people to make them buy electric cars that they can't afford will be counterproductive.

Nobody is being forced to buy electric cars.   Another ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Just think for a second, not only is that unconstitutional, it is wildly impractical.   

That's what I see too.

Brilliant  256

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.4.9  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.7    6 days ago

So in other words you are with the oil companies and want a president that will give them free reign to do whatever they want.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.4.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @1.4.9    6 days ago
So in other words

Why in other words. it's simpler to follow if you use Vic's own words.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.8    6 days ago
Nobody is being forced to buy electric cars. 

BULLSHIT!  That's what they want.


Just think for a second, not only is that unconstitutional, it is wildly impractical.   

What is?



 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.4.12  Ender  replied to  Ender @1.4.9    6 days ago

You would think someone would take the hint that they are on ignore, but no.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.13  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @1.4.9    6 days ago

So finally you admit the truth. The oil companies are the enemy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @1.4.12    6 days ago

If he's on ignore, how can you see his comments?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.4.15  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.14    6 days ago

I can see his name and a comment addressed to me. Just not the content.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.4.16  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.13    6 days ago

Ha. I think they are a necessity that takes advantage.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.17  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.11    5 days ago
BULLSHIT!  That's what they want.

Okay, Vic, you move from @1.4.6 ☞ "Punishing people to make them buy electric cars that they can't afford will be counterproductive." to "that is what they want".

Yes, the administration wants the USA to move towards renewable energy.   This is a long-term goal (decades).   Now, BULLSHIT-crier, back up your utter nonsense declaration that the administration is "punishing people to make them buy electric cars that they can't afford".   Let me guess, another conspiracy theory that claims the administration has intentionally caused prices at the pump to double so as to force consumers to buy electric vehicles.

The only truth in that conspiracy theory is that higher gasoline prices will encourage a move towards renewable.   Nothing new there.   But you, I presume, go to the next level and declare that the current prices at the pump are deliberate to force the entire nation to move NOW, all at once, to electric vehicles.  Ridiculous.

What is?

I have to break every post down for you?     Watch, Vic:

TiG@1.4.8 ☞ Nobody is being forced to buy electric cars.   Another ridiculous conspiracy theory.  Just think for a second, not only is that unconstitutional, it is wildly impractical.   

Now let's combine the first sentence with the third to form a single sentence:

Just think for a second, not only is forcing everyone to buy electric cars unconstitutional, it is wildly impractical.

Do you understand that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to force a consumer to buy an electric vehicle?    If not, do some research.

Everyone going to electric vehicles now (instead of this evolving over time) is impractical because a) we do not have enough electric vehicles and b) our infrastructure is woefully inadequate to support that demand.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.4.18  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.14    5 days ago

One would think if one wants to truly ignore someone else, they would simply just do it.

It speaks to control I suppose, a problem with the inability to control what others can and can’t do.

An interesting psychological quirk to say the least.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.4.19  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.17    5 days ago

I have said that before. Change on something like this will take decades, if not half a century or more.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.4.20  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.11    5 days ago

Meanwhile countries like China, Russia and India are laughing their asses off at us.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.21  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @1.4.19    5 days ago

Of course.   People are often ridiculous in their conspiracy theories.

Also, the oil companies in the USA have not built refineries for decades.   The move to renewables spans multiple administrations.   Biden is likely a four-year blip.    Oil companies are not going to make changes that they dislike simply because of Biden (who almost certainly will not be reelected).   

The change in oil company behavior is based on the worldwide movement towards renewables and away from fossil fuel energy.   Blaming this on Biden is beyond naïve.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.4.22  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @1.4.12    5 days ago

I'm sorry that I was slow on taking the hint, but I didn't realize that I was on your ignore list.  NT should make that available to all so I can see who has put me on ignore, then mistakes wouldn't happen.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.4.23  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.21    5 days ago

I read where Chevron acquired a refinery in CA in 2019. I am guessing they purchased one already in operation.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.4.24  pat wilson  replied to  Sparty On @1.4.20    5 days ago

Have you observed that first hand ?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.25  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.17    5 days ago

There is only one reason Biden's handlers continue on with these horrendous policies.

They want them despite the suffering.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.4.26  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.4.10    5 days ago

Because Vic, just as you, attempt deception via decisive divisive wording, implied, while you state NTease can differentiate, while fully knowledgeable, that is NOT the case, wish to TRI another….maybe this time, with a tad more Conviction….

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.27  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @1.4.20    5 days ago

China is still killing Americans, this time with Fentanyl.

Meh, we'll replace them with third world migrants.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.4.28  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.27    5 days ago

Yep and still with the China virus.    

What is Biden’s China virus death count up to now?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.29  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.25    5 days ago

You just deflected from all the points I made and simply made an emotional declaration.

The Biden administration is not trying to force everyone to move to electric vehicles and it is not in the short term.

The administration (and this was true of prior administrations and will be true of future administrations) will encourage consumers to choose renewable energy over fossil fuel energy and this will be a gradual process for practical reasons.   I gave you two reasons but will add a third:

  1. We do not have enough electric vehicles for everyone to get one.
  2. Our infrastructure is woefully inadequate to support the demand of an electric vehicle based USA.
  3. Consumers will only comply in an evolutionary (gradual) manner.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.30  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.29    5 days ago
  • We do not have enough electric vehicles for everyone to get one.
  • Our infrastructure is woefully inadequate to support the demand of an electric vehicle based USA.
  • Consumers will only comply in an evolutionary (gradual) manner.

Please tell Susan Rice.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.31  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.30    5 days ago

Deflection.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.32  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.31    5 days ago

She's the one behind the curtain.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.4.33  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.32    5 days ago

Damn right she is and she’s not alone.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.5  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 days ago

That's some epic gaslighting there Vic. 

Raven Petroleum has had a refinery in the works in SW Texas since 2016 [note that was during the Obama Administration]. The big hold up is actually in fighting with the COUNTY. 

Raven Petroleum threatens to pull out of Duval County (lmtonline.com)

Fail. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.5.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @1.5    5 days ago
[note that was during the Obama Administration]

And we had some major drilling and fracking here during the Obama years.  I remember him bragging about it:

And by the way, American energy production, you wouldn’t always know it, but it went up every year I was president. And you know that whole suddenly America’s like the biggest oil producer … that was me, people.

That man knew how to get his hands dirty.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2  Mark in Wyoming     6 days ago

another thing is they are likely not going to spend the money on some existing plants to keep up with emmission and ecological standards . they can actually buy it cheaper elsewhere already refined , than spend that money .

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2    6 days ago

He admits they haven't built a refinery sense the 70's. They are making money and could afford to do so, they just don't want to.

Profit over anything.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Ender  replied to  Ender @2.1    6 days ago

Another thing, if they are not going to refine, why need the tar sands pipelines.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ender @2.1.1    6 days ago

Stop asking sensible questions

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @2.1    6 days ago
Profit over anything.

Where would you like to see some new refineries built?  How much would you invest?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.3    6 days ago

There are undoubtably a lot of NIMBY’s here on NT.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.5  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @2.1.1    6 days ago

where did i say they would STOP refining?

they will likely keep just enough refining capability in country to satisfy the stratigic reserve , that one that MIGHT last a week if tapped into only to be replenished at a higher cost . thing is they wont be paying for the upgrades needed to keep those older refineries on line , especially if the industry gets nationalized , the cost will be on the feds and taxpayers then .

 Im looking into bying a mule will name him braydon ......

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.4    6 days ago

Indeed,  I surprised that they aren’t happy with dropping US refinement capacity.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.5    6 days ago

They could pay for the upgrades, they just don't want to.

Omg! They made 5 billion instead of 6....

He even admits in this article it is all for him and his stock holders.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @2.1.7    6 days ago
He even admits in this article it is all for him and his stock holders.

So they completely failed to take your needs into consideration, shocking!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.9  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @2.1.7    6 days ago
they just don't want to.

neither do they have to .

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.9    6 days ago

Yet because of their choices we are having people blame the government, Biden, whatever else instead of them.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.11  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @2.1.10    6 days ago

"they' can only refine what is avalable to them, government drilling policy has part to do with it , another and larger part of it is oil futures and speculators  those 2 things drive up the price of the raw material , if that raw material costs more , the price of the finished product goes up as well. and those billions in profits ? thats not just in this country , that is what they make WORLDWIDE , every country that uses petrol . they could stop selling totally in this country and still make aprofit from what they make world wide .

 i have seen $5-6 a gal gas before ... In 1985 in Europe  with the exchange rates . we are not  really being screwwed on price , YET.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.11    6 days ago

Imo there is plenty available to them.

Nov 17 (Reuters) - U.S. oil majors Exxon Mobil Corp  (XOM.N)  and Chevron Corp  (CVX.N)  were among the top buyers at a federal auction of oil leases in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico on Wednesday that generated more than $190 million - the highest since 2019.

.

In the sale, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, an arm of Biden's Department of Interior, offered 80 million acres accounting for almost all available unleased Gulf of Mexico blocks. About 1.7 million acres sold.

.

Chevron was the auction's biggest spender with $47.1 million, followed by Anadarko, owned by Occidental Petroleum Corp.  (OXY.N) , BP  (BP.L)  and Royal Dutch Shell  (RDSa.L) .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.13  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @2.1.12    6 days ago

 That may be , but their bean counters are the ones that will figure in all the things that will effect if it is a loss or a profit , if they say its a loss due to cost because of speculation or government regs , it likely wont be done . And that is a simple fact of life .

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.13    6 days ago

I guess my point being, they have the means and the capability and nothing is holding them back except themselves.

Kind of hypocritical to say they have to be penny pinchers when they are making whirlwind profit.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.15  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @2.1.14    6 days ago

What has been the refineries ROI over the last ten years?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.16  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @2.1.14    6 days ago
I guess my point being, they have the means and the capability and nothing is holding them back except themselves.

and they are under NO obligation to do so. even if they have the means and capability , i if the projections say it will be a money loser , they certainly wont be doing anything like that to appease someone that they dont even know ..

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
2.1.17  dennis smith  replied to  Ender @2.1.10    6 days ago

Why in the world would the oil companies invest billions of dollars into something that the current admin has said it wants to eliminate?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.18  Ender  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.17    6 days ago

What? 'Has said it wants to do'...

So you are going to tell me that these oil companies are not going to invest because Biden said something?

Do you really think Biden can eliminate oil?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @2.1.18    6 days ago
you are going to tell me that these oil companies are not going to invest because Biden said something?

Yes, of course! Do you not understand risk? Or money?  I'm always amazed how juvenile people can be when they are dealing with other people's money. 

Would you take your life savings and to try and build an addition to your house if the village you live in has spent decades making the building/use of the addition almost impossible and your Mayor has send no new additions will be built under his watch? 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.20  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.19    6 days ago

? I am always amazed you all will take an oil CEO's take on every thing with no questions asked.

People have been trying to find ways to get away from oil for decades. This is nothing new.

And it is not dealing with other people's money when we are the ones paying for it. The end people, the consumer.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @2.1.20    6 days ago

I notice you didn't answer the question.  So you understand it would be foolish to risk your money, but still expect others to do so. 

ways amazed you all will take an oil CEO's take

Where is he wrong?  You literally cite his argument in the next line,  while substituting people for "government" 

People have been trying to find ways to get away from oil for decades.

Correct. Joe Biden and the democrats have been making it very hard to produce oil for decades. That's why a refinery in this country for decades. 

d it is not dealing with other people's money when we are the ones paying for it. The end people, the consumer.

Do you not understand how corporations are or how they work?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.22  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @2.1.20    6 days ago
 I am always amazed you all will take an oil CEO's take on every thing with no questions asked.

The WPost reported that five refineries have shut down in the United States in the past two years, reducing the nation’s refining capacity by about 5 percent and eliminating more than 1 million barrels of fuel per day from the market.  Last month I read that a large, Houston Refinery (1/4 million barrels per day) will close next year.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.23  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.21    6 days ago

I understand plenty and am taken going to take the word of an oil CEO that admits he only wants profit for himself and his stockholders.

Oil companies have been dealing with risk ever since they first started oil exploration. Risk is not a new thing.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.1.24  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ender @2.1.23    6 days ago

Amazing the lengths taken to rationalize rations of LIES, cause no disguise, just the ole fall back, Y should one believe their own LYING EYES 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @2.1.14    5 days ago
"Kind of hypocritical to say they have to be penny pinchers when they are making whirlwind profit."

Like most things certain posters say.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.26  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.19    5 days ago
Yes, of course!

Then WHY did Chevron invest 47.1 MILLION in oil leases in 2021? jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.27  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @2.1.26    5 days ago

Because there is a global market for oil regardless of where its refined?

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
2.1.28  dennis smith  replied to  Ender @2.1.18    5 days ago

Biden has said he will eliminate fossil fuels. 

Do you not believe what he says?

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
2.1.29  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.28    5 days ago

In case anyone needs a visual on Joe Blow's comments.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.30  Ender  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.28    5 days ago

You really think he could do it? What is he going to do, outlaw gasoline? He can say whatever he wants, doesn't mean it will happen.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.31  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.27    5 days ago
Because there is a global market for oil regardless of where its refined?

Then Sean claiming that 'of course oil companies are not going to invest because Biden said something' is just more 'blame Biden' bullshit . Thanks. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.32  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @2.1.31    5 days ago

Your welcome.  I think that Sean was looking at the absence of investment in new refineries and your looking at investment in well exploration.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.33  Sparty On  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.32    5 days ago

As well as Biden’s promise and I quote:

I guarantee you, we’re going to end fossil fuel

Unquote.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.34  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.33    4 days ago

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.35  Sparty On  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.34    4 days ago

There it is .....

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.36  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.32    4 days ago

Well, they MUST have SOME idea where the fuck they're going to transport all that crude oil to be refined before they invested 47.1 MILLION in leases. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.37  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @2.1.36    4 days ago
they MUST have SOME idea where the fuck they're going to transport all that crude oil

Why, there is little doubt that there will be refinery capacity in the world. There are newer and larger refineries in India, South Korea, UAE, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, etc..  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.38  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.37    4 days ago
There are newer and larger refineries in India, South Korea, UAE, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, etc..  

That makes NO sense. Why invest in drilling in and around the US and then go to the expense of transporting crude halfway around the world? That would put a major dent in their profit margin. Russia if finding that out right now. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.39  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @2.1.38    4 days ago
That makes NO sense

Exactly, call dirty energy investors crazy.

Why invest in drilling in and around the US and then go to the expense of transporting crude halfway around the world? That would put a major dent in their profit margin.

I know, why would they think that they can make a profit on oil pumped out of our Gulf sold to a refinery in the Mideast?

Russia if finding that out right now. 

Say what?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.40  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.39    4 days ago
Exactly, call dirty energy investors crazy.

There you are with that 'exactly = not at all BS. Devolution. 

BTW, that was a strawman too. 

I know, why would they think that they can make a profit on oil pumped out of our Gulf sold to a refinery in the Mideast?

Another strawman. 

Oh and BTW, most of the countries that you cited are in Asia, NOT the Middle East. 

Say what?

What part of my statement don't you understand? 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3  Mark in Wyoming     6 days ago

did the math for this discussed federal gas tax holiday 18.4 cents a gal , average fillup for me is about 6 gals , i will save a whopping 1.10......and the change fro E-10 to E-15 that the president authorized still is a joke , i will be running priemium non ethanol thank you very much .

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1  Sparty On  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3    6 days ago

Yep, a tax holiday .... even less money to maintain and repair our already crumbling infrastructure.

Great idea ....

Premium is all I run in my gas powered tools.    Ethanol in gas is the bane of reliable operation of those tools.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @3.1    6 days ago

Gums up to those  carbs

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.2  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3    6 days ago

A guy in DMR told us that you should not use ethanol in boats. The raising of ethanol is harmful to the motor.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.2.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @3.2    6 days ago

i wont use ethanol in anything , small engine or large , boats and planes, those places they fuel  usually wont even sell ethanol mixed gas , wanna see a lawn mower  really take off? run some avgas through it ..... but mix the av gas with priemium in 2 pre and 1 av . av gas still has some lead in it , just enough so it cant be called unleaded . DONT run that mix in your car, it will chernoble or 3 mile island .

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4  Sean Treacy    6 days ago

, the policy of our government is to reduce deman

But it's not Biden's fault! 

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
5  Lucifer Morningstar    6 days ago

 
 

Who is online






Kavika
Dulay


30 visitors