From: "Glenn Meadows" 

I'm also encouraged that there is someone in the Arizona/New Mexico area (I
believe that's where it is), who is embarking on a new oil refinery, about
4-5 years out before it's online and running.  I suspect it will run near
100% capacity as soon as they can move production levels that high as well.
Will probably be more efficient than the current old aging plants are, as
well.

--

Glenn M.
"Robert Comer"  wrote in
message news:430f18e5{at}w3.nls.net...
> Refining capacity is also one we have to look at *now*.
>
>> I, for one, would like to see more "nucular" power
> intentional>.  The frenzy over problems, IMO, is grossly over-estimated.
>> The only serious/major plant problem is the Chernobyl meltdown, and that
>> was fatally flawed design, and blatant disregard for safety.  I believe
>> France is getting 80+ percent of their power from nuclear power now.
>
> Ohhh, I absolutely hate it when people pronounce it that way, it's like
> fingernails on a chock to my ears...   (I agree btw, we should be building
> as many modern chalkboard power plants as we can.)
>
> - Bob Comer
>
>
>
>
> "Glenn Meadows"  wrote in message
> news:430f1154{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Increases on the production side will have little effect, till we add
>> additional refining capacity to the mix.  Our refineries run at near 100%
>> capacity all the time, heck we're even importing refined gasoline to fill
>> the demand.  Pumping more out of the ground, to replace foreign supplied
>> crude won't materially help the "crunch".  It MIGHT
allow more crude to
>> flow to the expanding Chinese market though, but I would expect that
>> newly pumped crude to flow at current market prices.  Heck, having all of
>> our reserves at the "ready to pump" point, could be
advantageous, when
>> the middle east pumps dry, we could step in an become the new oil power
>> (yea, right)....
>>
>> Demand has to go down.  Shelley and I are now car-pooling several days a
>> week, keeping the Ford Windstar parked, and driving in the 96 Miata (28
>> MPG), which is nice, both the ride, companion in the car, and good gas
>> mileage.
>>
>> Maybe it's also time to "slow us down" again.  I was
never fond of the
>> "Double Nickel" speed limit, but interstate speeds have
gotten WAY out of
>> hand again.  Heck, if you go 5 MPH OVER the speed limit, you still get
>> run over.
>>
>> I don't think there is any short term solution, but we're not really
>> looking at serious long term ones, either.
>>
>> I, for one, would like to see more "nucular" power
> intentional>.  The frenzy over problems, IMO, is grossly over-estimated.
>> The only serious/major plant problem is the Chernobyl meltdown, and that
>> was fatally flawed design, and blatant disregard for safety.  I believe
>> France is getting 80+ percent of their power from nuclear power now.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Glenn M.
>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>> news:430dfb88$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> They should go into effect at all until the democraps get on board with
>>> ANWR
>>> and other increases on the production side.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
>>> news:430dc161{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> Not to go into effect immediately, it's a start, not a
"good" start.
>>>>
>>>> - Bob Comer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "John Cuccia"  wrote in message
>>>> news:jnaqg19qb6mvfuosrgra3gh7uk7bqhpm7l{at}4ax.com...
>>>> > Looks like the administration is going to toughen, at
least somenwat,
>>>> > economy standards on SUVs and light trucks.  It's a
good start at
>>>> > addressing the demand side of the equation.
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002957.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5