From: "Robert Comer" 

I hadn't heard that, it is good news -- but I want it quicker. 

- Bob Comer 


"Glenn Meadows"  wrote in message
news:430f1c16{at}w3.nls.net...
> 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