|
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
The following item is excerpted from an upcoming issue of a Pacific NW
boating magazine. It outlines an interesting situation that doubtlessly exists throughout the country, as the EPA is the agency ultimately in charge of regulating boatyard operations. Long, so pour a cup of coffee or proceed to the next thread. :-) Conversation with "Deep Draft" "We should probably be meeting in secret," joked my source. "For reasons that will be pretty obvious, I'd prefer that what I'm going to tell you not be traced too easily back to me. Maybe we should use a code name. Since 'Deep Throat' has already been used up, let's go with 'Deep Draft'." It will be important to know that Deep Draft is a highly placed individual in a major shipyard operation here in the Pacific NW. Deep Draft has been involved environmental testing, reporting, and assuring his or her operation's compliance with regulatory statues for more than a decade. It's also important to know that a situation now flying well under the public radar has the potential to eliminate many of the essential services we boaters depend upon. Deep Draft: Are you familiar with the NPDES? Nor'westing: Not really, no. Deep Draft: The EPA, the national environmental protection agency, empowered the Washington State Department of Ecology to issue permits to sources of pollution. The goal was to reduce the amount of the pollution by requiring various industries to adhere to regulations as a condition of the permit. The first NPDES permit for boatyards was issued in 1992. What that permit required us to do was to sample and test our storm water runoff that flowed out of our shipyard and into the sound, the ship canal, or whatever the receiving body of water happens to be. Deep Draft (continues): In 1997, they reissued another permit. It was more of the same thing, we sampled the storm water run off and sent in the results. We didn't get a heck of a lot of guidance, and there wasn't a lot of on-site field work from the Department of Ecology. Essentially they were just trying to establish some sort of baseline for future analysis. Nor'westing: Now when you mention this permit, is it a specific permit for an individual boatyard or is it a general license for an entire industry? Deep Draft: It's what's called a 'general permit,' and all yards have different standards under the general permit based on what the receiving waters are. A yard on a river will have to conform to different standards of the permit than a yard on a lake or on Puget Sound. The original permit in '92 and the renewed permit in '97 had target numbers that would have been nice to hit. What we're measuring for in the storm water runoff is copper, total suspended solids, and oil or grease. Now of course the real culprit that everybody is focused on is copper, as we certainly don't get a lot of oil or grease in this industry compared to the amount of oil that simply washes in off the streets. Our contribution to the oil and grease contamination is going to be insignificant, and the same with total suspended solids. We obviously have a lot of copper in our bottom paints. Deep Draft (continues): When they wrote the second NPDES permit in '97, they concluded that they would need to rewrite the permit at a later date. When the second NPDES permit expired in 2002, they extended the permit so that boatyards could continue to operate. We then began a series of meetings that included the boatyard owners and the NMTA (Northwest Marine Trade Association) as one group, the Department of Ecology as a second party, and environmental activists (mainly represented by Sue Joerger and her group, the Puget Soundkeepers Alliance), as a third party. We met for several years, during which time the DOE was never able to produce a draft version of a new NPDES permit. When they finally did come up with a draft, we all sat and argued through the pros and cons of it, and then the DOE issued the final version of the permit in November of last year. Deep Draft (continues): The new permit has in it some benchmarks. The Department of Ecology permit writers came up with some numbers that we thought would be difficult, but not impossible to meet- especially if we looked harder for point sources of pollution and invested in some new technology. Under the new permit, if a yard exceeds certain levels in the laboratory testing it is forced to jump through various hoops depending on the severity of the excess. The requirements can vary between having to write a report outlining the steps you are taking to reduce the problem, paying a monetary fine, etc. It gets increasingly severe until after six failures to meet the testing requirements the state can force your business to shut down entirely. Deep Draft (continues): Right after the permit went into effect in November, Sue Joerger's group filed an appeal. They didn't feel the new restrictions were stringent enough. As a response to Sue Joerger's appeal, the NMTA also filed an appeal. The NPDES permit that we all need to operate is now before the Pollution Control Hearings Board. NOTE: The copper runoff for which boatyards are required to measure is not typically the result of pressure washing vessels during haulout. All boatyards are required to collect water that runs off during pressure washing and subject it to treatment and filtration prior to discharge into any adjoining water. The copper and other materials collected by filtration are hauled off to a hazardous waste site. The copper runoff that concerns the environmental activists and the DOE are those miscellaneous amounts that can occur in an area merely because there is a high presence of copper present in the surrounding environment. Raindrops falling against the dried bottom paint of a vessel sitting on the hard before falling onto the pavement might be a typical source. Nor'westing: In the broad scope of this process, which you say began in 1992, have boatyards in general been progressing toward lower standards of pollution? Has the current system worked to the degree that boatyards are working harder to contain copper and other wastes in order to meet the permit requirements? Have the readings improved? Deep Draft: Yes and no. That's a roundabout answer meaning that I have to explain. Initially we were given no direction about how or where to sample. Depending on what a boatyard did, their numbers would be very good, or very bad, or accurate. Some were so far off the scale on the high side that they must have been taking the readings inside the pressure washing tank, and some were so low they were totally unbelievable as well. Once in a while we would get a site visit from somebody at the DOE, and they would confirm that we were sampling at an acceptable location or they would ask us to change it. The bottom line is that if you throw out the numbers that are off the scale on the high side and throw out the numbers that are too good to be true, almost nobody is currently passing. Nor'westing: If there's a lack of progress, could it be due to the fact that testing has now been standardized and that has changed the results? Deep Draft: There still isn't a lot of guidance. We had an on-site inspection and they asked me to collect some runoff for a test. When I began collecting the runoff, one of the inspectors told me I couldn't use that spot, even though that's the same spot I took samples for the previous 15 years. A second inspector on site that day disagreed with his counterpart and they had an argument about whether my original test site or the new site they were requiring me to use was actually the better choice. Deep Draft (continues): The new benchmarks in the NPDES permit are going to be very difficult to meet, but the industry is committed to trying to meet them. Before, there never was really any penalty for failure to meet the benchmarks, but now there are penalties up to and including being put out of business. It's a serious concern. The problem with the appeal filed by the Puget Soundkeepers Alliance and their affiliated groups is that they want water quality standards that are so severe that they virtually guarantee that nobody could possibly pass. Under the environmentalists' standards, every single boatyard in the entire Puget Sound area is in danger of being shut down. I have spoken to some yards that have cleaned, swept, and pressure washed their entire yards in an attempt to eliminate any residual traces of copper- and they now have higher levels of discharge than the did before. It can be frustrating. We're now investigating building huge catch basins to intercept all the rainwater that flows through the yard and filter it in huge socks. Nor'westing: Is there any chance the standards are unrealistically high? Deep Draft: I can say that some of people enforcing the standards have unreasonable expectations. We recently had an inspector from the Department of Ecology on site, and she noticed a water hose, hooked up to the city's public water supply, that had some water running from the end of it. Some boaters were going to use it to provide cooling water to a saildrive that they were tuning up. She told me that I had to stop that "activity" immediately. When I asked her why, she said it was because the city drinking water has been chlorinated and therefore it wasn't permissible to allow it to flow into {name of industrial waterway omitted to preserve Deep Draft's anonymity}. Nor'westing: She actually told you that you couldn't allow the City of Seattle's drinking water to flow into the waterway outside your yard because the city water supply was a pollutant? Deep Draft: Yes, she did. The same water that the city says I can drink from the tap, that I wash my hair with, and bathe my babies in is supposed to be hazardous that it can't flow into {waterway}. Let me tell you, I'd drink tap water, but I would never consider drinking out of {waterway}. ************** At Deep Draft's suggestion, we called Michael Campbell of the NMTA to ask about names of public officials who could be approached by boaters concerned about the potential impact of the environmentalists' appeal of the NPDES permit. Campbell suggested that it probably isn't yet the appropriate time for a lot of public input. "After Sue Joerger and her group appealed on behalf of the environmentalists, the NMTA also appealed on behalf of the boatyards. There were ten things we didn't like in the permit, but one reason we appealed was so that we would be at the table during any further discussions of this issue. There's a hearing July 10-12 at the state Pollution Control Hearings Board, and we don't know what will happen. The hearings board really has two options- one is to send the permit back to the Department of Ecology and ask that it be reworked and the other is to hear all sides and then decide to let the permit stand as written. We will keep our readers posted as this issue progresses. Meanwhile, if your local boatyard appears to be paying even more attention than normal to environmental issues be assured that it is seriously concerned with complying with the NPDES permit. Despoiling the public ecosystem should never be an acceptable path to private profit, but boatyards making a sincere effort to be good stewards of the environment should not be subjected to fantasyland standards that make operation impractical, if not impossible. Deep Draft conjectured: "I think the environmental activists could be using the boatyards as a stalking horse. Next year, the NPDES permits come up for some of the largest and heaviest industries in the area. They probably think that it's easier to beat up on a small group like the boatyards, and then use those standards as a precedent when demanding changes from some of the much larger sources of serious pollution." There's a good chance that he or she might be right. |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
Deep Draft: I can say that some of people enforcing the standards have
unreasonable expectations. We recently had an inspector from the Department of Ecology on site, and she noticed a water hose, hooked up to the city's public water supply, that had some water running from the end of it. Some boaters were going to use it to provide cooling water to a saildrive that they were tuning up. She told me that I had to stop that "activity" immediately. When I asked her why, she said it was because the city drinking water has been chlorinated and therefore it wasn't permissible to allow it to flow into {name of industrial waterway omitted to preserve Deep Draft's anonymity}. Well, there you have it, a fine example of environmental nonsense taken to illogical extremes. |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
|
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
wrote in message oups.com... The following item is excerpted from an upcoming issue of a Pacific NW boating magazine. It outlines an interesting situation that doubtlessly exists throughout the country, as the EPA is the agency ultimately in charge of regulating boatyard operations. Long, so pour a cup of coffee or proceed to the next thread. :-) EPA, spotted owls, tree huggers, environmental extremists................. And one wonders why we can't explore and drill for oil in the US. Thanks for the article Chuck. |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
Del Cecchi wrote: "Bill Kearney" wrote in message t... Deep Draft: I can say that some of people enforcing the standards have unreasonable expectations. We recently had an inspector from the Department of Ecology on site, and she noticed a water hose, hooked up to the city's public water supply, that had some water running from the end of it. Some boaters were going to use it to provide cooling water to a saildrive that they were tuning up. She told me that I had to stop that "activity" immediately. When I asked her why, she said it was because the city drinking water has been chlorinated and therefore it wasn't permissible to allow it to flow into {name of industrial waterway omitted to preserve Deep Draft's anonymity}. Well, there you have it, a fine example of environmental nonsense taken to illogical extremes. They know how to use the government to achieve their aim of shutting down the boatyards and thus getting rid of those carbon emitting, kayak annoying, boats. del The amazing thing is that the lead dog in the environmentalist movement lives aboard her boat at a local marina. One of her neighbors has offered to take a photo of her washing her boat (with soap, of course). Now that would make an interesting addition to the Deep Draft series. :-) I'm very much in favor of working and playing in a manner that has the least potential to harm the environment, but not at all in favor of some theory that people should all commit suicide and let the entire planet go back to nature. A reasonable balance is desirable. The kooks that want to make an issue out of city drinking water running into an industrial waterway do more harm than good. The rape and pillage profiteers love to use the wacky extremists to typify anybody with a concern for conservation, preservation, or even general esthetics. |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
JimH wrote: wrote in message oups.com... The following item is excerpted from an upcoming issue of a Pacific NW boating magazine. It outlines an interesting situation that doubtlessly exists throughout the country, as the EPA is the agency ultimately in charge of regulating boatyard operations. Long, so pour a cup of coffee or proceed to the next thread. :-) EPA, spotted owls, tree huggers, environmental extremists................. And one wonders why we can't explore and drill for oil in the US. Thanks for the article Chuck. There's no truth to the propgandists's claims that oil companies can no longer explore for oil or open new wells in the US. Like the environmental extremists, people who tell you that have placed their personal agenda above the truth. The following like will take you to a Shell Oil website, where you can read about a major expansion of Shell Oil activity in Alaska during 2005. http://tny.se/1ig |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: wrote in message oups.com... The following item is excerpted from an upcoming issue of a Pacific NW boating magazine. It outlines an interesting situation that doubtlessly exists throughout the country, as the EPA is the agency ultimately in charge of regulating boatyard operations. Long, so pour a cup of coffee or proceed to the next thread. :-) EPA, spotted owls, tree huggers, environmental extremists................. And one wonders why we can't explore and drill for oil in the US. Thanks for the article Chuck. There's no truth to the propgandists's claims that oil companies can no longer explore for oil or open new wells in the US. Like the environmental extremists, people who tell you that have placed their personal agenda above the truth. The following like will take you to a Shell Oil website, where you can read about a major expansion of Shell Oil activity in Alaska during 2005. http://tny.se/1ig How about the outer continental shelf and gulf of Mexico? I believe the argument relates to how much area is off limits. And how many new refineries have been built in the last 20 years? del |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
Del Cecchi wrote: wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: wrote in message oups.com... The following item is excerpted from an upcoming issue of a Pacific NW boating magazine. It outlines an interesting situation that doubtlessly exists throughout the country, as the EPA is the agency ultimately in charge of regulating boatyard operations. Long, so pour a cup of coffee or proceed to the next thread. :-) EPA, spotted owls, tree huggers, environmental extremists................. And one wonders why we can't explore and drill for oil in the US. Thanks for the article Chuck. There's no truth to the propgandists's claims that oil companies can no longer explore for oil or open new wells in the US. Like the environmental extremists, people who tell you that have placed their personal agenda above the truth. The following like will take you to a Shell Oil website, where you can read about a major expansion of Shell Oil activity in Alaska during 2005. http://tny.se/1ig How about the outer continental shelf and gulf of Mexico? I believe the argument relates to how much area is off limits. And how many new refineries have been built in the last 20 years? del The fact is that no oil company has even proposed the construction of a new refinery in a very long time. It is in the oil companies' best interest to limit the number of refineries, and many of the major oil companies are more concerned with shutting down their existing refineries than in establishing new ones. There was a well publicized case where one of the major oil companies announced it was shutting down a refinery. An independent oil company stepped forward and offered to pay fair market value for the refinery, (mega millions) but the big oil company declined and said that it would rather bulldoze the site. That should tell us all that there are more mega-millions to be made by tearing down a refinery than by operating it or selling off the equipment to somebody else who would. You often hear the radio rabble rousers blame "the liberals" for preventing the establishment of new oil refineries in the US, but the oil companies have no collective interest in increasing refinery capacity. Just try to find a current example of an application to build an oil refinery of any type, let alone one that is being blocked by "liberals". :-) |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
wrote in message ups.com... Del Cecchi wrote: How about the outer continental shelf and gulf of Mexico? I believe the argument relates to how much area is off limits. And how many new refineries have been built in the last 20 years? del The fact is that no oil company has even proposed the construction of a new refinery in a very long time. It is in the oil companies' best interest to limit the number of refineries, and many of the major oil companies are more concerned with shutting down their existing refineries than in establishing new ones. There was a well publicized case where one of the major oil companies announced it was shutting down a refinery. An independent oil company stepped forward and offered to pay fair market value for the refinery, (mega millions) but the big oil company declined and said that it would rather bulldoze the site. That should tell us all that there are more mega-millions to be made by tearing down a refinery than by operating it or selling off the equipment to somebody else who would. You often hear the radio rabble rousers blame "the liberals" for preventing the establishment of new oil refineries in the US, but the oil companies have no collective interest in increasing refinery capacity. Just try to find a current example of an application to build an oil refinery of any type, let alone one that is being blocked by "liberals". :-) I watched an interview the other day with a big-wig from one of the major oil companies (forget which one, but it doesn't matter). He claimed that the environmental objections and permit obstacles were the major reasons for the lack of new refineries in the US. He claimed that mucho dollars were being spent to upgrade and make more efficient existing refineries as the permitting process is not as complex. So ... who to believe? Also have to think about electrical energy. Power companies didn't stop building nuclear power plants because they wanted to limit the supply of electricity. They stopped because it became cost prohibitive to go through the permitting and construction process. RCE |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
RCE wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Del Cecchi wrote: How about the outer continental shelf and gulf of Mexico? I believe the argument relates to how much area is off limits. And how many new refineries have been built in the last 20 years? del The fact is that no oil company has even proposed the construction of a new refinery in a very long time. It is in the oil companies' best interest to limit the number of refineries, and many of the major oil companies are more concerned with shutting down their existing refineries than in establishing new ones. There was a well publicized case where one of the major oil companies announced it was shutting down a refinery. An independent oil company stepped forward and offered to pay fair market value for the refinery, (mega millions) but the big oil company declined and said that it would rather bulldoze the site. That should tell us all that there are more mega-millions to be made by tearing down a refinery than by operating it or selling off the equipment to somebody else who would. You often hear the radio rabble rousers blame "the liberals" for preventing the establishment of new oil refineries in the US, but the oil companies have no collective interest in increasing refinery capacity. Just try to find a current example of an application to build an oil refinery of any type, let alone one that is being blocked by "liberals". :-) I watched an interview the other day with a big-wig from one of the major oil companies (forget which one, but it doesn't matter). He claimed that the environmental objections and permit obstacles were the major reasons for the lack of new refineries in the US. He claimed that mucho dollars were being spent to upgrade and make more efficient existing refineries as the permitting process is not as complex. So ... who to believe? Also have to think about electrical energy. Power companies didn't stop building nuclear power plants because they wanted to limit the supply of electricity. They stopped because it became cost prohibitive to go through the permitting and construction process. RCE The deliberate reduction of refinery capacity by the oil companies has been a matter of policy for over a decade. For instance: "As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline." Internal Texaco document, March 7, 1996 "A senior energy analyst at the recent API (American Petroleum Institute) convention warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins...However, refining utilization has been rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low." Internal Chevron document, November 30, 1995 Complete attribution of those "internal documents" and more of the story from a US Senate investigative report, (now a few years old but obviously still relevant): tp://wyden.senate.gov/leg_issues/reports/wyden_oil_report.pdf You can read just exactly how the major oil companies deliberate closing of US refineries took nearly 900,000 bbl per day of refined product off the US market in an admitted effort to increase the gross margins on refined product. All of which impacts the costs involved with operating a boat, lest anybody think we're drifting too far off topic. :-) |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
On Mon, 08 May 2006 21:41:02 -0400, RCE wrote:
I watched an interview the other day with a big-wig from one of the major oil companies (forget which one, but it doesn't matter). He claimed that the environmental objections and permit obstacles were the major reasons for the lack of new refineries in the US. He claimed that mucho dollars were being spent to upgrade and make more efficient existing refineries as the permitting process is not as complex. So ... who to believe? Not that guy, and it's not permitting, it's economics. The oil industry has been closing refineries, 24 between 1995 and 2001, and according to Carol Browner of the EPA, there was only *one* application to build a new refinery. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...ining_text.htm http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...f:74099 .wais http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:...2+oil+& hl=en Also have to think about electrical energy. Power companies didn't stop building nuclear power plants because they wanted to limit the supply of electricity. They stopped because it became cost prohibitive to go through the permitting and construction process. It is economics, but again, not just the permitting costs. http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
On 8 May 2006 19:54:47 -0700, "
wrote: RCE wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Del Cecchi wrote: How about the outer continental shelf and gulf of Mexico? I believe the argument relates to how much area is off limits. And how many new refineries have been built in the last 20 years? del The fact is that no oil company has even proposed the construction of a new refinery in a very long time. It is in the oil companies' best interest to limit the number of refineries, and many of the major oil companies are more concerned with shutting down their existing refineries than in establishing new ones. There was a well publicized case where one of the major oil companies announced it was shutting down a refinery. An independent oil company stepped forward and offered to pay fair market value for the refinery, (mega millions) but the big oil company declined and said that it would rather bulldoze the site. That should tell us all that there are more mega-millions to be made by tearing down a refinery than by operating it or selling off the equipment to somebody else who would. You often hear the radio rabble rousers blame "the liberals" for preventing the establishment of new oil refineries in the US, but the oil companies have no collective interest in increasing refinery capacity. Just try to find a current example of an application to build an oil refinery of any type, let alone one that is being blocked by "liberals". :-) I watched an interview the other day with a big-wig from one of the major oil companies (forget which one, but it doesn't matter). He claimed that the environmental objections and permit obstacles were the major reasons for the lack of new refineries in the US. He claimed that mucho dollars were being spent to upgrade and make more efficient existing refineries as the permitting process is not as complex. So ... who to believe? Also have to think about electrical energy. Power companies didn't stop building nuclear power plants because they wanted to limit the supply of electricity. They stopped because it became cost prohibitive to go through the permitting and construction process. RCE The deliberate reduction of refinery capacity by the oil companies has been a matter of policy for over a decade. For instance: "As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline." Internal Texaco document, March 7, 1996 "A senior energy analyst at the recent API (American Petroleum Institute) convention warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins...However, refining utilization has been rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low." Internal Chevron document, November 30, 1995 Complete attribution of those "internal documents" and more of the story from a US Senate investigative report, (now a few years old but obviously still relevant): tp://wyden.senate.gov/leg_issues/reports/wyden_oil_report.pdf You can read just exactly how the major oil companies deliberate closing of US refineries took nearly 900,000 bbl per day of refined product off the US market in an admitted effort to increase the gross margins on refined product. All of which impacts the costs involved with operating a boat, lest anybody think we're drifting too far off topic. :-) Chuck, who was President when all the oil companies consolidated and all the refineries were closed? -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
JohnH wrote: Chuck, who was President when all the oil companies consolidated and all the refineries were closed? Wow! That's the very first time that anybody ever suggested that the President of the United States is in charge of operating or closing oil refineries. While I'm researching the identity of th POTUS in 1995, maybe you could get together a list of new applications to build oil refineries that have been presented since the year 2000. If the previous POTUS was responsible for the shutting down of oil refineries, I'm sure there must have been a backlog of demand to build new facilities after he finished his final term. Please read the senate report that I linked in my reply to RCE or follow the links provided by Thunder. You will see that refineries have been closed following analysis by the Petroleum Institute and other organizations that demonstrated to the oil companies they could actually earn more money (in fact, a *lot* more money) by choking off the supply of refined products to the US market. The party affiliation of the POTUS has nothing to do with it. I wonder who is president right now? (when lower income families and middle class families with long commutes are raiding savings accounts, scrimping on food and clothing, abandoning travel plans, and making other sacrifices while the oil companies rack up record-breaking profits and oil company executives are collecting $98mm annual *bonuses*) Doesn't really mater who the president is right now- he doesn't set the standard for rapacious profiteering by the oil companies any more than the previous president did. My advice would be to avoid getting manipulated by people with a vested interest in distracting the majority of the public from our current energy problem. The most effective way to distract enough people so that the artificially manipulated market won't get the scrutiny it deserves is to get the radio rabble rousers from both sides to convince their followers that it is somehow the fault of the opposing political philosophy or party. Keeping the people fighting among themselves is an important step toward political and social domination. It is a lack of free enterprise, lack of effective competition, and a willingness to manipulate supply that is responsible for that $500 charge to fill up your boat- not the D's, the R's, the reds, the blues, the liberals, or the conservatives. Not the current POTUS, and not the previous, either. |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
On 9 May 2006 08:31:23 -0700, "
wrote: JohnH wrote: Chuck, who was President when all the oil companies consolidated and all the refineries were closed? Wow! That's the very first time that anybody ever suggested that the President of the United States is in charge of operating or closing oil refineries. While I'm researching the identity of th POTUS in 1995, maybe you could get together a list of new applications to build oil refineries that have been presented since the year 2000. If the previous POTUS was responsible for the shutting down of oil refineries, I'm sure there must have been a backlog of demand to build new facilities after he finished his final term. Please read the senate report that I linked in my reply to RCE or follow the links provided by Thunder. You will see that refineries have been closed following analysis by the Petroleum Institute and other organizations that demonstrated to the oil companies they could actually earn more money (in fact, a *lot* more money) by choking off the supply of refined products to the US market. The party affiliation of the POTUS has nothing to do with it. I wonder who is president right now? (when lower income families and middle class families with long commutes are raiding savings accounts, scrimping on food and clothing, abandoning travel plans, and making other sacrifices while the oil companies rack up record-breaking profits and oil company executives are collecting $98mm annual *bonuses*) Doesn't really mater who the president is right now- he doesn't set the standard for rapacious profiteering by the oil companies any more than the previous president did. My advice would be to avoid getting manipulated by people with a vested interest in distracting the majority of the public from our current energy problem. The most effective way to distract enough people so that the artificially manipulated market won't get the scrutiny it deserves is to get the radio rabble rousers from both sides to convince their followers that it is somehow the fault of the opposing political philosophy or party. Keeping the people fighting among themselves is an important step toward political and social domination. It is a lack of free enterprise, lack of effective competition, and a willingness to manipulate supply that is responsible for that $500 charge to fill up your boat- not the D's, the R's, the reds, the blues, the liberals, or the conservatives. Not the current POTUS, and not the previous, either. Chuck, when did the great consolidation of oil companies occur, and who approved it? -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
JohnH wrote: On 9 May 2006 08:31:23 -0700, " wrote: JohnH wrote: Chuck, who was President when all the oil companies consolidated and all the refineries were closed? Wow! That's the very first time that anybody ever suggested that the President of the United States is in charge of operating or closing oil refineries. While I'm researching the identity of th POTUS in 1995, maybe you could get together a list of new applications to build oil refineries that have been presented since the year 2000. If the previous POTUS was responsible for the shutting down of oil refineries, I'm sure there must have been a backlog of demand to build new facilities after he finished his final term. Please read the senate report that I linked in my reply to RCE or follow the links provided by Thunder. You will see that refineries have been closed following analysis by the Petroleum Institute and other organizations that demonstrated to the oil companies they could actually earn more money (in fact, a *lot* more money) by choking off the supply of refined products to the US market. The party affiliation of the POTUS has nothing to do with it. I wonder who is president right now? (when lower income families and middle class families with long commutes are raiding savings accounts, scrimping on food and clothing, abandoning travel plans, and making other sacrifices while the oil companies rack up record-breaking profits and oil company executives are collecting $98mm annual *bonuses*) Doesn't really mater who the president is right now- he doesn't set the standard for rapacious profiteering by the oil companies any more than the previous president did. My advice would be to avoid getting manipulated by people with a vested interest in distracting the majority of the public from our current energy problem. The most effective way to distract enough people so that the artificially manipulated market won't get the scrutiny it deserves is to get the radio rabble rousers from both sides to convince their followers that it is somehow the fault of the opposing political philosophy or party. Keeping the people fighting among themselves is an important step toward political and social domination. It is a lack of free enterprise, lack of effective competition, and a willingness to manipulate supply that is responsible for that $500 charge to fill up your boat- not the D's, the R's, the reds, the blues, the liberals, or the conservatives. Not the current POTUS, and not the previous, either. Chuck, when did the great consolidation of oil companies occur, and who approved it? Please read the senate report or follow thunder's link. Thanks |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
wrote in message oups.com... RCE wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Del Cecchi wrote: How about the outer continental shelf and gulf of Mexico? I believe the argument relates to how much area is off limits. And how many new refineries have been built in the last 20 years? del The fact is that no oil company has even proposed the construction of a new refinery in a very long time. It is in the oil companies' best interest to limit the number of refineries, and many of the major oil companies are more concerned with shutting down their existing refineries than in establishing new ones. There was a well publicized case where one of the major oil companies announced it was shutting down a refinery. An independent oil company stepped forward and offered to pay fair market value for the refinery, (mega millions) but the big oil company declined and said that it would rather bulldoze the site. That should tell us all that there are more mega-millions to be made by tearing down a refinery than by operating it or selling off the equipment to somebody else who would. You often hear the radio rabble rousers blame "the liberals" for preventing the establishment of new oil refineries in the US, but the oil companies have no collective interest in increasing refinery capacity. Just try to find a current example of an application to build an oil refinery of any type, let alone one that is being blocked by "liberals". :-) I watched an interview the other day with a big-wig from one of the major oil companies (forget which one, but it doesn't matter). He claimed that the environmental objections and permit obstacles were the major reasons for the lack of new refineries in the US. He claimed that mucho dollars were being spent to upgrade and make more efficient existing refineries as the permitting process is not as complex. So ... who to believe? Also have to think about electrical energy. Power companies didn't stop building nuclear power plants because they wanted to limit the supply of electricity. They stopped because it became cost prohibitive to go through the permitting and construction process. RCE The deliberate reduction of refinery capacity by the oil companies has been a matter of policy for over a decade. For instance: "As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline." Internal Texaco document, March 7, 1996 "A senior energy analyst at the recent API (American Petroleum Institute) convention warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins...However, refining utilization has been rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low." Internal Chevron document, November 30, 1995 Complete attribution of those "internal documents" and more of the story from a US Senate investigative report, (now a few years old but obviously still relevant): tp://wyden.senate.gov/leg_issues/reports/wyden_oil_report.pdf You can read just exactly how the major oil companies deliberate closing of US refineries took nearly 900,000 bbl per day of refined product off the US market in an admitted effort to increase the gross margins on refined product. All of which impacts the costs involved with operating a boat, lest anybody think we're drifting too far off topic. :-) There is still probably enough refining capacity in the US. Unfortunately, with all the government mandated blends for different areas, all that capacity can not be used. When there was a refinery fire a couple of years ago in SoCal, there was lots of excess gas in Arizona. Could not be sold in California. Wrong blend! As to the fires, lots of them were caused by government mandated MTBE. The stuff is a fantastic solvent. Ate up seals in 3 months that normal fuels did not affect in a year. And the Shell refinery near Bakersfield that was turned down for sale. How much cash was to be presented? How much was the credit required from Shell? How much liability for the ground was to assumed? The last one is probably a major one. 10 years down the road and the buyer turns the land into condos. How much will Shell be sued for when the toxic waste is "discovered"? |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Mon, 08 May 2006 21:41:02 -0400, RCE wrote: I watched an interview the other day with a big-wig from one of the major oil companies (forget which one, but it doesn't matter). He claimed that the environmental objections and permit obstacles were the major reasons for the lack of new refineries in the US. He claimed that mucho dollars were being spent to upgrade and make more efficient existing refineries as the permitting process is not as complex. So ... who to believe? Not that guy, and it's not permitting, it's economics. The oil industry has been closing refineries, 24 between 1995 and 2001, and according to Carol Browner of the EPA, there was only *one* application to build a new refinery. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...ining_text.htm http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...f:74099 .wais http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:...2+oil+& hl=en Also have to think about electrical energy. Power companies didn't stop building nuclear power plants because they wanted to limit the supply of electricity. They stopped because it became cost prohibitive to go through the permitting and construction process. It is economics, but again, not just the permitting costs. http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm If the refinery is not profitable and there is no land to expand and upgrade the refinery, are you going to require a business to keep it open? |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
On Tue, 09 May 2006 17:44:40 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:
If the refinery is not profitable and there is no land to expand and upgrade the refinery, are you going to require a business to keep it open? Hell no. I don't have a problem with the oil industry running their refineries more efficiently. I do have a problem with them blaming environmentalists for the lack of new refineries. It's plain BS. |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
On Tue, 09 May 2006 17:43:24 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:
There is still probably enough refining capacity in the US. Unfortunately, with all the government mandated blends for different areas, all that capacity can not be used. Looks pretty well utilized to me. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...Crude_runs.htm |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
If the refinery is not profitable and there is no land to expand and
upgrade the refinery, are you going to require a business to keep it open? Depends on how you let them define the concept of 'profitable'. If it means, as they've cleared schemed, that they have to deliberately reduce the amount of production in order to gouge the consumers then it's certainly questionable behavior. |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
"Bill Kearney" wrote in message t... If the refinery is not profitable and there is no land to expand and upgrade the refinery, are you going to require a business to keep it open? Depends on how you let them define the concept of 'profitable'. If it means, as they've cleared schemed, that they have to deliberately reduce the amount of production in order to gouge the consumers then it's certainly questionable behavior. http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/...ry06050910.htm Maybe this will explain some of the economics of oil to you. |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
On Wed, 10 May 2006 17:33:18 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:
Maybe this will explain some of the economics of oil to you. And some more of the economics of oil: http://www.stopexxonmobil.org/cashin...democracy.html Hey, I don't have a problem with Exxon's profits, but do they really need our tax-dollar subsidies? There's that dirty little link between campaign finance and corporate welfare. |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
So have any of you right to dump guys ever actually lived around a ship yard? Try traveling around southern TX or LA. What a hell hole. The water in Morgan City, LA was the only drinking water that gave me heart burn. Sure ya can kill the biologicals and filter out the big stuff ............ but if you ever been on the lower mississippi river I dare you to drink the stuff out of the tap. So you know how much **** over 50 years has ended up in the water with a yard on it? Lets start with the red lead, Cu , arsenic, asbestos etc to name a few. Oh, how about sand blasting the bridges. 1000s of pounds of zinc and bridge paint falling into the estuary (that means bay for you smart right to dump guys) ........Now that makes for some tasty clams. Do not get me wrong. I worked offshore out of Patterson/ Morgan City, LA, my now 85 year old mother welded at two ship yards, and my step dad commercial fished the west cost for 30 years. Boat yards are a very ugly places. I say, flange em up and keep them clean. But I guess you yachties dont see the need because your pretty boats dont make a mess. Instead of hiring some mexican for $8/hr to sand your bottom grab some 40 grit and go to it yourself for 16 hours and let me know how "clean" a yard is. bob |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
Bob wrote: So have any of you right to dump guys ever actually lived around a ship yard? Try traveling around southern TX or LA. What a hell hole. The water in Morgan City, LA was the only drinking water that gave me heart burn. Sure ya can kill the biologicals and filter out the big stuff ............ but if you ever been on the lower mississippi river I dare you to drink the stuff out of the tap. So you know how much **** over 50 years has ended up in the water with a yard on it? Lets start with the red lead, Cu , arsenic, asbestos etc to name a few. Oh, how about sand blasting the bridges. 1000s of pounds of zinc and bridge paint falling into the estuary (that means bay for you smart right to dump guys) ........Now that makes for some tasty clams. Do not get me wrong. I worked offshore out of Patterson/ Morgan City, LA, my now 85 year old mother welded at two ship yards, and my step dad commercial fished the west cost for 30 years. Boat yards are a very ugly places. I say, flange em up and keep them clean. But I guess you yachties dont see the need because your pretty boats dont make a mess. Instead of hiring some mexican for $8/hr to sand your bottom grab some 40 grit and go to it yourself for 16 hours and let me know how "clean" a yard is. bob You're describing practices, (such as sandblasting into the bay), that have been out of practice for a long time. If your mom is 85, you're probably retired by now. Get out to a local boatyard and see how times have changed since you last dumped everything into the water and figured that was probably "good enough." |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
On 12 May 2006 09:00:46 -0700, "Bob" wrote:
So have any of you right to dump guys ever actually lived around a ship yard? Try traveling around southern TX or LA. What a hell hole. The water in Morgan City, LA was the only drinking water that gave me heart burn. Sure ya can kill the biologicals and filter out the big stuff ............ but if you ever been on the lower mississippi river I dare you to drink the stuff out of the tap. So you know how much **** over 50 years has ended up in the water with a yard on it? Lets start with the red lead, Cu , arsenic, asbestos etc to name a few. Oh, how about sand blasting the bridges. 1000s of pounds of zinc and bridge paint falling into the estuary (that means bay for you smart right to dump guys) ........Now that makes for some tasty clams. Do not get me wrong. I worked offshore out of Patterson/ Morgan City, LA, my now 85 year old mother welded at two ship yards, and my step dad commercial fished the west cost for 30 years. Boat yards are a very ugly places. I say, flange em up and keep them clean. But I guess you yachties dont see the need because your pretty boats dont make a mess. Instead of hiring some mexican for $8/hr to sand your bottom grab some 40 grit and go to it yourself for 16 hours and let me know how "clean" a yard is. bob "Yachtie?" Have I moved up in the world? -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
On Fri, 12 May 2006 10:13:55 -0700, wrote:
You're describing practices, (such as sandblasting into the bay), that have been out of practice for a long time. If your mom is 85, you're probably retired by now. Get out to a local boatyard and see how times have changed since you last dumped everything into the water and figured that was probably "good enough." I'm not so sure, Chuck. Pollution issues are often a matter of state enforcement. You live in a relatively "green" state. Louisiana is not. http://www.scorecard.org/ranking/ran...ter+relea ses In fact, it was as recently as 1999, that a Federal Judge stepped in and mandated the EPA set pollution limits as Louisiana had refused to act. http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=130 |
Environmentalists Vs Boatyards; Maybe even a boatyard near you!
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com