• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

4 refineries out of commission for weeks to months

lowecur

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Posts
2,317
Total Time
na
Some 800,000 barrels of gasoline per day will not get to market anytime in the near future. Somebody's gonna get the short end of the stick, as Jet A and gasoline should continue to rise as delivery costs soar. Displaced markets will need to have supply trucked in as the SE Louisiana refineries deliver their product by oversea tanker and not the pipelines. Foreign refineries will step in to deliver the short gap, but it will take weeks to get here once the orders are placed.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050904/katrina_refineries_hk3.html?.v=2
 
Last edited:

chperplt

Registered User
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
4,123
Total Time
.
Some 800,000 barrels of gasoline per day will not get to market anytime in the near future

WRONG...

The one thing Bush has done right in this whole mess is release an equal number of barrels from the reserve that is not being produced. There is no, and will be no shortage of oil.
 

h25b

Left for ProPilotWorld
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Posts
1,829
Total Time
.....
chperplt said:
WRONG...

The one thing Bush has done right in this whole mess is release an equal number of barrels from the reserve that is not being produced. There is no, and will be no shortage of oil.

There's a difference between OIL and refined GASOLINE/JET-A/FUEL OIL/DIESEL/ETC... I agree that there will be no oil shortage but that is not what is being discussed here.
 

FurloughedAgain

Cabin Heating & Air Tech.
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Posts
1,657
Total Time
10000+
They're right. We've never had an "oil" shortage. What we do have is a significant lack of refinery capacity.
 

DH106

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2002
Posts
185
Total Time
5000
TRUE: Releasing oil from the SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserve) will fill in that 800,000 barrel-per-day gap. But, this should have been done when oil was $35 per barrel. It would have sent a clear message to oil producers that the U.S. will not tolerate higher prices (for those who don't know, George H.W. Bush tapped the reserve to do so... why his son, W., didn't, is a matter of debate).

MORE TRUE: There will be no shortage of oil.

EXTREMELY MORE TRUE: The media, alarmists (i.e., those who mistakenly believe that there will be an oil shortage), and finally OPEC will emphasize the loss of refining capability. The daily onslaught of market panic will ensue, thereby keeping the price high, or driving it higher, despite the fact that there is no oil shortage. Most recent NYMEX settle price: $67. Welcome to the new target price... nothing lower than $50 per barrel. It's here to stay.
 
Last edited:

Thedude

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2001
Posts
1,277
Total Time
8000+
DH106 said:
Welcome to the new target price... nothing lower than $50 per barrel. It's here to stay.

Steve Forbes seems to think differently. He says the oil bubble will burst within the next 12 - 18 months and prices will drop well below $45 a barrel
 

Kid Charlemagne

Banned
It's OK, I speak Jive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Posts
225
Total Time
10,000
Thedude said:
Steve Forbes seems to think differently. He says the oil bubble will burst within the next 12 - 18 months and prices will drop well below $45 a barrel

I sure hope he's right! Then again, he also thought he would be president...twice!
 

pilot141

Professional Cynic
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
274
Total Time
5,000+
Yes, the Strategic Reserve is unrefined crude. That will be released to ease the supply side to operating refineries.

The Europeans have pledged to release some of their reserves which, strangely enough, come in the form of already refined gasoline. Hopefully this will allow the remaining refineries to produce more Jet-A, as refined gasoline is en-route from Europe.

The long-term effect of this entire disaster (oil-wise) should be a loud wake-up call to the US regarding oil production. When the refineries operate at 99% capacity for years nobody notices. But get just one disruption and gas jumps $1/gallon in less than a week: THAT get's people's attention. Result: any politician that tries to block new refinery construction will get buried in the next election. I also wouldn't be surprised to see all of the crazy patchwork of geographic "blends" of gasoline get revised or eliminated.

Just my opinion, and it's worth what you paid for it!
 

JayhawkDude

Just happy to be here!
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Posts
88
Total Time
6K-ish
Any insurance *ahem* professionals here?

Insurers drop again on concern Katrina losses will grow

By Alistair Barr
Last Updated: 8/31/2005 4:08:07 PM


SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) - Insurance stocks fell for a third day Wednesday on concern that industry losses from Hurricane Katrina could be worse than initially thought.
Katrina hit Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama on Monday packing 145 mph winds. Catastrophe modeling firms, such as Risk Management Solutions and Eqecat, estimated earlier this week that the storm could cost the insurance industry between $9 billion and $25 billion.

However, since those estimates came out on Monday and Tuesday, flooding in New Orleans has added an extra element of uncertainty and potential cost, analysts said.

"People have seen how bad things are on CNN and are saying 'My God it's worse than we thought,'" Ira Zuckerman, an insurance analyst at Stanford Group, said. "New Orleans has been wiped out. What hasn't blown down is underwater and is likely uninhabitable."

Breached levees and the extensive flooding of New Orleans that followed have increased the chances of large business-interruption claims and made disputes over insurance coverage much more likely, analysts said.

"The breach of the levee in New Orleans could prolong the emergence of loss, thereby increasing ultimate losses and raising numerous additional coverage questions," Charles Gates, an analyst at Credit Suisse First Boston, wrote in a note to clients on Wednesday.

These new concerns rattled shares of insurers and reinsurers.

"This is a very severe disaster that won't be cleaned up for some time and will probably cost more than people initially thought," Zuckerman added.

Allstate Corp. (ALL), the second-largest homeowners insurer in Louisiana and the No. 3 in Mississippi and Alabama, fell 43 cents to $56.21, adding to its declines on Monday and Tuesday.

St. Paul Travelers (STA), another leading insurer of homes and businesses in the region, dropped 2.1% to $43.01. That rivaled the decline in the shares on Monday and Tuesday combined.

Reinsurers such as Axis Capital (AXS), PXRE Group (PXT) and Arch Capital (ACGL), fell more than 2% on Wednesday on concern they'll have to pick up a bigger portion of the losses from Katrina than they did from last year's four hurricanes.

"Because this is one storm rather than four this will mean reinsurers will have to pay more of the losses," Zuckerman said.

-------------
Figured if insurance agents are talking about the airline industry, maybe some pilots should talk insurance. Whaddya say?

JD

P.S. Still waiting patiently for THE ORDER. BBBGAWWWK!


 

JimNtexas

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Posts
1,590
Total Time
2000
The refinery situation is better than is being reported, that's why prices of oil and gas futures are declining.
 

DonVerita

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
575
Total Time
10000+
JimNtexas said:
The refinery situation is better than is being reported, that's why prices of oil and gas futures are declining.

Hopefully you are right and we will see the price recede. But will the price eventually recede all the way back to where it was prior to Katrina arriving, or will the greedy oil companies (who already receive billions in free handouts from this Bush/Cheney cartel at YOUR expense) continue to keep the prices jacked up at some higher level than they were before the hurricane hit?

We hear a lot of talk about more refining capacity. That may be the answer in the short term but what about the long term. There is only so much oil in the ground. It WILL run out. We ARE at the mercy of OPEC and other disasters.

The answer is not to drill in ANWAR for a 6 month supply that will take 8-10 years to get. The answer is in alternative clean burning unlimited supply fuels starting with Hydrogen. Sure it will take years to get over all the hurdles and develop the infrastructure. So do we roll up our sleeves and get to work on it now, or do we wait until the world is on the brink of energy collapse and then say, "Oh, we should have started this project earlier"? Get it done.

Years ago, this country made a hurculean effort to put together the best and brightest minds in to create what was called the Manhattan Project. It worked. We could do the same thing again in the development of Hydrogen energy. Unfortunately, we have an inept, short-sighted, corrupt administration whom is bought and paid for by the interests of Big Business. Regime change starts at home.
 

lowecur

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Posts
2,317
Total Time
na
JayhawkDude said:
Insurers drop again on concern Katrina losses will grow


Figured if insurance agents are talking about the airline industry, maybe some pilots should talk insurance. Whaddya say?

JD

P.S. Still waiting patiently for THE ORDER. BBBGAWWWK! Herb hasn't ordered just to spite me. He will come around after you start losing business in BUF, ISP, and other future 190 cities.:)

ps: Air France just ordered 6 190's today. Hopefully, the rest of Europe will start coming around. The "snowball" effect will takeover as other carriers will need to compete.


Actually the industry should come out fine. They exclude flood, have large deductibles on wind, and in general underwrite in areas they can be profitable. I would guess they will probably pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $20B-$40B in direct property and business interruption claims, and the CAT losses will be split by hundreds of insurers and re-insurers throughout the world. Uninsured losses(including clean-up), Self Insured Retention(Munincipality Infrastructure) will probably be picked up by FEMA, and the rest will be covered by Nat'l Flood Insurance Program for those individuals that purchased it.

It's a truly sad situation, but one the compasionate people in this country will overcome in the next few years.
 
Last edited:

JimNtexas

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Posts
1,590
Total Time
2000
But will the price eventually recede all the way back to where it was prior to Katrina arriving, or will the greedy oil companies (who already receive billions in free handouts from this Bush/Cheney cartel at YOUR expense) continue to keep the prices jacked up at some higher level than they were before the hurricane hit?

We hear a lot of talk about more refining capacity. That may be the answer in the short term but what about the long term. There is only so much oil in the ground. It WILL run out. We ARE at the mercy of OPEC and other disasters.

The answer is not to drill in ANWAR for a 6 month supply that will take 8-10 years to get. The answer is in alternative clean burning unlimited supply fuels starting with Hydrogen. Sure it will take years to get over all the hurdles and develop the infrastructure. So do we roll up our sleeves and get to work on it now, or do we wait until the world is on the brink of energy collapse and then say, "Oh, we should have started this project earlier"? Get it done.

1) Were you demanding investigations of the greedy oil companies during the many years when oil was below $25/gallon?

2) It's crazy not to drill for oil in Anwar. This argument that because its not another Saudi Arabia we shouldn't bother is stupid. Its a secure domestic source that we need now.

3) I have no problem with "clean burning unlimited supply fuels starting with Hydrogen", but I don't think you understand that hydrogen is really a transfer medium. It takes a lot of energy to extract hydrogen from water and deliver it to where it is needed. Hydrogen fuel makes sense only in conjunction with new nuclear power plants. That's the only economical source of the energy required by hydrogen vehicles.

The fact is that the left opposes any form of fuel production, any form of electrical production, and any form of flood control. The only rational explanation for the left's behavior is a desire, based on self-hatred, to see the United States reduced to third world status.
 

NuGuy

Ex-Commuter
Joined
May 30, 2003
Posts
2,375
Total Time
10000
JimNtexas said:
I have no problem with "clean burning unlimited supply fuels starting with Hydrogen", but I don't think you understand that hydrogen is really a transfer medium. It takes a lot of energy to extract hydrogen from water and deliver it to where it is needed. Hydrogen fuel makes sense only in conjunction with new nuclear power plants. That's the only economical source of the energy required by hydrogen vehicles.

Absolutely correct. It's not like there are vast reserves of pure H2 just waiting to be tapped. You have to PRODUCE H2, and do that, you need power.

If you have a production facility producing H2, it has to get it's power from somewhere...coal, oil, nuke, whatever. Nuke is the preferable way to go.

Fusion would be much better, but we're at least 50 years from that, if ever.

With the uptick of the cost of energy, lots of people are starting to take advantage of the tax breaks for installing solar cells on their house. Suppliers report quite bit of backlog in the supply of panels. While this is an incremental solution, it can be cost effective if you live in a sunny state. You get a tax break, plus you get to sell excess back to the grid if you live in a state (and utility) that allows it. New flexible panel technology allows installation in difficult locations. Still, the break even point is about 20 years.

Personally, I would get a Toyta Prius, do the Prius+ conversion on it (replaces the NMHi batteries with LiPol batteries, and allows you to plug it in at night). People who live in town and don't do a lot of highway driving (hybrids work best in stop/go traffic) report almost 100 MPG.

Nu
 

DonVerita

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
575
Total Time
10000+
JimNtexas said:
1) Were you demanding investigations of the greedy oil companies during the many years when oil was below $25/gallon?

2) It's crazy not to drill for oil in Anwar. This argument that because its not another Saudi Arabia we shouldn't bother is stupid. Its a secure domestic source that we need now.

3) I have no problem with "clean burning unlimited supply fuels starting with Hydrogen", but I don't think you understand that hydrogen is really a transfer medium. It takes a lot of energy to extract hydrogen from water and deliver it to where it is needed. Hydrogen fuel makes sense only in conjunction with new nuclear power plants. That's the only economical source of the energy required by hydrogen vehicles.

The fact is that the left opposes any form of fuel production, any form of electrical production, and any form of flood control. The only rational explanation for the left's behavior is a desire, based on self-hatred, to see the United States reduced to third world status.

Your irrational tirade just oozes with typical right wing vitriol. So what is your solution? Do you even have one except to say, "Drill Drill Drill!". And when your 6 month supply of oil in Alaska is used up, what will you have then except a messed up ecological nightmare? But you don't live there so who cares, right? The old, "I've got mine so screw you" mentality. I understand it takes power to make Hydrogen power. Granted. But technological improvements and economies of scale will bring that cost down, supply up, and have the added highly valued benefit of eliminating vehicle exhaust pollution thereby reducing greenhouse gases. Oh wait...you're part of the Republican spin machine that says green house gases don't exist, the ozone is not being depleted, and everything is A OK up in the Enron office because Bush/Cheney/Rove and Halliburton say so. Spare us your B.S.

So the Left opposes flood control now, eh? And your proof for such an imbecilic statement comes from where? In fact wasn't it Bush who cut spending for the upgrade to the NOLA levee system that engineers said needed to be done 3 years ago. Those tax cuts for the uber-wealthy have to come from somewhere since funding for our treasury has slowed to a crawl since W arrived. As for reducing the U.S. to 3rd world status...let's see who paves the way for that road. Take a look at the quality of life that has been reduced over the past 5 years in the realm of pensions - gone, many good technology jobs - eliminated by replacements from India/Pakistan, manufacturing - exported, health care costs - sky high, environmental protection - almost gone, CAFE standards - stagnant, rational renewable energy plan - non existant, subsidies for Big Business - through the roof, the Walmartization of America - daily reminder. The middle class is shrinking. People are struggling to hang on to what they have as the disparity between rich and poor grows wider by the day. Take a look back in history as to what the outcome of this scenario is.

Instead of spreading the Ownership Doctrine, why don't you listen a bit more to what others besides Rush Limbaugh have to say. The Left never said they opposed fuel production. They want -sensible- production with -sensible- use in the form of conservation and higher mpg standards through hybrid vehicles thereby -reducing- our need for more oil and eventually eliminating that need alltogether through renewable form(s) of energy. What is it about this that the Right Wing doesn't understand? Now go park your SUV in your garage before someone tags it.
 

Redmeat

People Mover
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Posts
641
Total Time
Ubecha
DonVerita said:
Instead of spreading the Ownership Doctrine, why don't you listen a bit more to what others besides Rush Limbaugh have to say. The Left never said they opposed fuel production. They want -sensible- production with -sensible- use in the form of conservation and higher mpg standards through hybrid vehicles thereby -reducing- our need for more oil and eventually eliminating that need alltogether through renewable form(s) of energy. What is it about this that the Right Wing doesn't understand? Now go park your SUV in your garage before someone tags it.

The Left couldn't find their a$$ with a flashlight and a map.
 

JimNtexas

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Posts
1,590
Total Time
2000
DonVerita said:
I understand it takes power to make Hydrogen power. Granted. But technological improvements and economies of scale will bring that cost down, supply up, and have the added highly valued benefit of eliminating vehicle exhaust pollution thereby reducing greenhouse gases.

So will you take your hydrogen with nuclear, coal, or more very large dam projects? Pick at least one.


So the Left opposes flood control now, eh? And your proof for such an imbecilic statement comes from where?

Of course they do,and you know it. Heck, they'd like to tear down Boulder Dam. Flood control might hurt a "wetland" you know.

Here is a typical lefist view towards flood control in a New York Times editorial of 13 April 2005:

Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America's rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects -- this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences.

The Government Accountability Office and other watchdogs accuse the corps of routinely inflating the economic benefits of its projects. And environmentalists blame it for turning free-flowing rivers into lifeless canals and destroying millions of acres of wetlands -- usually in the name of flood control and navigation but mostly to satisfy Congress's appetite for pork.

This is a bad piece of legislation.


When was the last time you hear a leftie asking the goverment to build a dam?? They hate that kind of thing, and you know it.
 
Last edited:

DonVerita

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
575
Total Time
10000+
JimNtexas said:
So will you take your hydrogen with nuclear, coal, or more very large dam projects? Pick at least one.




Of course they do,and you know it. Heck, they'd like to tear down Boulder Dam. Flood control might hurt a "wetland" you know.

Here is a typical lefist view towards flood control in a New York Times editorial of 13 April 2005:

Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America's rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects -- this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences.

The Government Accountability Office and other watchdogs accuse the corps of routinely inflating the economic benefits of its projects. And environmentalists blame it for turning free-flowing rivers into lifeless canals and destroying millions of acres of wetlands -- usually in the name of flood control and navigation but mostly to satisfy Congress's appetite for pork.

This is a bad piece of legislation.


When was the last time you hear a leftie asking the goverment to build a dam?? They hate that kind of thing, and you know it.

Once again...you still appear to not be able to see the forest through the trees.

How long can we keep trying to tame Mother Nature? She will eventually win...always. Wetlands protect the coasts from storms. Wetlands absorb overflowing rivers. What don't you understand about this? Some dams were ill-concieved pork barrell projects from the get go. Extreme loss of wetlands, habitat, fish migration, etc. Others were well thought out and built in a way that helped the natural flow of water and aquatic life to continue. In your flood control quote above you reference a MIssissippi River project that twice failed inspection. So you believe that just because it is a "flood control" project it should be rubber stamped anyway. A flood control project where? In some area that will destroy more wetlands (which are a form of natural flood control by the way) just so a fat cat developer can put expensive homes there? That's not flood control. That's corporate greed at the expense of everyone else.

Environmentalists are mostly from the Left. These are the people who fight for clean air, clean water, sustainable habitat, pollution controls, anti-sprawl, and a host of other things to make YOUR life better. And then we have the Bush administration who has allowed increased levels of arsenic in our drinking water, Superfund site cleanup bills to be shifted to the taxpayers instead of the big corporations that caused them, increased mercury allowed into the air by coal fired power plants, non-enforcement of current EPA regulations with a continued degradation of such, no improvement in CAFE requirements, etc. etc.

I doubt you even know what the foundation of the Left is...let alone liberalism. You and others like you are so brainwashed by the likes of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh that you have lost the ability to think outside the confined box you've built around yourself. Take the blinders off. We are our brother's keeper. We have the moral and ethical obligation to take care of those around us who are less fortunate or in times of need. Perhaps one day you will be part of that group. There will always be bad apples from every walk of life; however they are a minority in the majority of good people.

If being a Democrat and a Liberal means protecting our nation, our air, water, food supply, civil rights, human rights, environment and fellow neighbors from harm in any form including that from our own government, and never being afraid to question those in power...then I am proud to be one.
 

414Flyer

Down with Chemtrails!
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Posts
4,948
Total Time
4200
ANWR will provide additional oil for more than 6 months, to say that is intellectual dishonesty. Probably will go for 20-30 years, just as north slope, prudhoe bay have.

Speaking of... Did the north slope and Prudhoe become an ecological nightmare? Did the Alaskan Pipeline become an ecological nightmare?

No, both were opposed were those reasons, and both ended up just fine. Would you support those being closed up?

Jims post was spot on. And yes the left is against energy exploration and production. They are against oil, against nuclear, against wind, against coal, against hydroelectric, etc. What exactly are they for?

Here is a question I have not yet ever gotten an answer to. I am not looking for politics or emotion. Just a plain cut and dry answer.

If ANWR is not enough oil to drill, then what is the minimum possible amount of recoverable oil that could be extracted, in order to drill someplace then?
 

Jimdandy

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Posts
124
Total Time
6000+
we will never run out of oil......however over the years the price will go up and up until it just isn't economically viable to use it. That will happen about 2025 to 2040 and to some extent right now.

So why not get ready now?

Answer: because Americans are in denial and mostly idiots I mean they voted for George W.

Just think if everyone got rid of their impractical SUVs and bought vehicles that got 35-40 mpg the airlines would be in great shape and oil would be about 38 dollars a barrel max.
 
Top