quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Add to all of this that Venezuelan oil production is down, and likely that corruption is occurring that is draining off some of their revenues. Chavez is not stupid, and all this threat of cutting the US off, is just bluster. Here is a decent article on their oil production:  Venezuelan oil production

  

I did see that in the artical.

It actually said it was production issues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

     Thompson;   I read your link far enough to get to the part about the poor 'not having money for work-out plans.'   At that point I dismissed it as pure clueless, bullshit. 

   Perhaps you should try considering the context of the remarks you go leaping on. 

Rich:
"Pure clueless bullshit"
You disagree with something you admit you did not read.
ROFLMAO
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

That article mentions it as a possibility, I was reading another where Chavez had an audit done, and the Minsiter for that area had no explanation for where the money was. I cannot believe any government, or business can just lose money, but then again I have an accounting/business background.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

We do not purchase 1/2 our oil from Veneazuela. If we did it would be about 11 million bbls a day. If Chavez cut us off it would be the beginning of the end of his rule...he and Venezuela need every penny they can get from oil. That's all they have...like Russia and Mexico.

Well that's all Mexico had until Nafta caused corporations to move so much of our maunfacturing down there. Look, the Mexicans ought to be rich by now...hey ? If you want to look at the single most costly trade pact (Clinton) it is Nafta and that was like ALL 'free trade' aggreements...not 'free trade' agreements at all what with all of the agricultural and textile import restrictions.

My mistake. Venezuela falls just behind Saudi Arabia as a supplier.

Still a shit load of oil .The point remains that this is about oil,nothing else.

NAFTA is my biggest problem with Clinton.But he wasn`t alone.He ,the republicans and business interests were behind it.Bush hasn`t altered it a bit,so now he owns it too.

We of course are paying and paying for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

    Thompson;   I read your link far enough to get to the part about the poor 'not having money for work-out plans.'   At that point I dismissed it as pure clueless, bullshit. 

  Perhaps you should try considering the context of the remarks you go leaping on. 

Rich:
"Pure clueless bullshit"
You disagree with something you admit you did not read.
ROFLMAO
thompson

     I bet I read more of it than you did, Thompson.  Here is your source.  I doubt I'll bother clicking any more of your links, even if I do bother to read your posts, if this is how you plan to waste my time.

Bye.

XXXXX XXXX, Student Participant

Ogden High School, IA

Tipping the Scales: Obesity Among the Poverty Stricken in America

http://www.worldfoodprize.org/assets/YouthInstitute/05proceedings/OgdenHighSchool.pdf

     

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aubre
I can't imagine Chavez prevailing - stealing is stealing. Do you think these companies would have invested so much money and resources down there if they knew someone was just going to take it from them and give them nothing in return? How would you like it if it happened to you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muttling

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Muttling:
You might want to read this.  It might give you a little better understanding of what you are discussing.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3792
 
and
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/121107dnbusrefinery.2894c91.html

It would seem that some can do it in somewhat less than 20 to 30 years.  If one considers how much money the oil companies have and how much money they would make on the investment 3 to 10 billion dollars considered in that perspective is nothing more than a proverbial "drop in the bucket"
thompson

I am familiar with that report and disagree with it's conclusions.   HOWEVER, the point of refined oil being a meager proffit margin item is well worth noting.  An oil company CAN afford to spend $10 billion but they're not going to do it unless they can get a return on that investment and trying to build a new refineries is a decades long money pit that will ultimately provide "meager" proffits as described by the OpEd you referenced.

On the subject of 20 to 30 years to construct, have you ever been involved in the planning, designing, construction, and startup testing of an industrial facility?    My background is civil/ environmental engineering.   I've never done something the size of a refinery, but it typically takes 10 years just to put a small industrial plant with limited environmental issue into action.

Think about it......First you have to figure out where you're going to site the plant.   That includes all sorts of issues from geotechnical investigations to political/ economic studies to labor force studies to infrastructure studies.   And lets not forget the formal Environmental Impact Assessment aspect which will require a minimum of 5 years by the time it goes through public reviews.  

Then there will be the law suits trying to stop the operation and those will start as soon as the EIS is put out for public review.

All this MONEY, all this pain, and it's 3 to 5 years before the engineering firms have even started the drawings.  The design work is complex and would contracted out to someone like Bechtel or Haliburton.  At the 30%, 50%, 95%, and 100% stages of the design you will want to get state regulator review as well as federal regulator review.   Have you ever sent a large design to the regulators for review???   Do you have any idea as to how long you sit there with nothing to do, just waiting to get their comments back?

And then there's the folks who will be trying to stop it from being built.  They will be filing suit to get a copy of every piece of correspondence and everything you submit to the regulators so they can try to use it to stop you.

Now that you've spent about 10 years to get your designs through the regulators it comes time for the permitting process and this is something you CAN'T keep the public out of.   That will take at least 2 years, IF YOU'RE LUCKY.

Now were 15 to 17 years out (at least) and haven't even broken ground yet.   How long do you think the actual construction of a major chemical plant takes?   My guess would be another 10-15 years with portions of the plant coming on line a few years earlier.

As those portions of the plant come on line, you can't simply fire them up and start running.  You have to do your prove out testing and get regulator approval to turn it on.  Again, the public will be involved in this final approval step so anyone fighting it will have another crack at you.


That's how I come up to my time frame and I have over 15 years of civil/environmental experience to back it up. 


Oh yeah....What about complicating factors?

Do you think you will get to keep EPA policies that are supportive of your plant coming on line?  Do you have any idea as to how much the regulations governing such plants change in the course of 20 to 30 years?  You have to design to hit a moving target.

Do you think you could possibly keep the same regulators (e.g. the individuals you are working with at the State and Federal levels) over that period of time?   You're typically lucky if you can keep one for 5 years.   When a new one comes in, they are not obligated to keep the verbal agreements that their predecessor did.  They might have other things they want to see before they will give you approval.

Do you think you could possibly keep supportive politicians in office for that period of time?  The people who are opposed to you will be spending a LOT of money to get politicians who see it their way into office and you will have to spend a lot of money fending them off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

What will your position be should Chavez prevail and Exxon Mobil loose in their lawsuit?
Will you consider it a "perversion" of justice? Or will you agree that the rule of law was served and that Chavez was right?

Isn't this whole 'threat' because Chavez already lost (injunction freezing 12 billion) in court, and is preparing for the case that the international courts aren't going to give him the results he wants?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks

If the constitution of a country allows it to nationalise a company or whole industry, then that's that.  Its incumbent on foreign investors to know who they're getting into bed with. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


muttling:
You say that you are familiar with the two cites that I submitted but they clearly refute every point you have tried to make.  So it would seem that you may not be as familiar with the studies as you claim.
The first cite is by the CATO foundation a conservative think tank states pretty clearly why refineries are where they are and why no new ones are being built.
The second one clearly shows that one is being built and in significantly less time than you postulate.
It would appear that your claimed expertise is somewhat lacking in credibility.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aubre


Aubre:
I see you would rather pontificate than answer my question.
I see you have a big thing about stealing....how do you feel about the U.S. stealing Hawaii?
How do you feel about the U.S. stealing land from the native Americans?
How do you feel about the U.S. stealing half of Mexico?
Or is it just when you perceive someone stealing from your team that you get your knickers all bunched up?
thompson

First things first - what do you consider to be "your team"? Whoever they are I am sure we can find theft in their history as well.
My team was instrumental in taking Mexico city.  My team took Hawaii.  My team is the presidents own personal swat team whom he does not need to ask congress to use.

I notice that in your profile you currently live in the United States.
That is correct and the only time I have not lived here was when I was busy thugging others out of their shit. I have done it in Cuba,Dominican Republic,Panama,Columbia,Viet Nam,Cambodia and Laos.

You really like to demonize the US but you choose to live here. You contribute economically to the very country you despise.
If I tell you that you are handsome it does not mean I love you.
If I tell you that you are ugly it does not mean I hate you.
They are merely observations.
While I do not despise my country I do despise what some assholes who have power in my country do in it's name.

No one is alive today that is responsible for the issues you bring up in this post, and it isn't really relevant.
It is relevant because we all share in the legacy of that thuggery.
Perhaps you might want to read a little tome by the title of
"War is a Racket" by General Smedley Butler USMC MOH who,at the time of his death,was the most highly decorated man in U.S. history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muttling

Since I question your ability to complete a close reading of your citations, I'll point out some details for you......



CATO institute quote, "A large oil refinery costs $4 billion to $6 billion to build."
Dallas News quote, "Motiva Enterprises LLC, owned by Royal Dutch Shell and Saudi Aramco, will invest $7 billion to expand an existing refinery."

Ummmm.....$7 billion being spent to expand an existing facility versus the claim that it only costs $4 to $6 billion to build a brand spanking new one???????  I tend to believe the people who are actually doing the work instead of a think tank.
The Cato document is dated June 05,the Newspaper article is dated December 07...inflation and increase in wages of about 15% in two and a half years is well within the range of reality.  At the time of the Cato document a 600 million gallon a day facility had never been done before.  At the time of the Cato document the largest facility was less than 350 million gallons a day.


CATO quote, "it costs far less to expand production capacity at existing plants than it does to expand capacity by building new plants." 

Yes I agree with that statement, but $4 billion to $6 billion for a new plant versus $7 billion for the upgrade of an existing plant??????????
We are talking here about making an expansion that is larger than the existing plant that is being expanded.
Here is a list of all the refineries in the U.S. and you will note that the largest one is 557 million gallons a day and the next largest in Beaumont is only 348 million gallons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries
You can see that the size of the expansion is almost twice the size of the largest plant in the U.S.
If you will peruse the list you will notice most are dramatically smaller...in the sub 100 million gallon range
   

CATO quote, "European refineries make more gasoline than they can use and it’s cheaper for us to import that gasoline than to produce it here at home."

So WHY would we even consider the cost of contructing a new refinery here.   CATO is telling us that the existing plants struggle to compete with the Europeans, how the heck is a new plant going to pay for the capital investment costs? 

Because we use more than they can produce so we have to produce more and even though it cost more...they still make money just not as much as they do on the imported stuff.


On the subject of actual construction time frame, the Daily News quotes of a little over 3 years MIGHT be true if they started the process of procurement and equipment orders about 2 years before they did the ground breaking. 
That would be good planning.  I think the oil companies are avaricious not stupid.


  Their site work (e.g. earth moving) should be minimal since they're on an existing facility.   Their big lead items will be valves, pumps, and large electrical gear.    The kind of gear they are using is not off the shelf, it's built by the order and you're talking 12 to 24 month lead times including witnessed factory tests before shipment.

Refinery technology is well understood and much of it is "off the shelf"  the rest is "built to the print" which again is well understood technology.

They also fail to mention start up testing and regulator approval time frames.   Even without seeing their schedule, I would get good money that this facility will not be in full production before 2012.   After seeing their schedule, I might put it out to 2013.
The Cato article points out that refineries are already "sited" where they need to be so we are not talking about a problems with EPA and so forth.

Soooooooo...........Tell me this, WHEN did they start the process of planning and design for this UPGRADE of this EXISTING facility.   The process does not start at ground breaking ya know.   If you want to know how long it really takes to make it happen you have to look all the way back to the conceptual phases of the project.
This is a discussion board for adults....Please do not assume that you are talking to children in grammar school.  No one is naive enough to think that one day the president of Exxon says "hey you guys go get some dozers and graders and expand this plant a little.  I think we are all aware that the planners have all the plans drawn and lead times computed.  You are not the only one who has any expertise or experience in this field.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
I think the oil companies are avaricious not stupid.

quote:


Exxon profit hits $40.6-billion
OTTAWA -- For the second year in a row, Exxon Mobil Corp. has set a corporate record for annual profit, riding the dramatic runup in oil prices to a staggering $40.6-billion (U.S.) for 2007.

2006 profits: 39.5 billion.
2005 profits: 36.13 billion.
2004 profits: 25.3 billion.
2003 profits: 21.5 billion.
2002 profits: 11.2 billion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Well mod XI had to step in, and my serious non insulting question got pulled, So I will re-ask it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Well mod XI had to step in, and my serious non insulting question got pulled, So I will re-ask it.

Thompson, why are millions of Lations, who choose to leave their homes for better lives in other countries, coming to the USA instead of to Cuba?  My question had nothing to do with those leaving Cuba or Ms Gonzales.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Well mod XI had to step in, and my serious non insulting question got pulled, So I will re-ask it.

Thompson, why are millions of Lations, who choose to leave their homes for better lives in other countries, coming to the USA instead of to Cuba?  My question had nothing to do with those leaving Cuba or Ms Gonzales.