The U.S. importing crude oil from overseas is bad enough, but why buy even more expensive refined products?

About 19% of refined products (mostly gasoline and diesel) imported by the United States comes from the existing Irving Oil refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada.

U.S. refining capacity is reaching its limit, especially in the Northeast. The last new refinery was built 25 years ago. More capacity is needed. Instead of building more capacity in the States you may be importing more product from Canada!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2006/10/05/nb-refinery2.html

The crude oil for this new refinery will be imported by Canada, refined, and sold at a profit to the United States.

y thoughts? The U.S. is so hung up on the 'big bad oil companies' that you're prepared to cut off your nose to spite your face. New U.S. refining capacity has little chance of going ahead anytime soon.

Never mind though. Canada appreciates the jobs and the money :) .

Disclaimer: I know a lot about this refining project. It's not a pipe dream. Irving Oil is currently constructing a world-scale liquified natural gas terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick which will import natural gas, and export it (with appropriate markup) to the United States. This LNG facility beat out 25 other projects on the east coast of Canada and the United States.

Good question. I know in CA we always get pinched every damn year because they change the "formula" over, or they have refineries shut down (usually at the heaviest driving time, during the summer) and have a supply crunch. That always raises our gasoline prices here.

I'm unclear why we aren't building more refineries. Probably because they're ugly and stink up the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery
The public has demanded that many governments place restrictions on contaminants that refineries release, and most refineries have installed the equipment needed to comply with the requirements of the pertinent environmental protection regulatory agencies. In the United States, there is strong pressure to prevent the development of new refineries, and no major refinery has been built in the country since Marathon's Garyville facility in 1976. However, many existing refineries have been expanded during that time. Environmental restrictions and pressure to prevent construction of new refineries have also contributed to rising fuel prices in the United States[citation needed].

Reminds me of a joke...

A young man and woman were necking in a car in Los Angelos and the woman said, "Honey, why don't you kiss me where it doesn't smell so good". So he drove her to El Segundo (they have oil refineries there).

I worked for five years at the newest North American refinery built in North America. It was built in 1984 near Edmonton, Alberta.

People generate garbage, but don't want the landfills associated with handling the garbage.

People want to drive cars but don't want the refineries that make the fuel.

People want electricity for their homes, but don't want the power plants or the transmission lines.

People want natural gas for home heating, but don't want the liquefied natural gas tankers, on-shore LNG facilities or pipelines to transport the gas.

*shrug*

Right, we want to put criminals away forever, but we don't want to build the prisons to hold 2% of our population. :p

We want flawless roads, but we don't want to pay taxes.

When you figure out how to make people more realistic, let me know. :\

In the UK those sort of people are called Nimby's, a bit similar to Yuppy's. Not In My Back Yard.

Pretty sure that NIMBY isnt UK specific, I remember learning about NIMBY when I was around 8 from SimCity!

DINK/DINKY is more of a UK specific term!

Did you know -- in an era when the lack of refining capacity is used routinely by Big Oil as an excuse for the high "market demand" prices we experience in fueling our cars -- more than half of American petroleum refineries have been shut down since 1981? Big Oil bought up independent refineries and promptly closed them down

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/nw/?postId=4685
http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/hanchette205.html

From what I understand big oil bought up over 200 refineries and shut them down. It's all about control.

On a related topic (sorta) Yesterday I was preparing some Edamome (sp) and looked at the package... it was imported from China!! Ok I live in Indiana... we grow Corn and Soybeans in Indiana, yet we had to import these soybeans from China!!

/boggle

Also sorta related, Indiana has started construction on 2 new ethanol plants. The target date for production is 2009 for 1 of them and 2010 for the other. Hopefully we wont import the corn from other countries to use ><.

Did you know -- in an era when the lack of refining capacity is used routinely by Big Oil as an excuse for the high "market demand" prices we experience in fueling our cars -- more than half of American petroleum refineries have been shut down since 1981? Big Oil bought up independent refineries and promptly closed them down

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/nw/?postId=4685
http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/hanchette205.html

From what I understand big oil bought up over 200 refineries and shut them down. It's all about control.

It's not about control. It's about economics. Refining has been a money loser for decades. As a former employee of 'Big Oil' who worked in five different refineries (3 of which were demolished), I know this first hand. When I joined Shell Canada, they had refineries in Montreal, Oakville, Sarnia, Winnipeg and Vancouver. Shell was the last oil company in North America to build a refinery. It was built near Edmonton in 1984. It was/is unique as it's the only refinery in the world that processes 100% synthetic crude from the oil sands.
Of these six refineries, the only one I didn't work in was Oakville.

Since that time the refineries in Oakville, Winnipeg and Vancouver have been shut down. They couldn't compete. They lost money. Oakville was razed to the ground and sold for scrap. Winnipeg was dismantled piece by piece and shipped to China where it was subsequently scrapped (shady Chinese entrepreneur). The Vancouver refinery is mostly dismantled, except for the tanks. It's used as an oil storage area.

Sorry Swift... but I'm an industry expert on this. I know about public opinion about Big Oil. You can link as many articles as you like. I know that most of them are bull****.

From 1995 to 2001, American oil companies shut down 24 oil refineries along the West Coast. Gas prices in the mid-1990s were low -- too low for the likes of the oil companies. Refineries were operating efficiently, producing large quantities of gasoline and therefore cheapening the cost of gas at the pump.
...
According to a 2001 report by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), oil companies deliberately shut down refineries in the mid-1990s in order to increase the price of gasoline. Wyden based this conclusion on his acquisition of internal oil company documents written in 1996.


http://soc.hfac.uh.edu/artman/publish/article_375.shtml

You just confirmed my statement that they were shutting them down. So capacity has been hindered intentionaly. If you can control supply, and reasonably predict demand you can in effect, control the prices. Add in the "peak oil" myth and its no surprise these guys have been posting record profits consistantly.

I see it as very similar to the Diamond industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers

Hey, I'm with you on getting off of foreign oil.

Clearly we need to open "The People's Refinery"! A non-profit organization.

http://soc.hfac.uh.edu/artman/publish/article_375.shtml

You just confirmed my statement that they were shutting them down. So capacity has been hindered intentionaly. If you can control supply, and reasonably predict demand you can in effect, control the prices. Add in the "peak oil" myth and its no surprise these guys have been posting record profits consistantly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers

Of course they've shut them down... in droves... and most people loved it. Refineries are smelly and they pollute. A lot of them were small and inefficient.

There were huge refinery overcapacities in the early 1980's and beyond. It wasn't just Big Oil shutting down refineries. Almost all the small independent refineries shut down because they went bankrupt. These were your little farmer's co-operatives and local refining entrepreneurs.

But there are always folks that will say... 'they were shut down to control capacity'... Lol... If there was money in refining, and if environmentalists didn't rule the day, refineries would've remained open.

But yeah... to a conspiracy follower, it's much more interesting to think of a bunch of fat cigar-smoking oil company executives plotting together on how best to rape the public. :)

Clearly we need to open "The People's Refinery"! A non-profit organization.

They exist. Here's one that's been around in Canada for a long time.

http://www.ccrl-fcl.ca/contact.htm

They've survived, which is no small accomplishment. Of course, they needed government funding. I remember providing 'under-the-table' technical support to their process engineering supervisor back in the 1980's. He wasn't paid much, and had little support keeping the refinery pots and pans running. He was a very decent person so I was glad to help when I could.

It really amazes me how successful non-profits can be. There's a couple of non-profit mutual fund organizations in the US and they tear up everyone else. It makes me wonder why people put their money elsewhere?

Well the issue isn't up to me, the issue is up to those in the white house and it's no hidden fact that they have huge assets in big oil.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061006/bs_afp/nigeriaopeccommodities_061006182555

The Financial Times reported Thursday that OPEC had agreed informally to cut crude output by one million barrels per day, or 4.0 percent, to bolster prices that have fallen by about 25 percent from record levels in July and August.

Big oil isn't trying to deliever the cheapest oil possible either. So I guess the answer is, they don't want to do something.

But yeah... to a conspiracy follower, it's much more interesting to think of a bunch of fat cigar-smoking oil company executives plotting together on how best to rape the public. :)


Have you seen the CEO of Exxon?

And, yeah, they do plot together on how best to rape the public.

Hello $3/gal. Hello most profitable year ever, most profitable company ever, most profitable industry.

But, hey, it was pure coincidence, I'm sure...just like it was pure coincidence that the price of gasoline dropped this past month and a half right before mid-term elections.

Have you seen the CEO of Exxon?

And, yeah, they do plot together on how best to rape the public.

Hello $3/gal. Hello most profitable year ever, most profitable company ever, most profitable industry.

But, hey, it was pure coincidence, I'm sure...just like it was pure coincidence that the price of gasoline dropped this past month and a half right before mid-term elections.

Have you met Swiftfox yet?

Swiftfox advances ridiculous theories that defy occam's razor.

Whereas, defense of the Oil Industry seems, to me, to advance the same thing.

Its very very difficult to argue the price of gasoline was based on supply v demand, or that increased costs caused the increase in price, given the outrageous amount of profit the companies made. Especially given the amount of tax relief and subsidization given to the oil companies.

If the price was high because there was not enough supply...then why weren't the oil companies using some of their billions in profit to increase supply? A) They are artificially manipulating the market by withholding supply directly, as per OPEC, or the diamond industry. B) They are purposefully abstaining from increasing supply in order to profit in amounts never before seen in the history of free market economies.

Either way, its conspiracy and racketeering.

You make blanket statements on Big Oil, Aidon. I know that it's very fashionable. The energy business can be very profitable and it's just that for many companies. There are lots of large energy companies that lose money because of market conditions, but such is the risk in a free-market economy.

If you believe that Big Oil is any different in motivation, ethics and objectives than other large capitalistic profit-driven businesses then you are a fool.

If you object to capitalistic profit-driven businesses then you are a socialist or a communist.

Energy is profitable because of consumers. If there is no market, there is no profit. Consumers are often self-indulgent whiners who prefer to point fingers at others instead of blaming themselves for their greedy, piggish addiction to cheap energy.

Frankly, I would prefer energy prices triple or quadruple. The whining won't change of course. Gasoline could be 50 cents or $50 a gallon and people would still whine. Use the additional money to fund Universal Health Care, reduce the deficit, find alternate sources of energy, colonize Mars or whatever other enterprise is deemed useful.

Oh, and although I worked for Big Oil, I still won't invest in large integrated oil companies (e.g. Shell, Exxon/Mobil) because it's a lousy investment.

You make blanket statements on Big Oil, Aidon. I know that it's very fashionable. The energy business can be very profitable and it's just that for many companies. There are lots of large energy companies that lose money because of market conditions, but such is the risk in a free-market economy.

If you believe that Big Oil is any different in motivation, ethics and objectives than other large capitalistic profit-driven businesses then you are a fool.

If you object to capitalistic profit-driven businesses then you are a socialist or a communist.

I object to capitalistic profit-driven business that is built on natural resources, given huge financial subsidies and incentives by Federal and State governments, and making more money in one year than any industry ever. If that makes me a socialist, than so be it. Their collusion to manipulate the market should have been criminal, instead, because they essentially own the GOP, they were invited to laughing joking hearings on the Hill as a weak political ploy to attempt to fool the stupid into thinking Congress is actually concerned.

Energy is profitable because of consumers. If there is no market, there is no profit. Consumers are often self-indulgent whiners who prefer to point fingers at others instead of blaming themselves for their greedy, piggish addiction to cheap energy.

greedy, piggish, addiction to cheap energy? Why is it greedy or piggish? We have enough energy sources in the US to power what we need without the price jumps seen by oil and natural gas companies these past years. It is the oil industry which is proving itself greedy and piggish, as they sit there fat and happy with their expensive cigars, the very picture of corporate greed.

Frankly, I would prefer energy prices triple or quadruple. The whining won't change of course. Gasoline could be 50 cents or $50 a gallon and people would still whine. Use the additional money to fund Universal Health Care, reduce the deficit, find alternate sources of energy, colonize Mars or whatever other enterprise is deemed useful.

Once again, in your attempt to show Americans as greedy and piggish, you ignore the primary reason why fuel cannot be permitted to become prohibitively expensive. Shipping. The US is a geographically huge nation, our highways are the circulatory system of our nation, constantly being traversed by trucking rigs transporting virtually everything that is shipped anywhere in the US; further, aside from our truck shipping which uses fuel, we have our rail system and our aircraft. Our shipping capacity and usage dwarfs any other nation due to the combination of our geographic and population size.

Aside from that, however, remains the basic premise that industries should be profitting to that extent on the backs of public resources and public subsidies.

Oh, and although I worked for Big Oil, I still won't invest in large integrated oil companies (e.g. Shell, Exxon/Mobil) because it's a lousy investment.

Exxon made 36 billion dollars in profit last year. RDS made 22.9 billion in profit. BP made 19 billion, Chevron made 14, Conoco Phillips made 13.5.

Once again, in your attempt to show Americans as greedy and piggish

It's not a uniquely American trait. Canadians are no different. It is worse in the U.S. though. Look at the chart at the bottom of this article.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0826/p01s03-woeu.html

It seems that 'miles per gallon' comparisons shows the U.S. dead last compared to Canada, Australia, China, Japan and the European Union. I would call that piggish.

The article is over a year old, but it says gasoline prices were $2.61 per gallon in the U.S. compared to $7.13 in the Netherlands. Yall need a kick in the pants when it comes to energy consumption. Raise the damn prices, consume less energy and solve a lot of your problems.

... and quit blaming others for your greed.

Here's another link from March 2005. The only American location it lists is Puerto Rico. Funny, but the only places with lower gasoline prices are Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela.

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

When I worked for Big Oil in the Netherlands, it was clear where money was being made. The best profits came from emerging economies such as Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Nigeria etc. Europe was not a good place to make profits and North America absolutely sucked. The North American market was very competitive. I don't think it's changed. When you quote the profits for Big Oil, where was the money made? With the cheapest energy prices in the world (unless you want to live in Venezuela, Nigeria or an Arab country) it's not likely that much of it came from the United States.

Canada - 9,984,670 km²
United States - 9,631,420 km²
Japan - 377,873 km²
Thailand - 513,000 km²

Can you see the difference?

Swiftfox advances ridiculous theories that defy occam's razor.

I argue Occam's razor would show that a conspiracy is the easiest answer, when you look at all the coincidences. /derail off

Canada - 9,984,670 km²

United States - 9,631,420 km²

Japan - 377,873 km²

Thailand - 513,000 km²

Can you see the difference?

Yup... also

Russia - 17,075,000 km2

Vatican City - 108.7 acres

Perhaps I would understand your point if you stopped speaking in parables.

It completely makes sense that the profit numbers are high when the price of oil is high. I'll give you an example of how commodity pricing works from the wholesaler down to the retailer.

I used to be a designer for a jewelry company that did a lot of business in sterling silver. Silver is a commodity, very much like oil, that you have to take out of the ground and refine before you have a marketable product. Also, much like oil, the price of silver goes up and down based on speculation in the commodities market (people betting he price will go up or down) demand, supply, and all of that jazz.

When I would make a ring, I might use $3 worth of raw silver product. We made a 3x markup for wholesale, based on the price of the cost of materials for a particular piece, so that ring would sell to a retailer for $9 (and they would turn around and sell it for $18 - $27). So I make $6 in gross profit for that ring. Not counting overhead and other expenses, of course.

If the price of silver doubled, the materials to make that same ring would cost me $6. I'm not going to still sell it for $9, that lowers my profit a ton, and might not even cover my base expenses. I'm going to keep the same markup formula and sell it for $18. Now, depending on how you bend those statistics, I either kept the same gross profit margin (3x) or I am making an extra $6, and my profits look like they doubled.

It's not a uniquely American trait. Canadians are no different. It is worse in the U.S. though. Look at the chart at the bottom of this article.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0826/p01s03-woeu.html

It seems that 'miles per gallon' comparisons shows the U.S. dead last compared to Canada, Australia, China, Japan and the European Union. I would call that piggish.

The article is over a year old, but it says gasoline prices were $2.61 per gallon in the U.S. compared to $7.13 in the Netherlands. Yall need a kick in the pants when it comes to energy consumption. Raise the damn prices, consume less energy and solve a lot of your problems.

Ah yes, lets solve our problems with gasoline being too expensive at 3 bucks a gallon...by making it 7 bucks a gallon /eyeroll.

Heavy taxation may work in Europe, but in the US a heavy fuel tax would create an unfair and insurmountable burden to the lower middle and lower classes who would find themselves suddenly having to pay a significantly larger percentage of their income for gasoline. It would be a wonderful way to introduce massive inflation to our economy by necessitating massive and rapid wage hikes with the commensurate increase to production costs from that alone, let alone the increase to overhead costs in the form of shipping cost increases, and increased overhead for farm production due to increased fuel cost.

... and quit blaming others for your greed.

Here's another link from March 2005. The only American location it lists is Puerto Rico. Funny, but the only places with lower gasoline prices are Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela.

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

Our greed? We're the third largest producer of oil on the planet (or were in '04) Our reserves are low, but we produce alot of oil...our gasoline prices should be lower than Japans...they have to import all of their oil. Our oil prices should be lower than Cuba or Lebanon or Panama or Egypt....these are nations which must import all of their oil.

Also, I fail to see your point in that comment...They didn't include any continental US locations and Puerto Rico is significantly less expensive, for reasons I don't know, than the average in the US.

When I worked for Big Oil in the Netherlands, it was clear where money was being made. The best profits came from emerging economies such as Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Nigeria etc. Europe was not a good place to make profits and North America absolutely sucked. The North American market was very competitive. I don't think it's changed. When you quote the profits for Big Oil, where was the money made? With the cheapest energy prices in the world (unless you want to live in Venezuela, Nigeria or an Arab country) it's not likely that much of it came from the United States.

Does it matter where the money is being made, in the long run? The US oil is being produced out of US reserves, for the most part, our prices are jumping in leaps and bounds, and yet the companies are making the sort of money usually reserved for first world governments, whilst taking handouts and rebates from the government.

Exxon made 36 billion dollars in profit last year. RDS made 22.9 billion in profit. BP made 19 billion, Chevron made 14, Conoco Phillips made 13.5.

If you consider the amount of assets invested.

As well as expenditures, those numbers are really not all that out of proportion.

They were running at about 10% profit.

If you spent a 100 bucks on a company, and over a year it netted you 10 bucks, would you say that is a huge boon?

I doubt it.

Ah yes, lets solve our problems with gasoline being too expensive at 3 bucks a gallon...by making it 7 bucks a gallon /eyeroll.

Heavy taxation may work in Europe, but in the US a heavy fuel tax would create an unfair and insurmountable burden to the lower middle and lower classes who would find themselves suddenly having to pay a significantly larger percentage of their income for gasoline. It would be a wonderful way to introduce massive inflation to our economy by necessitating massive and rapid wage hikes with the commensurate increase to production costs from that alone, let alone the increase to overhead costs in the form of shipping cost increases, and increased overhead for farm production due to increased fuel cost.

Raising prices would also reduce consumption, make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil (and maybe avoid military intervention in another oil-producing country), increase the use of public transportation, get people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles and generate billions to use as the government sees fit. This could include tax breaks or subsidies to lower middle and lower classes, alternate fuel technology, Universal Health Care etc.

But no... you prefer to pay cheap prices for gasoline, complain about fat cat company executives, send money out of the country, and drive gas-guzzling pigs.

The following link shows a major Exxon initiative in a lucrative foreign market (where there is money to be made).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6039466.stm

Governments like Indonesia would like to avoid the Big Oil companies, but no one else has the money, expertise and risk tolerance.

If you consider the amount of assets invested.

As well as expenditures, those numbers are really not all that out of proportion.

They were running at about 10% profit.

If you spent a 100 bucks on a company, and over a year it netted you 10 bucks, would you say that is a huge boon?

I doubt it.

10% ROI isn't bad....

however, lets look at some other figures here...

Exxon, profit jumped 42% for 2005 from 2004. RDS: 30%, BP 25% Chevron only jumped 5%, Conoco Phillips jumped 66%, and Marathon's profits jumped 140%.

A pretty detailed report (http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/06May/RL33373.pdf) prepared for congress

Further, you don't necessarily get to maintain a 9% profitability ratio when you've not paid the People our royalty fees on our oil lands in years, or when you get something like $84 billion dollars in tax breaks (industry wide), and $6 billion in actual subsidies. We won't even go into the regulatory relief granted them in the '05 energy bill, which weakens the clean water act and the safe drinking water act, for instance.

Now, despite my distaste for big business...I certainly do not mind tax relief and and subsidies for the oil industry, we need oil and it keeps our prices down....but when it stops keeping our prices down and the oil industry reaps record profits, then we, the people, aren't even getting our reach around.

however, lets look at some other figures here...

Exxon, profit jumped 42% for 2005 from 2004. RDS: 30%, BP 25% Chevron only jumped 5%, Conoco Phillips jumped 66%, and Marathon's profits jumped 140%.

So, in other words.
Exxon spent 100 dollars in 2004 and made 14 dollars profit.
RDS made 13 dollars in 2004
BP made 12.50 in 2004
Chevron made 10.05 in 2004
Phillips made 16.60 in 2004
And Marathon made 24 dollars for every 100 dollars spent that year.

I don't think I have ever seen a Marathon station. They must be a generic wholesaler or something, or a regional.

24% profit is usually found in the pharmaceutical sector.

Further, you don't necessarily get to maintain a 9% profitability ratio when you've not paid the People our royalty fees on our oil lands in years, or when you get something like $84 billion dollars in tax breaks (industry wide), and $6 billion in actual subsidies.
I am with you here.

We won't even go into the regulatory relief granted them in the '05 energy bill, which weakens the clean water act and the safe drinking water act, for instance.
I dunno, I see a lot of corners which use to house gas stations, which are now vacant because the tank excavation bankrupted the station.

Now, despite my distaste for big business...I certainly do not mind tax relief and and subsidies for the oil industry, we need oil and it keeps our prices down....but when it stops keeping our prices down and the oil industry reaps record profits, then we, the people, aren't even getting our reach around.
I agree with you here. I disagree that 10 percent profit is gouging. What we saw last year and the year before was gouging.

I just watched president-light Bush talk about energy policy in the United States. For the first half of his speech I thought it was going to be a total disaster. What a cock-eyed vision of energy in the future!! Happily, the last part of his speech dealt with sensible and doable approaches.

He focussed almost totally on supply-side management, and very little on demand-side.

Bush praised the efforts of energy diversification using hybrid vehicles, ethanol (from corn and cellulose) and hydrogen. Man did he ever have lousy advisors! Sure, the technology is there, or can be developed but it is totally uneconomical. No technology is going to defeat the laws of thermodynamics. All these technologies consume more energy than they produce. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and there never will be. The only one that even has a chance, in my opinion, is ethanol from cellulose and that's pretty unlikely in the near future.

Bush then focussed on Gulf of Mexico deep wells, drilling in protected areas, liquified natural gas (LNG) terminals, clean coal technology, the renaissance of nuclear power, wind and solar power. All of these are reasonable initiatives. With the exception of wind and solar, all have the potential of major energy benefits to the U.S. Wind and solar are good, but the impact is relatively small.

In CA I think they're going to pass a law, perhaps, that will have developers of new houses offer solar as an option on the house. That will cut the cost of entry to solar power and should make it much more prevalent.

Wind and solar are good, but the impact is relatively small.

If you're trying to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 10%, generating 5% of your energy from wind and solar seems a good place to start.

If you're trying to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 10%, generating 5% of your energy from wind and solar seems a good place to start.

Better watch out with all those windmills, though.

You might slow down wind patterns and disturb natural cloud formation.

You might just even cause the rotation of the Earth to slow down, the risk is way too high for that. We need an international accord to prevent windmills.


Not to mention out here in California, they are chopping up hawks, eagles, and owls. Even got some environmentalists out here fighting windmills.

And they scare the cows into producing less milk too, but dairy farmers are evil people, so we can ignore them altogether.

And your point is?

In CA I think they're going to pass a law, perhaps, that will have developers of new houses offer solar as an option on the house. That will cut the cost of entry to solar power and should make it much more prevalent.
Nice. The major reason I have not converted my house to solar is the lack of established, reliable service companies in the area. Development of a major market should alleviate that.

Also, I read an article recently (print magazine, sorry no link) on how researchers have boosted photovoltaic efficiency by using nanodots. Very cool, very promising area.

And your point is?

Hopefully to make you smile.
A chuckle would be appreciated.
an, lighten up.

I don't think I have ever seen a Marathon station. They must be a generic wholesaler or something, or a regional.

We have them around here.

I agree with you here. I disagree that 10 percent profit is gouging. What we saw last year and the year before was gouging.

I don't simply look at their profit..but when profits are in the scores of billions during the same year that our prices sky rocketed across the oil and natural gas sector, then I sit here and wonder just how bad we were rooked while those assgoblins.

I No technology is going to defeat the laws of thermodynamics. All these technologies consume more energy than they produce. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and there never will be.

They claim different! (http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx)

:rolling:

Also, I read an article recently (print magazine, sorry no link) on how researchers have boosted photovoltaic efficiency by using nanodots. Very cool, very promising area.

Our local University seems to have a fairly robust photovoltaic (http://www.cmse.utoledo.edu/cpeh/) research department

They claim different! (http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx)

:rolling:

Heh... thanks for the link. Fun reading on a boring Friday. I actually learned something interesting. The British and American patent offices refuse to patent a perpetual motion machine without a working prototype.

Heh... thanks for the link. Fun reading on a boring Friday. I actually learned something interesting. The British and American patent offices refuse to patent a perpetual motion machine without a working prototype.

Of course their claim is correct. Their secret generator is the internet and it produces a steady stream of hot air ...


Eri