Under Cap-and-Tax, refining costs for fuel will increase as oil companies buy carbon-credits to cover their over-the-limit processes. They will then pass these costs on to the consumer, which will be reflected in a higer price at the pump. This is one intent of the law isn't it? Oil companies will refine less, because consumers will buy clown-cars, and use less, resulting in less "dependance" on fossil fuels, correct?
So what about Valero Oil, for example? They have a *huge* network of gas stations around the nation. But all of their refining is done in other countries, and will *not* be subject to the additional costs of Cap-and-Tax! So they can then *import* their ready-to-use fuel to their network of stations at a considerable discount! Does this not *increase* the amount of "foreign oil" that we are supposed to be made "less dependant" on according to Cap-and-Tax? Will motorists not rush to use Valero's discount gas, no matter what they drive? What am I missing here?
[edit note: In fact, if one puts "Valero Refinery Locations" into Google you can get a map that details where all of their refinery locations are. Only 2 are outside the US, one in Aruba, and one in Quebec City in Canada]
This message has been edited by Avalon99 on Jun 29, 2009 2:45 PM
But all of their refining is done in other countries?
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure. I do know they have refining in other countries, and it's a no-brainer that they would move whatever they could to escape the costs of Cap-and-Tax. BTW, along with whatever deals *American* oil companies could make to move their refining out of the country. "Exporting more jobs overseas" anyone?
If they choose to build refineries elsewhere that might make the option available.
But given the amount of throughput they would have to replace it becomes a hugh undertaking.
There are a lot of options, and if you crank the government screws down, people *will* find them. They could cut deals for leasing some of the capacity from existing offshore refineries. Or, they *could* build their own. It all depends on the costs factors, and it *always* does, which goddam numbnut greenies will *never* understand!
And how would it increase the amount of foreign oil we would be dependent on?
I don't know how it's measured. Whether they only count crude specifically, or if they count refined products in the total as well. The point is that under the goals of Cap-and-Tax, domestic *use* would supposedly fall, resulting in *less* dependance on domestic, as well as import oil. Valero's imported fuel would seem to run completely counter to this goal. Consumers flocking to the cheaper gas, would *raise* the percentage of "imported oil" in the form of refined gas that we use, as compared to the domestic refined gas.
I understand if the economic incentive is sufficient things do take place but you are talking about a very substantial capital investment.
I know that there isn't a lot of excess refining capacity in the US. But I have never examined excess capacity overseas so leasing excess capacity might be an option. Although if importing gasoline into the US becomes attractive economically my guess would be that the foreign refineries would fill the gap rather than leasing it to a US company.
Under Cap-and-Tax, refining costs for fuel will increase as oil companies buy carbon-credits to cover their over-the-limit processes. They will then pass these costs on to the consumer, which will be reflected in a higer price at the pump. This is one intent of the law isn't it? Oil companies will refine less, because consumers will buy clown-cars, and use less, resulting in less "dependance" on fossil fuels, correct?
But the smart opil companies might consider moving overseas to avoid such carbon taxation. There are countries that have not been taken in by the fossil fuel scheme. They will simply move elsewhere and take the jobs with them.
Dependency on foreign oil is determined where it is drilled--Not where it's refined. So if our government succeeds in driving out the oil companies and the jobs, you cn thank Obama and his rubber-stamp congress.
Dependency on foreign oil is determined where it is drilled--Not where it's refined
Exactly so where it is refined does not increase or decrease the dependency on foreign oil.
We are going to be dependent on foreign oil until we have a sufficient amount of alternative fuels. We could drill our own oil to decrease the dependency on foreign oil, but we have refuswed to do that for the last fifty years.
Therefore, the oil companies and many other corporations are going to move more of their operations out of this country into countries that are not hampered by the greenies. That means the jobs go overseas.
June 26 (Bloomberg) -- Americas biggest oil companies will probably cope with U.S. carbon legislation by closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports.
Under the Waxman-Markey climate bill that may be voted on today by the U.S. House, refiners would have to buy allowances for carbon dioxide spewed from their plants and from vehicles when motorists burn their fuel. Imports would need permits only for the latter, which ConocoPhillips Chief Executive Officer Jim Mulva said would create a competitive imbalance.
It will lead to the opportunity for foreign sources to bring in transportation fuels at a lower cost, which will have an adverse impact to our industry, potential shutdown of refineries and investment and, ultimately, employment, Mulva said in a June 16 interview in Detroit. Houston-based ConocoPhillips has the second-largest U.S. refining capacity.
The same amount of gasoline that would have $1 in carbon costs imposed if it were domestic would have 10 cents less added if it were imported, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie in Houston. Contrary to President Barack Obamas goal of reducing dependence on overseas energy suppliers, the bill would incent U.S. refiners to import more fuel, said Clayton Mahaffey, an analyst at RedChip Cos. in Maitland, Florida.
Of course, those sources are totally objective and not tied to Petroleum companies at all?
Jim..
Love the way you trash the sources as though they are incapable of critical thinking. Goes right up there with some opinions are allowed and others are not. But we won't relly debate the issue because some people are just stupid. right, Jim.
That wasn't what the post was about. It was about the incentive to move production overseas and to import the finished product and what an import fee would do to the incentive.
That wasn't what the post was about. It was about the incentive to move production overseas and to import the finished product and what an import fee would do to the incentive.
So I move all of my operations overseas. And I am charged an import fee of $25 for each item I ship into this country> I pay the fee and the consumer pays the entire cost, expense and all fees if he wants to buy my product.
Now, if my product is a necessity, the consumer will buy it because he has to have it.
If my product is not a necessity, some people will buyy it and others may not. But my continueing to pay the import fee depends on my profits. If the profits remain high enough, I continue to ship. If I start losing money, I will find other markets.
Every seler does exactly the same thing. He creates markets and maintains old markets. That's the only way he stays in business.
The import fee is another cost of doing business. So if high taxes are going to drive them overseas, they will find other markets if the import fee is too high. They have to sell their products at a profit.
But you have hit on the obvious stupidity of the liberal thinking. If they are going to make an import fee so high the=at it drives them back to this country, why not lower the tax to keep them here?
It the US is their only market, they must pay the fee. But look at the rest of the world. they will industrialize and use fossil fuel and they will bury us while we use hand plows to have a clean earth.
This message has been edited by Poetse12 on Jun 30, 2009 4:07 PM
They have not moved overseas. The issue was that some might move overseas to avoid the tax part of cap and tax. Refine crude overseas and import finished product.
They have not moved overseas. The issue was that some might move overseas to avoid the tax part of cap and tax. Refine crude overseas and import finished product.
Exactly, but the cap and tax act has just passed the House and not yet through the senate. Therefore, no one is moving anything yet. But when the government begins taxing fossil fuels to give money to greenies, the fossil fuel companies will move to countries that do not tax them.
It has happened with many other businesses. It will continue to happen because people go into business to make profits rather than pay taxers.
Obama is doing the wrong thing.
This message has been edited by Poetse12 on Jun 30, 2009 4:54 PM
