If your claim is in fact true, there is no current benefit to expanding this form of energy retrieval.
True. Deep water drilling and fracking are expensive, controversial and largely need brand new infrastructure to even make possible. There is no reason any company would do it.
Oh, wait. There is one, actually: if it's the only option available, then that's exactly what would happen.
Oh, so it's a conspiracy.
"Conspiracy" demands one basic tenet; that the interested parties communicate a future strategy. When all the interested parties have access to the same database of projected reserves (available through the CIA, no fooling) and can see the same projected consumption/future production revenues, there is no need to whisper in darkened alleys.
. . . refinery issues have not helped.
There are no significant refinery issues large enough to stopper production for 5 years. The tired trope about big bad government not letting "enough" refineries get built is tired. Why? Before Reagan took office, the government encouraged overbuilding of refineries. To prevent redundancy, the companies built smaller refineries where they could.
After deregulation, they were free to build not what would get them tax exemptions and curried favor with legislators eager to "provide jobs," but what the market would support. That meant centralized refineries nearest pipeline terminals and sea ports expanded to provide all the capacity the myriad of smaller facilities used to provide.
The claim that the government hasn't "permitted" new refineries is BS designed to deflect blame and anger over high fuel prices. The gov has permitted every single refinery for which a permit has been submitted.
The only "refinery issue" that could impact production enough to thwart demand is a lack of crude to refine. I'll grant you, that is an issue. It is the issue.
Again, I am disappointed in either your intentional denial of facts or unintentional ability to absorb same.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 9/7/13 21:37 (UTC)True. Deep water drilling and fracking are expensive, controversial and largely need brand new infrastructure to even make possible. There is no reason any company would do it.
Oh, wait. There is one, actually: if it's the only option available, then that's exactly what would happen.
Oh, so it's a conspiracy.
"Conspiracy" demands one basic tenet; that the interested parties communicate a future strategy. When all the interested parties have access to the same database of projected reserves (available through the CIA, no fooling) and can see the same projected consumption/future production revenues, there is no need to whisper in darkened alleys.
. . . refinery issues have not helped.
There are no significant refinery issues large enough to stopper production for 5 years. The tired trope about big bad government not letting "enough" refineries get built is tired. Why? Before Reagan took office, the government encouraged overbuilding of refineries. To prevent redundancy, the companies built smaller refineries where they could.
After deregulation, they were free to build not what would get them tax exemptions and curried favor with legislators eager to "provide jobs," but what the market would support. That meant centralized refineries nearest pipeline terminals and sea ports expanded to provide all the capacity the myriad of smaller facilities used to provide.
The claim that the government hasn't "permitted" new refineries is BS designed to deflect blame and anger over high fuel prices. The gov has permitted every single refinery for which a permit has been submitted.
The only "refinery issue" that could impact production enough to thwart demand is a lack of crude to refine. I'll grant you, that is an issue. It is the issue.
Again, I am disappointed in either your intentional denial of facts or unintentional ability to absorb same.