Printed letters, September 29, 2013

Thanks for visiting The Daily Sentinel

Subscribers and registered users, log in to continue reading for free*

Forgot your password?    

Register to read for free! Become a subscriber

* 7-day subscribers have unlimited access to online content.
Registered users may read 12 articles per month.


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

As a former sub contractor who helped on the Shell FWT site, I agree completely with Tracy Miller’s comments.

However, just increasing production is not the answer. With all the new oil coming out of N.D., Texas etc. from modern fracking technologies, a gallon of gas at the pump should have gone back down to the $ 1.75 - $ 2.00 range. (Saudi Arabian citizens still pay less than $1 a gallon)

Why hasn’t it? We need more refineries and less switching of blends of gas throughout the year. We haven’t built a new refinery in over 30 years. The liberal driven EPA won’t allow another refinery to be built due to excessive regulation. (I read somewhere it would be cheaper to build a new nuclear power plant rather than a refinery due to all the regs.)

Former President Bush had a great idea of building refineries on federally owned land like closed down military bases etc. where there were exemptions to EPA rules. Too bad that didn’t happen.

Jim Spehar and the Sentinel Staff editorial each said the magic words, Chevron and Shell couldn’t make it economical. Two decriers (one here and the other in Spehar’s column) blame people, regulations and whatever target they can blame, but will not recognize the companies can see their experiments DO NOT PAY A PROFIT. Technology for extraction can be super,A-1, letter perfect, but if it costs more than they can sale the product, the companies are gone quits and kaput. These two complainers evidently never bought into the Tosco or Exxon bubbles that made the experimental plans manifest and set people to lose everything in the downturn of failure to get an economic process. These two start pointing fingers at every thing except in the right direction - it can’t make a profit when so much has to go in to get something out. As far as regulations, they are stiffer in Canada, but the product is easier to and CHEAPER to get out. There is no saving point of more land to plunder or pouring of more resource in trade for another; it is simply too costly for what they get in return. For the complainers, get a life and learn how the big companies operate. By the way, for the house pubs that forced sequester that also dried up the government funds that were helping support these programs, give a tip of the hat to Tipton.

I have a simple question…If it is so unprofitable…why did they spend the millions on it in the first place…for a tax write off loss? I think not.

If it were so unprofitable…they never would have invested what they did in the first place. I don’t believe they’re as stupid as you would lead us to believe.

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Subscribe to print edition
Sign in to your account

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy