Grandpa, tell us about the days when gasoline prices
were hovering at $2 a gallon….

Being the naive and trusting type, we’ve always assumed that the Heritage Foundation was a bastion of deep thinkers who stay up late at night fine-tuning policy papers while digging deep into dusty tomes containing the works of some of western civilizations greatest minds. Finally a product is brought forward that is both unimpeachable and worthy of being handbound in fine leather and distributed to the conservative intelligentsia who stroke their chins and make notations in the margins with quill and ink that will eventually lead to monographs, seminal works and guest spots on Fox.

Then there is Rich Tucker who apparently spends his day playing minesweeper.

From his latest:

Okay, let’s call Kennedy’s bluff. Let’s imagine that, in 2001, President Bush had outlawed all automobiles, buses and trucks. And that he had shut down all coal-, oil- and natural gas-fired power plants. Doing so would have marginally trimmed carbon dioxide emissions over the last four-and-a-half years.

Does anyone think this would have done anything to slow down global warming (if indeed global warming is occurring)? Of course not. Even if we had done all that, we wouldn’t have seen any results for a decade at least.

Furthermore, is there anyone who thinks eliminating those emissions would have prevented Katrina, or made the storm less severe? That idea is simply outrageous. There were hurricanes before man started burning carbon, and there will be hurricanes after man has perished from the earth.

Actually, though, had we taken the hypothetical steps outlined above, the entire country would look like New Orleans does today: No power, no transportation, no fresh food, chaos.
Our automobiles and power plants make today’s suburban, air-conditioned, well-fed lifestyle possible. It’s because they’re absent from New Orleans that the city is in chaos.

What the federal government can and should do is make our lifestyle even easier to obtain.
For example, no new oil refineries have opened in the U.S. since 1976. According to Lon Anderson, director of government relations at AAA Mid-Atlantic, “with new environmental restrictions it would probably be impossible to get permits to build a new oil refinery in America.”

Here’s a classic case of the government interfering in the economy. If the market had been left to its own devices, oil companies would still be building new refineries, and we wouldn’t be so dependent on the existing refineries on the Gulf Coast — the refineries that had to be shut down during Hurricane Katrina.

Instead, in pursuit of the clean environment Kennedy and others profess to want, we’ve shut down hundreds of refineries in the last 20 years. Unless we open new ones, this won’t be the final time we face severe gasoline shortages and high prices.

Let’s go the tape, Morty:

It’s a good time to be in the oil refinery business. Demand for gasoline is high and profits are pouring in at a record clip.

With that combination, you’d think oil companies would be falling over each other to build new refineries. Not so. There hasn’t been a new refinery built in the United States in 28 years and more than 200 smaller facilities have closed.

Refining never has been viewed as a cash cow by the petroleum industry, which complains about meager profit margins, hefty environmental costs and too much government regulation.

But with gasoline prices hovering at $2 a gallon for much of this year, the country’s largest oil companies and independent refiners are expected to report soaring profits from refinery operations in second quarter earnings this week.

An early hint of the industry’s healthy bottom line came last week from Sunoco Inc., which reported a $217 million profit from refining related business, quadruple the total from a year ago. It produced a record 43 million barrels of gasoline during the quarter.

The refineries set production records during the first half of the year, including 8.6 million barrels of gasoline a day, but still couldn’t keep up with demand, the American Petroleum Institute reported Tuesday.

Still, no major oil or refining company appears eager to add a new refinery. Instead, more could close. A refinery in California is expected to shut its gates this fall. Two Texas refineries have been on the market for three years with no takers. And an offer by Saudi Arabia to help build several U.S. refineries brought not even a hint of interest on Wall Street. A new refinery project in Arizona has yet to break ground after five years of trying.

“Today investors are in no mood for refinery building even if funding were available,” Arjun Murti, managing director of Goldman, Sachs Co., told a recent congressional hearing on the dearth of U.S. refining capacity. Any executive who might pursue a new $3 billion refinery risks his company’s stocks taking a hit, said Murti.

In 1981 the country had 324 operating refineries; today there are 149. They have been running at an average of 96 percent capacity but are unable to keep up with demand. Only gasoline imports have prevented shortages and gas lines.

But many of the closed refineries were, small, inefficient and “living on tax credits” when the country had too much refining capacity, says Guy Caruso, head of the Energy Information Administration.

In fact, the large, efficient refineries not only survived, but have become bigger. Over the last six years, refiners added 1.2 million barrels of production capacity, equivalent to building one additional medium-size refinery each year, according to the EIA, which keeps energy statistics for the government. At the same time, demand grew by 1.4 million barrels a day.

And efficiency improvements _ called “de-bottlenecking” within the industry _ can only go so far, industry experts said.

Demand for refined products, especially gasoline, is expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.6 percent for the rest of this decade, requiring an additional 260,000 barrels a day of gasoline and other fuels each year, according to Goldman Sachs.

With those kinds of demand forecasts, why is there no interest in building more U.S. refineries?

There is the cost that is estimated at $2 billion to $3 billion in capital investment with no certainty that today’s glowing profits will stay around, say economists. And, despite billions spent on pollution controls, refineries do not make pleasant neighbors.

“Nobody seems to want to build a refinery in their back yard,” David O’Reilly, chairman of ChevronTexaco, told a U.S. Chamber of Commerce luncheon the other day, deploring what he said was a regulatory and permitting morass and almost certain citizen opposition to any new refinery project.

Given likely community opposition, an anticipation of a lengthy permitting fight and uneven expectations on a future investor’s rate of return, “most companies are unlikely to undertake the significant investment needed to even begin the process” says Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute. The organization represents the large oil companies in Washington.

A new refinery can’t be sold to Wall Street as a very profitable investment, industry executives maintain.

“The 10-year average return on investment in the (refining) industry is about 5.5 percent, about what investors could receive by investing in government bonds with little or no risk,” says Bob Slaughter president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.

Wow. Oil companies aren’t interested. Who’d a thunk it?

Not Rich.

By the way, for those who have never previously seen Rich’s headshot: if you suddenly have an overwhelming compulsion to pick up more than a few Chia pets for the upcoming holidays, it’s perfectly natural. Go with it…