| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Attack destroys 10 oil tankers at Torkham |
| 2007-05-22 |
| Unidentified miscreants in rocket attacks destroyed about ten oil tankers parked at the Torkham border on Monday which were about to leave for Afghanistan to supply oil to US-led coalition forces. According to political authorities, some unknown miscreants fired two rockets from the nearby mountains on oil tankers that hit two of them which also enflamed other eight tankers parked nearby. Locals said that the missiles were fired from a small mountain through remote control and they were launched from a 30-metere distance. It is reported that the political authorities had recovered three rocket launchers from the adjacent mountain. The missile attack took place at 4:30 am in the morning in which no causality was reported. The administration has claimed that it collected three missiles from the scene, which was unfired. No group claimed responsibility for the attack but Taliban in the past had claimed carrying out similar attacks. Taliban have repeatedly warned Pakistan drivers not to carry goods and oil for the US-led forces in Afghanistan to avoid their attacks. It is to be noted here that bomb blasts targeting oil tankers in Landi Kotal have become a routine business, but the administration is not serious to take any security measures nor did it arrest any body on suspicion in the past. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #9 I believe Bush has pushed for the construction of three new 500,000bpd refineries to be built, and environmental requirements be waived, after Katrina. There were a wave of lawsuits from the usual suspects, but apparently ground has been broken for one in Houston, one near Baton Rouge, and one either in Beaumont, Tx, or Lake Charles, La. They're all still susceptable to hurricanes, but the oil companies are reinforcing refineries to better withstand the threat. Unfortunately, it takes six to ten years to build a refinery and get it operational. There's still a huge need for at least five additional refineries to be built in the East and on the Pacific coast. I won't see them online in my lifetime. There's a small Valero oil company refinery in Denver that is currently operating at 65% capacity due to a fire. It should be back online at 100% by mid-summer. Regular unleaded gas is currently $3.40 here in the Springs. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-05-22 19:51 |
| #8 Most Louisiana refineries have come back on. I know of one that has not - there might be one or two others not restored to more-or-less normal operations, but certainly no more than that. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-05-22 14:37 |
| #7 Have the Louisiana refineries come back on-line following the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-05-22 14:01 |
| #6 Or refineries will be built in out of the way places like deserts. Transporation costs will be much higher than if built near the coast. One bright spot is Fischer-Tropsch coal to liquids conversion. A plant will produce 1/2 the product that is clean diesel and 1/2 that is naphtha that will require further processing into gasoline. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-05-22 11:39 |
| #5 "Why doesn't someone build a refinery or two?" Because nobody wants one in their 'back yard'. Though no new refineries have been built in the US in decades (and many old, small, or/and ineffiecient ones have been closed down) total US refinery capacity has not declined - because remaining refineries were enlarged and made more efficient. But product demand has increased, hence shortages. I am not sure, but suspect limits to expansion and efficiency improvements are about reached, so problem won't go away unless demand drops (recession will do that, for instance.) New refineries will be overseas, where both construction and operating costs are lower - but where output is more at economic risk of being sent elsewhere (maybe China, or Europe), and also at risk of political disruption (see Venezuela or Nigeria for instance.) |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-05-22 11:21 |
| #4 What is a 30-metere distance? Why are tankers "bunched" up? So oil went up in smoke that was to be used by the military? It will have to be replaced. Gas at the pump jumps by 30 cents/gal.? The excuse that gas is high is that we lack refinery capacity. I have heard this for several years. Why doesn't someone build a refinery or two? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-05-22 10:18 |
| #3 Never made much sense to ship fuel via Taliban sponsoring Pakistan. Seems it's just asking for supply interruptions and equipment destruction. Better to ship fuel via the ex-Soviet Stans, even it is a longer route to southern Afghan, and let them garner the economic rewards. At least the profits won't come back at our troops as bombs and bullets. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-05-22 08:46 |
| #2 Pakistan, by doing nothing to protect legal commerce on its soil from factions at war with the US is effectively allied with those factions, and thus also at war with us. We should move the border (it's a disputed line anyway) into Pakistan each time something like this happens - before long we should reach India and the problem would be solved. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-05-22 07:09 |
| #1 It's a safe bet the 'unknown miscreants' who blew up the ten oil tankers which were slated to be delivered to NATO forces combating the enemy in Afghanistan was the terrorist work of al-Qaida & their Taliban cohorts. |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2007-05-22 02:30 |