3 ms·

This isn't just crude oil: it's "crude oil and refined petroleum products". Oil refining is something the US has massive capacity for; we can ship oil in, refin

This isn't just crude oil: it's "crude oil and refined petroleum products". Oil refining is something the US has massive capacity for; we can ship oil in, refine it, and ship gasoline etc back out, often cheaper than refining the oil closer to its origin. It helps to remember that shipping on bulk liquids is very inexpensive per ton.

Nasrudith 8y ago
Huh that explains things then. I was wondering why more refining wasn't done locally to reduce shipping costs given that it is preferable to ship lumber instead of timber and ingots instead of ore. I guess tanks would have lower expenses with loading and unloading since it is just a matter of hooking it up and pumping.
- zrobotics 8y ago
  Also a matter of expense: a lumber mill is extremely cheap when compared to a refinery. Refinery costs are one of the main reasons crude is shipped unprocessed. Whereas mines often do process on-site, since for something like gold ore you will be shipping multiple tons per ounce of product, plus then the remainders from the ore become a disposal problem at the processing site. Same reason silicon foundries aren't necessarily located anywhere near where the raw materials are sourced from.
- oasisbob 8y ago
  > ... given that it is preferable to ship lumber instead of timber There are also regulatory reasons for this one. As I understand it, as a general rule, you cannot legally export raw timbers harvested from federal and state lands in the US. [1] There are also trade problems when wood products come from federal lands because of potential subsidies. (You want to get a Canadian to talk your ear off, just bring up softwood in the context of US trade.) [2] Raw timbers and cants also have pest concerns that kiln-dried lumber doesn't. [1] https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr208.pdf https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr208.pdf [2] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42789.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42789.pdf
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Interesting. Given that I heard about those in third world contexts I thought those raw lumber regulations were intended as a slight slow-down to excessive exploitation - that you have to set up at least a lumber mill and process everything in-situ to at least give a stable direct or peripheral income to inhabitants instead of a locust like clear cut and ship out the wood approach. The previous even if it left them deforested would give enough to live on at least short term. Lumber mill jobs require some basic numeracy and literacy or trade training as opposed to just "any strong man" and would be a more sustained task. The two together imply that the locals would reap some benefits during the operation through at very least selling services - even if they leave after they work through the forests it would be less likely to cause a humanitarian crisis and/or insurrection. Even a sociopathic imperialist leader would be annoyed that they have to keep wasting resources cleaning up after timber barons instead of scheming after things of far more value.

Nasrudith 8y ago

Huh that explains things then. I was wondering why more refining wasn't done locally to reduce shipping costs given that it is preferable to ship lumber instead of timber and ingots instead of ore. I guess tanks would have lower expenses with loading and unloading since it is just a matter of hooking it up and pumping.

zrobotics 8y ago
Also a matter of expense: a lumber mill is extremely cheap when compared to a refinery. Refinery costs are one of the main reasons crude is shipped unprocessed. Whereas mines often do process on-site, since for something like gold ore you will be shipping multiple tons per ounce of product, plus then the remainders from the ore become a disposal problem at the processing site. Same reason silicon foundries aren't necessarily located anywhere near where the raw materials are sourced from.
oasisbob 8y ago
> ... given that it is preferable to ship lumber instead of timber There are also regulatory reasons for this one. As I understand it, as a general rule, you cannot legally export raw timbers harvested from federal and state lands in the US. [1] There are also trade problems when wood products come from federal lands because of potential subsidies. (You want to get a Canadian to talk your ear off, just bring up softwood in the context of US trade.) [2] Raw timbers and cants also have pest concerns that kiln-dried lumber doesn't. [1] https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr208.pdf https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr208.pdf [2] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42789.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42789.pdf
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Interesting. Given that I heard about those in third world contexts I thought those raw lumber regulations were intended as a slight slow-down to excessive exploitation - that you have to set up at least a lumber mill and process everything in-situ to at least give a stable direct or peripheral income to inhabitants instead of a locust like clear cut and ship out the wood approach. The previous even if it left them deforested would give enough to live on at least short term. Lumber mill jobs require some basic numeracy and literacy or trade training as opposed to just "any strong man" and would be a more sustained task. The two together imply that the locals would reap some benefits during the operation through at very least selling services - even if they leave after they work through the forests it would be less likely to cause a humanitarian crisis and/or insurrection. Even a sociopathic imperialist leader would be annoyed that they have to keep wasting resources cleaning up after timber barons instead of scheming after things of far more value.