There's been an unholy alliance between OPEC & Congress for years. Lots of money sloshing around both sides of the aisle.
Posted on 07/22/2007 11:22:54 AM PDT by neverdem
Edited on 07/22/2007 11:35:06 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Has the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries infiltrated Congress? If so, that sure would explain the latest energy bill.
Make that the anti-energy bill. Both the already-passed Senate version and the upcoming House one are bad enough for what they do contain. But they're worse for what they don't — even one drop of additional domestic oil.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
We're have only 150 refineries, and 1/3 have been down since the beginning of the year.
Tehre needs to be a mandatae that all 50 states need to build refineries based on a population basis. All enviormental restriction standards need to be suspended in thier contruction. Then every state must be mandated to build 1 refinery and an additional one per each 10 million in population, or face a $1 additional tax per gallon. These refineries cannot last forever.
There's been an unholy alliance between OPEC & Congress for years. Lots of money sloshing around both sides of the aisle.
The shortage of refineries is a big reason for the high gasoline prices.
We need refineries not more crude
“...Tehre needs to be a mandatae that all 50 states need to build refineries based on a population basis. All enviormental restriction standards need to be suspended in thier contruction. Then every state must be mandated to build 1 refinery and an additional one per each 10 million in population, or face a $1 additional tax per gallon. These refineries cannot last forever....”
That’s a pretty good idea...I’ve been thinking along those lines myself.
I think I’d be satisfied if we could force a couple to be built in Massachusetts....:<)...and maybe one in the Georgetown section of DC....
I’d be glad to build one just on the Mexican side of the border to avoid those nasty EPA regs , near to California ,,, anyone have a few $Billion to start with..
Great idea! An unfunded mandate plus nationalization of an entire industry. Hillary!08 would do that.
The oil industry report this week said that the producers will not be able to keep up with demand over the next two decades. That is oil production itself.
You are right that restrictions need to be removed, but states don't build refineries, businesses do. Businesses need the gov't to be a reasonable ally, not an adversary as they currently are.
We need both, but the left will never permit it. Any solution to the problem that doesn’t cripple the American economy is unacceptable.
Yes we should drill.
Yes we need to work on the refinery situation.
But there is only way this country is ever going to be energy independent - nuclear power.
Another way: space development
>>there is only way this country is ever going to be energy independent
—
Another way: space development<<
How so?
We should be embarking on a plan to generate 25% of the nation's electricity from nuclear reactors which would reduce carbon emissions far more than any of Al Gore's carbon credits.
Depleting domestic supplies will leave the US more not less vulnerable to the whims of the oil emirs
>>We should be embarking on a plan to generate 25% of the nation’s electricity from nuclear reactors which would reduce carbon emissions far more than any of Al Gore’s carbon credits.<<
If we emphasized nuclear and stopped open burning in the southern hemisphere we would reduce carbon emmissions more than all CO2 reductions plans on earth together.
And yet activists would rather ban sports cars and ration toilet paper.
Why, its almost as if they are not so interested in carbon emissions but instead desire to restrict the Western capitalist lifestyle.
But I am, no doubt, imagining things.
Ok, that would be an overuse of federal power, and besides, it’s highly uneconomical.
The fact is, it’s a two way street, if you today issued a flurry of new permits, many oil companies would choose not to build or even stonewall the process. Energy companies are in a great position right now, and logically, they won’t do anything, such as increasing domestic capacity, that could have the effect of lowering profit margins overall.
The only people who can effectively pressure them are the states where they currently drill oil. We all know these are the only states with oil. Without any domestic wells, they go out of business. If gulf states began pressuring oil companies, on the basis that they should “provide more jobs”, especially in light of verdicts in several gulf states against Exxon, they might be likely to do so.
But there is only way this country is ever going to be energy independent - nuclear power.
(replace 'nuclear power' with 'no more democrat controlled congresses')
That is the real agenda with most environmental ideas. Most environmentalists are rabid, anti-western leftists.
Environmentalism is just the vehicle to help achieve their agenda.
We couldn’t get any kind of worthwhile energy Bill through a Republican House, Senate and President. Don’t expect anything from the Democrats except more ratcheting down of available energy sources, taxes on what we do have, and, of course, big bucks for all sorts of silly utopian garbage that will do nothing but waste tax dollars and pay the friends and relatives of Democrats while producing nothing, expending more energy than is returned, and adds to the need for more imported oil.
We should be using our resources or untapped supply of oil as a tool to influence the price of oil in the marketplace. Hell if threats from that nut in Iran can influence price why not threats of drilling and tapping our resources. Refining compacity should be increased despite what environmentalist say. There is middle ground and if they want to have some say they should come forth and help find it. Energy supplies should be considered as a national security issue important to both our security and economic health. But you probably won’t see that while there is an oil man in charge.
If you don't have 60 votes to end debate in the Senate, i.e. to vote for cloture, then nothing happens. It's a Senate rule. That's what happened with the vote on Iraq last week as well as with Bush's nominees for judges. We were lucky we got Alito and Roberts.
Yes, we havn’t built a petroleum refinery in nearly three decades. Too many Americans are in denial. Today nuclear energy is safe and clean (France gets 75% of its power from nuclear) and they don’t want that. There are vast reserves in ANWR and they don’t want to tap that. Conervation and alternative energy sources are important but they will NEVER supply even a small fraction of the demands of our vast and growing economy.
By the way, to see what the shortage of refineries will eventually mean, take a look at Iran. That nation sits on an ocean of oil but has lines two miles long at gas stations. Why? Lack of refining capacity.
How so?
Here's the plan: Move all heavy industry and mining off planet. That will take 1/3 of the power consumption with it. It will take about 20 years, which coincidently is just about when we would otherwise need to increase oil production just that amount in that amount of time. End of problem, permanently.
That really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Refineries need to be located in proximity to their source of supply.
What needs to be done is to allow all drilling offshore of Florida and California, and cancel all the ridiculous state-mandated environmental regs, whose sole purpose is to stifle any energy production. Build some more refineries in California, and build SOME refineries in Florida (AFAIK, there are none).
If the Euros can safely drill in the tempestuous North Sea, the US can safely drill offshore of California and Florida.
Yeah, and probably 95% of that 40% is coal and natural gas. VERY LITTLE oil goes to electricity production.
While we certainly need more nuke plants, generating more electricity won't help gas prices.
We need both more refineries and more crude. I think the numbers quoted for offshore oil are terribly on the low side. There has not been any meaningful exploration for oil off the wst coast since the 70’s. Russia is laying claim to the north pole and arctic regions because they know there are vast reserves to be had there, and yet we can’t even drill in AMWR, which is a tiny, tiny, tiny part of alaska. Foolish does not begin to describe our energy policy.
>>Here’s the plan: Move all heavy industry and mining off planet. That will take 1/3 of the power consumption with it. It will take about 20 years, which coincidently is just about when we would otherwise need to increase oil production just that amount in that amount of time. End of problem, permanently.<<
Unfortunately with escape speed for the earth being 25,000 miles per hour it takes a tremendous amount of energy to move equipment off earth - 317,000,000 joules per kilogram.
There is some hope of sending up light things to capture sunlight but even then transmission losses back to earth are prohibitive.
Drill Gull Island!
Not an issue, fortunately. Note the second part--mining.
Problem is no one wants a refinery built anywhere near their home. Same with prisons and nuclear energy plants ...
No more oil will be the future, the whole world would be better off if using petroleum as a fuel became illegal, wars would dramatically decrease, and we would breathe better and have a more stable economy.And any dumbnut experts wish to comment on why we need oil forever they are indeed shortsighted. The future has the answers and we need to start looking harder.
I say put a limit on new refineries, we do not need them, make better vehicles to run on other fuels, and I will not post any other reply here because that is a quagmire in itself about hydrogen, electric, and nuclear.
With the price of gasoline being what it is, that could change, especially in areas with poor economies.
We need “all of the above”, more refineries, more oil production, and more nuclear plants. If we learned how to make the latter a bit more cheaply, and much more quickly, and built plenty of them, they could not only be used for electricity generation for the grid, but also as the energy source for “alternate fuels”, such as hydrogen for fuel cells, or for internal combustion engines. The “alternate fuel” as storage, like a battery, and “conversion mechanism” for the energy the nuke plants produce.
What is a chemical feedstock? I’m not even certain that I’ve heard the term before. Thanks.
No, 1/3 have had downtime since the first of the year.
We saw many refineries on the return trip from our vacation to the Corpus Christi area. We drove back along the Gulf Coast. We took smaller highways and saw a bunch of refineries...
And we did pass very near a few that were obviously off-line, as the parking lots appeared to be mostly empty, and there was very little to no activity seen.
I wondered what the deal was... Onle looked like there was some construction going on, but the others - looked fairly kept up, but not running.
Thanks ND. Barrels of laughs are still free:
Democrats’ rare chance to go for gut
Philadelphia Inquirer | Jul. 22, 2007 | Dick Polman
Posted on 07/22/2007 9:19:06 PM EDT by neverdem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1870053/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.