Posted on 04/25/2006 7:29:28 AM PDT by kellynla
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will direct the U.S. Energy Department on Tuesday to temporarily halt deliveries of oil to a strategic reserve in order to get more fuel on the market and help reduce rising gasoline prices, a senior administration official said.
The official said Bush in a morning energy speech, will tell the Energy Department to suspend deliveries this summer while supplies are tight "and defer the deposits until the fall, and then you have more oil on the market."
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
I don't disagree with you at all on MTBE. The EPA should be stripped of its powers to mandate anything on anybody and should be forced to clean up the messes it has created. MTBE should be relegated to the dustbin of history as one of the worst "good-intentions" fiascos ever.
They had a piece recently on CNN about this...with the gas crisis in the 1970s, and the rising cost on the economically declined nation of Brazil...the government actually put money into the idea. The interesting thing is that they avoided corn...and went to sugar cane primarily...which takes less energy to convert. They have vast sugar cane farms...which all lead to regional processing centers. The interesting thing is that cheaper cars came out in the past 2 or 3 years...which readily used the fuel. So with the limited production of oil off the coast of Brazil...they simply mix that with the sugar cane mixture...and most all gas stations now sell this...at a cheaper price than regular gas. The CNN guys didn't say if it was taxed lesser...but one would assume so.
At $75 a barrel....I can see ethonoyl starting to boom within two years...primarily in the mid-west and south. I read a story yesterday that instead of using corn...they are now looking at the corn stalks...waste product anyway...which works in same fashion as sugar cane...less energy to convert...which is key. Several IPOs occur this year with alternate fuel companies...which I predict a doubling of stock price within twelve months...its simply time for the product to sell. And the interesting thing...if congress and the states would come to that agreement...would be to have only a 1 cent national tax on ethonoyl fuel sold. You create a very quick conversion episode where people buy cheap cars and start the switch over. Even if you convince the mid-west and south to use a 50/50 formula...you cut off a massive amount of middle east oil you need...and force the price to rapidly decrease. Even the Chinese see this as a possible idea...and that would further decrease oil prices.
You obviously have no idea what price fixing is.
Is there a cost differential between sweet and sour crude oil?
well, good for you, you found two, count 'em, two friggin' speeches in FIVE FRIGGIN' YEARS...
one speech in Conestoga, Pennsylvania? And where the hell is Conestoga, PA to the "Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation"??? and another speech to "Capital City Partnership?" in St. Paul, Minnesota
Not exactly EARTH SHATTERING venues now are they. ROFLMAO
and what has he accomplished regarding oil & gas!
zip, zero, nothing, nada!
let's not confuse activity with accomplishment.
as others have pointed out,
if he had spent as much time campaigning on ANWR, alternative fuels, refineries as he did on Social Security "reform" there would have been something to show for his efforts.
If they are above capacity then the gov't shouldn't be paying this high of a price anyway.
Why did you have to go back to 2001 to find straight talk about our energy situation? What does that tell you? Hello?
The President has dropped the ball on this, and all other issues that are important to the Republican base. The Republicans are going to get their arses handed to them in November.
Taxation, Socialist Insecurity, Immigration, Energy....where are they excelling? What have they actually DONE???? Nothing as far as I can tell, except try to soothe us with BS. GAME OVER.
What would Bush gain by issuing a Presidential Executive Order to start drilling in Alaska? In the first place, it will take years to get any oil up and running and if, God forbid, a Rat wins the Presidency in 2008, that person would recind the Executive Order immediately and we would have gained zero.
That's why I went back that far. Please don't post if you haven't kept up with what the discussion has been.
I completely agree with you about the Republicans in Congress. They are the ones to make the laws, and THEY are the ones who have dropped the ball.
Three equal branches of government, congoddess. The President doesn't make the laws.
Puh-lease. The Republicans control all three houses: House, Senate, White. There is no excuse for failure to move this forward. None.
Tell me again why we shouldn't hold them ALL accountable? Hmm?
Tell me why I should bother to fire up my 6.0L Turbo Diesel powered Excursion and drive it to the polling place. What the hell good has it done to put the Pubbies in control? What have they actually done?? I'm not going to spend the $6. It's just not worth it.
I went BACK to 2001 because I said he had been outlining this policy SINCE then. NOT because they were the ONLY speeches he had given.
Sheesh!!!
I only discuss issues with rational folks, so feel free to gripe to someone else.
Well, that makes perfect sense if your a leftist, but none if you're a conservative.
And in the logical presumption that you're a leftist, please.........don't vote. :)
That's a non-sequitur. You're obviously an apologist for Republican failures. It's more important to throw that Republican lever than hold them accountable. Is that your argument? Hmmm?
Do ya have a link to any different websites that would prove the info false?
Forgive me for my skepticism, but I don't believe you are who you say you are. Trolls about here, and your MO fits.
That's why I added "for our future security" or some such language. Even a new refinery is five years away if we started today, so there's going to be no quick solution. If a 'rat were to rescind such an order, it would move beyond obstructionism to actively tearing down a component of our future security. I doubt it would mean much legally, but emotionally the impact would be pretty powerful among those who are on the fence but leaning slightly in favor of drilling ANWR.
But being a conservative, I also believe in the Constitution, and in the balance of power. You seem to want a dictator (another clue of your political alignment).
"you're making yourself look kinda stupid."
when all else fails and you can't debate an issue on facts try insulting your opponent. LMAO
sorry, Charlie, not taking the bait!
The official estimate is seven to ten years before oil would see daylight in ANWAR. This is like being hungry, ordering a pizza for dinner tonight, and taking delivery in three weeks.
Drilling isn't even a long-term solution. By the time that oil gets to the surface, consumption levels ten years from now will dwarf whatever impact those extra barrels might have today.
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.