Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Halts Oil to Strategic Reserve
CNN MONEY ^ | April 25, 2006: 10:13 AM EDT | staff

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: bush; doe; gasprices; oil; strategicreserve
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-312 next last
To: spokeshave

I actually read yesterday they are talking Oscars for his movie! When I think Hollywood can't get any lower they prove me wrong.


281 posted on 04/25/2006 3:01:49 PM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Well, the move by our President made yesterday's news and should make Ahmadinejad and friends happy--not to mention our importers who want oil to stay down regardless of consequences to our country's security.


282 posted on 04/25/2006 4:15:39 PM PDT by familyop (Essayons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CzarNicky
Good post and thanks for detailed explanations of your viewpoint. After reading your post, I don't think any of us really disagree on the gas tax situation.

The Feds add a layer of bureaucracy, corruption and pork that could be almost entirely eliminated without much (or any) increase in the state gas tax. I would imagine that in many states the tax could go down as only roads that made sense would be built rather than the "bridges to nowhere".

As far as interstates, I'd like states to take a much larger responsibility. I don't have specifics but many parts of the interstate system have mostly intrastate effects. Beltways, spurs and bypasses are good examples.

283 posted on 04/25/2006 4:29:56 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Publius

nothing could be worse than rationing, Bush would not only doom the Republicans in November he would ruin his legacy if he implemented rationing.


284 posted on 04/25/2006 4:50:37 PM PDT by conservative physics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: NAVY84

Sorry, the fearmongering just doesn't work with my anymore.

Either they give me a reason to vote for them, something decidedly better than "BUT WE'RE NOT DEMOCRATS!" or I save the $6 in diesel fuel by staying home and organizing my sock drawer.

I see no progress whatsoever on the following:

Border Security: A real plan, not nice words. I want a wall, I want them rounded up and thrown out. Any questions?

The Income Tax: I don't want to make the tax cuts permanent. I want to repeal Title 26, the 16th Amendment and institute a national sales tax. Cut, tweak, amend....it's all more lipstick on a pig.

Socialist Insecurity: I don't want to shore it up, preserve it; I want a stake driven through it's blood sucking, Socialist heart.

I see no progress in any of those areas. The Republicans have not earned my vote or given me a reason to get out of bed on election day.


285 posted on 04/25/2006 5:36:12 PM PDT by Conservative Goddess (Politiae legibus, non leges politiis, adaptandae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
yea, well some of the clowns on FR would rather post personal insults then engage in factual, civil debate.

You ought to know, o master.

286 posted on 04/25/2006 6:08:53 PM PDT by brewcrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

Actually refining has historically been the step child and low profit maker for most major energy companies.


287 posted on 04/25/2006 6:25:17 PM PDT by OKIEDOC (There's nothing like hearing someone say thank you for your help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: ARCADIA

I could imagine when gas in the US costs the same as in the UK and will not decrease I expect there will be a massive turnaround of thinking, people here will not in any way at all start buying these hybrid cars that get over 100mpg and costs as much or more than a Hummer.We also will not drive Mini Coopers either.

What will most likely happen is a lot and I mean a LOT of folks will start making their own ethanol, there will be black markets of ethanol, ethanol runners smugging their loads into counties that refuse to offer affordable cheap ethanol because of the loss of taxation, many cars will be retrofitted to burn at least a 50% ethanol blend, new cars that are E-85 will go up in price naturally. What few people do not know is that a lot of new cars sold in the last couple of years are ethanol capable, and its a fact that a still can easily be made, almost anything organic can be made into ethanol, especially sawgrass, just remove the water and you have 104 octane fuel.
Why can't private parties right now anywhere in the US start up mini ethanol stations? I tell you what, when gas gets a little bit more expensive I am going to make my own ethanol, I already have one new car that will run on it and as needed i will modify my Silverado to burn a blend.

I am smart enough to not rely on foreign oil, I will buy a small percentage, like 5 gallons or so. I guess its not worth mentioning that eventually the world will run out of oil but thats in the future and its nobodies problem right now...

We need not have to drill for more, make better use of whats available and tell the big oil giants and the middle east to kiss our behind cause we can make our own fuel, if Brazil can do it so can we. This comment was not aimed at any single person, its for all to read.


288 posted on 04/25/2006 6:30:11 PM PDT by Eye of Unk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: mvpel

thanks for post 190


289 posted on 04/25/2006 6:30:42 PM PDT by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
687 million barrel is equivalent to 34 days of total US consumption ( 20 million barrel of oil is consumed in the US daily, 25% of total world consumption).

If we just stop any import of oil and use local production ( 8 million barrel a day) the SPR will make us last 57 days with the same current rate of daily consumption.

If we use our local production and stop any Middle East import (4 million barrels a day from Middle East oil) but import from other places (Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Northern Sea etc...) then the SPR will serve us for 170 days with the same current rate of daily consumption.

290 posted on 04/25/2006 8:02:06 PM PDT by jveritas (Hate can never win elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Goddess

"Border Security: A real plan, not nice words. I want a wall, I want them rounded up and thrown out. Any questions?"

Sure, Can we compromise and just seal the border on this round. I'd say progress would be a bill that does this and this alone.

"The Income Tax: I don't want to make the tax cuts permanent. I want to repeal Title 26, the 16th Amendment and institute a national sales tax. Cut, tweak, amend....it's all more lipstick on a pig. "

If we got the tax cuts made permanent would that not be better than a repeal which is what the darkside wants?
We can move on from there.

"Socialist Insecurity: I don't want to shore it up, preserve it; I want a stake driven through it's blood sucking, Socialist heart."

Hello? If the President hits that horse again, PETA is gonna have him charged. Think 3-5 more RINOs and a couple of good conservatives in the House and About 3 solid conservatives in the Senate and I think we can try again. That will not happen if we all catch a few more ZZZs on election day.

Oh Yeah, and you know that goofy looking 25 year old idealistic kid running for the school board? Well a 60 year old socialist pig that thinks Woodstock was the best thing that ever happened to him got reelected for the 8th time. Now where do you think Conservatives come from? Who is going to drive that stake "through Socialist Insecurities blood sucking, socialist heart"?

I'm pi$$ed too, but I still want to win. My first election was 1980. Things are better, MUCH BETTER (Do you remember how you felt when Jimmah graciously accepted responsibility for killing our men at Desert One?)

(*SIGH* Going to have my wife rub cheese on my feet now.)


291 posted on 04/25/2006 8:31:09 PM PDT by NAVY84 (Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
This action in no way removes nor lessens the fundamental issues of tangible threats to global oil supplies from Iran and their terrorists cohorts.

Multiple variations of Federally mandated reformulated unleaded gas, based on cities and states is another adverse contributor to the excessive bullishness in the energy trading pits. Washington should look to themselves for creating the high prices on one level.

On average most states pay 38 - 42 cents in state & federal taxes per gallon of gas. Reductions in those taxes would reduce pump prices, although not greatly, but would be immediate.

The bottom line is the need for refineries and intensification of existing alternative energy methods, and taking out the overseas threats to the world economic stability.

292 posted on 04/25/2006 8:43:31 PM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Gee, if the more oil is going into the economy then why did the gas prices jump another 7 cents a gallon today? Hogwash!


293 posted on 04/25/2006 8:55:07 PM PDT by pctech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
The problems, as usual, is the drive-by media. They have no interest in telling the truth. Most sheeple don't have a rudimentary knowledge of economics. Thats about all I have but it's above average perhaps. The drive-by media types are fueling (bad pun) much of this hysteria.

An interesting look at some numbers I have heard on Hannity and Rush.

42 gallons of oil in a barrel. Current price is 72 dollars per barrel. That's about 1.79 per gallon (or 57 percent of the final cost of a 3 dollar gallon of gas) 1.79 before it's even shipped or refined. Brutal.

That's not even taking into account the reported .60 cents per gallon some poor sucker in New York (the common man if you will) pays PER gallon in taxes.

If the oil companies make about 10 percent (lets say 30 cents a gallon for kicks), and the gas station makes about 10 to 18 cents per gallon, then WTF is with the State's making TWENTY percent of the cost per gallon.

Twenty percent in NY per gallon. Brutal. That would be about 4 dollars of tax for my rig per fill-up.

And we have more socialism to look forward to from congress when they start blaming the oil companies and regulating the market.

And it's all Bush's fault? I put the blame squarely on the RATS. No refineries. No ANWR drilling. No Gulf of mexico drilling (at least not by us). No California off shore drilling.

294 posted on 04/25/2006 8:57:42 PM PDT by ottersnot ("Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

"He's been in office for FIVE FRIGGIN' YEARS now
and he could have gone to the people & Congress in 2001
and said we must do whatever it takes to get off the foreign oil addiction!
more refineries, more drilling, more alternative fuels and NUKES!"

He has been doing that since 2001. If you have not heard of this, it is not his fault. He has been leading. Also, the US House of Representatives have passed at least 3 or 4 bills to achieve the items in your list. You have not heard this because the MSM does not want you to know what he has been doing, and the US Senate has managed to not follow the President, nor the US House.


295 posted on 04/25/2006 9:37:50 PM PDT by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: 300magnum

"As Americans shell out more dollars at the pump, the profit margin by U.S. oil refiners has shot up 79% from 1999 (the year Exxon and Mobil merged) to 2004. See a breakdown of ExxonMobil's Profits here.

hahahahahahahah.....I don't think so."

That is roughly an increase of 16% per year. If they were making 10% profit before, they increased that profit the first year to 11.6% and the second year to 13.5% etc.

That tells me nothing. First of all, what increase did they have in sales over the same period of time. If it was an increase on average of 20%, they were making less dollars per sales than what they did before the merger. Also, this is a capital intensive business. Even if they broke even and the sales increased by 16%, they infrastructure that is needed to maintain those sales may be getting much closer to needing replaced. It is not unreasonable that the infrastructure costs may not be needed for a couple more years, but they could cost $10 Billion, 50 Billion, 300 Billion or more.


296 posted on 04/25/2006 9:49:32 PM PDT by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
What we need is tighter enforcment and regulation of the futures market and prosecution of those guilty of manipulating it.

A big government "conservative" are we ??
297 posted on 04/25/2006 10:04:50 PM PDT by newfarm4000n (God Bless America and God Bless Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Meadow Muffin

if that was possible dont you think it would have hapened by now?


298 posted on 04/26/2006 12:44:19 AM PDT by georgia2006
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Meadow Muffin

How about an Executavie Order to drill in Alaska, the Gulf and off california...then a program to build more refineries faster......



That depends on what the law says about drilling. The President cannot issue Executive orders in direct contradiction to Constitutional laws. If the President uses Executive Orders to break the law, it could be construed as grounds for impeachment. We must remember that an executive order is an order issued to direct the Executive Department on how to execute the laws. Executive Orders are not supposed to legislate. In other words, as Activist judges are not supposed to legislate from the bench, neither are Presidents supposed to legislate from the Oval Office. It is wise to keep Separation of Powers in mind here.


299 posted on 04/26/2006 3:11:22 AM PDT by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CzarNicky

Source; 2nd to last paragraph.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/021606/news5.html

"I have no time for silly emotive outbursts"

Grow up.


300 posted on 04/26/2006 3:27:23 AM PDT by butternut_squash_bisque (The recipe's at my FR HomePage)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-312 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson