ANWAR - The Republican Universal OUT for High Gas Prices

[Nbadan]

Spin: Gas prices are high because liberal tree-huggers care more about protecting buffalo and elk than they care about lowering gas prices....

---

Nevermind that If you took all the oil in the Arctic National Wild-life Refuge out of the ground, it would last less than half a year just for U.S. consumption, but it is a long-term answer to the U.S. energy crisis

:rolleyes

[Yonivore]

Spin: Gas prices are high because liberal tree-huggers care more about protecting buffalo and elk than they care about lowering gas prices....

---

Nevermind that If you took all the oil in the Arctic National Wild-life Refuge out of the ground, it would last less than half a year just for U.S. consumption, but it is a long-term answer to the U.S. energy crisis

:rolleyes
There is certainly disagreement over the amount of recoverable oil from ANWR. But, no reasonable person is suggesting ANWR would solve the probem, anyway.

Other things the tree huggers are preventing that would make a dent:

Drilling in the Gulf and off the coast of California.

Building new refining capacity.

Building nuclear power plants.

Tree huggers have quite the obstructionist legacy when it comes to energy independence in America.

[George Gervin's Afro]

There is certainly disagreement over the amount of recoverable oil from ANWR. But, no reasonable person is suggesting ANWR would solve the probem, anyway.

Other things the tree huggers are preventing that would make a dent:

Drilling in the Gulf and off the coast of California.

Building new refining capacity.

Building nuclear power plants.

Tree huggers have quite the obstructionist legacy when it comes to energy independence in America.


How many Republican administrations have we had in the last 28 yrs?

[George Gervin's Afro]

There is certainly disagreement over the amount of recoverable oil from ANWR. But, no reasonable person is suggesting ANWR would solve the probem, anyway.

Other things the tree huggers are preventing that would make a dent:

Drilling in the Gulf and off the coast of California.

Building new refining capacity.

Building nuclear power plants.

Tree huggers have quite the obstructionist legacy when it comes to energy independence in America.


I forgot to ask. Do you have any proof that the sole reason there are no refineries being built is befcause of tree huggers? Please save me the opinion pieces I want to see something that verifies your point in a unbiased way.

[Yonivore]

I forgot to ask. Do you have any proof that the sole reason there are no refineries being built is befcause of tree huggers? Please save me the opinion pieces I want to see something that verifies your point in a unbiased way.
Who gives a fuck what you want to see, "Don't Fuck With Me" Afro?

Tell me where I said it was the "sole" reason first, Mr. "Don't Fuck With Me" Absolutist.

[Yonivore]

How many Republican administrations have we had in the last 28 yrs?
What's your point? Republicans had the White House and Congress for precisely 8 months before 9-11 changed priorities. Before that, there wasn't a veto-proof Republican Congress or a Republican President with a cooperative Congress for over 40 years.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Who gives a fuck what you want to see, "Don't Fuck With Me" Afro?

Tell me where I said it was the "sole" reason first, Mr. "Don't Fuck With Me" Absolutist.


Oh ok I guess your to stupid to realize that in your post you imply that the tree huggers are the reason. I noticed you didn't mention anyother reasons..

I didn't think you could justify yet another ,talking point, post...

[George Gervin's Afro]

What's your point? Republicans had the White House and Congress for precisely 8 months before 9-11 changed priorities. Before that, there wasn't a veto-proof Republican Congress or a Republican President with a cooperative Congress for over 40 years.

My point is you are so blindly biased that you walk the fine line of not making any sense...

[Yonivore]

Oh ok I guess your to stupid to realize that in your post you imply that the tree huggers are the reason. I noticed you didn't mention anyother reasons..
It is you that is too stupid to realize we were talking about environmentalist impacts on energy and that it is you that insinuated the absolute into the conversation.

And, if I were implying that, I would say so. But, looking at the issue, most obstacles to new refinery construction point to environmentalists. I'm not intelligent enough on the subject to say the cause is soley due to environmentalists.

So, go ahead, tell me; what are some of the other reasons we haven't increased our refining capacity?


I didn't think you could justify yet another ,talking point, post...
I have this vivid image of the Scarecrow from "The Wizard of Oz," with an afro.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It is you that is too stupid to realize we were talking about environmentalist impacts on energy and that it is you that insinuated the absolute into the conversation.

And, if I were implying that, I would say so. But, looking at the issue, most obstacles to new refinery construction point to environmentalists. I'm not intelligent enough on the subject to say the cause is soley due to environmentalists.

So, go ahead, tell me; what are some of the other reasons we haven't increased our refining capacity?


I have this vivid image of the Scarecrow from "The Wizard of Oz," with an afro.


I guess I didn't interpret the 'tree huggers' remark as an idictment on the whole environmental movement when it comes to energy independence.

Well for one it maximizes profits with no new refineries. Considering now an oil company can shut one down which directly affects the supply of oil in the market.

[Yonivore]

My point is you are so blindly biased that you walk the fine line of not making any sense...
Your question was either a non sequitur or you were trying to make a point.

If you were trying to make a point about my bias by bringing up the fact there have been Republican Presidents and we still don't have drilling in ANWR, I merely responded that it takes more than a President, it takes a cooperative Congress...and vice versa.

That's why I asked what was your point and, it's why I pointed out there hasn't been an opportunity for a Republican President or Congress to get this done because of the environmentalist pandering crowd embodied in Democratic Congresses and Presidents.

So, again, what's your point? If that was it, I responded in a manner I believe belies the accusation of blind partisanship. If that wasn't you point, I'm curious to know what it was.

And, finally, if that was your point, and I responded to it, maybe it's you that is so blindly biased and not making any sense.

[Yonivore]

I guess I didn't interpret the 'tree huggers' remark as an idictment on the whole environmental movement when it comes to energy independence.

Well for one it maximizes profits with no new refineries. Considering now an oil company can shut one down which directly affects the supply of oil in the market.
That's a question for scott but, that's not what's been reported by the media over the years. The principal reasons that I've heard are that draconian environmental regulations on new construction have made it unprofitable to build them. And, extra-regulatory environmental roadblocks to attempted construction of refineries (protests, lobbying, and sabotage) have also contributed.

I don't buy your reason. I'd be happy to read something on the premise if you have it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That's a question for scott but, that's not what's been reported by the media over the years. The principal reasons that I've heard are that draconian environmental regulations on new construction have made it unprofitable to build them. And, extra-regulatory environmental roadblocks to attempted construction of refineries (protests, lobbying, and sabotage) have also contributed.

I don't buy your reason. I'd be happy to read something on the premise if you have it.


I have heard one of the reasons is the cost associated with building new refineries (primarily with all of the environmental regs). To me that doesn't make sense because the companies could still return a profit with one or two new refineries. That's why I think the major players blame many factors as to why they won't because all they have to do is close one down and the coast goes way up.. I find it kind odd that these refineries are shut down durin the summer months.. peak time.. maybe it's just a coincedence..

[Yonivore]

Here, I'll help you out; I've thought of another group that is stalling the construction of new refineries:

The NIMBYs - The Not In My Back Yarders.

You know, like Senator Kennedy and the wind farm off the coast of Martha's Vineyard.

So, they're not necessarily environmentalists but local NIMBYs that are also thwarting efforts to increase our refining capacity.

But, for the most part, I think you have the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc... to thank.

[Yonivore]

I have heard one of the reasons is the cost associated with building new refineries (primarily with all of the environmental regs). To me that doesn't make sense because the companies could still return a profit with one or two new refineries. That's why I think the major players blame many factors as to why they won't because all they have to do is close one down and the coast goes way up.. I find it kind odd that these refineries are shut down durin the summer months.. peak time.. maybe it's just a coincedence..
I appreciate your opinion on this but you'll forgive me if the fact you don't actually build or finance refineries precludes me from buying your assertion without some documented support.

"I have heard..." usually doesn't cut it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I appreciate your opinion on this but you'll forgive me if the fact you don't actually build or finance refineries precludes me from buying your assertion without some documented support.

"I have heard..." usually doesn't cut it.


Actually it's the opinon of the talk radio circuit. That is where I got this tidbit of information. xray says hush tells the truth 100% of the time so I guess Ray will vouch for it..

[Yonivore]

I have heard one of the reasons is the cost associated with building new refineries (primarily with all of the environmental regs). To me that doesn't make sense because the companies could still return a profit with one or two new refineries. That's why I think the major players blame many factors as to why they won't because all they have to do is close one down and the coast goes way up.. I find it kind odd that these refineries are shut down durin the summer months.. peak time.. maybe it's just a coincedence..
And, another thing on this premise. If it were true, why isn't someone other than the oil companies building refineries?

Seriously, it's not like oil companies are the only ones who could build refineries. After all, the technology isn't particularly complex. And with everyone from investment banks to insurance companies to private equity firms, chasing high returns in an era of low global interest rates, there's a ton of cash out there just looking for a place to go.

So why hasn't anyone plunked it down to make more gas?

Personally, I think it points back to Enviro-whackos and NIMBYs. But, that's just me. I'd like to get scott involved in this conversation if we can get him to quit training pirates in an attempt to retard global warming.

[Yonivore]

Actually it's the opinon of the talk radio circuit. That is where I got this tidbit of information. xray says hush tells the truth 100% of the time so I guess Ray will vouch for it..
You just get blown by the wind, don't'cha?

I don't listen to talk radio...except for the local drive time guy that talks about local politics. And, refineries haven't been a local source of discussion in Austin -- that I recall.

[xrayzebra]

Actually it's the opinon of the talk radio circuit. That is where I got this tidbit of information. xray says hush tells the truth 100% of the time so I guess Ray will vouch for it..

Never said 100 percent. But he is correct most of the time,
like 98.8%.

Now you, wrong about the same percentage of the time.
And I give you the 1.2 correct because you can get your
post on-line most of the time.


:toast

[DarkReign]

Building nuclear power plants.

That is the answer to home consumption, which would reduce our consumption of oil by a very, very large degree.

Chernobyl fucked everything up. The inevitable Energy Crisis thats staring us all in the face as we speak will force Americans to reevaluate their priorties.

You either:

a) save all the fuzzy, cute animals and keep your predisposed fear of any phrase that starts with the word nuclear, while living in some pre-industrial-type socio-economic structure (ie living a completely different, self-sustaining lifestyle where you grow your own food and instead of watching TV, you sit around a campfire).

or

b) build the necessary amount of nuclear power plants to supply the entire United States giving the needed time to figure out what the hell we are going to do about the world's dwindling oil supply.

You choose.

[ElNono]

Technically speaking, there's no reason you couldn't build one or two huge nuclear power plants in the middle of the desert, where you are less likely to cause both an environmental or human catastrophe in case something goes wrong. From a security standpoint, you could run it as a military-base type of facility, and being that it's in the middle of the country, it's an ideal location against aerial attacks.

Now when you see the oil prices keep going up solely on speculation ("A nigerian might fart, up 2 more dollars a barrel" or "Venezuela might continue sucking, up 3 bucks a barrel") and most all energy companies keep posting record profits at the same time, I think it's pretty obvious what's going on. I don't think you're going to change the status quo when these same companies fund your political campaign.

[Spurminator]

We need a nuclear power plant in space with a bunch of wires coming out of the sky and supplying power to our homes.

[Yonivore]

We need a nuclear power plant in space with a bunch of wires coming out of the sky and supplying power to our homes.
I thought Tesla eliminated the need for wires...can't we just transfer the energy through thin air?

[Walter Craparita]

Building new refining capacity.

Building new refining capacity.

Building new refining capacity.


All these ecolosers do nothing but make it more expensive for us. Jojobooka down in S. America doesn't give a shit and is killing the environment regardless of the actions losers up here try to make everyone do.

LOL at Hillary telling Bush he needs to tap into the petroleum reserves. As if that will do anything.

She's going to make a great president.

Using 150 years of history on a planet dating back millions of years is awesome.

[PixelPusher]

Yeah, the oil companies are just chomping at the bit to build more refining capacity.

Yep.

Yes sir....

[boutons_]

refiner's LOVE supply constricted way below demand.

They won't build new refineries, they won't secure the existing refineries.

Edgar/Charlie abet the oilcos' strategies by giving $100B to the ethanol scam, which the refiner's can use as pretext for not building new capacity in the face of the rise of ethanol.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, the oil companies are just chomping at the bit to build more refining capacity.

Yep.

Yes sir....
Who said it has to be oil companies that build them?

[PixelPusher]

Who said it has to be oil companies that build them?
Whether it's an oil company refining it's own oil into products/fuel, or independent refining companies that buy oil to produce products/fuel, the scarcity incentive remains the same.

[DarkReign]

I just learned the other day the methods for extracting oil from the planet (Dan link, I think). It works on a Bell curve, inasmuch that at some point, the amount of energy put in trying to get oil out is imbalanced and reversed exponentially.

Lets say one barrel of oil is "X" amount of energy for human consumption.

At some point, according to the experts, it takes 2X energy to extract 1X of oil. And the downward spiral begins.

The exact apex is hard to know and difficult to predict. Unfortunately, we (and they) will only know when we have reached that point 10 years after we passed it. Most agree that we are in the midst of the apex. The rest is severly downhill, according to them.

[Yonivore]

Whether it's an oil company refining it's own oil into products/fuel, or independent refining companies that buy oil to produce products/fuel, the scarcity incentive remains the same.

The free market isn't content to let a few oil barons corner the market. Not since anti-trust laws were invented anyway.

If there's money to be made, there are billion-dollar corporations out there -- unrelated to the industry -- that would build a multi-billion dollar refinery and start cranking out product in order to get in on the gig.

The problem is, it's a punitive process with no guarantee of a return on your investment. A multi-billion dollar corporation could become a billion-dollar corporation in the process and never get to fill it's first tanker truck.

Jumping the enviro-whacko hurdles is just to daunting (and expensive).

I will allow this, however. The oil companies and current refiners have no incentive to build more refinery capacity.

[boutons_]

"anti-trust laws"

... political fiction and enforcement, is why dubya got his DoJ and juidiciary to fold on the MS case, letting MS continue to be an abusive, predatory, price-gouging monopoly. Is why dubya's FERC allowed the cartel of Kennyboy's Enron and ilk fuck up the energy markets out west in early 2000s.

"enviro-whacko hurdles"

... lookup the cancer clusters around refineries along the TX-LA Gulf coast.

And would you like to look out your backyard and see a hulking pile of pipes, steel, tanks and what that does to your property value?

The main incentive against building refineries is that they know the demand in unsatiable and restricting supply (insufficient refining capacity) is the BEST way to reap windfall 10s of $Bs in profits by doing absolutely fucking nothing. Environmental and alternative fuels are the refiners' totally false pretexts for not increasing capacity.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, nobody really knows how much oil we can get from ANWR, but it is pretty big.

The proposed site is only a very small percentage of ANWR.

Wildlife flourishes around oil pipelines because of the added warmth.

Where is the drawbacks? I see none. It's just liberal politicians pleasing the nutty activists.

[boutons_]

"it is pretty big.'

lie. Even the oil men when trying to get ANWR raped, don't put up big numbers that impact US oil independence, but they do put $Bs profits into oilmen's pockets.

drawbacks? RIF

Aggressive, Apollo-like program for transport oil conservation would pay off much more in dropping transport oil demand than the ANWR oil droplets.

[DarkReign]

OK, nobody really knows how much oil we can get from ANWR, but it is pretty big.

True, it is pretty big. But it is small, infinitesimal potatoes to the middle east.

ANWR wouldnt last American consumption for more than 10 years. Thats a very, VERY generous guess.

So if 10 years is the MAX, that shit couldnt even be considered a band-aid to the problem.

The long and short of it, we consume too much and have grown too used to our condition. Unless we find alternatives to fossil fuels (yeah right), the world is going to run out in essence (ie fuel will still be available, but its going to cost....guess, $15 a gallon or more).

[Nbadan]

Where is the drawbacks? I see none. It's just liberal politicians pleasing the nutty activists.

...Oil smells like shit....(i.e. just outside Corpus, and West Tx)....not to mention the chance of a catastrophic oil spill....

[Yonivore]

...Oil smells like shit....(i.e. just outside Corpus, and West Tx)....not to mention the chance of a catastrophic oil spill....
Dan, you were born 10,000 years too late.

[Nbadan]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tmcmb/2007/tmcmb071114.gif

[Wild Cobra]

At least the republicans are trying to bring us lower prices. Didn't Nancy Pelosi promise gasoline price drops with a democrat congress? I saw that today in the news, and that the prices are 39% higher since she was elected as the House Speaker!

Way to go democrats…

[Nbadan]

How much higher are gas prices since W came into office in 01, 125%? Besides who's top-secret energy policy is it that got us to where we are today, Nancy Pelosi's or Dick Cheney's?

[Nbadan]

At least the republicans are trying to bring us lower prices

Yeah, bombing Iraq, and maybe Iran are working..

:rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

How much higher are gas prices since W came into office in 01, 125%? Besides who's top-secret energy policy is it that got us to where we are today, Nancy Pelosi's or Dick Cheney's?
Did he promise to make prices lower, and is he the leader of the branch of government that makes laws and regulations?

Speculating on the secret energy meetings? That’s all it is. Speculation. It denigrates you to the level of whacky conspiracy theorists. In the 70's there was rumor of the government stockpiling reserves. Now we know they do. These secret meeting may be on the level of a conspiracy, but I don't believe it. I see it more likely the government made arrangements to stockpile given quantities for emergencies that was given the same level of negotiation as any private meeting we can enjoy. Show good evidence of malice, or stop being a subversive please.

Please.... you know better, don't you?

Pelosi made the promise, and her district has the nationwide highest prices!

I’ve missed mush of these discussions, but Yoni is right.

It is difficult to increase production of oil and refining capacity because of the regulations, and lawsuits that follow from the environmentalists.

The USA is, I believe, the third highest producer of oil, and we use more than we produce. Whining liberals keep talking about energy independence but that’s all they are. Talking windbags.

[Nbadan]

Speculating on the secret energy meetings?

It's Too bad we have to speculate in the first place because our glorious V.P. won't release the transcript of his secret energy meetings....can't be because he had plans for seeking new, controversial techniques for domestic energy efficiency..more than likely he and his oil buddies had already craved up Iraq and Iran...

[Nbadan]

It is difficult to increase production of oil and refining capacity because of the regulations, and lawsuits that follow from the environmentalists.

The USA is, I believe, the third highest producer of oil, and we use more than we produce. Whining liberals keep talking about energy independence but that’s all they are. Talking windbags.

So why aren't the oil-Co's using their billions to build refineries in other countries or off-shore where they would not be subject to U.S. environmental laws? Because the whole 'environmental wacko's are keeping us from exploring ANWR and building new refineries' is b.s. that's why....the oil companies know that we are running out of oil - the North Shore, Mexico, Saudi Arabia among other large oil fields are all in decline - so it would be a waste to build new refineries for a commodity which is in shorter and shorter supply...