POLITICS: House Passes Bill to Build Refineries, page 1

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 05:11 PM

link

The House approved legislation today aimed at encouraging construction and expansion of oil refineries and cracking down on gasoline price gouging in Congress' first major response to the high energy prices and tight supplies caused by Hurricane Katrina. The bills prospects in the Senate are uncertain at this time.

news.yahoo. com
The House narrowly approved a Republican-crafted energy bill Friday aimed at encouraging construction of new refineries, although opponents said it would do nothing to ease energy prices while handing unneeded benefits to a profit-rich oil industry.

Supporters of the measure said that hurricanes Katrina and Rita made clear that the country needs more refineries, including new ones outside of the Gulf region. Critics argued it would allow the oil industry to avoid environmental regulations that would lead to dirtier air.

The bill passed 212-210. Its prospects in the Senate were uncertain.

The vote, which was supposed to be taken in five minutes, lasted more than 40 minutes as GOP leaders searched for the last two votes they needed to get the bill approved. They buttonholed lawmakers for last-minute lobbying as Democrats complained loudly that the vote should be closed. Finally two GOP lawmakers switched from "no" to "yes," giving the bill's supporters the margin of victory.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Hello what is wrong with this picture? The entire green jean crowd immediately shout hey we can not have this; “it will cause pollution”. What are they a bunch of ostriches with their head stuck in the ground?

The fact is we have not had a new refinery built in almost thirty years and more are badly needed. This was proven after several refineries were damaged during Katrina and Rita, just look at the cost of gas. Now if we had refineries out of the immediate area as they propose we might not be in this present condition.

BTW, I highly doubt that newer refineries would cause more pollution simply because they would use newer methods.

Astronomer68

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:19 PM

link

What newer methods are you referring to Shots? All our present refineries can only refine "light, sweet crude" because of EPA regs as it is. A couple able to handle "heavy crude" would really help the situation in the U.S., but there would be pollution. I'm not aware of new technologies that would substantially change that picture--at least not economically.

soficrow

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:27 PM

link

The Bill gave abandoned military bases to the oil industry.

Those bases have houses that displaced people could live in, instead of camps.

Looks like big business is more important to this administration than Americans are.

Looks like a real conspiracy, too.

shots

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:39 PM

link

Originally posted by Astronomer68
What newer methods are you referring to Shots? All our present refineries can only refine "light, sweet crude" because of EPA regs as it is. A couple able to handle "heavy crude" would really help the situation in the U.S., but there would be pollution. I'm not aware of new technologies that would substantially change that picture--at least not economically.

I should have used a better term when addressing the situation. I was talking about the machinery used to refine oil in general which is more efficient/cleaner not necessarily refining which has nothing to do with heavy crude, although I agree that would be nice.

Valhall

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:47 PM

link

The lack of refining capabilities in the U.S. had to be resolved. I still haven't read up enough on this "the way the vote went" thingy to have an opinion, but I'm glad the government is looking at it's great big flaming weak spot.

But then again, there are myriads of older refineries, that have been shut down for decades, that I wish they would do an in-depth analysis of whether refurbishing them, or this new idea, would be the most cost effective.

RANT

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:55 PM

link

Originally posted by Valhall
I still haven't read up enough on this "the way the vote went" thingy to have an opinion

Here's the real story with video. Frankly I find Shots coverage to be lacking.

The bill was clearly defeated including the Republican resistance to it within minutes. But they dispatched the thugs, including Tom DeLay, to go from Senator to Senator for 40 minutes while illegally holding the vote open after all votes were in, ignoring all parlimentary procedure and calls from the minority to close the final vote, until two Republicans were finally flipped in favor of big oil against the original vote.

Criminal hubris. It was revolting Valhall.

FredT

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:59 PM

link

Originally posted by soficrow
The Bill gave abandoned military bases to the oil industry.Those bases have houses that displaced people could live in, instead of camps.

*ducks the knee jerk reaction*

You do realize just how polluted that most of those bases are right? Take Hunters Point in San Fran. By dad you worked for the Navy as a Civilian Engineer, spent years and years just cleaning up that one area. Many other bases are borderline superfund sites. So housing homeless in bases will not always work. Plus you start carting them off to remote bases and then people get up in arms about detainment etc etc etc. Not to mention any issues that come from the contamination bases. Old buldings with lead paint, asbestos etc etc etc

We can have all the production in the world, but if you cannot refine it, its uses are limited. Consideration should be given to allow the refiners to set up plants on isolated federal land to minimize its impacts on surrounding urban areas. The Nevada test site is one that comes to mind.

Valhall

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:05 PM

link

Okay, your link, RANT, doesn't convey the revultion you voice. I can't make head nor tails of what went down, and quite frankly I'm only confused about whether procedure was followed correctly.

That's because there DOES need to be more refineries in America. And the fact that the democratic argument was environmental, well, that caps it for me that this needed to pass. Refining technology has improved vastly and we have abandoned refineries posing more health risks than any new and/or refurbished refineries (to today's standards) could even think of posing.

So...I'm assuming that short of the democrats getting p-o'd because it passed, there really isn't anything in the way of political mischievious to report???

soficrow

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:10 PM

link

check out loam's coverage here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

FredT

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:13 PM

link

Originally posted by RANT
The bill was clearly defeated including the Republican resistance to it within minutes. But they dispatched the thugs, including Tom DeLay, to go from Senator to Senator for 40 minutes

Hmmm, you mean Rep to Rep. I have not seen the video, but its not uncommon for leadership on both sides to put pressure on members to alter votes. No doubt something was promised, perhaps a plum committie job in the future, or maybe even a threat or two, but the jobs of the "Whips" to do this. Pilosi was known to play nasty as well.

From the Dems site:

The Whip talks to Democratic Members about their level of support for a piece of legislation before it comes to the Floor for a major vote. The Whip also works with Members to build strong support within the caucus for the Democratic agenda.
democraticwhip.house.gov...

Icarus Rising

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:15 PM

link

No, just another miscarriage of justice by the Republican machine that carries right into the hallowed halls of this board itself. My own story on the questionable vote surrounding the refinery issue was quickly and questionably funneled off to Peak Oil, because the moderator found this thread more to taste. Gee, I wonder why?

Valhall

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:18 PM

link

Originally posted by soficrow

check out loam's coverage here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

that's the same link RANT gave. Again, I state, I don't see any evidence of procedural misconduct. That the democrats are inflamed is not evidence.

Icarus Rising

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:30 PM

link

Is it a common practice for the House to hold open five minute votes for forty minutes? Somebody please clue me in on House voting rules.

The question wan't just environmental on this vote either, but a perpetuation of the political cycle of capitalizing on these opportunities to advance cronyism and favortism under the guise of recovery and rebuilding of vital infrastructure. Its a sham, and it deserves to be exposed as such, especially here on this board.

whaaa

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:31 PM

link

The way I understand it; my tax dollars are going to the oil companys to build moreand expand refinerys. As if the obcene profits weren't enough, now they are going to get taxpayer money. Talk about sticking it in and breakin it off.

Valhall

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:33 PM

link

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Is it a common practice for the House to hold open five minute votes for forty minutes? Somebody please clue me in on House voting rules.

That's really what I'd like to know as well. Because if this is a violation of procedure, then there's a story. If it's not, then it's not.

But I don't know enough to know one way or the other. That one side is miffed at the other doesn't make the call.

shots

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:48 PM

link

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
My own story on the questionable vote surrounding the refinery issue was quickly and questionably funneled off to Peak Oil, because the moderator found this thread more to taste. Gee, I wonder why?

Icarus all the mod did was move your submission because this story was already posted two hours before your submission. I am sure it had nothing to do with your story, because it clearly is a duplicate. It happens all the time.

drfunk

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:54 PM

link

unbelievable that the record profit taking oil companies wont build them

Icarus Rising

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:55 PM

link

I agree the story had some elements of a duplicate, but mine focused more on the vote than the need for more refining capacity. I didn't realize your story had been up for two hours already, and am in no way questioning its relevance. I just felt there was room for my story as well. Of course I respect the moderator's decision, whether I agree with it or not. Just because I called it questionable doesn't mean I think it is devious or under-handed.

shots

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:57 PM

link

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Is it a common practice for the House to hold open five minute votes for forty minutes? Somebody please clue me in on House voting rules.

It is not at all uncommon for votes to take longer then normal only in this case the greenie wenies cried louder then normal.

RANT

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 09:13 PM

link

Originally posted by shots
It is not at all uncommon for votes to take longer then normal only in this case the greenie wenies cried louder then normal.

So you think the winning side of a vote, which included several Republican "greenie weenies" according to your logic should just sit there until they find the head criminal Tom DeLay to come strong arm a change in the vote.

I mean just sit there until the vote reverses? That's what you think. That's how you think it should be in a two party system? The leader of a slim majority just pretend "this isn't happening" when his party loses a vote until indeed that's the case, then close the vote as soon as he's winning?

What would it take for you to be outraged and see the problem? 50 minutes? 2 hours? A day?

Ridiculous. I'm not even commenting on the bill. Just the hubris. Pathetic.