It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Suspends Environmental Gas Rules

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
But of course, it shouldn't get to that stage. We should have begun the shift to alternative greener fuels after the big OPEC embargo in the 70s. Better late than never...

Agreed, but the transition to those greener fuels will take approxly. how long when considering practical use for the entire nation? As it stands now, the so-called greener fuel of ethanol is projected to take upwards of three years to hit full national mainstream. Then there are those environmentalists and pro-oil people saying that even the green fuel of ethanol is not all that it is cracked up to be. It has been asserted that ethanol burns dirtier, thus causing or increasing smog levels, it is more corrosive than gasoline and would hinder-to-damage older model cars, that ethanol will not increase miles per gallon, meaning that you will have to refill more often than with that expensive gasoline, ethanol will not be performance friendly even to newer model cars that can use ethanol, and that ethanol will be more costly to produce than gasoline, among other things the ethanol lobby has not come forth with to the general public.




But whatever your political stance, and whether by design or accident, it's clear that:
current US energy policy coincides with the interests of big oil.

It has for decades, I believe.




Personally I'm all for a $100+ barrel of oil sooner rather than later (though I am sorry for the individuals who will suffer because of it). Heck, make it 200, and quick. How high must it get to wake up America?

Perhaps, if this happens, it will force the U.S. politicians and government to begin 'crash course' programs in alternative biofuels, etc., something we should have learned and implemented when we went through the oil crisis in the 70s and 80s. The writing was on the wall then, just as it has re-emerged now.







seekerof

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Seekerof]




posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarkMan


"The reason for high gas prices is because of Enviromentalists, who don't drive gas guzzlers, control congress or oil companies,


[edit on 25-4-2006 by StarkMan]


I'd just like ot mention that I often go camping with members of the Sierra Club.
Most of which (the campers) drive some very nice, decked out SUV's..
I was the one with the smaller vehicle..
I was also the one who suggested that it was a good idea to PUT OUT the campfire
before turning in for the night..Just thought I'd mention this..
It's about practicing what you preach....!



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by desert
My understanding of the refinery issue is that oil companies were content not to have to build any more refineries, as long as American demand held.


Well, for a couple of decades, oil was at $20 dollars a barrel, and they barely broke even at that price. Some of them even closed refineries. (None of those closed ones are being re-opened, either, 'cuz EPA says "no.")

When you have multiple producers, it's a lot harder to get a cartel going (consider OPEC).

The oil sector has been a financial dog for decades. In the 80's, practically the only major shareholders were employee union and pension plans. Most financial analysts classed oil companies with utility stocks: big, high capital, polluting industries that were never going to make much money domestically and were probably never going to pay dividends. Fund managers used to put oil stocks in portfolios to lessen volatility.

Even after gulf war one, the price slide back below $25, and that was the period of mergers, a sure signal of an industry in decline: Exxon bought Mobil. Texaco traded hands a couple of times, BP did the same. A lot of smaller ones like diamond shamrock or fina, either got out of refining, or were taken over by foreign corporations.

I've never owned oil stocks, due to government interference in during the 73 embargo. Basically, any time the oilcos make a profit, Congress wants to confiscate their profits retroactively. Then there's ongoing minefields like Nigeria and Venezeula. It basically took $50 dollar oil for Exxon to make anything like a solid profit.

If I were president, I'd be trying to ENCOURAGE COMPETITION, rather than fiddling at the margins with boutique fuels like ethanol, which is a drop in the barrel.

I'd end all government interference with the price of ethanol; let the states regulate it. Same with biodiesels, etc.

What I'd focus on instead of increasing mining would be the construction of new refineries and updating of present ones. Many refineries in the usa were built in the 1920's, and are STILL RUNNING, at horrible pollution and efficiency levels.

Funny how the environmentalists never talk about that.

The current round of gas price hikes is spurring research, as companies develop a new generation of refining catalysts that are even more efficient that the most recent processes. Sadly, many of those processes cannot be fully utilized until new refineries are built.

In the meantime, we're forcing the obsolete, polluting plants to run beyond total capacity.

If you want to learn more, do what I just did: Google "Hydrocracking More Efficient" and you see 10+ pages of chem-tech companies trying to sell their improved products.

But again, it's more popular to BLAME refiners, instead of enabling them to do something about the present situation:

"Oh, you nasty refiners! --Don't change a thing!"
.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
All of you who believe current U.S. energy policy coincides with the interests of big oil and that it has been this way for decades are totally out of touch with reality. U.S. energy policies, for the most part, have been anti oil company oriented since the 60's & 70's. A decent sized refinery costs between 2 and 5 billion dollars and requires around 3-5 years to construct--overseas. Here in the U.S. that same refinery would cost about twice as much and take about 8 years to construct because of all the regulatory hoops, etc. The oil companies decided years ago to site new refineries overseas for just those reasons.

To all of you who think big oil companies make huge & excessive profits, I suggest you look at the infrastructure development costs and lead times required. You will find that oil companies are spending 10's of billions of dollars to expand production and investing just about every cent they earn to do so. Futhermore, their profit margins are not out of line with the profit margins of other industries (even if they did not re-invest most of their profits). They make a lot of profit because they produce a heck of a lot of product.

Just to give you one taste of U.S. energy policy impacts on big oil companies (and little ones as well), look at what President Reagan did to artifically keep oil & gas prices low so he could put an economic squeeze on Russia. His plan to get the Russians to back away from the arms race they were running worked so well he damn near bankrupted Russia. At the same time though he did bankrupt a lot of small to medium sized oil companies here in the U.S. and did cause most of the infrastructure improvements needed for expanded production to be severely delayed and/or cancelled for many years, thus impacting the cost of oil based products as well as gasoline & diesel & jet fuel, etc. Other administrations have at most shown little to no interest in the health of the oil industry. If you doubt the truth of these claims, do a little research and you can verify them.

Futhermore, when Seekerof said the environmentalists have had a detrimental impact on the oil industry he was right on target. While I applaud and approve of most of the actions of the various environmental groups, there is no doubt of their impact on the oil companies. Lets face it, oil is a relatively dirty fuel--not as dirty as coal, but none-the-less dirty and it leaves a lot of nasty by-products around when it is used. While I'm not against requiring the producing companies to do everything possible to clean up the products they produce, we can't force them to do so without the cost of their products increasing significantly, yet this is exactly what we have tried to do. If we want cleaner products we have to pay for them. Now before you just say ok lets pay for them, I suggest you look at the potential increase in product prices and the economic impact those increases would have on the U.S. economy as a whole. We simply can't have everything we would like to have because there isn't any such thing as a free lunch and so far we have been unwilling to foot the bill.

[edit on 26-4-2006 by Astronomer70]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
.

what he said.

[filler to avoid me being fined for a one line post. I might remark upon the lovely weather, and how the beautiful spring since Easter has a lot of motorists on the road.]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:57 AM
link   
I bet if a law came up in congress, stating that they could drill in ANWAR, but the oil would have to be used domestically instead of being sent into the foreign markets, they all would havea fit, including bush. it's my understanding that most of the oil being pumped in alaska now goes over to russia, and china, it costs too much to send into the US...if someone is sure this is wrong, I'd like to know. but this is what I've been led to believe. so, drilling in alaska isn't gonna help too much. we'd still be depending on other not so stable countries for our oil, while selling the resources here to other countries.

expect the rates of asthma to rise just a tad, and well, the healthcare costs that will go up because of it....



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
it's my understanding that most of the oil being pumped in alaska now goes over to russia, and china, it costs too much to send into the US...if someone is sure this is wrong, I'd like to know. but this is what I've been led to believe. so, drilling in alaska isn't gonna help too much.



Not so.

Oil is traded on commodity exchanges world-wide. We have a Global Market in Oil.

You can think of China and the USA as not only importing oil, but also exporting demand.

In other words, their need, and importation, causes the price to rise globally. Satisfying their need, regardless of the oil's ultimate source, will put a downward pressure on costs globally. If the Chinese buy more from Alaska, then they need less from Sa'ud, and then there's more for everone else.

Incedentally, if I was in power, and the law you proposed came up, I'd do all in my power to shut it down. What the world needs is freer markets, and not government fiddling with the supply/demand curve and screwing everything up.

The law of supply and demand is inexorable. The fact is, Americans will pay the global market price for oil. Even if you subsidize it, they'll still pay, in the form of taxes.

You cannot cheat death; neither can you cheat the invisible hand of the market place. The sooner politicians admit this, the wealthier their citizens will be.

How come no one reads Adam Smith and Thomas Paine any more???



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Anyone that buys the oil companies propaganda and thinks clear air laws are to blame really need some help. The problem is the fact that we still use oil when it is completley unneccesary. Brazil is almost completely oil free, BRAZIL! Your telling me the U.S. and everyone else for that matter couldn't grow some sugarcane or corn? Until the hydrogen process is perfected, ethanol is a perfect solution, and Brazil has embraced it and has reached energy independence. Why won't the U.S. we have more land, more land that isnt occupied, and farmers burning crops every year to offset produce costs, when we could be taking that and freeing ourselves of foreign oppression. Anyone saying the U.S. couldn't do it or it wouldn't work is a liar, as we are seeing Brazil do it with less. We need to do sometin about this, and this government won't allow it.

Also, to those saying we should be riding our bikes to work, this isn't europe or china where everyhting is crammed together 3 seconds apart, some of us have to go more then a mile or two to work, so i really don't want to peddle my bike 4 hours one way, and I am so sick of hearing that 15 year old kid response to the problem, we're not biking to our freinds house, we're going to work folks, I have to go 70 MPH for 45 min, one way, just like most other Americans.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Why us the people in this nation can not have our own oil for our own consumption?


The environmental restrictions should have stayed in place.

As for your question marg ... why we can't have our own oil ... we
could, but there are some radicals in the environmental circles that
scare the hell out of people claiming that ANWR will destroy Alaska.
Of course it wouldn't.

Nevermind that Alaskans WANT ANWR ... they want the jobs that
the drilling will provide. They want the oil for America.

There is no good reason why we shouldn't be running mostly on
our own oil and alternative resources like solar and wind power.
Well ... except that people like Ted Kennedy, Walter Cronkite,
and John Kerry BLOCK wind mills in their home states.

So it's both the stars of the far left (Kennedy, Kerry, etc.) and
the oil companies themselves who are blocking alternitive energy
sources.


I say we annex Mexico and Venezuela.
What the heck,
the Mexicans are steaming over the boarder anyways and that
whack in Venezuela has the people all in a lather that we are
going to take over Venezuela ... can't let him look bad now can
we??



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Ok, so far we have...

"Its the hippies!"
"Its the enviromentalists!"
"Uh, Brazil is independant from oil using ethonal... why can't we?"
"Its the hippies! And anyone who criticizes me for saying that is adding nothing of value, especially when they point out the OIL men in congress/whitehouse who control this country and do nothing."
"Why can't we have our own oil?"
"HIPPIES!!!!!!!!"

Ok, for my own thoughts, Alaska has a lot of oil, and not even half of it under ANWR, so why are republicans so hell bent on drilling in a place that doesn't even have as much oil as other parts of Alaska where it is perfectly legal to drill in?

"Hippies!"



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
How dare they attempt to make a profit on their product!?!?!?!

After all, it's not like we have a choice about using gasoline. God forbid that I, as an American, should be expected to walk, bicycle or carpool anywhere. I should have what I want, when I want, at the price I want, always.

You have a choice, folks. If you don't like the price being charged for the product, don't use the product.

Until all of you that are crying about the cost of gasoline are ready to put your monjey where your mouth is(instead of some other orifice located somewhat lower) by severely reducing your consumption of gasoline, you have no business even having an opinion on this issue.

Oh, and in regards to the original post: Bush temporarily suspended a regulation on fuel production? Good. One pointless government regulation down, several thousand to go.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
It's the hallmark of a coming bloodbath.

Throughout history, the moment when the government begins confiscating someone's property, its the beginning of both tyrrany AND a bear market.

The "reign of terror" began in earnest by "confiscating the unwarranted excesses" of the nobility and the catholic church.

The Nazi takeover didn't happen the moment they were voted into office (and they were voted in.) They began by "leveling the playing field' by siezing Jewish-owned banks, factories, and especially newspapers. When the Nazi's took power, there were only 4 national newspapers in the whole of the Weimar Republic that were unowned by either Nazi or Jewish financial backing. The Nazis neatly used "the Jewish menace" as a way of taking over an entire industry---the industry most likely to voice dissent towards antidemocratic political manouvers.

When the government seizes assets, it's the end of free enterprise, the end of a boom market, and the end personal liberty. Tyrants always begin by attacking a minorty, usually a rich one. But guess what--everyone is some kind of minority.

.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

We don't have a SUPPLY problem. For the thousandth time, USA has a REFINING problem.


Exactly!!!!!!!

What we have is a monopoly of oil corporations getting all kind of tax brakes and incentives from tax payer money that they will rather used to lobby in Washington than doing something about the shortage of refineries that they promote to keep the gas prices in the up and down game.

Shame, shame and more shame.

We can have that money back to the consumer, oil companies do not need it.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

. . . than doing something about the shortage of refineries that they promote to keep the gas prices in the up and down game.

Shame, shame and more shame.

We can have that money back to the consumer, oil companies do not need it.





Marge, it is Congress and the EPA that won't allow new refineries. The oilcos have no say in the matter.

All of the majors are actively building oil refineries right now--they're just building them overseas.

I think Exxon is building a gasoline refinery in Africa, with the hope of eventually importing the finished product into the USA (much more environmentally dangerous if true, but hey, that's the only way around the EPA!)
.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Everytime I see a commercial or an item on the news about how the US should switch to ethanol I want to laugh myself silly. See the problem is that with the current methods of producing ethanol it requires large amounts of electricity. What is the largest source of electricity in the US? Coal fired powerplants. The amount of pollution that is saved by using ethanol in cars is offset by the pollution generated in the production of the electricity to make the ethanol. There are clean methods of generating electricity, such as windmills, hydroelectric, tidal and nuclear. Oh wait, I don't like the noise or the looks of a wind farm, we can't damage the environment by creating the dams and reserviours for hydroelectric generation, I don't want the sea shore marred by tidal facilities it might hurt a whale and God forbid that we go nuclear! I agree with the statement that the environmentalists bear much of the responsibility for our current energy situation. The rest of us are in that group as well. It is called NIMBY. Not In My Backyard.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
This can be debated which ever way is blue, but it does not, in no uncertain terms, remove what blame there is to be placed upon those environmentalists.


The way you see the issue being solved raises two big problems.

1) We are delaying the implimentation of very much needed alternative fuel sources.

2) We would be imposing irreversible environmental damage.



this is not all and solely about just oil companies--this is about U.S. energy policies, past and present, that have put this country in the position that it is currently in over our oil and gas needs.


Exactly--and the only way to stop this from happening is to refrain from price fixtures, tapping into strategic reserves, taking out environmental precaution policies, and creating new drill sites. How much longer can we delay?



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
George Bush hates black people.

Er, I mean people.

Er, I mean all human life.


Astronomer:

U.S. energy policies, for the most part, have been anti oil company oriented since the 60's & 70's.


Omfg I died laughing when I read that. Thanks for the smile!


While I applaud and approve of most of the actions of the various environmental groups, there is no doubt of their impact on the oil companies.


That too! LOL! You damn evil environmentalists are hurting the generous, life-affirming oil companies! Wheee!


[edit on 26-4-2006 by Jakomo]

[edit on 26-4-2006 by Jakomo]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Furthermore, I am not laughing at the antics of environmentalist, who are partially to blame for the situation that 'we' are experiencing in the U.S.

How so?

The environmentalists have steadily and continually impeded and blocked any and all attempts to drill for oil and gas of the East and West Coast and in areas of the U.S. known to have super large quantities of oil and gas, such as ANWAR.

This can be debated which ever way is blue, but it does not, in no uncertain terms, remove what blame there is to be placed upon those environmentalists.


If only security guards didn't exist...it would make robbing the bank a whole lot easier...

What blame? The blame for keeping NATIONAL WILDLIFE RESERVES from being pillaged by a group of people that have a hard-on for the Texas "T" black gold and who could give two #s about the environment. If it weren't for environmental regulations and the legal repercussions that come with them you think these people would choose a clean environment over higher profits?


this is not all and solely about just oil companies--this is about U.S. energy policies, past and present, that have put this country in the position that it is currently in over our oil and gas needs.


If it weren't for those past and present energy policies that you feel are hurting this nation our skies would be choked with black smoke, our waters would be polluted with chemical runoff, and our forests would be quickly receeding if not utterly destroyed.

Have you ever even been to a third world country?



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft


Marge, it is Congress and the EPA that won't allow new refineries. The oilcos have no say in the matter.

All of the majors are actively building oil refineries right now--they're just building them overseas.



Yes congress, and who congress answer too, they answer to who pay the most at lobbying.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Marge, it is Congress and the EPA that won't allow new refineries. The oilcos have no say in the matter.

All of the majors are actively building oil refineries right now--they're just building them overseas.



Yes congress, and who congress answer too, they answer to who pay the most at lobbying.

We need the incentives and million of dollars of tax brakes back to where it belongs in the consumer's hands.

[edit on 26-4-2006 by marg6043]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join