It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Bush gets Military Bases for Refineries

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 12:49 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Under pressure over high energy prices, President Bush on Wednesday will propose tackling the root causes of the problem by encouraging new oil refineries be built at closed military bases and jumpstarting construction of new nuclear power plants.

Speaking to small business leaders on Wednesday, Bush will call on federal agencies to encourage construction of new oil refineries at the sites of former military bases closed in recent years.

The lack of adequate refining capacity is frequently cited by experts as one reason why gasoline prices have surged dramatically in recent years. No new refineries have been built in recent years even though the demand for gasoline has risen. (what a joke)

Bush will propose the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission become the lead authority in granting licenses, overruling what has increasingly become state jurisdiction. (talk about asset protection)

Simply ingenious. Seizure of the 2nd largest oil field on the planet, 40 year oil contracts with former Soviet satellite's, the opening of the Alaskan reserve, and now military protected refineries. Bush may catch Gates yet. He certainly has outdone his old man.

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 01:28 AM
Mr Bush sure knows how to do double edged deals and create smoke and mirror type laws. When he's gone from office his library will be void of viewable documents as they will all be classified.

Seems he's still the salesman to the US People but still reporting the the secret government. Even going bankrupt will be a pain thanks to george.


posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 03:10 PM
There's a pretty good reason, you don't want refineries here- military bases or otherwise. It won't bring prices down, but it will provide other by-products like LPG, naphtha, kerosene/jet fuel, diesel, bitumen, and coke- guess which products get a higher percentage of profit-

for each ton of oil that is refined-
.1 to 3 kg particulates
1.3 kg sulfur oxide
.3 kg nitrogen oxide
2.5 g benzene, toluene, xylene
1 kg VOC
are produced (air quality)

and it uses 5 cubic meters of water for every ton produced-

Better solution would be to cut consumption- which is what is happening now that prices are higher.

Consumer reports has a comparison of the breakdown on 5 of the hybrids in their May issue. Honda Civic, Ford Focus, Hyundai Elantra, Chevrolet Cobalt, and the Saturn Ion. (they recommend honda accord hybrid.)

I'm waiting for a diesel hybrid, or maybe looking for the Toyota diesel truck- My 96 Nissan Sentra already gets 30mpg- must be because it is so light.

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 04:01 PM
The Saudi Prince told our Nation not our President why the price of a barrel of oil incresed so dramticaly. Our current refineries can only refine what he called "light crude". According to the Prince "light crude" is in limited quanity with a high demand. It is only to be expected that the price of this grade of oil would increase.
If we continue to only refine light crude the price for a gallon of gas will continue to rise. Now our president announces that we need to build more refineries and nuclear plants. He did not mention anything about what the Prince said.

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 04:09 PM
The root of the problem?

No. Sorry. Incorrect POTUS, no cookie.

Supply follows demand, not the other way around. Economics 101.

Tackle the root = tackle demand.

Tackle (increase) supply = feed demand.

The POTUS is either an idiot, or he lords over a flock of idiots who are easily deceived and manipulated. There is no other explanation.

We are a society that values comfort over survival - sort of like a fat desert lizard who suns himself on the same rock day after day, too comfortable to do any hunting.


May evolution take its course.

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 04:16 PM
So.........building more refineries looks to me that alternative energy sources are still not top priority for the oil magnates.

More refineries............that tells you all.

By the way while the Saudis oil is the sour oil, the Iraqi and Iranian's oil is the all sweet oil that is so wanted in the market.

Make you wonder.

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 04:25 PM
If new refineries help to more efficiently process oil, I'm all for it. Maybe the new technology (I think very likely) will employ a deeper cracking process and such, which will increase the output and reduce waste.

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 04:25 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
So.........building more refineries looks to me that alternative energy sources are still not top priority for the oil magnates.

More refineries............that tells you all.

By the way while the Saudis oil is the sour oil, the Iraqi and Iranian's oil is the all sweet oil that is so wanted in the market.

Make you wonder.

Yea, thats why it's call operation iraqi oil, when bush is day dreaming while hearing CIA's daily Briefing (hummm... you gotta wonder why he keep getting false intelligence

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 04:32 PM
Economics 101 may say by increasing supply you will decrease cost but not in this situation. The amount of "light crude" is in limited quanity. You can't extract what is not there.

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 05:49 PM
Light sweet (low-sulfur) crude is declining faster than the other stuff.

The point is that some refineries can't process the heavier sour crude. In this sense it's a good idea, because otherwise they'd just use the sour stuff in old refineries and make tons of smog or gasoline that makes tons of smog. That would suck.

Overall oil will be going away so prices will be going up no matter what. This will only moderate it somewhat.

Thermodynamics say: diesel-electric hybrids. Or diesel-*hydraulic* hybrids.

An unappreciated technology: storing energy not in battery in a car but as hydraulic pressure in a resevoir. May be more efficient in putting in and taking out energy---less resistance loss versus hybrids.

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 05:52 PM
The military bases will be nearly empty since the troops will be deployed overseas all the time?

And Rosie the Riveter will now be Rosie the Refiner---the wives toiling back at the plant.

PS: your deformed or mentally-retarded baby?? No, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with that benzene and those funny smells. Would President-for-life Jeb lie to you? Of course not.

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 06:26 PM
mbkennel, isn't that why the regulations against the clean environment has gone almost none existent in the last 4 years?

Did bush sign another bill to again lower the restrictions against energy.

So now they can come to your nearest city and your nearest base close to your neighborhood.

Get ready people they may be in your back yard soon.

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 06:32 PM
19 billion in subsidies for energy companies involved in the construction of new power plants...

No security for current nuclear plants...

They've gone way beyong rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic...

They're retrofitting it with nuclear propulsion while the hold fills with water and floating corpses.

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 01:16 PM
According to Chevron/Texaco, GM, and Fleet R&D, Hydrogen is ten to twenty years out. C/T says they're all about doing the switch as they are comfortable with processing right now. Both companies, and the government know oil is here to stay. You simply cannot, especially under a forced policy, changeover an entire infrastructure within ten years. Even if the United States does the switch, China will immediately take our place, thus the capturing of Iraq. It's quite simple business investing on Bush's part, who has been involved in oil all his life, to insure future conglomerates for his family, friends, and distributors. China won't be using Hydrogen - they will be the biggest customer of black gold.

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 04:05 PM
I hope that Bush builds a ton of safer, nuclear power plants, because if we get a good efficient energy source such as nuclear power, then we can use a percentage of the power to extract hydrogen if / when we make the switch to hydrogen powered cars. Thats one of the main things holding it back, the price it costs to extract the hydrogen from water and our unwillingness to spend thousands on a new car when a good portion of us most likely have a new or newer car that is not fully paid off. I hope that this starts to kick our government into movement about alternative fuel sources or there will be a crisis at hand with in the quarter century.

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 04:36 PM
To accountability:

The higher the price the richer the oil men. Thats it. Before the so called war on terror we imported about 40 percnet of Iraq's oil at rock bottom prices thank to the oil for food joke. Iraq has lost some of it production power because of the war. That plus the fact Iraqs infrastructure has to make a profit in the near furture are why prices are higher now. The US consumer wont understand US soldiers are getting blown up to support there demand. WyrdeOne is too right about a supply increase will just increase demand. The price will never drop below two bucks ever! Will consumers lessen use as time rolls on? Ah, no it will only grown as the US and the world grows. Its like candy with kids. You want people to use less you have to take it away. Look, the oil companies see it. There arent lines for gas or a shortage at the pump rightnow but prices are rising? Whats that about, there isnt a real drop in supply at all but consumers need to hear something to make them feel better about destorying the envirnoment one at a time. The real problems is the use of fossil fuels for sure but if Bush makes the problem some CIA back terror thugs than who care about the planet look at the fick price I have to pay for gas, what a crime, thats their new worry. The price could be five bucks and we would still burn the future down the roads.

posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 02:10 PM
Different countries handle energy concerns different ways. Our way is to war over natural resources. and other less moral covert ways- I don't agree with this way of course, but it is reality.

Brazil is making huge strides in self-sufficient energy strategies as well as paying off their debts to IMF and World Bank loans. They plan to use hydro-electric of which they have an excess- to create hydrogen storage. They continue to sell most of their crude to pay off their debts and use some for their domestic needs.

Venezuela is using their oil exports kind of like the Middle East used to do before their leaders got too greedy. To give social amenities to THEIR people.

Meanwhile, we protect the US auto industry- and refuse to invest in better efficiencies(budget cuts for our Energy efficiency program) because we don't have the power to change big corporations who don't depend on US customers as much as they depend on world customers. Name one oil company who is totally American-

I seem to remember Kerry saying in one of his campaign speeches that he would boost the economy by providing subsidies for alternative energy and better efficiency technologies. That this would provide many more manufacturing jobs- (like Germany is doing now for Japan and Germany in solar)

Bush doesn't have to go this route of oil imperialism- the buck stops at his desk- not the neocons- not the conservatives- not even the people- Unless you believe the moral of the story in 3 days of the Condor (ask the people- then- when they are running out- if we needed to play these games to get the oil) Bush is our leader, and it only takes 8 years to ruin America-

Europe has been paying high prices for several years for their imported energy, and have taken huge steps in efficiency and alternatives. Local economies will not be so vulnerable to oil supplies as global markets.
Cui bono?

top topics


log in