More Oil Refineries, HELL YES


It is easy to look at the escalating gasoline prices and say that the answer is a need for more oil and that oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia should just increase production. However, that would not solve our problem. We have to be able to refine it. As posted earlier, “The Environmentalist War on the Price of Gasoline”, environmentalist have paralyzed the oil refinement in the US to an all but standstill. It is incomprehensible that a new oil refinery has not been built in this country in 25 years. How can this be? How can an industrial nation like the United Stated allow this to occur? We need an energy policy in this country not only to keep cost down, supply a growing economy, but also to protect us from the dependence on foreign oil. There is no reason why this country does not maximize and create greater efficiency in the processing and refinement areas. There is a difference between existing and alternative energy. We need an energy policy NOW.

Ask and you shall receive. According to Reuters, President George W. Bush in another bold move will announce Wednesday the proposal of encouraging new oil refineries be built at closed military bases and jump-starting construction of new nuclear power plants.

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 jump-starting construction of new nuclear power plants.

In a speech, Bush will also propose giving federal regulators the lead authority to decide where to locate terminals for processing imported natural gas. States have increasingly been taking the lead on this issue.

And the president will propose adding vehicles that use clean-burning diesel fuel to the list of automobiles eligible for $2.5 billion in tax credits over 10 years to encourage further use of this technology. Other eligible vehicles are hybrids powered by gasoline and electricity and fuel-cell vehicles.

Senior Bush administration officials unveiled details of the president’s proposals on Tuesday night. It will be his second energy speech in a week.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that less than half of Americans support the way the president is handling energy policy. Bush met Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah at his Texas ranch on Monday but reached no agreement that would lower gasoline prices in the near term.

Energy legislation is moving on Capitol Hill. The House of Representatives has passed a version, while the Senate will begin debate next month. Administration officials want to work with congressional leaders to include Bush’s proposals.

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 agencies would work with states, local communities and potential investors to encourage the use of the sites, the administration officials said.

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.

On nuclear, Bush will propose offering companies risk insurance to mitigate the cost of delays due to any potential failures in the licensing process. The last generation of nuclear power plants was built in the 1970s and 1980s.

“There is a new and better licensing process. However, there is substantial uncertainty with potential investors about the ability to move through the new licensing process,” one senior official said.

Liquefied natural gas terminals take compressed, supercold natural gas shipped from overseas and warm it into usable energy. Only four such terminals exist in the United States amid increasing demand for natural gas.

Bush will propose the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission become the lead authority in granting licenses, overruling what has increasingly become state jurisdiction.

A senior official said there are 32 proposals to build new terminals, and Bush’s proposal would “provide some regulatory certainty” in order to get them built. Rules on the terminals vary from state to state, and California, for example, has not wanted to cede state authority.

Its about time. So what brilliant response will we hear from Democrats? Bush can’t do that, he’ll destroy all mankind because he’s evil. He’s just doing this for his oil buddies. I am sure that democrats will have no answers or ideas just complaints. Let Democrats explain to the American people that their obstruction to Bush’s energy plan was responsible for the publics continued high prices of gas.

It is obvious that any energy policy needs a present, short term and long term aspect to it. Energy production, oil refinement, alternative fuel sources, oil drilling as well as conservation. However, it must start somewhere and this is as good as any as we have a President who has the guts to make the tough calls.

Update: From AP, Bush Gives Energy Plan Amid High Prices

“This problem did not develop overnight and it’s not going to be fixed overnight. But it’s now time to fix it,” he said. Bush said the problem is that energy supplies are not growing fast enough to meet the growing demand in the United States and in other countries

“See, we’ve got a fundamental question we got to face here in America,” Bush said. “Do we want to continue to grow more dependent on other nations to meet our energy needs? Or, do we need to do what is necessary to achieve greater control of our economic destiny?”

America has not ordered a new nuclear power plant since the 1970s. Bush said that France has built 58 plants in the same period and today France gets more than 78 percent of its electricity from nuclear power.

“It’s time for America to start building again,” he said.

Bush urged using closed military bases as sites for new oil refineries. The Energy Department is being ordered to step up discussions with communities near such bases to try to get refineries built. He said the United States has not built a new oil refinery since the 1970s.

Added to OTB’s Beltway Traffic Jam

Posted April 27, 2005 by
Energy, Politics | 52 comments

If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • Valero Energy Corporation Sells Aruba Refinery to Petrobras
  • Michael Curtis Reynolds … American al-Qaida Enemy Within, Charged with Helping to Blow Up Refineries
  • Daily Commentary – Monday, November 23rd, 2009 – Whacko of the Week … Paying Teens to Spit in his Face & Much More
  • Alternative Fuel; Talk About NIMBY
  • Power outage forces Valero to halt production at Aruba refinery

  • Comments

    52 Responses to “More Oil Refineries, HELL YES”

    1. JRI on April 27th, 2005 10:17 am

      “Bush can’t do that, he’ll destroy all mankind because he’s evil. ” Nobody said that. Why do you people think you have to lie to make a point?


    2. madmatt on April 27th, 2005 10:31 am

      No we object to another giveaway of our tax dollars. The oil industry gets more money than all the welfare mothers in the world. And all of these “great ideas” take 10 plus years to come online. Try renewable resources like solar, wind, thermal, or hydroelectric and we will vote for them.

    3. Red on April 27th, 2005 11:01 am

      JRI – its called hyperbole, “an exaggerated statement often used as a figure of speech”. Do you really want references from enviro wackos that have stated he is evil and out to destroy America & the world?

      They are not hard to find.

    4. Will on April 27th, 2005 11:11 am

      Democrats have given “alternatives”, as in alternative sources of energy. Democrats have been trying for years to make cars more fuel efficient. But the SUV lobbies, as well as gas and oil, have stopped that cold. Look at the proposal. What is Bush looking to do? Give more tax breaks to copmpanies who already pay almost 0 in taxes and get HUGE refunds. And what do these companies do when they get these breaks? Fire more people and raise prices, thus making a much more attractive profit margin. And why blame them, right? I mean, afte all, they have stockholders to account for. What a territfic plan Bush is trying to enact. Goes real well with his “Clear Skies” initiative (more money for polluters), and “healthy forests” initiative (more money and freedom for loggers. I wonder what the name of this new “policy” will be called? The “free energy” initiative, or maybe the “We swear this isn’t another tax break for the rich” initiative?

    5. Red on April 27th, 2005 11:11 am


      Spare me the sob story. There is no one quick fix to the energy situation in this country. When 25 years have gone by with no upgrade to its infrastructure we are lucky that gas prices are not $4.00 a gallon and electricity is not even more.

      Conservation is of course welcome, so is alternative fuel; however, maybe you would like to tell the elite Libs in Martha’s Vineyard that their view isn’t as important as the Wind power energy source. Are you willing to do that?

      Funny how Libs are all for new energy sources as long as its not NIMBY.

      Hydroelectric? Thermal? Got news for you. In New England where they put in a Thermal plant there has been nothing but protests from THE Green Party and psycho-environmentalists.

      Face it, at the present time this country is dependent upon oil. That is the cold hard fact. Until we ween ourself off it some, we must deal with what we are dealt and look for alternative methods along the way.

      Gee Madmatt you reference 10 years on-line. Just think if someone had allowed oil refineries to be built 15, 10, 5 years ago your point would be moot. To keep putting it off because it is not immediate gratification is insane. So much for forward thinking on issues and only dealing with them when they are a catastrophe, hmmm sounds a lot like SS.

    6. Red on April 27th, 2005 11:20 am

      Will – you need to call Ted Kennedy, John Kerry & Walter Cronkite and ask them why they are blocking Wind farms on Martha’s Vineyard.

      NIMBY my son, NIMBY.

      Please tell me what the comprehensive energy plan was under Clinton? Seriously.

      We knew what it was under Carter, just don’t turn your heat up and don’t drive anywhere.

      This is serious business and its about time someone do something about it rather than whine about gas prices.

      Will – if you do not like SUV’s then do not buy one. Hybrid cars are flying off the lots. The problem with energy in this country is NO ONE (NO ONE!!!) has taken it seriously for over 25 years. What would one expect?

      Alternative methods will come in time, I believe there is no option. However, that does not mean tomorrow they will end all the energy problems. The fact that refineries were blocked from being built is directly responsibly for the situation that we are in today. That cannot be disputed.

      Lets see a business run off the same computers today that they did 20 years ago. I’m sorry I am just not willing to use a 286.

    7. Will on April 27th, 2005 11:58 am

      Let’s see. What could Clinton get done with the hostile Senate and House? Tell ME, seriously. Take a long hard look at the amount of time the Republicans put into finding out Clinton had an affair. And Newt shutting down the government? I was in the Army at that time, and it really screwed things up for us. A REPUBLICAN did that. Not a Democrat. So don’t talk to me about Kerry and Kennedy. More on them later.

      I will not buy and SUV, of course. But the fact that people think that it’s in the CONSTITUTION that they own a car that gets 10 miles a gallon is outrageous. I hate all politicians. They all suck. You mistake hard-headedness and immobility as wisdom and strength. Bush is only willing to give the oil/gas/coal companies more breaks, instead of holding them accountable. The fact that he will not change ONE BIT shows arrogance and short-sightedness. It’s like a “wah-wah-wah” bully who never looks in the mirror. Or rather does look in the mirror, but talks himself into liking what he sees.

      Here’s a challenge for you. I want you to say, with a straight face, that Republicans have never blocked energy reform in this country. I think that after you turn off your “I’m a partisan hack robot” switch, you’ll see that EVERYONE in Washington is to blame for the lack of progress. I readily admit that Democrats stall things for their own personal reasons, but you on the right REFUSE to admit, just PLAIN admit that you are just as bad at trying to get what you want. If you’ll do that, then maybe we can all sit down and have a conversation. And I’m not talking about you giving one of those equivocating responses, I mean, say “Yes, the republicans in Washington are just as corrupt and scheming as the Democrats” and then this country will be on equal footing. What do you say?

      I would be for refineries in certain areas, but with strict rules included at getting fuel efficiency standards way up.

      Alternative methods won’t come in time, they are already here. Let’s stop with the tax breaks and put that money into getting them up to speed.

      And what’s up with the computer reference? Pretty flimsy analogy.

    8. Red on April 27th, 2005 12:26 pm


      Before you go off and solve all of the World’s problems, lets focus and discuss energy in America. I guess Clinton gets a pass on his 8 years in office, typical.

      BTW, I upgraded from my “partisan hack robot switch” to a Pentium 4 chip a while ago. What a great way to start a civil diolgoue, maybe you would like to insult my dog too?

      I could care less who is to blame at this point. Its time to get something accomplished. If Democrats want to stand in the way and further obstruct so that people have to pay high prices for oil & energy. Of course there should be many facets to a comprehensive energy bill, as stated above, but the idea that nothing is an option is outrageous.

      Democrats have a choice right now and the box is closing. Since they presently have no new ideas and rehash all the same tired conservation ones, they can be with the President or against him on this. Remember, politics is perception. There is only so many times that Dem’s can go against what benefits Americans.

    9. Jamie on April 27th, 2005 12:31 pm

      No. My objections to it come in the form that it does not contain the majormost impetus to energy policy development; a schedulized (say 10-15 years) elimination on the non-hybrid gasoline engine. It is a piece of technology that now clearly has been overcome and made obsolete. We regularly pass laws to phase out inferior and dangerous technology once we have a better solution in order to provide a push towards adoption of better technology. (have you even tried to buy a freon air-conditioner lately. You can’t even get one for retrofit onto a classic car.) People will not not accept alternative forms of energy en-masse without such a prod. In fact, the major impediment to a number of energy technologies is that they have not (and probably will not, without phaseout policies) reached a critical mass of usage to be viable. Get that into the energy policy and as a Socialist I will vote for whomever the Presidential Monkey tells me to. I have a feeling that I don’t have anything to worry about qua choosing my future vote recipients.

    10. Will on April 27th, 2005 12:43 pm

      First, you proved my point that you cannot and will not say that Republicans are just as bad, and need to compromise. I don’t like that Clinton lied, just like I don’t like that fact that Bush SCREWED UP, and REFUSES to admit it. Seems like your switch is firmly in place, with a chastity-belt-type lock that was attached by Karl Rove himself. And the fact that you can’t take a joke seems to prove that the humor gene has been removed by Dr. Dobson himself. You are a complete Repub. clone, my son. Good Work!

      Second, I think that building refineries is an OK idea, AS LONG as it is tied to fuel and energy conservation. And I’m talking about real change, not this “VOLUNTARY” change that no one ever does. But the Republicans, and the oil and car buddies in their pockets, refuse to make that compromise. And I know that Democrats take money too, I’m not happy about it, but the majority of that money lands in Frist’s, Hastert’s and DeLay’s pockets, to name a few.

      No one has said that we should do nothing. Democrats have brought conservation to the table, and have been rebuffed time and again. Apparently, the Republicans want to spend their time making sure that NO ONE else has a say in Congress anymore. by changing rules to suit them and getting rid of the filibuster (at least until they lose control of the Senate again, then we’ll see them put that thing back in place faster than Bush runs to the Ranch to take a few months off.) It’s OK to feel bitter that the Democrats are FINALLY fighting back, and using the tactics that Conservatives have used for decades.

      We are not wimps, and to suggest that we have to go along with Bush, simply because he’s in charge, is ludicrous. Republicans didn’t seem to have that “team spirit” when there was a Dem in office. I’ve looked at both sides, and have been a man in saying that we need refineries, as long as conservation, REGULATED conservation is in place to keep the oil/gas/coal companies, who the AMERICAN TAXPAYERS are giving BILLIONS to, do what is right for the country, NOT JUST a 30% profit margin. I mean really, what’s wrong with these CEO’s making 10 million a year, as opposed to 12? I want both things on the table, you want whatever Bush says.

      Who’s the wimp here?

    11. Will on April 27th, 2005 1:10 pm

      This is from the Martha’s Vineyard Times. not written by one of your favorite liberals. He makes some interesting points that go well beyond your Not In My Backyrad idea. Sometimes if you TAKE A LOOK at things as opposed to “Plug in Conservative talking points chip, open motuh, spew”, you might see there are othere considerations. I research, you tune into Hannity.

      Please read:

      The Cape Wind proposal to put windmills in Nantucket Sound is one of the most important issues facing our area in a long time. Real experts and those of the self-appointed kind have eloquently mulled over the pros and cons of this mammoth energy project. There have been many good cases made for the construction of these windmills. There have also been good arguments made against said structures as well.

      There’s no need to track down my credentials as it pertains to expert status. I do not claim to have any, other than that of a concerned commoner of the Vineyard. Along with the accredited experts, we should hear from the regular folks, like me, that will have to live with the consequences of the experts’ collective decision. There has already been plenty of smoke generated by the competing factions amidst this controversial matter. That being the case, I would like to explore an important component which has not received the kind of attention it deserves. That component is my objection to the windmills because of the dire effects these windmills will have on our sea birds.

      I almost bought the Cape Wind project hook, line, and sinker, for no other reason than to forsake the selfish motivations of the Beautiful People. (You know who you are). Yet at some point my emotional response had to give way to reason. If I happen to become an unlikely ally with the environmental whackos and the oceanfront elitists in my opposition to the windmills, so be it.

      As a fledgling member of Ducks Unlimited, I feel obligated to publicly come out against this industrial development in such a sensitive environmental area. I have not spoken with any key members of D.U., nor have I seen anything in their superb magazine regarding their support or opposition to this project. My instincts lead me to believe that D.U. is in quiet opposition to a permanent open season on all sea birds via Cape Wind. Unlike the members of D.U., the windmills will not go home after they reach their limit. Duck’s Unlimited’s policy is to identify prime, essential habitat to promote the necessary wetlands for waterfowl to thrive. They try to remain a non-partisan organization that has a job to do regardless of who is in Washington. This air of neutrality has served the organization well over the years.

      Like it or not, politics matter, and a concerned organization should not stand idly by while events unfold which threaten the intentions of its mission statement. There is no wisdom in collecting money to buy waterfowl habitat, promote its future, only to see the fruits of these efforts (the ducks), lost in a vast collection of man-made avian death-traps.

      On the other hand, I recognize that Americans face some tough choices concerning the direction and composition of a 21st century energy policy. It is during these times of crisis, that bad ideas are entertained as quick fixes to long-term problems. Horseshoe Shoals is an area that is critical to the migration of countless seabirds and ducks that called this area home long before we set out to tame it. Energy has to come from somewhere. There will always be some unfortunate aspects to generating power regardless of its type. But condemning thousands of birds to slaughter only to see them wash up on our pristine beaches will only remind us of the folly of man.

      Windmills in Nantucket Sound will be the marine equivalent to bird life as strip mining was to Appalachian trout fishing. I’m not talking about snail darters, imperial moths, kangaroo rats, or crows for that matter. I’m talking about the ospreys, scaup, black ducks, and numerous other endangered birds which will continue to face long odds in a post-modern world. Horseshoe Shoals is a vital sanctuary for these birds. They are common to this area and most of us take them for granted as merely props for our backdrop. Yet on the world stage, they are quite unique and deserving of some added protection where it counts most.

      We can never know for certain the future impact this kind of energy project will have on our fragile environment. Some of our best indications should come from similar efforts that have already gone from drawing board to implementation. Windmills in California led critics to attach the title “condor Cuisanarts” to them after witnessing thousands of kills in a matter of a couple weeks. Fog, clouds, haze, etc., happen on a regular basis there and here, making bird collisions a certainty. Off the east coast of Canada, a windmill farm has caused the cessation of traditional migration routes.

      My prediction about what the windmills will do to the birds is not news to many people. What is surprising to me is that so many think that wiping out our seabirds is an acceptable consequence in an effort to generate power. The cause of generating energy by way of windmills is noble, but the sacrifice of so many birds is too high a price to pay. You can be sure that Teddy Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold are looking down on us hoping we deep six the windmills.

      Lincoln Hugo

    12. Red on April 27th, 2005 1:24 pm

      WIMPS? Will, got a chip on your shoulder or what? Who said anything about Wimps? First you insult me, now you make names up about yourself. You have the right to oppose anything, I hope you do. However, opposing a valid energy plan for the sake of opposing a President that you despise hurts who? Opposition without a paln of action is a waste of time and political suicide. Take a look at the last 3 elections.

      “Second, I think that building refineries is an OK idea, AS LONG as it is tied to fuel and energy conservation. And I’m talking about real change, not this “VOLUNTARY” change that no one ever does.”

      (We actually agree as long as the regulations do not over-regulate the industry to the point that it affects the economy. Gradual over time. Rome was not built in a day)

      However, what was wrong with building refineries at all? Why must there be blackmail attached to it? A new refinery would actually be more efficient than the older ones. As previously stated any intelligent enegery plan:
      1. Deals with present day and present day oil supply
      2. Short term goal
      3. Long term goals

      The energy situation in this country should never have been allowed to have gotten this far out of control. Of course I blame all.

      “Who’s the wimp here?”
      You are priceless. You show exactly why no one takes the Democratic Party serious anymore. You are actually incapable of having a civil conversation without attacking someone you have never met and do not even know. Do you ever really wonder why the Democratic Party loses elections these days?

      Do you ever wonder why the middle & Independents cannot vote for Democrats in National Elections? Your side is completely incapable of a civil dialog. You have now proved the example twice. It is no wonder that the Democratic Party panders to the Far Left.

      What is the main reason at present why gas/oil prices are what they are?
      1) Demand in the World for oil. (Emerging China Market)
      2) Over regulation of gas standards in US with multi-blends
      3) Inability to refine oil as there is no capacity to do so as the US has not kept the infrastructure up to deal with growing US consumption.

      #1 we cant do much about. #2 we can certainly come up with one or two blends for the entire country. #3 this is a toughy, build them.

      I am all for other alternative methods, however, there is a psycho-environmentalist movement in this country that “nay says” all energy forms.

      Always remember Conservation does not provide growth. It is not like this country is going to use less and less energy in the future.

    13. Will on April 27th, 2005 1:41 pm

      “Always remember Conservation does not provide growth. It is not like this country is going to use less and less energy in the future.”

      We are overconsuming right now. You tell me, is it really that important to drive a hummer to work? On the streets of New York?

      I fought for this country, so I know all about the word SACRIFICE. We all need to sacrifice something. But this attitude of “I want it all, and I want it NOW!” is what is killing us right now.

      I do not own a car,and I use public transportation. I understand that many cities do not have decent public transportation. But if we put money into that, then maybe we wouldn’t have to rely on gas guzzlers as much. Maybe if Public buildings used alternative energy (like solar, for instance) in a FRACTION of the buildings, maybe costs wouldn’t rise so much.

      You speak of overregulation. I don’t want totax people into the stone age. But I also don’t want companies like Enron messing with prices and creating another California Crises. But I’m sure you don’t want to talk about that.

      I dislike this president, just as you dislike Clinton. I admit who I am, you refuse to. And as long as Ann Coulter calls me a traitor, I feel that we progressives have the high ground on this one. I was injured in battle, and she dares call me a traitor? Does she know me? Have you EVER OPENLY critisized the republicans for their mistakes? Not on this page.

      And amny of these right wing blogs call progressives wimps with no plan. Do you deny it? You can’t stand that someone who has FACTS and rhetoric that mathces yours can sstnad up to you.

      And I do see that we agree on the refinery issue, to a point. But Bush disagrees with you. So what do you say to that?

    14. Red on April 27th, 2005 1:51 pm


      I have already seen the article from Ducks Unlimited. What would you expect them to say?

      So I guess this means that wind power cannot be used as an alternative form of energy. SAVE THE BIRDS. Would not one have to construct wind farms, hmmm … where there is in fact wind? Where would that be? Hmmm … on the Ocean? Do you honestly think this would be an issue if there were not million dollar homes built there? Where’s the honesty? If this was some poor fishing village it would not be a story.

      This is my point. Your alternative form of energy is being turned down by environmentalist. Don’t you think they can form protective shields around the blades? So if every form of alternative energy has an issue with the environment then what are we supposed to use?

      I guess lets just drill for oil then. Wind power hurts birds, hyrdo affects the fish, etc.
      So lets just stick to nuclear and oil I guess. There will always be an environmentalist that blocks any form of energy as being bad. Its impossible not to find anyone who will not disagree with something.

    15. James on April 27th, 2005 2:05 pm

      Here was an opportunity for President Bush to “think green” for a change. Or at least think unplutocratically, just for the kicky novelty of it. He could have proposed that a few of the military bases facing closure be converted into nature preserves or bird sanctuaries. But that would have been enlightened, ungreedy, and civic-minded. Instead, true to form, dedicated to the destruction of a livable environment for future generations, Bush is trying to boost his sagging poll numbers and beautify the landscape by jamming oil refineries and nuclear plants where the barracks and PXs used to be. He seems determined to ensure that his presidential legacy consists of little more than lies, lost opportunities, and ravagement.

      Raise the CAFE standard by ONE mile per gallon, and we net more than is in ANWR.

      Raise it by 5, and we cut out our dependence on ALL middle east oil.

      So really, who are you for, the American consumer, or oil companies? Are you for fighting wars by making smart choices, or because we have too?

      Again, the right wing shows their lack of strategic thinking.

    16. Red on April 27th, 2005 2:08 pm


      I respect anyone who has served the country. Do not confuse all blogs as being the same whether they are on one side or the other. I hardly doubt there is anything more reprehensible than DU. NOTHING. To make fun and poke fun at someone who has breast cancer is sick.

      Have I ever openly criticized republicans? Will, as I have said you do not know me. If you did you would know that I am against many things that W & Republicans have done. I am no fan of big government, I just happen to think that the Democratic party sold out the common people a long time ago. That’s just my opinion. They do not stand for the working, little guy anymore as they once did. They stand for fringe elements of the Party. Seriously, why do you think so many have left the Democratic Party?

      There are posts in the future on spending, Medicare, illegal immigration.

      The fact of the matter is that the Democratic Party has become what was once the Republican Party. A bunch of old, white men. The Republican Senate went thru a transformation, what are the Dem’s waiting for?

      Do I think its right to drive a HUMMER, who am I to say. Would I, no. That does not mean I have the right to tell someone they cannot. However, I get sick and tired of crunchy Liberals telling me my SUV kills when they drive in a 1978 Subaru with no exhaust pipe and it looks like they are burning soft coal. Or a beat up pick up that gets less gas mileage than my car.

      There are obviously compromises that need to be made, however, that does not mean killing an industry to humor environmentalists.

    17. Tom on April 27th, 2005 2:36 pm

      To further Red’s point, when the auto makers make a car that is acceptable and viable to the American public, it will be a success. There has been countless legislation that has mandated certain behavior in the automotive industry. There was a mandate that a certain amount of electronic cars be on the road. It was waived because even though corporations spent billions designing the cars, people were not motivated to purchase them.

      We are on the threshold of hybrid automotives coming into the mainstream. But government mandates work only on the lemmings that go along blindly with the government. Or go along because they know the alternative is a gun to their head to to said behavior.

      The free market will self correct. The oil companies may reap a short term windfall. But the high pricing will create ROI opportunities for others to make a fortune because it will be worth INVESTING IN INVENTIONS.

      That is the American Way.

      If you want to provide a socialist framework to change behavior, it will have to be compelling or forced. Typically state sponsored solutions are forced, and then tyrants who know how to use force the best take over. For examples see the Soviet Union and all of the wonderful Eastern European countries that are embracing freedom, warts and all. The alternatives are much worse.

      Just think of the books that will be written on classic Soviet Architecture.

    18. Will on April 27th, 2005 2:55 pm

      inst these old cars guzzling gas. All of them. Fuel economy is a Necessity, not a “maybe” If that’s not compelling, I don’t know what is. Hanging on to your millions is too compelling for the oil companies to ever change.

      I am a realist. I know that we need oil right now, just as we need gas. But we don’t need to give them more money (our taxes) to solve the problem. That’s throwing good money after bad.

      Red said, “The free market will self correct. The oil companies may reap a short term windfall. But the high pricing will create ROI opportunities for others to make a fortune because it will be worth INVESTING IN INVENTIONS. ”

      Well, Red, people have invented things, like harnessing solar power, making light bulbs that last 100 years, and tons of energy saving ideas. How about the easiest one. RAISING FUEL economy. That’s a pretty big one. This has been opposed time and again.

      It’s also interesting that you blame Carter and the Dems for the 70′s crisis, but REFUSE to blame Bush and his Saudi kin for this one. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for what your party does. I do, and there are many things I hate about our politicians. I thought Kerry was the absolute wrong choice to be President.

      Finally, to go a little off topic again, you mentioned someone making fun of Breast cancer (Laura I has it, right?) Yes, it is WRONG to do that, and sick. But what I find interesting is that you didn’t say that what Coulter says about people like me (Army vets who are traitors) is sick. You instead pointed out how an idiot on the left made fun of something else. I don’t embrace that idiot; you should stand up, be a man, and say Coulter is sick as well.

      And disagreeing with the president because he is not conservative enough is not laudable. Have you noticed that we have more government intervention now, what with all the right getting huffy over Schaivo, and ramrodding AWNAR through by putting in another bill that has NOTHING to do with energy?

      So all I want is the same kind of moral regulation that the Repubs point at us pointed at their free-for-all oil connections. It’s only fair, don’t you think? If this government can peek at what kind of books I read, and search my house without a judge, I think we should regulate the Enron style thieves. Then maybe we can get a little parity.

    19. Tom on April 27th, 2005 3:09 pm


      I know you are downright pissed at Red. But it was I , Tom, who made those comments. I know you think that conservatives all type alike, but we are different people!!! It is not like I called you James, or something.

      Keep swinging. I need to earn a few more capitalist dollars, but I will reply to you shortly. (Now where is the telephone number of my Asian Sweatshop?)

    20. Red on April 27th, 2005 3:10 pm


      Just a clarification.

      Tom said … “”The free market will self correct. The oil companies may reap a short term windfall. But the high pricing will create ROI opportunities for others to make a fortune because it will be worth INVESTING IN INVENTIONS. ”

      To be honest with you Will, compared to the energy crisis during the Carter Administration, THIS IS NOT A CRISIS. $2.00 a gallon vs gas prices in the ’70′s adjusted for inflation. You are kidding I hope.

      Please do not embarrass yourself by bringing up the biggest colossal joke of a President of the 20th Century. Otherwise known as Jimmy “MISERY INDEX” Carter. If GWB had done anything close to what Carter did he would have been impeached.

      The present day situation with energy is fixable, it is not a crisis. It will be a crisis if this country continues to do nothing about it.

      Hmm … GWB speech on energy just a while ago mentioned we don’t use typewriter’s like in the ’80′s we use computers, PDA’s from Rolodex. Hmmm .. that sounds familiar to a Red comment earlier, “Lets see a business run off the same computers today that they did 20 years ago. I’m sorry I am just not willing to use a 286.” And Will called it lame.

      Coincidence? You decide. If everyone notes Scared Monkeys actually posted on oil refineries, The Environmentalist War on the Price of Gasoline prior to the Reuters story ever coming out. Hmm.

    21. Will on April 27th, 2005 3:28 pm

      See, now Tom has a sense of humor. I like him already.

      Red, I thought Clinton was worse than Carter. And Carter wasn’t impeached. Wanna keep score? OK. Watergate, Republicans. Iran Contra, republicans. WMD in Iraq? Psych! Republican. Sleeping with an intern and lying about it? Democrat. I’m keeping this in the governmental realm right now, because I’m sure you’d love to bring up Juanita Broderick or someone like that that you found over at Newsmax.

      And I love how Red uses a quote from our phonetically challenged president to prove that something he said was valid. “Is our children learning?” Not if the book’s upside-down, it isn’t. Besides, computers have evolved. But the gas and oil companies want to use engines that were invented a century ago. How did we get people to move on to newer, better computers? We forced everyone to upgrade by ELIMINATING the outdated stuff. Bush doesn’t want to do that with the oil companies. He just wants to build more of the same.

      Red, you disappoint me. Still no mention of Coulter. Still REFUSES to admit GREIVOUS ERRORS on the part of Republicans. You want me to stop calling you a Partisan Robot? STOP ACTING LIKE ONE!!!!

      I will say that you are right about the 70′s. I remember the odd and even days of gas. But to sit with your rose colored glasses and say that we are not in serious trouble, we just need to do what Bush and Cheney (and his Energy “Task Force”) say is even MORE outrageous.

      How’m I doin’, Tom?

    22. Will on April 27th, 2005 3:30 pm

      And Red, I said the computer analogy is FLIMSY, not lame.

    23. Red on April 27th, 2005 3:54 pm


      Tom didn’t have too much of a sense a humor this morning when my post was linked to at Salon and not his. Oh my ears are still ringing on that one.

      BTW, what was so funny, the sweat shop? What makes you think he’s kiddin ya?

      What’s your last name Tom? Gifford? or is it Nike?

      Will, take up your beef with Ann yourself, she’s got an email. Maybe I’ll reference it too her the next time I am at one of those “right wing brainwashing seminars” or would it be a “Partisan robot” convention? I tried to talk about it with Ann a couple of weeks ago but some normal lefty decided to throw a pie at her just as I did.

      You have to come to one sometime Will with us, they are alot of fun. We play games like “Is it botox or Kerry”, the ever popular name one thing JFK and Teddy have politically in common, “Pin the scotch on Teddy”.

    24. Tom on April 27th, 2005 3:56 pm

      Dang it Will, you have me laughing so hard it is interrupting my subjugation of my workers in Asia. See, with all this newfangled technology, I have a projection screen (109″) over the work area so they can watch me watching them. Whenever I laugh they hide their children (kept by their feet as I do not have a childcare program). So see Will, you are contributing to the harassment of children in a 3rd World Country.

      Seriously though, I do disagree with almost everything you are writing. Heck, all of the politicians are weak, that is why they go to Washington, as opposed to having real jobs. The politicians are corrupt people in a corrupt system. We all know it , and throwing the stones you and Red are throwing are not accomplishing much.

      I come from a very simple world view. The capitalist system is the greatest. You come from a socialist view, the government is the greatest. Washington is the worst combination of the two. The only thing they have going for themselves is that it is the best governing system in the world.

      I want to get government out of the equation. I want a flat tax. I want subsidies to be eliminated. I want people to be able to succeed and fail on their own. I have failed, many times. But that does not even phase me, as I live in a place where I can get off my ass and get back to work and win tomorrow.

      Only when government gets involved by propping up companies or subsidizing issue or concepts that trouble occurs. The airline industry is a great example. We have a new paradigm with the internet lowering airfares with sites such as Orbitz providing a competitive framework. The airlines need to change to survive, but with the governmental hand outs and bankruptcy protections (United has been in Bankruptcy since 2002) the market is unable to correct. So the benefits provided by an Orbitz are being subsidized by the government and its policies.

      So you like socialism, I say government get the hell out of my way.

      But I bet we both like beer, right? Or will that be another war… lol

    25. Will on April 27th, 2005 4:07 pm

      No war here, Tom. You said:

      I want to get government out of the equation. I want a flat tax. I want subsidies to be eliminated. I want people to be able to succeed and fail on their own. I have failed, many times. But that does not even phase me, as I live in a place where I can get off my ass and get back to work and win tomorrow.

      Only when government gets involved by propping up companies or subsidizing issue or concepts that trouble occurs. The airline industry is a great example. We have a new paradigm with the internet lowering airfares with sites such as Orbitz providing a competitive framework. The airlines need to change to survive, but with the governmental hand outs and bankruptcy protections (United has been in Bankruptcy since 2002) the market is unable to correct.

      And, strange as it may seem, I want that too. I want NO interference. And that means in the moral realm. Telling me what to watch, or what I can’t watch, and saying if abortion/euthanasia/gay marriage is right or wrong. These are not facets the government should be involved with.

      Do I want to force people to do something? No. And if Bush said, “I’m not gonna get involved in this here battle for Terri Schaivo, nor am I gonna impose the American People to give tax breaks to business” I would stand up and say Right on!

      A flat tax is the best idea I’ve heard all day. everyone pays the same percentage, NO LOOPHOLES, no extra tax break for those who contribute to a campaign. I am not a socialist. But if the current administration wants to bully their way into my private life and spend time punishing television stations and making a poor woman a poster child for the ULTRA right wing in the party, then I want some consideration for my wants and needs for me and my children. If everyone backed off, then I couldn’t be happier. Unfortunately, the world will never work that way, so we’ll continue to disagree.

      Though I do like beer.

      And, swear to God, you must be monitoring me, because I WORK AT ORBITZ! I knew you Republicans had better Spyware that the stuff I bought off of Air America. : )

      See Red, when a person is civil, I will be civil. And you still won’t give in, not a little bit. That’s not strength. That’s pig-headedness. But I’ll fight for your right to be that way again in another far away land, if I have to.

    26. Red on April 27th, 2005 4:09 pm


      “We all know it , and throwing the stones you and Red are throwing are not accomplishing much.”

      Excuse me? I’m just trying to get a simple energy plan through. You are subjugating 3rd world countries.

      Who is probably on more, “oh my God it’s Red again calling” lists at Senators & Rep’s offices? LOL. Term Limits for em all.

    27. Will on April 27th, 2005 4:16 pm

      Term limits, oh yes. that’s the best idea you’ve had all day. Seriously, it’s the best idea to change what’s going on up there.

      But don’t get used to this agreeing thing.

    28. vb on April 27th, 2005 4:23 pm

      A bird santuary for bases that are being closed? Are you nuts? The radiation from all the pollution poured into the ground or water would automatically kill any form of wildlife.

      Do a little more research on that one. Most of the bases that have been previously closed aren’t fit for any life form unless you want that pretty green glow…..

    29. Red on April 27th, 2005 4:35 pm


      Did you just see that. Damn a pig just flew by. We agreed. There is hope for you, lol. I feel like Treebil telling the two Hobbits that the Ents have agreed that they are not Orks.

      Want to hear my one that if you are a millionaire or a lawyer you cant run for office?

      Seriously, TERM LIMITS should be mandatory. Want to get the lobbyist $’s out of DC. Kind of hard to give money to influence if they are not their permanently. This whole seniority thing is a joke. Citizen politicians is what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers, not Senators for Life. Although it has kept Teddy off the roads in MA.

    30. Will on April 27th, 2005 4:44 pm

      still can’t help but attack Kennedy. Talk about an easy target. Heck, maybe Strom should have been President. “Then maybe we woudln’t have ben having all these problems all these years” Eh, Lott?

      We’re back in our corners. I’ll come out fighting tomorrow.

      have a good night. : )

    31. Red on April 27th, 2005 5:07 pm


      For the record you can add Strom, Mc Cain, Ted, Byrd, et all to the list. ALL can go.

      You too Will. Feel like Wiley E. Coyote and the Sheep dog from Looney Tunes punching in the time clock.

      We meet at dawn …

    32. Tom on April 27th, 2005 7:13 pm

      Pistols at Dawn, Hamilton vrs Burr

    33. Alexander Wolfe on April 28th, 2005 1:30 am

      Actually, I think most people will say “Nobody cares.”

    34. deccles on April 28th, 2005 9:37 am

      “The oil industry has been complaining about lack of refineries for 20 years and nothing has been done.”

      Maybe they should try spending some of the record profits they’re making on new refineries instead of waiting for a president to force taxpayers to pay for it. Aren’t we paying enough already?

      The idea of building more oil refineries will do NOTHING to lower gas prices. Everyone (almost) is looking in the wrong direction on this issue. The real reason oil and gas are so expensive is the dollar has been declining in value for about two years straight now. Because OPEC nations list the dollar as the peg currency, oil goes up when the value of the dollar falls. And just like the Saudi prince stated to Bush, there’s nothing he can do about it. Increasing capacity will not change this.

      One need look no further than this current administration to see why this is happening. We have record trade deficits, record borrowing, massive war spending (with money that doesn’t exist), and absolutely NO effort to reverse this trend.

      How long do you think it will be before other countries decide to switch their currency from the dollar to the euro or the yen? When they do, the dollar will become a third world currency and this nations economy will tumble.

      I’m not just pissing in the wind with this. Many Wall Street economic analysts are talking about it, which explains why alot of people have started buying gold and platninum.

      Some, including a report released by the CIA about two weeks ago ( I think it was two weeks, but the report DOES exist), are stating oil will be $300 a barrel by 2015. This will be just about the time these supposed new refineries will be up and on line. WHY BOTHER BUILDING THEM?

      Paul Craig Roberts, assistant secretary of treasury under Reagan has been posting articles on for months talking about this very thing, as well as other related issues.

      If you want to change the situation (although it may be too late), start looking to the TRUE sources of the problem.

      An oil president, who doesn’t know how to run a company ( every business he ever owned went bankrupt).

      A deficit that has been completely ignored and in fact made worse.

      Borrowing enough money to put us in debt for 50 years (assuming avg inflation) and we actually pay it back. We ARE the biggest debtor nation.

      Oil companies posting record profits, yet continue to complain about rising prices

      Lack of any effort whatsoever to seriously look at alternative fuel sources (nuclear is NOT a good alternative)

      It’s time to stop supporting a president and congress who are complicit about this and will do nothing to change it. And for goodness sakes, stop buying these ridiculous SUV’s!!!!

    35. Red on April 28th, 2005 10:22 am

      deccles & Tim O’Connor ,

      Who do you think prevents oil refineries from being built? Oil Companies? Who do you think prevents the offshore drilling of oil or in Anwyr? Oil Companies?

      Hello, they are prevented from doing these things. There is not a capitalist alive that would not invest in the building and production of oil refineries.

      Say it. Its the E-N-V-I-R-O-N-M-E-N-T-A-L-I-S-T lobby that prevent such action to take place.

      It is truly amazing to me how many of you are so jealous of corporate profit. I am not quite sure who all of you think employees people and takes the major capital risk that benefits everyone’s lives.

    36. Red on April 28th, 2005 10:25 am

      Alexander Wolfe,

      Thank for responding. That would be unfortunate that most people will not care as they certainly have no problem complaining. Very typical.

    37. Kenneth Demarest on April 28th, 2005 11:42 am

      Here’s the fact in all this bullshit.

      Gasoline under Clinton the lawyer: $.97
      Gasoline under Bush the oil man: $2.47

      It only took 2-1/2 years to make this change.
      You do the math and come up with your own conclusions. Me, I’ll take the $.97.

      Hey Democrats……no ones listening! Your out of power and no ones listening. The only thing that’s going to stop the Republicans and their steamroller is the Republicans own greed. The sooner that happens the happier we will all be. Let em do whatever they like. Come on THERMO-NUKULAR meltdown!!!!!

    38. Red on April 28th, 2005 1:10 pm


      Every issue in life has a breaking point. You act like things that occur in this country and change in comparable to a speed boat and not an ocean liner. I hate the fact that it is that way but those are the facts.

      Things that happen in the past tend to catch up with us eventually. What did anyone think would happen if no $’s were put back into the infrastructure of the Energy system of this country? All previous Presidents & Admin’s are to blame.

      Please explain how Clinton was somehow responsible for $0.97 gas? And GWB $2.47? The circumstances during the two Administrations are so drastically different. China did not have the consumption that they do today for one. There are just as many gas guzzling cars out there today as there were from 2002-2000. In fact there are more hybrids on the road than ever before.

      At what point does the house implode if one never takes care of any renovations to it? Don’t you think that we are looking at the same issue with SS in the future? If nothing is changed and no provisions set forth to deal with the impending baby-boomer issue, can you imagine the fate of the poor bastard who is President (no matter what party) when that happens?

      Previous Administrations have an impact on future ones. If they do not do the business of the people and have the foresight we suffer in the future. Please do not tell me that some how Clinton was responsible for the economy. It was merely good timing.

      Please explain how GWB is responsible for higher prices? I thought that so many on the LEFT claimed the Iraq War was one for oil? I guess not, huh?

      When a country does not have a ENERGY POLICY worth a damn of course this was eventually bound to happen. Both sides are to blame for not continually ramping up our capacity to refine and the ridiculous standards placed on the industry. However, at this point God help the people who stand in the way of creating an energy policy that will go forward.

      $2.25 a gallon is rather low compared to what it could be and if inflation was factored in a small amount compared to the 1970′s. Markets have a way of correcting, but we need an energy policy NOW.

    39. Eric on April 28th, 2005 2:22 pm

      Three questions for the monkey:

      How will building more refineries lower the per barrel price of oil? In 2000 a barrel of oil was at $30 dollars. In 2005 it is $50 a barrel.

      Why does an industry that is making the biggest profits in the history of the United States need goverment tax brakes?

      How does it qualify as a “bold move” for a president three years into a middle eastern based war, months into a spike in gas prices, to stand in front of some microphones and anounce to the world that the US has an “energy problem” and we need long term solutions?

    40. Tom on April 28th, 2005 2:45 pm


      I know global macro economics are too much for you to comprehend. Could there be the slightest truth to the matter that the Asian crisis decimated industry in the Orient? Thus causing an overcapacity of oil in the global marketplace causing the price of a barrel to go to historic lows? When the Asian economy came back, the price of oil has tracked it, but is that too logical.

      But you are right, blame the chimp. BUSH = OIL ! HALLIBURTON DID IT. CLINTON IS PERFECT!

      Go back to your People magazine.

      This discussion is way over your head.

    41. Eric on April 28th, 2005 4:16 pm


      I just asked three simple questions. I didn’t ask why the price of oil is up. I asked how building more refineries will help lower the price of oil? The price of oil I think we can all agree is the problem. Why do you have to get all personal after one posting. I was just reading the blog and thought I’d throw in my 2 bits. People magazine!?

      Why can’t the conservatives (who I like to consider myself one) face the fact that W. is a terrible leader with no vision for this country and no energy policy. It is OK. You don’t have to defend him. This is America. We the people and all that. You can still call yourself a conservative or a Republican and believe W. is a total failure. Forget your obsession with Bill Clinton and look at the facts. G.W Bush is president . Gas is expensive. The health (argubaly the very existence) of the US economy depends on cheap gas. G.W. Bush has done nothing to make it any cheaper. G. W. Bush has failed to protect our economy from this enormous threat. Maybe holding the Saudi prince’s hand is all he could do?

      Forget politics for a second and get real! We are at war. The Saudis, the oil industry, the Chinese, the Russians, not to mention Al Qaeda are all going ream us (Americans) if we don’t get our act together.

    42. Tom on April 28th, 2005 5:02 pm


      Let me turn it around. Why do we have all of the different grades and blends of fuel determined by individual municipalities and states? Why have we not built a refinery in the last 29 years? These are failings in policy that Bush is trying to put right.

      I was abrupt with you, but if you read the comments above the questions you posed have been answered about 3 different ways. I should have been more polite, my bad and I am sorry.

      Yes, I can not stand Clinton. His squandering of the peace dividend, failure to deal with geo-political problems, and narcissism wore me out.

      We disagree with the leadership role of GWB. I think he is a President that will go down in history as Reagan has. Remember how Europe hated him? Remember the insessant attacks against him by the Democrats? Remember how the media made him out to be an absent minded doddering old fool? Well, those same attacks are happenning today against GWB. I will let history be the judge. I have the distinct feeling that Clinton will be remember by history more in the Carter model. I also feel that Bush will be remembered in the same company as Reagan.

      Regarding the war issue, you bet your sweet bippy we are at war. ( I always wanted to type that phrase in context) We are in the process of stabilizing the middle east. I know you can’t believe it, because the MSM will not cover it. We have Iraq and Afganistan as stable entities. We have peace and freedom in Lebanon. Syria is scared. Iran is fighting to remain a theocratic dictatorship, but the seeds of democracy are planted and will bear fruit. North Korea is a tinderbox, but that was a result of the Carter Clinton nuclear agreement. China is in an economic war at present, but technology is starting to poke holes in the communistic control, and the people are tasting capitailsm. Russia, well they are a mess, and their surrounding countries are giving them the big FU. Unless they want to sell their soul, and with Putin I am not sure, they will be a paper tiger for a while.

      I wish Bush had done some things better. But I do recognize that he is human, As I recognized Clinton was human. (I am a smart guy, huh) He will make mistakes, there is no blue print for the war he is fighting. But I feel so sorry for you. If you are blinded by the hatred you have for this man to not see the good he does, along with his mistakes, then you are missing a transformative point in history. As the democrats had to eat crow at Reagan’s funeral, you will have to do so at Bush’s. He is a leader. He is not perfect. But he is damn good in my eyes.

      And I have to get back to work Eric. I have to be a capitalistic SOB so I can pay some bills.

    43. antiwingnut on April 28th, 2005 5:55 pm

      Okay, where do you live? I don’t mind them putting a nuclear plant, a refinery or a massive storage facility (all of which would be terrorist targets, mind you) in your backyard…

      What’s that? Not in your back yard? Well, what do you know.

    44. Red on April 28th, 2005 6:50 pm


      Wrong again buddy. I have a nuclear power plant in my backyard, its called Seabrook. What one do you have where you live MR. NIMBY?

      Terrorist threat? So was a building with innocent people in it. What’s your issue? You going to go around scared your entire life?

      So what plant do you have by you again there Mr. presumptuous?

    45. armedmemory on April 28th, 2005 7:05 pm


      Politics is the art of perception, and the occurences of actual legislative work merely a random and poorly understood byproduct. The United States has managed to move through the last 30 years without a coherent energy policy and I don’t think that’s changed.
      We need a Manhattan project, an influx of science, personnel, and material in order to find new energy sources to power not only our future economy, but also the future economies of Europe, Russia, and China. Building refineries, ANWR are merely sideshows to this great step. Think of all the possibilities for energy: wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, nuclear, and maybe fusion, and then rather than naysaying each possibility, think what we could do if the R&D was done to make any or even all of these a way for Americans to furnish the future economy.
      Who cares about Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton? Their energy policies were either incoherent or completely absent, and we need a change soon. It’s not just $50+ per barrel of oil, it’s that the price will never come down while we consume as much as we do.
      Bush is an oil man, he tried and failed to make some Texas oil money, and he is very good friends with the oil industry. But, the oil industry is a 19th century paradigm using 21st century technology and lobbying. We need something better.

    46. Red on April 28th, 2005 7:18 pm


      First let me say that by your comments I am finding it a little difficult to believe you are a Conservative Republican, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Why do you think gas prices are expensive? Is it some how something that GWB personally did? How is a President supposed to control if China’s economy suddenly rebounds and they become a major consumer of oil?

      The Geo-macroeconomic question is relevant. Do you understand common economic principle? Understandably that OPEC, being a Cartel can hold people hostage for oil if they wish. However, the standard rules of supply and demand do hold in this situation.

      If the demand for a commodity goes up and the supply stays the same obviously the price of the barrel of oil goes up.

      If demand goes up and supply is held back, the price really goes up.

      Now you asked the question, how do oil refineries affect the price of a barrel of oil. Directly they do not, it affects the refinement process that is also passed on to the consumer. The USA uses more oil every day in a growing economy. There comes a capacity limit that the existing refineries can transform crude oil to what ever blend of gas is consumed.

      There is a cost in production. There is a cost to having oil just sit. There is a cost to creating multiple blends of gas. The addition of refineries is just one in many things that need be done to keep the price down. The other is other forms of energy other than getting oil out side the US.

      That is why GWB has suggested drilling in Anwar and off shore of the US. Will this solve the problem 100%, no. No one said it would. A little bit of everything will. GWB also suggested nuclear power. He also suggested alternative energies.

      The main goal is to create supply that is not from foreign lands. Also to be able to handle that greater supply of oil or energy, etc.

      One cannot continue to expand a growing economy and not expand the infrastructure that maintains the economy. Clinton ignored this issue as he did everything during his 8 years. He was the ultimate slumlord. Deplenished the military, energy grid, oil, etc.

      This is what happens when one does not preempt and act pro-actively.

    47. Tom on April 28th, 2005 7:22 pm

      Armed Memory


      Thanks for adding to the discussion in an intelligent positive manner. I wish I could have said what you recommend as coherently.



    48. Tom on April 28th, 2005 7:23 pm

      Hey, Red, yours was pretty damn good too!


    49. Red on April 28th, 2005 7:46 pm



      All I perceive the existing refinery issue as a stop gap measure to get us to the next plateau of viable energy. There will be a transition period.

      What most do not comprehend is that if the price of oil gets much higher it will automatically initiate investment into alternate forms of energy. That is what the fallacy is of $350 a barrel of oil.

      No one would pay that much as the mere price would force the R&D of alternate forms of energy.

      Very much agree with your thought.

    50. Greendreams on April 28th, 2005 8:33 pm

      Red? OMG! are you out of touch. Chinese economy “suddenly rebounds?” We borrow $1.8 BILLION a day from Asia and give most of it to China for cheap sneakers and such. Of course their economy is on a roll. They’re eating our lunch. They are the next economic superpower. We are IN DECLINE. Oh please. You come off as so educated about global economics. You’re clueless. It’s not OPEC. China alone could turn off the spigot and our economy would collapse. Tomorrow.

      Will they? Of course not. Our savings rate is 2%. We’re deeply in debt. Theirs is 40%. The longer we will borrow from our children through national debt the better for China. They own our butts. Thanks to you.

      We have handed them the reigns of economic power. Oh, excuse me. YOU have, voting away everything we have built in the last 200+ years..

    51. Eric on April 28th, 2005 10:44 pm


      Thanks for changing the tone of the discussion. You made some very good points in defending GWB’s foriegn policy. I would be a very happy camper “eating crow” if GWB is seen as some sort of foriegn policy genius in future history books read by my kids. I have some hope the invasion of Iraq might be the only thing the guy has done right so far. Of course he completely fumbled the aftermath of the invasion but that is another discussion……Counting on Russia being a paper tiger is a classic historical mistake.


      100% behind your “everyone” post.


      I said I was a conservative not a Republican. Libertarian is a tag I can live with. Energy is such a critical issue to the survival of our county that we really need to address beyond right /left dicotomy.

      Nuclear plants are one thing but refineries are another. I grew up within smelling distace of one in Woodriver Il. and it sucked. Cancer, evacuations, spills, fires, and some of the ugliest industrial architecture in the world.

      Maybe I missed something but I still don’t understand how building a refinery is going to lower the cost of gas. If anything oil companies will charge more to pay for the construction. The Saudis made no promises of increasing oil production (if they have more oil to pump) and the growing demand from the rest of the developing world is not going to stop any time soon. The refinery on closed military bases proposal has all the earmarks of an empty promise that makes a good soundbite for a news cycle. While we are at it lets put men back on the moon….again.


      I hate to say your post is mostly spot on. How the fuck did a right wing Republican president get America billiions in debt to the worlds biggest communist dictatorship?

      Can we all agree that being China and the Saudi’s bitch sucks?

    52. Red on April 29th, 2005 12:52 am


      Whatever you say about being clueless, you just keep believing what you want. The fact that China’s economy has hit a growth spurt has nothing to do with their demand for oil, OK. That was the point.

      “They own our butts. Thanks to you.
      We have handed them the reigns of economic power. Oh, excuse me. YOU have, voting away everything we have built in the last 200+ years.. ”

      So much anger & hate … Reason #2 why Democrats will not win a National Election in the distant future. The inability to carry on a rational conversation debating an issue without personal attacks. Independents & middle of the roaders love voting with such segments of the electorate.

    Leave a Reply

    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
    E-mail It