Bush offers sites for new oil refineries/ old military bases

[cal04]

President suggesting old military bases

President Bush is offering to make closed military bases available for new oil refineries and will ask Congress to provide a “risk insurance” to the nuclear industry against regulatory delays to spur construction of new nuclear power plants, senior administration officials said Tuesday.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the president will outline his proposals in a speech Wednesday in which he intends to emphasize how new technologies can be used to ease the energy supply crunch.

The White House acknowledged that none of the initiatives was expected to provide any short-term relief from soaring gasoline and oil prices. It is Bush’s second speech on energy within a week, reflecting the growing concern within the White House over the political fallout over high energy prices.

The officials said the president believes the country needs a diverse supply of energy, including expansion of aggressive nuclear power. There has not been a new commercial nuclear reactor ordered in the United States since 1973.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7646880/

[merwin]

1. Well, we gotta have some way of moving forward on nuclear bombs.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Is that the "expansion of aggressive nuclear power"?

I hope that was just a bit of bad journalism, and the writer meant "aggressive expansion of nuclear power". But with Bush, it is possible he wants to attack someone with nuclear bombs ...

[HereSince1628]

21. That we are unsure of the meaning is evidence of how far we've gone

down the road to ruin.

[TahitiNut]

2. Fort Ord and the Presidio? Riiight.

Fort Leonard Wood would be good, though. :puke:

[PartyPooper]

6. How about Kennebunkport and Crawford?

I realize they're not former military bases, but, what the hell! Right?

:D

:hi:

[TahitiNut]

9. I'd go for that. Uniformed military personnel have been on duty there ...

... and that's good enough for me. :evilgrin:

[K to the YLE]

28. Hey! I live in Kennebunkport!

Well, actually Kennebunk (technically West Kennebunk) and I don't like this idea very much. Geez Dubya sucks.

[MADem]

15. A big chunk of ORD is Monterey Community College, now

I don't know if an institution of higher learning is a good fit up against a friken oil refinery.

[XemaSab]

34. You could put TWO

at camp pendleton.

[punpirate]

3. Almost every closed base has...

... some nasty environmental problem which has yet to be cleaned up. This is a way of relieving the government from its obligations, and then compounding the problem....

Absolutely fuckin' transparent.

[teryang]

10. You're right this is the key, don't cure the environmental damage

...Make it worse!

Hey, I've got an idea, let's give away our federal land to the oil companies!

[MADem]

16. Bingo, give the pirate a parrot!!!!

There are SO MANY problems that the public is not even aware of, it isn't funny, to say nothing of the ones that they do know about. More cities and municipalities have refused to take over closed bases for just those reasons. I have a pal who does the negotiating of that shit, he tears his hair out. We should have been fixing all that happy crap during the Reagan buildup, but nooooooooo...we had to be cheap and stupid about it.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. Oil refineries are the most horrible places on earth.

They would never have even allowed the monstrosities to be built in this day and age.

[Erika]

7. Bush, as the corporatist global leader, loves oil

He's never seen a refinery he doesn't love. Who cares about the environment? It's profits.

Maybe he and the Saudis are working on bubble societies where the elitists can enjoy the good life, and be insulated from the pollution.

[Toots]

26. Who is "They"?

That is exactly what They (Bush*/Republicans) are suggesting we do...:crazy:

[lovuian]

5. This is what the oilcompanies wanted all along freecheap land

and lots of bargains!!!

[Roland99]

8. What's the cost of a new refinery?

I think the gov't should at least get paid a decent amount but, how many refineries will it take to make a dent in gas prices? And, how long will it take to get those refineries up-to-speed.

And, in that timeframe and with the cost of a new refinery, how far along in alternative fuel research could an oil company get?

[norml]

11. This is a way to bypass local objections, and environmental standards.

It is based on the lie, that there is a refinery shortage, and that is what is responsible for the high price of oil. The price per barrel of oil is set at the same price everywhere. It is determined by world supply, and world demand . It has nothing to do with refineries, except that a real shortage of refining capacity would lower the price per barrel of oil, by lowering overall demand.

[norml]

12. The refinery shortage lie

It is a lie, that there is a refinery shortage, and that it is responsible for the high price of gasoline. The price of gasoline is high, because the price per barrel of oil is high. If the Saudis, or anyone, were to dump more oil on the world market, the price per barrel would go down. The price per barrel of oil is set at the same price everywhere. It is determined by world supply, and world demand . It has nothing to do with refineries, except that a real shortage of refining capacity would lower the price per barrel of oil, by lowering overall demand.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/refineryops.html

[4dsc]

17. I believe you're wrong

Where is there SPARE refinery capcity?? The Saudi's just stated the US cannot refine more oil, especially the high sulfer content kind the Saudi's would ship to the US!!

[NNN0LHI]

20. I don't take much stock in what the Saudi thugs say

Anyone with some credibility saying the same thing?

Don

[LizW]

22. You have to wonder why the oil companies don't build

more refineries themselves? If there is a refinery shortage in this extremely lucrative business, why wouldn't the oil companies be rushing to build and expand their capabilities so they can sell more gas and make more money?

One answer is that they like the capacity just fine the way it is. The companies could be working together to keep the refining capacity stable so that the price at the pump stays high. This would remain true so long as the high price does not depress demand, which it does not seem to be doing yet.

Another, more scary answer is that the oil companies don't want to make the investment in refineries because they know that the supply of crude oil to be refined is diminishing.

Now, what if the taxpayers were to foot the cost of the new refineries? If the answer is #1, the oil companies would not like it because it would upset the supply side price support they have going. If the answer is #2, they don't care, because they suffer no loss if the oil runs out and the refineries end up as useless junk heaps.

I think we have to watch carefully the oil industries' response to Bush's suggestion.

[Roland99]

25. Too much NIMBY

[LdyGuique]

27. There have been no new refineries built since 1970 for a

number of reasons -- but mostly environmental concerns and safety concerns of any community nearby.

Many refineries were closed due to environmental concerns or safety - and most of the existing and operational refineries in the U.S. have expanded their capacity.

The reality is that we have refinery capacity right now to refine 25 percent of the world's oil output -- since we have only 5 percent of the world's population, it would appear that we're refining just fine.

What this country needs as an energy policy is one that forces mandatory fuel-saving cars, carpooling in metro areas, increased rapid transit, no new highways -- build light rail beds for commuter trains, etc.

Further, Solar Tower technology should be investigated and at least several units built. Since these are extremely tall structures, there are limitations where they can be built due to weather conditions that spawn tornados. However, the desert areas of southern California and the Southwest might be advantageous locales.

Nuclear power has proven itself; however, since we've yet to come up with a solution for spent fuel storage and there isn't an unlimited supply of uranium ore, it's a short-sighted policy similar to oil production being expanded.

While I support cleaning up coal-burning power plants for toxic emissions, such as mercury, they have a long term problem in terms of CO2 and should be on the phaseout or replacement for newer and better technologies.

[Fire Walk With Me]

33. Lots of federal development contracts and tax writeoffs for Bush!

You folks are summing it up.. Ask your Saudi friends to keep the prices high until people scream, then offer the "solution" you've had prepared since the beginning, which includes free land, overriding the EPA, government grants for research and development, tax write-offs for ownership and operation, and if they find nothing and leave a smoking mess (like Iraq), Bush still profits! Much less control the supply and pricing themselves. More Enronage coming soon.

I wish that I didn't have a conscience. I'd be rich too.

[XemaSab]

35. Screw building huge power plants

Every home should have solar panels or a windmill and create enough energy for the household and then sell the surplus back to the power company.

The whole idea of building more huge, dangerous, polluting power plants is such a corporate scam to keep the power companies rich.

[bpilgrim]

43. Discovery of VERY LARGE fields Peaked in the 60s

peace

[bpilgrim]

42. the sour crude is another symptom of peak oil

bidness doesn't want to invest in these expensive projects as they know that supply is simply going to decrease forever after peak.

but the tax payers got plenty of loot.


http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

[Trish1168]

31. That demand is the cause of high priced oil is also a lie

The reason oil prices are high is the reduced value of the dollar. The same thing happened in the '70's. When they devalued the dollar (after Nixon took us off the gold standard in '71), inflation went up, interest rates went up and fuel prices went up. Reagan came along and tightened up the money supply, and then fuel prices dropped.

The dollar has fallen 40%. Oil prices have risen 40% per barrel. OPEC has to ask for more dollars, because dollars are less valuable. The are not dummies.

If you look at a graph of the price of oil in gold terms and the prices of oil in dollar terms.....the price of oil in gold has not changed at all over the past 50 years. The price of oil in dollars has shifted all over the place (depending on monetary policy).

[LdyGuique]

45. Extremely good point that frequently gets overlooked

You summed it up nicely.

[norml]

13. In 1999 Iraqi oil production was over 2.5 million barrels per day.

That was under the Oil for Food Program, and doesn't even include what was smuggled out. By the time of the 2003 invasion Iraqi oil production was down to 1.3 million barrels per day. I laughed when they bragged that oil production in Iraq was back up to prewar levels, because the 1.3 million barrels per month figure was what they were bragging about being back up to, not the 2.5 million barrels of oil per day that was being produced under the Oil for Food Program. That production had to be taken off the market in order for oil prices to do what they call "firm". Iraqi oil production was at it's peak in 1979 at 3.5 million barrels per day. Of course that was before Reagan/Bush got to work in the region.

[Ganja Ninja]

18. Another government give away to Bush's buddies.

Why am I not surprised?

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. Another manufactured crisis

brought to us by our good friends at Bu$hCo.

I suppose the word 'conserve' is not in W's vocabulary?

[Bridget Burke]

23. Cool! Since the military bases belong to the government--

The new refineries would belong to US! Surely, the land would not just be given away to the oil companies? (Yes, I was being sarcastic.)

I see that nasty old "regulatory delays" were mentioned as a possible problem for aggressive nuclear development. Surely, regulations have also been a bar to refinery building--even though that excuse has not been mentioned this news cycle. Poor oil companies just can't afford to build plants with minimum environmental impact. And the old refineries tend to blow from time to time--but they mostly kill employees. And tort reform (in Texas, at least) has made it cheaper to pay off the survivors than build safer refineries.

[jpak]

32. It's a scam.

ChimpCo's rhetoric on the nuclear plant licensing is code for eliminating public comment from the licensing process.

Their plan calls for taxpayers to subsidize 50% of the cost of licensing and up to 50% of the cost of building new nuclear plants.

As major (50%) shareholders in these new nuclear plants taxpayers would still pay top dollar for the electricity produced.

ChimpCo has also proposed government purchases of nuclear electricity at above market prices that would subsequently be sold at a loss to the grid.

What ever happened to "no taxation without representation"???

[XemaSab]

36. The environmental documents alone

would cost millions of dollars.

No new refineries have been built because the oil companies and power companies don't even want to BEGIN to mitigate that shit.

[Frances]

24. If ever an administration should be held

accountable for gasoline prices, it's this one.

It's time Cheney's energy meeting records were released. For all we know, the prices are right where Cheney, the oil man, and Bush, another oil man, want them!

[420inTN]

29. Howabout making them...

1) Hydrogen/Alt. Fuel research facilities?
2) Hydrogen/Alt. Fuel refineries?
3) Medical/Scientific research facilities?

[jus_the_facts]

30. How 'bout outsourcing to the military bases OVERSEAS.....

....build the new refineries in the bases we have in other countries instead of in here in the US...since they're already outsourcing our jobs there..and recently * decided to bring all those enlisted people back here from Germany and Japan...that seems like a better idea to me. :eyes: :nopity:

[femme.democratique]

37. Peak Oil Is Confirmed - The Massive New Investment In Nuclear Power

People, peak oil is a reality!

[chlamor]

38. Bush Wants Refineries at Former Bases

Bush wants refineries at former bases
Sees need for new nuclear power plants, 'risk insurance.'

NATION/WORLD

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush is offering to make closed military bases available for new oil refineries and will ask Congress to provide a "risk insurance" to the nuclear industry against regulatory delays to spur construction of new nuclear power plants, senior administration officials said Tuesday.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the president will outline his proposals in a speech today in which he intends to emphasize how new technologies can be used to ease the energy supply crunch.

The White House acknowledged that none of the initiatives was expected to provide any short-term relief from soaring gasoline and oil prices. It is Bush's second speech on energy within a week, reflecting the growing concern within the White House over the political fallout over high energy prices.

The officials said the president believes the country needs a diverse supply of energy, including expansion of aggressive nuclear power. There has not been a new commercial nuclear reactor ordered in the United States since 1973.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/thisday/nation.20050427-sbt-MICH-A10-Bush_wants_refinerie.sto

[CottonBear]

39. Is military control of the refineries in the works?

Many US refineries have closed recently.

:scared:

[xray s]

40. No

Oil corporate control of the military is what is in the works.

[CottonBear]

41. This is even worse than I had imagined.

:scared:

[underpants]

44. ABC WNT brushed off any "NIMBY" concerns with economic need

See they said that people who live around these former bases will put up with poisoning their children just so they have a job.