Who will pay to get that oil get refined?

[JustAnotherGen]

With talk from Bush Co. asking for America to open up drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf and in Alaska I have to ask . . .

If we were to do that - who PAYS for it? I did search DU to see if this had been posted before - so forgive me if I didn't do a deep enough dive and this is a duplicate.

Factoids we are all familiar with:
Voice of America, July 12
1. Drilling in Alaska today - results in 10 years at the earliest.
2 Oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres of Federal land that could produce oil already.
3. Oil refineries have not been built in the US for 30 years or so.

Bush's Four Point Plan as laid out in an article I found on the L.A. Times web site:

Bush calls for offshore drilling, citing gasoline prices
The four-point plan proposed by Bush would:

* Increase access to the outer continental shelf, which has been off-limits since 1981. With the advent of technology that can make drilling less risky to the environment, Bush says, the moratorium is "outdated and counterproductive." If Congress lifts the moratorium, he says, he will lift an executive prohibition.

* Encourage the extraction of oil from shale in the West -- which holds as much potential for oil, 18 billion barrels, as the offshore drilling proposal. This amounts to nearly three decades of oil imports from Saudi Arabia, the White House says.

* Permit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which President Clinton vetoed and Democratic leaders oppose. This could offer 10 billion barrels of oil, equal to two decades of Saudi imports, according to the White House.

* Expand oil refineries in the U.S., where a refinery has not been built for three decades. Bush proposes regulatory reforms that could remove barriers to refinery construction -- namely public opposition. He proposes that any appeal of a federal permit for refinery expansion must be filed in federal court within 60 days.

Both Bush Co. and McSame Co. think this is a helluva an idea. Aside from the environmental factor which has been a primary concern of mine - which they both seem to be waxing over . . . I have to wonder about the question asked in my subject line.

Refineries have to be built. It's for the so-called 'Good of the American People'. But will the American people directly see profits from this in their pockets? I suspect they want to push this idea through at the tax payer's expense. By that I mean providing subsidies to Big Oil to first engage in the drilling itself (overhead, set up of the project, labor, etc. etc.) as well providing subsidies to build or bring up to date those refineries. So they will pay the people/corporations who have more money than God as a result of Bush Co's policies these past 7.5 years with the money of Americans who can't afford to buy the gas in the first place let alone a gallon of milk . . . to run their business/profit. Those same American taxpayers will never see a thin red cent of that money.

Now I guess I'm looking at the reality facing us and that is that the Big Oil lobby is so huge that we will never Socialize/Nationalize Energy. I'm resigned and without hope that this will ever happen. :-(

So how about if this foolishness actually gets passed through (I wouldn't be surprised if this Congress did pass it) -

Why isn't Bush Co. outlining a next step that says-
You are a Big Oil Corporation.
You have more money than Moses.
We open it up - but you have to pay for it yourselves. The drilling and the refining.

He has not and neither is McSame - Having lived under this Administration :tinfoilhat: for these many years tells me Exxon is going to expect Jane and John Q. Public to foot the bill for cost of goods and capital investment while they are the sole beneficiaries of the profits.

Yet our :thumbsdown: media is not asking that next question. They just want to wax poetic over the Idea itself instead of asking the tough questions of, "How and Who?"

Sorry for my rambling on this Sunday morning - but knowing that this is being presented to Congress without a Project Plan for getting it done is insane. I'm also writing this as *gulp* (don't beat me up - I have to make a living) person that works in Telecom for a company that has both landline and wireless services. I lived through the Telecom Bubble Burst and stuck with the industry in its' aftermath. Going back 8 years when another company I worked for was laying sub sea cables - I don't ever recall us getting money to lay that cable. I know now we don't get money from the American people to build towers. And that's the way it SHOULD be. Part of doing business is you pony up for its expense when you wish to expand your profits.

I just sense that what we aren't being told in this discussion by anyone in a position to make it happen or not happen (cross fingers) is that it will be the biggest :evilfrown:Corporate Welfare Program the US has ever seen.

Final thought - I'm not the least bit opposed to socializing energy programs/resources in this country - I just know it's not going to happen in my lifetime unless we change to my :crazy: Alternate Reality Where Every Human Being In My Country Counts and has Value.

[Javaman]

1. On points #2 and #3...

2. Oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres of Federal land that could produce oil already.

just because they own these leases means there is oil on them. If you know anything about oil speculation, you have to drill tests to see if there is anything under that land.

3. Oil refineries have not been built in the US for 30 years or so.

that's because it's unbelievably expensive and the regulation process is unbelievably complex. However, during the last 30 years time, the companies have expanded the existing refinement capacity. Due to a loophole in the agreement, the corps can continue to add on to the facilities without jumping through the red tape paperwork. Consider this: since our refined fossil fuel use has sky rocketed in the last 30 years, how could oil refineries keep up with demand if they didn't expand? simple logic.

[Finishline42]

2. #3 - conditional truth - which you know means it's a distortion

3. Oil refineries have not been built in the US for 30 years or so.

That part is true - but did you know that over half of the 300 or so refineries around 30 years ago have been closed? Low prices/margins in the late 90's forced the sale or shut down some. Oil company mergers consolidated capacity. I think it was Shell that was going to shut one down in Bakersfield, CA and DISMANTLE, did not even want to put it one the market. CA state regulators forced them to and Flying J bought the facility and has since expanded it.

It is true about the regs and EPA stuff - but there is stuff out there where the big Oil companies in CA were pushing for more environmental regs because the smaller refiners did not have $$$$ to update.

Refineries have expanded over the last couple of years to the point that it is equal to one new refinery opening per year.

Refinery capacity during the peak summer months last year was around 85% - down from a high in the low 90's two or three years ago. And now it comes out that they exported record amounts of refined gas and diesel during the first 4 months of this year.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Thanks to you both

javaman - if you come back to this . . . In digging into this - I can't find anything that guarantees there's oil underneath the OCS.

So would either way it be a crap shoot?

I generally consider myself well read and knowledgeable on current events and the world - and I also know that I'm at a point of anything Bush is for I'm against. So I'm trying to stop myself from a knee jerk reaction and form a solid reason why I'm against it - instead of just hating on Bush! :rofl: