Rugrunner Posted,

" For every 1000 or so bush bashes I'd love to see one with a specific reason attached. "

OK Here are 2 reasons.

OK

CAFTA, let's just send the rest of our jobs overseas.

His energy policy.

Rewards for the oil companies, without asking anything in return, like increased refining capability.

I can think of hundreds more, given a little more time, but these 2 top the list. And besides you only ask for one. LOL

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

I thought it was to be thrown into a steel cage ring with two particular thread members - each wearing samurai garb and armed with nothing but a pillow.

(Just kidding gents - don't get your samurai diapers soiled over this! HaHa!)

Homebrew,

If I could influence the site selection and construction of a new oil refinery 1/2 mile from your house or utilize CAFTA and build it in Honduras and take advantage of cheap non-union labor, which would you prefer?

Well,

considering where I live, it would be ludicrous to build a refinery in my area, due to shipping and recieving problems. I live in the Ozark mountains. Second of all, I am allergic to petroleum products, which forced me out of the town I was raised in, an old Lion oil refinery is located there. I grew up in oil country, and have seen both the positive, money, and the negative, enviromental ie health degredation.

That said,

I would have no problems with a refinery being right down the road, with the current EPA standards for new refinery construction. There have been no new refinery construction, since the rules were put into effect, in the late 1960s. It was decided in the petroleum industry, to hold out against the government regulations, and not build new refineries, and eventually the politicians, and americans that backed the legislation, will give up, and resend the rules. Over the last 37 years or so, the oil companies have reaped vast profits off the american economy. This while their "old School" refineries, are poisoning the air we breathe and the water we drink. They are posting record profits, and our economy is suffering for their greed. Yes they have just about won.

But under the EPA guidelines, it would not cause the health problems associated with the "Old School" refineries, so I would be happy to have that refinery 1/2 mile down the road, employing my friends and neighbors, instead of down south giving a foriegn economy a boost.

Later

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

P.S. Arkansas is a "Right to work state". It would be nonunion labor, for the most part, building it.

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

Homebrew, good for you! Although Not a real wish (i still have three more, right?) you did it. I tire of the vague innuendos with nothing specific. As Usual, you prove to be a cut above the rest.

While I can't really disagree with you on cafta, I'm not overly upset about it either (was any of the other choices against it?). Maybe because my job (setting tile) can't be sent overseas. It can be given to illegals (maybe why I'm upset about that, and think it's Bush's biggest failing).

As far as the refineries, Maybe if we repealed some of the regs on new refineries but not all, the oil companies would have had to build refineries (due to someone else being able to do it).

Thanks for the grown up debate! Can you give classes online to others? LOL

The Bush folks may have pushed CAFTA but your Congress voted for it and approved it.

for example, The Democrats voting in favor were Reps. Victor F. Snyder (Ark.),

Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea

They can't outsource what I do.

You couldn't just make it easy on me and just say "Build it in Honduras!"

Obviously any construction of the refinery near you would require some revisiting of the EPA standards. It is hard to even call them standards since they haven't been used in 35 years! The standards shut down the industry and now we're all paying the price.

You would think in 35 years someone would have broke free from the petroleum industry and built a refinery. Maybe some wildcat driller,maybe a foreign oil company, maybe not even an oil guy. Maybe a Bill Gates, he could afford it. Nobody has though. Maybe, just maybe, the standards really can't be met and still give us cheap gas and it isn't just a petroleum industry conspiracy.

Here's another way to look at it. Would we rather have $6 per gallon gas from all new shiny non-poluting refineries or $2 per gallon gas from nasty "old School" refineries that might be located in Honduras. The refiners have already placed their bets on the answer a long time ago. The new energy policy won't change their minds.

How about an energy policy that would change their minds....The Federal government picks up the cost difference for a brand new shiny refinery versus a stinky old refinery and the government retains no ownership in the refinery once its built. Streamline the permitting process and maybe the oil companies would bite!

Hockeydad,

Have you read Bushs' energy bill?????? With those kinds of no strings attatched subsidies, the major oil companies, should have no problems building to the EPA standards. Remember they were developed 35 years ago, with technology available then. Should be relatively cheap to implement 55 year old requirements.

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

P.S. OK 38 year old technology.

ooops.

that 55 should have been 25.

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

ooops again,

that 25, that was originally a 55, should have been a 35.

Are you extremely confused now????? LOL

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

Homie, you want increased oil refining capability? Ask the enviro-nazis where they'll let you put a new refinery!

Homebrew,

Refinerys today have the latest and greatest technology (speaking mostly for California). Just because they are using the same property doesn't mean things haven't evolved. Every few years we shut units down for major repairs, de-bottlenecking, and equipment upgrades.

In California there used to be 100+ refinerys along the coast, but the enviro nazi's and SCAQMD(Southern California Air Quality Management District) have made it almost impossible to run a refinery here unless it is backed by a Large company. The basin is down to 30 Refinerys now. We spend over $220 million a year just staying compliant to their rules and paying fines issued by the AQMD, which by the way are not regulated by the gov't and solely make their money off the fines they impose. To put it into perspective, we have diffrent limits with every PPM (part per million) leaks found. Any leaks 1,000ppm or less gives us a week to fix or get fined. 10,000ppm you have 3 days to fix it. 100,000ppm is a One day fix or face a fine up to $25,000. Ok, now imagine filling your tank in your vehicle, you are emitting well over 100,000ppm during your fill up. That's how stringent they make us run, mind you they are using high tech sensing equipment not their noses. We are talking in the WHOLE refinery which is well over 100,000 flanges, 100's of tanks, 1,000's of pumps, etc... For every empty drum sitting around without a lable is a $20,000 fine for each drum. This is just a sample of the many compliance rules.

It is impossible to build a new refinery by todays standards, we (BP) have tried but the AQMD and "not in my backyard" folks shoot it down everytime. Can you imagine a small oil company trying to build a new facility and having to comply and pay fines with the stringent air compliance rules. Plus an operating maintenence budget of 150 million not counting purchasing crude and other chemiclas etc...Not likely to happen!

They have a new one proposed near Yuma Arizona but it is already being attacked. It was supposed to be located in Phoenix but voted down. People bitch and moan every day we need more but it cost some serious dough to build one from scratch and all the loops to jump through.

I may also forgot to mention that all those prices, fines etc.. were for our ONE refinery out here in Carson, CA not the entire Cali basin.

Homebrew,

Yes, I have read the new Energy Policy. I think it is a joke but we may disagree on why.

Take a look at it again. Can you actually find any no strings attached subsidies? It is all strings attached subsidies but I wonder if any are large enough to actually be useful at encouraging the desired behavior.

Strings attached examples:

Drill in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico and get your royalty fees cut. Are the fees cut enough to cause a rush of deepwater drilling or is it still too expensive.....You have to drill to claim the subsidy-string attached.

Build more energy efficient appliances and get a tax credit. You still have to actually build the new appliances to claim the subsidy-string attached.

Buy a hybrid car and get a tax break. You still have to buy the car to claim the subsidy-string attached.

(I'm considering personally taking advantage of this one. The money for this tax break to the end consumer is 10% of the entire energy policy!)

Build an ethanol factory get a tax break. You still have to build the factory to claim the subsidy-string attached.

Cost overrun support for building a nuclear reactor. You still have to build the nuke to claim the subsidy-string attached.

The appropriate talking point criticism of the energy bill is something along these lines:

The bill does nothing to reduce dependence on foreign oil. - TRUE

The big oil companies don't need these subsidies at all because they're making money hand over first and should just do all these things we want anyway regardless of cost. - BUT THEIR MANAGEMENT AND STOCKHOLDERS AREN'T GOING TO WITHOUT SERIOUS FINANCIAL ENCOURAGEMENT. IT IS AS IF THEY BEAR THE SCARS OF DECADES OF GOVERNMENT ASSAULTS AND NIMBYs.

The problem with the energy bill is the government is trying to meddle in a globalized private industry to encourage certain behaviors and this always becomes very complicated. Private industry very well could look at the bill and all the complaints and just ignore it as still not being worth their efforts. I haven't seen a rush to permit refineries or nuclear power plants and 1/3 of the entire bill is nuclear related. If the industry ignores it, do we double the bid?

Hey 03Screw,

Sounds like the obsticles are state based. Build refineries in other states, if California state regs are too tough. The EPA regs, are what I am discussing.

HockeyDad,

You raise some valid points, but I believe that there are plenty of giveaways, which have no strings attatched, but I will have to study the bill more before I can point out specifics. I really think that there is too much emphasis on the supplyside, and not on the alternative energy source side.

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

Homebrew,

My state fully endorses the idea of building refineries in other states. There isn't a single oil refinery in Florida and we like it that way....And don't even try to drill offshore Florida....

I have suggested Arkansas as a nice place for a refinery! I think all of Florida will endorse it. I'll get right on it! Can I build a nuclear power plant there as well?

The problem with refineries is that you can't just talk EPA regulations. You have to take into account state, county, city, water board, school board, fire district, and pretty much anyone else who wants to jump on board. The oil companies still prefer my Honduras idea.

There is a few billion dollars in the Energy Policy for alternative energy. That is actually where some of the weakest strings are attached for studies, research, etc. The problem is wind farms are ugly and they kill birds, therefore.....Not In My Back Yard! I wonder how strong are the normal winds in Arkansas.

Now you want giveaways...Take a look at the $300 billion dollar Highway Act.

Hey HockyDad,

I live 25 miles from a nuclear power plant. Another one???? Sure. But be careful, the average Arkansas wage will go up. South Arkansas, has several refinerys, I am sure there is room for another. LOL But then again, watch out for rising wages. LOL

But don't worry. Arkansans are used to living below poverty level, so the wages will not get too high. LOL

Not to mention, that the tanker trucks can have refined in the USA on them.

Later

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

No problem with the wage increases. We'll just pass that cost on to the consumer, especially the ones in states that didn't want the refinery or nuke plant. I'm sure we'll pass a little of those costs on to the good folks in Arkansas just for kicks! Sure, the consumer is squealing now but a little more won't kill him.

Look on the bright side of living below the poverty level....Your cost competitive with Honduras in the global economy!

How does that Monty Python song go...always look on the bright side of life!