• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gas Prices? Who's Fault?

26 X World Champs said:
Are you a super geologist? I ask because it is my understanding that if we sucked all the oil out of ANWAR it would not produce more than ONE YEAR'S supply of oil for the USA, so please, Mr. Geologist, please explain how ANWAR is the solution to our oild dependency?

It's supposed to be between a year and a half and two year supply, but that is if it were the only oil we used for that period, and of course it would and could not be.

Why, because projected peak output would be approximately 1.4 million barrels per day, which would be substantial (More than Texas+Louisiana or California+Louisiana produce daily), but certainly not enough to stop using oil from all other sources. Divide the 1.4 million barrels per day, by the estimated 10.4 billion barrels of expected recoverable oil, then divide by 365 and that will tell you how many years it will add to the total supply, not replace it. Off the top of my head that is somewhat over 20 years isn't it? It would just add to the availability pool, that's all.
 
C.J. said:
It's supposed to be between a year and a half and two year supply, but that is if it were the only oil we used for that period, and of course it would and could not be.

Why, because projected peak output would be approximately 1.4 million barrels per day, which would be substantial (More than Texas+Louisiana or California+Louisiana produce daily), but certainly not enough to stop using oil from all other sources. Divide the 1.4 million barrels per day, by the estimated 10.4 billion barrels of expected recoverable oil, then divide by 365 and that will tell you how many years it will add to the total supply, not replace it. Off the top of my head that is somewhat over 20 years isn't it? It would just add to the availability pool, that's all.
Thanks for the info. However my point is that it will not alter our dependency on Arab oil which is what that other poster meant, IMHO.

Do you know that Saudi Arabia pumps out 10.5 Million barrels PER DAY and has 263 BILLION barrel reserve? Using your math that means they have 25 times as much oil in RESERVE as ANWAR can produce.

Sunday's NY Times Magazine's cover story is on this very subject. It's a very long story. Here's a brief excerpt.

The Breaking Point

By PETER MAASS
Published: August 21, 2005 - NY Times Magazine

you need to know whether the Saudis, who possess 22 percent of the world's oil reserves, can increase their country's output beyond its current limit of 10.5 million barrels a day, and even beyond the 12.5-million-barrel target it has set for 2009. (World consumption is about 84 million barrels a day.) Saudi Arabia is the sole oil superpower. No other producer possesses reserves close to its 263 billion barrels, which is almost twice as much as the runner-up, Iran, with 133 billion barrels. New fields in other countries are discovered now and then, but they tend to offer only small increments. For example, the much-contested and as-yet-unexploited reserves in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge are believed to amount to about 10 billion barrels, or just a fraction of what the Saudis possess.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21OIL.html?pagewanted=1

It's an interesting piece. Someone here wrote that we have an "endless supply" of oil. That is a foolish and yes, ignorant comment as it simply isn't true, period.

If you read this story it is very clear what the truth is....
 
Initially, the claim was made that gas prices are increasing because of insufficient domestic US refineries. I have yet to see objective support of this claim. This is a long thread, and I am new here, so perhaps I missed it. Either case, kindly direct me to it.

Further, assuming the support has been posted, and I missed it in all the Dem vs Rep charges, please support the claim that the reason for insufficient oil refineries is the so-called "environmentalists." It might help to define them, since the context in which the term was used implies an Earth-first type hippie, which is unlikely to have much influence over congress. Congress was ultimately claimed to have passed laws prohibiting refinery development.

Finally, I'd also be interested to know what countries have sufficient refinery capacity, while simultaneously demonstrating flat gas prices.
 
Posted on Fri, Jun. 03, 2005

U.S. not likely to build more refineries

Maxed-out refineries are adding to the cost of gasoline, but several hurdles keep companies from investing in new ones.

BY KEVIN G. HALL

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - America's unquenched thirst for gasoline is stretching the nation's refineries to their limits. Even so, no new refineries are likely to be built soon, and that helps ensure that gas prices will stay high as America becomes increasingly dependent on foreign-made gasoline...

...Investors fear that U.S. refineries are stretched too thin. A single accident could disrupt the strained supplies and lead to shortages. To ensure against that risk, buyers bid up the price of oil contracts, and the price of gasoline -- a refined derivative of oil -- rises in the process...

In virtually any other business, such tight production capacity would spark investment in new facilities. But refining isn't a typical business. Few Americans want refineries in their back yards, polluting the neighborhood and driving down home prices.

And a new, modern refinery costs more than $2.5 billion. That seems like Mount Everest to an industry that's coming out of two decades of weak profits.

Annual refinery profits have averaged below 6 percent in the 29 years since the last new refinery opened in the United States in Garyville, La.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/business/11801202.htm
 
Great post there cnredd :cool: You saved me the time and hassle.
 
Batman said:
Great post there cnredd :cool: You saved me the time and hassle.

I only joined this forum to make life easier for you....I have a quest...:2wave:
 
stop using SUVs, unless you are a farmer or you live up a mountain:lol: :lol:
 
Stoneripple said:
Initially, the claim was made that gas prices are increasing because of insufficient domestic US refineries. I have yet to see objective support of this claim. This is a long thread, and I am new here, so perhaps I missed it. Either case, kindly direct me to it.

Further, assuming the support has been posted, and I missed it in all the Dem vs Rep charges, please support the claim that the reason for insufficient oil refineries is the so-called "environmentalists." It might help to define them, since the context in which the term was used implies an Earth-first type hippie, which is unlikely to have much influence over congress. Congress was ultimately claimed to have passed laws prohibiting refinery development.

Finally, I'd also be interested to know what countries have sufficient refinery capacity, while simultaneously demonstrating flat gas prices.

We import a lot of gasoline as well as crude, and there are several refinery outages in those countries we import from. Contrary to popular belief, neither OPEC or the oil companies control prices, at least not directly. Exporting countries can have an effect on price by increasing or decreasing production, and this would have an effect on the market, and in that respect they have an indirect affect. The price of crude oil is set by movements on the three major international petroleum exchanges, the International Petroleum Exchange in London, the Singapore International Monetary Exchange and the New York Mercantile Exchange. With refinery outages and/or at peak capacity, consumption not falling, results in a tight supply, and the exchanges get worried, and prices rise. They worry about disruption by any manner, such as accidents, like the Venezuela refinery, as well as uncertain global political environment especially in oil producing countries. In a nutshell, the supply is tight and investors are concerned about supply, and this drives prices up.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Thanks for the info. However my point is that it will not alter our dependency on Arab oil which is what that other poster meant, IMHO.

Sure it would. It would supply 10% of what we import totally, which would amount to approximately one third of what we import from the middle east. We import more from either Canada and Mexico than we do from the middle east.

26 X World Champs said:
Do you know that Saudi Arabia pumps out 10.5 Million barrels PER DAY and has 263 BILLION barrel reserve? Using your math that means they have 25 times as much oil in RESERVE as ANWAR can produce.

But you seem to be assuming we get all of the Saudi oil, when actually we only get 1.5 mbd from Saudi Arabia, not the 10.5 mbp they export totally.
 
There are many factors pushing the prices up.

One is the lack of U.S petrol refineries. China and India's rapid development, and instability in Iraq, is making oil traders nervous.

Even if we find new oil reserves around the world, it may not garentee cheaper petrol prices.

All oils aren't the same, same crude oils are not suitable, or too expensive to convert to petroleum, and are actual used in plastics, or as oil heating fuel. I believe that the crude used for petrol (gas as you guys call it) is produced prodominately from Light Sweet Crude, and Brent Crude.

Also, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations, did nothing to pressure Detroit to produce fuel efficient cars. Sure people should be allowed to have the choice of cars, that's what freedom of choice is about.... But the fuel used to power cars does not have the same liberties. It comes from a select few countries, that we only tolerate because we need their oil. Oil itself is non-renewable, so therefore people need to be conscious of its use.

I'm not going to just bag SUV's, because all those Bentley's, Rolls Royces, Ferraris, and Lambos have just as bad fuel consumption. So if you want freedom of choice in cars, you can't really bitch about fuel prices, when you suddenly realise that it would be cheaper to have an african elephant on a cocaine habbit, than to pay to fill up the Chevi Suburban!

End note, even if the U.S starts to drill for oil in new areas of Alaska, and starts to build more refineries, it may only reduce the price of the barrel by a few dollars. Because China and India, are still consuming more of the stuff at an ever growing rate. As global demand increases for oil, and as production maximises out, we are all going to have to get used to increased petrol prices well into the future.
 
Last edited:
C.J. said:
In a nutshell, the supply is tight and investors are concerned about supply, and this drives prices up.

I can accept the position that a precieved shortage in refinery capacity is enough to drive prices up. Now, what of the other claim that the reason domestic refineries have not been built is because of "environmentalists."
 
Stoneripple said:
I can accept the position that a precieved shortage in refinery capacity is enough to drive prices up. Now, what of the other claim that the reason domestic refineries have not been built is because of "environmentalists."

As you mentioned previously, it would help if someone were to define environmentalists. That lacking I will use the word in its most liberal form. Environmentalists have lobbied government to block new refinery construction, as well as to have some existing refineries decommissioned. It has been estimated that to build a refinery would take over 800 permits and over 2.5 billion dollars, half of which is due to complying with environmental regulations and legal expenses involved in jumping hurtles set by environmentalists. The National Petrochemical and Refiners Association reports that environmentalist-related costs have totaled $47 billion over the past decade; that’s enough to have built 19 new refineries.

That said, I believe it would be very unwise to build refineries with no environmental consideration, but we should be aware that due to them it will cost more, and oil companies will resist building them unless there is sufficient profit motive.
 
Stoneripple said:
I can accept the position that a precieved shortage in refinery capacity is enough to drive prices up. Now, what of the other claim that the reason domestic refineries have not been built is because of "environmentalists."

And awaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy we go....

Prices at gas pumps are at some of the highest levels ever this summer and Americans want answers. In particular they want the names and numbers of those to blame. To answer that question perhaps they should simply consult the phone book or look in the mirror. Because the main culprits in the rising gas prices aren't necessarily members of OPEC, but the American people who support policies that block new drilling and the building of new refineries. It's that simple.

The real political parties in America are the NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) and the BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). These two political forces are driving the future of the nation by dictating the policy agendas of the Republicans and Democrats. Soon, the national bird will no longer be the noble eagle, but the ostrich...

...There's no place in our pretty, clean, politically-correct, well-ordered world for industry to make the things we need yet, when all of our toys don't work, Americans are outraged and they want heads to roll. Fix it!

Yes, what silly children Americans have become. Yet one can hardly blame the results of two decades of implementing the radical agendas of special interests like the Sierra Club and The Nature Conservancy. These rich and powerful groups have spent billions of dollars to push their agenda of no growth (called Sustainable Development) through Congress and to indoctrinate the rest of us to feel guilty about our very existence. We're sorry we need to use energy. We're sorry that we have to grow food to eat. We're sorry that we keep inventing creature comforts for ourselves....

...Eighty-eight per cent of the energy for America's transportation, industry, government, and residential needs comes from oil, gas, and coal. Without them the nation shuts down. Yet there is no drive in Congress to ease regulations to allow for domestic production.

Through pressure from environmental organizations, Congress and federal agencies have banned oil activity from more than 300 million acres of federal land onshore and more than 460 million acres offshore in the past 20 years. An estimated 67 per cent of oil reserves and 40 per cent of natural gas reserves are locked away on federal lands in America's western states....

...However, the nation's energy problem is much worse than just not being able to drill our American oil. Even if we could drill our own oil or even had a glut of imported oil, the supply crisis couldn't be averted to bring oil prices down. That's because the United States hasn't built a new oil refinery since 1976. All remaining American refineries are running at full capacity. There is barely time for the plants to shut down to perform needed upkeep and repairs because such activity will cause a bump in the system and force prices up. The industry can do nothing to keep up with demand. Rules and regulations, both federal and state, are blocking the industry's ability to build new refineries....

...To build a new refinery would take a risk of at least $2 billion in a ten-year undertaking. In the end, even if permits are obtained there is no guarantee that the refinery will ever be built. Nobody wants to invest in new refineries because there is no money to be made. If there were investors willing to take the risk, where would it be built? What town would welcome it? What land would be used? Radical environmentalists are well organized to build pressure on any politician who might support such an endeavor. They know how to energize the NIMBYs and BANANAs. All the greens have to do is voice concerns about air pollution or the dangers of large trucks carrying hazardous materials or the potential for leakage into the environment. Just a hint at these things and poof, the refinery is history. Scientific facts are rarely heard in the din of the argument....

...So oil prices continue to rise as demand increases and supply gets locked away in a national park, or bottlenecked in an ever-shrinking number of American refineries. Our elected representatives play silly games. Environmentalists relentlessly push their anti-civilization agenda. And the indignant NIMBY's and BANANA's continue to sleep, satisfied that their world is well controlled.


http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0704/0704nimby.htm
 
cnredd said:
And awaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy we go....

As a matter of information, there is at least one refinery which is being planned and some initial permits issued, along the CA and AZ border. We can look forward to reaping the benefits in 10-15 years.
 
I think to blame the American people for the problem of high oil and gas prices really misses the mark. Having said that I think I know who is to blame:

Every Democrat and Republican in Congress and those who are called party leaders. Where have they been for the last 2, 4, 6, 10, 30 years? Didn't they see this problem coming? Didn't they ask? Why have CAFE Standards if they aren't seen, addressed, adjusted or even used? What does your Congressman say he has done to deal with a problem we saw coming? Petrol in Europe has been over $5 a gallon (USD) for years. No one noticed?

How about the auto makers? Want another Hummer in the driveway? Where are the low end cars just for transportation? Wouldn't that save gas?

You can't blame the environmentalist organizations who have spent millions on attorneys and law suits for everything from tiny fish and frogs to "death to the smokestack". Some here think they line the pockets of Republicans and Democrats and that's true because Republicans and Democrats are used to having their pockets lined. You can't get elected without votes and MONEY. Ever vote? Best one out of 2? And the best we can do is a Democrat or Republican? Sheesh

Oh and you all know that home heating oil season is just around the corner and the price per gallon of that gold liquid is going through the roof for the last 4 months and will keep it up. Just wait til they start burning it. Best thing to do is pray for global warming.

Then there is the stuff they put in gas. MTBE instead of LEAD instead of research. Just gotta placate someone but when they started finding poluted wells in the Pomona Valley well then they decided to look at MTBE. By that time they had a good supply. They just pumped it out of the ground. By the way, congress just approved and the President signed legislation so the oil companies can't be sued over MTBE. Why? Want $7 gas? (it's going there anyway).

THE PRICE OF GAS WILL NEVER COME DOWN. Even though Saudi Arabia said it would be happy with $25 a barrel just 2 years ago that was 2 years ago. Saudi Arabia pumps 10.4 million barrels of oil into the market every day. The world uses 85 million barrels a day and that will be 87 million by next year.

Remember the Rabbit? Remember the Yugo? Remember the Beetle? One day they will say, "Remember the Explorer?"
:duel :cool:
 
If I understand the arguments, CJ and Cnredd blame environmentalists for high gas prices. Gordontravels seems to be blaming everybody, which is at least easy to keep consistent.
For the former arguments, the claim is, in a nutshell:
Environmentalists caused refineries to be decomissioned, and have prevented the building of new refineries.​

To support this, you will have to show that the decomissioned refineries were, in fact, still safe, efficient and operational. How old were they, and what was their safety record, for example? Many types of industrial sites are decomissioned as part of their normal lifetime, exclusive of environmentalist actions.

The claim that environmentalists have prevented building of new refineries is unfounded. Environmentalists do not make law - congress does. Congress has not passed a federal law halting refinery development, to my knowledge. In fact, CJ has volunteered that some permits have been passed for new US refineries.

The argument seems to be that the red-tape involved in building a plant costs too much money. CJ claims that 19 new refineries could be built if there was no environmental regulation. Cnredd seems to support the opposite of NIMBY, presumably allowing government to take land for refinery use, if necessary (although he hasn't proposed such an extreme, it follows from his post).

Therefore, is the argument that there should be no environmental regulations, so that the US can build refineries, and help lower the cost of gas?
 
gordontravels said:
As to the spending over the last four years I don't care who is in control. Democrats and Republicans are in control and you will find both parties voting for and taking home the pork. The best example of this not happening was when we had a Democrat as President and Republicans in control. Those were the days that control meant something.
Very interesting, gordon.
Last time there was a good period in France (less jobless, better standard of life, etc..) was when the president was right-wing, and the govt left-wing.
In Belgium, we have a one-tour vote, meaning that govts have to make coalitions, thus better control.

I also think that control over the actions of the govt is the essence of democracy. And the best way to control those actions is through the house, as long as the representatives don't "follow the party line" without thinking, and that the voters check what has been done before the next elections.

We have a small site (I'll try to find the URL, but it's in french) where the promises of all politicians are recorded. I think that we should try to set that up a bit further, and note the date the promise was made and the date the promise was fulfilled. It could really help people making a choice between politicians when they have to go voting..

In fact, what we lack is thinking politicians, people who think 'bout WHY they've been elected instead of WHAT they can get by being elected.

Maybe I'm a bit daydreaming, here :3oops:

CU
Y
 
Stoneripple said:
If I understand the arguments, CJ and Cnredd blame environmentalists for high gas prices. Gordontravels seems to be blaming everybody, which is at least easy to keep consistent.
For the former arguments, the claim is, in a nutshell:
Environmentalists caused refineries to be decomissioned, and have prevented the building of new refineries.​

The claim that environmentalists have prevented building of new refineries is unfounded. Environmentalists do not make law - congress does. Congress has not passed a federal law halting refinery development, to my knowledge. In fact, CJ has volunteered that some permits have been passed for new US refineries.

Therefore, is the argument that there should be no environmental regulations, so that the US can build refineries, and help lower the cost of gas?

Environmental regulation whether credible or not; environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy filing lawsuits; environmental groups giving money to elect someone who will do their bidding (all these things are real) - have cost us at the pump and please, there is no refuting this if you have just simply watched Dan Rather over the last 20 years.

No drilling off the coast of California. Expensive regulation for platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. The expense of building a nuclear reactor or oil refinery even before the permits are granted. Congressmen that won't consider working on legislation because of that money in their pocket or even the ones that have some integrity left; the ones that won't move even though there will be a future. Stay safe Republicans and Democrats that think re-election is more important than you and me paying 3 or 4 dollars for a gallon of gas.

It is known that both refineries and nuclear power facilities are next to impossible to build or bring on line. I have listed here that I think everyone is responsible for this and especially our Republican and Democrat representatives in Congress over the last 30 years - doing nothing about a resource that will eventually run out. I don't blame any single President because he can only request of his party or the Congress, try to work with them and it is up to Congress to draft a bill and send it to him for his signature.

And another thing. I always try to be consistent. Want to blame someone for high gas prices? How about the 2 party system that works for itself and doesn't work for us.
:duel :cool:
 
epr64 said:
Very interesting, gordon.
Last time there was a good period in France (less jobless, better standard of life, etc..) was when the president was right-wing, and the govt left-wing.
In Belgium, we have a one-tour vote, meaning that govts have to make coalitions, thus better control.

I also think that control over the actions of the govt is the essence of democracy. And the best way to control those actions is through the house, as long as the representatives don't "follow the party line" without thinking, and that the voters check what has been done before the next elections.

We have a small site (I'll try to find the URL, but it's in french) where the promises of all politicians are recorded. I think that we should try to set that up a bit further, and note the date the promise was made and the date the promise was fulfilled. It could really help people making a choice between politicians when they have to go voting..

In fact, what we lack is thinking politicians, people who think 'bout WHY they've been elected instead of WHAT they can get by being elected.

Maybe I'm a bit daydreaming, here :3oops:

CU
Y

Some good points you make here and I want to add one of mine.

Cindy Sheehan is grabbing headlines from the "entertainment news media" and many in that "scandal for you" media like to point out that the President is on vacation like he isn't doing anything. They like to make it seem he should meet with Cindy for the very fact that he IS on vacation and has plenty of time on his hands.

Every one of our Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen are on vacation and gas has gone up what 20% since they've been on "vacation"? What about them. Don't they have time to work on what is causing the price of gasoline to go up? I am just waiting for the first "politician" that comes back from "vacation" and even tries to put any blame on the President without putting the blame on the other party and their own and themselves. Don't do it Democrats and Republicans! This is ALL your fault.

This problem is the fault of and the lack of action on the part of all politicians that could require higher gas mileage and lower speed limits. Corporate heads that fed us gas guzzlers. Foreign governments raising prices. Environmentalists and their groups and their bought politicians. And us. We the people that have put our faith in our government representatives and in particular Republicans and Democrats that do nothing.

Someone pointed out that they have a site that records politicians promises. That wouldn't work here because in a 2 party system where we have to choose one or another just to vote, it is more important to them to make sure their retirement and pay goes higher instead of worrying about the price of gasoline. There's not a politician who is effected by the price of gas at all or as much as the lady that greets you at the door of Wal-Mart.

That's our fault; all of us; you and me.
:duel :cool:
 
For those who think our refinery capacity is just fine, read em and weep:

March 23, BP’s Texas City refinery: “raffinate splitter tower” holds flammable liquids used to boost octane. Over fills and explodes. Don’t think BP planned this. 15 dead 170 injured. Loss to the market? 470,000 barrels of oil refining per day.

July 20, Chevron’s El Segundo refinery: fire. 150,000 barrels taken off the market per day.

July 26, Novo-Ufimsk refinery in Russia: fire and ruptured pipeline 117,000 barrels off the market per day.

July 28, Murphy Oil's Meraux refinery: “mishaps”. 120,000 barrels off the market per day.

July 28, Exxon’s Joliet, Illinois refinery: “shutdown”. 235,000 barrels off the market per day.

We don’t have enough refinery capacity and already rumor has led to long gas lines and shut down stations in Georgia and Hawaii. Republicans and Democrats are at the bottom of this and we all know it.
:duel :cool:
 
gordontravels said:
...and please, there is no refuting this if you have just simply watched Dan Rather over the last 20 years.
Fortunately, that is not the extent of my exposure to the world. But, before you start attacking me with accusations of assumed ignorance, please demonstrate that you can support your claims.

If the problem is oil refineries, any issue you have with "drilling off the coast of california" is not relevant. The crude oil is currently arriving at the refineries, however limited their capacity.

Given that the problem is oil refinery capacity, blaming the environmentalists is the next step, which is not proven by stating:

gordontravels said:
It is known that both refineries and nuclear power facilities are next to impossible to build or bring on line.

I've wasted my time on too many online debate sites to begin a serious discussion, until I deem that someone will at least try to back-up their claims. I am not interested in your unsubstantiated opinion. I trust you are not interested in mine, so when I make a claim, I promise to provide support.

Now, I fully expect you can provide some support. I've also listed the points I feel need to be addressed. If you feel otherwise, then please prove your premises in a different manner...but do something objective.
 
I am not interested in your unsubstantiated opinion. I trust you are not interested in mine, so when I make a claim, I promise to provide support.

Not to be a butthole but heres your substantiation so to say:

March 23, BP’s Texas City refinery: “raffinate splitter tower” holds flammable liquids used to boost octane. Over fills and explodes. Don’t think BP planned this. 15 dead 170 injured. Loss to the market? 470,000 barrels of oil refining per day.

July 20, Chevron’s El Segundo refinery: fire. 150,000 barrels taken off the market per day.

July 26, Novo-Ufimsk refinery in Russia: fire and ruptured pipeline 117,000 barrels off the market per day.

July 28, Murphy Oil's Meraux refinery: “mishaps”. 120,000 barrels off the market per day.

July 28, Exxon’s Joliet, Illinois refinery: “shutdown”. 235,000 barrels off the market per day.

We don’t have enough refinery capacity and already rumor has led to long gas lines and shut down stations in Georgia and Hawaii. Republicans and Democrats are at the bottom of this and we all know it.

I've wasted my time on too many online debate sites to begin a serious discussion,

I sure hope you didnt intend to incl this one in your anecdote cause 4 posts? I AM SURE IT TOOK YOU YEARS TO COME UP WITH 4 MAGICAL POSTS, :lol:
 
Skilmatic,
I don't get it - you seem to be claiming that congress caused three refinery fires, and several mishaps. The Republicans and Democrats did that?

I'll accept that refinery capacity is the limiting factor, but the claim was made that environmentalists, and/or environmental lobbyists caused the problem, not accidents at refineries!

SKILMATIC said:
I sure hope you didnt intend to incl this one in your anecdote cause 4 posts? I AM SURE IT TOOK YOU YEARS TO COME UP WITH 4 MAGICAL POSTS, :lol:

Skilmatic - try google - there are a few thousand other debate sites...umm...not just this one.
 
Last edited:
Stoneripple said:
Fortunately, that is not the extent of my exposure to the world. But, before you start attacking me with accusations of assumed ignorance, please demonstrate that you can support your claims.

If the problem is oil refineries, any issue you have with "drilling off the coast of california" is not relevant. The crude oil is currently arriving at the refineries, however limited their capacity.

Given that the problem is oil refinery capacity, blaming the environmentalists is the next step, which is not proven by stating:

Originally Posted by gordontravels
Quote: It is known that both refineries and nuclear power facilities are next to impossible to build or bring on line. End Quote

I've wasted my time on too many online debate sites to begin a serious discussion, until I deem that someone will at least try to back-up their claims. I am not interested in your unsubstantiated opinion. I trust you are not interested in mine, so when I make a claim, I promise to provide support.

Now, I fully expect you can provide some support. I've also listed the points I feel need to be addressed. If you feel otherwise, then please prove your premises in a different manner...but do something objective.

I find it interesting that you assume I will "start (by) attacking (you) with accusations of assumed ignorance". Please, have the patience to write, read and debate. I have sources for what I have written but if you want a particular article or purveyor of pontification I don't do that. I will be glad to give you the players and you, if you haven't over the years, may educate yourself to philosophy and actions. I'd like you to remember one thing. If I blame anyone for "Gas Prices? Who's Fault?", it is the Republicans and Democrats that run our political means and ends.

If I'm not mistaken you want me to go back years and educate you when I have no idea how "young" you may be. I could ask questions. Are you familiar with the Sierra Club or the Nature Conservancy? You can visit their websites easily and read their philosophy and activities for yourself. In particular, the Sierra Club and their work on the oil production of California. You seem to think that our refinery capacity of today wouldn't be effected by oil from California since it would only add to today's oil we wouldn't need. You plant a tomatoe seed you get tomatoes. Why consider building more refinery capacity in the 60's and 70's if we weren't going after the oil we had? Could we have more refinery capacity today if yesterday was different? So you tell me what's relevant.

You are asking me to "prove" that environmentalists have had a hand both in the courts and the political arena in stopping power companies and oil companies from building facilities without huge up front expenses and burdensome regulation? You do know that it can take up to 9, 10 or more years just for the application and permits process before any construction of a refinery or nuclear plant even begins? Please tell me that you aren't serious. I know you must know this has been going on for years. Are you familiar with the snail darter; the pup fish; how about the northeastern California farmers who watched their crops die because water had to be used to save a fish in a stream instead of held in a dam for crop sustenance. You know these things go on all the time and developers, power companies and oil companies are environmentalist's targets, deserved or not.

As for your "trust" in what I am interested or not interested in: Opinion, whether substantiated or not makes no difference to me. I post my opinion regardless what anyone else thinks. I do that from my own knowledge from years of living in California, reading, listening to news, being politically involved and reading what others, including you, have to say. You don't want to be attacked? That's ok with me. I've spent my life building the support within myself for the opinions that I write about. For instance:

High gas prices are a direct result of a government full of Republicans and Democrats that haven't addressed the problems of energy with the public in mind for years. They haven't done their jobs. They have more interest in working on an election or re-election campaign than thinking ahead to what we are now facing. They are on vacation while gas prices go up and the bastions like the New York Times and CBS News cry out about how hard these fuel prices are on everyone from a poor city worker to Wal-Mart. They ignore CAFE Standards for years while beautiful women buy Hummers and look for parking places. Republicans and Democrats are at the bottom of the current energy problem and the high prices we are paying now.

So, if you think I "waste" your time then please, skip my posts and find someone else or leave yet another forum and find one with those of your caliber or at the least, the caliber you seek. When I tell you my opinion based on educated facts don't ask me what article or website I got it from. You can disprove it if you disagree or educate yourself. If I actually quote someone as in a "today's article" in the New York Times, I'll let you know. So stay or leave thinking I am brilliant or a fool. I'm staying. I like it here.
:duel :cool:
 
gordontravels said:
I find it interesting that you assume I will "start (by) attacking (you) with
accusations of assumed ignorance".
I made no assumption - you already took this action in post#68:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=66342&postcount=68
gordontravels said:
...and please, there is no refuting this if you have just simply watched Dan Rather over the last 20 years
And, you continue to do so, by assuming that I have not read the thread, or am too young, etc:
gordontravels said:
Please, have the patience to write, read
and debate.
and
gordontravels said:
...educate you when I have no
idea how "young" you may be
(PS - my birthdate is in my profile, should you care to do a little "research" before you post)

All this because I asked you a question? And your response?
gordontravels said:
I have sources for what I have written but if you want a
particular article or purveyor of pontification I don't do that.

Well, if you just "don't do that," then you are skipping a rather fundamental point of debate. Instead, you just want to monologue. Big deal.
gordontravels said:
So stay or
leave thinking I am brilliant or a fool. I'm staying. I like it here.
Well, of course you like it here, if you are never burdened with backing-up your claims. You get points for opening the topic, though.

At least CJ and other thread participants have made some sound arguments.

I like it here too.
 
Back
Top Bottom