Comments on: Should We Thank The Environmentalists?

By: ShyGirl

ShyGirl — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:59:07 +0000

You’re absolutely right. We should turn this planet into a big, shriveled-up ball of oil rigs and smog, just so your life is a little bit easier. Why work on a long-term solution when there are all these half-proven GUESSES about short-term solutions available to us, right? Why think of the future when we’re far more important than anyone else ever will be? No one but you is entitled to their own opinion.
I am much amused that the same people who, just a few months ago, were defending Bush by denying that the oil issue was about anything other than supply and demand, are now blaming Nancy Pelosi, like she’s God or something.

By: ducky

ducky — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:54:30 +0000

when bush had a republican controlled congress for Six long years that was the conservatives big chance to change some environmental laws
and did they ?
NO
so Now you going to complain ?

By: .

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:27:29 +0000

Oilmen have absolutely no interest in lowering the price of oil, why would they sell their product for less, that’s capitalism !

By: Kissel

Kissel — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:51:11 +0000

I understand your frustration, but I find it annoying that people take this out on environmentalists.
Here is the definition of environmentalist, from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: en·vi·ron·men·tal·ist
Pronunciation: -t?-l?st
Function: noun
Date: 1916
1 : an advocate of environmentalism
2 : one concerned about environmental quality especially of the human environment with respect to the control of pollution
Sure sounds like a terrible type of person, huh? One who is concerned about the quality of the world in which we live.

By: Chuck A

Chuck A — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:01:41 +0000

The Oil Companies didn’t want Refiners when it started rising in 2001.
Oil Companies Sought to Boost Prices by Cutting Refinery Output
Associated Press – June 14, 2001
While the Bush administration cites the lack of* refineries* for energy shortages, internal oil industry documents show that five years ago companies were looking for ways to cut refinery output to boost* profits*. It takes about four years to build a large refinery so any substantial additional new capacity from new plants would have had to begin by the mid-1990s, energy expert acknowledge.
But some internal industry documents obtained by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., suggest that in the mid-1990s oil companies had no interest in building new* refineries* because of low profit margins and, in fact, were discussing the need to curtail refinery output to boost* profits*. “If the U.S. petroleum industry doesn’t reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins (*profits*),” said an internal Chevron document in November 1995.
The memo cited warnings given about refinery* profits* by a senior analyst from the American Petroleum Institute, the industry trade group, at an industry conference that year. API spokesman Jim Craig, reached Wednesday evening, said he knew nothing about the memo or its reference to an API conference.
A year later, an official at Texaco, in a memo marked “highly confidential,” called concerns about too much refinery capacity “the most critical factor” facing the refinery industry – resulting in “very poor refining financial results.”
The Texaco memo, written in March, 1996, concluded that “significant events” were required to deal with the excess refinery capacity problem and suggested one solution might be to get the government to lift clean air requirements for an oxygenate in gasoline. Removal of the additive would require more gasoline to be used in each gallon of fuel, tightening supplies.
While refinery capacity now has become tight, the oil industry is still pressing for an end to the federal requirement for an oxygenate in gasoline, arguing new blends of gasoline can meet the same clean air requirements. “The documents suggest that major oil companies pursued efforts to curtail refinery capacity as a strategy for improving profit margins,” said Wyden, who was releasing the papers at a news conference today… Wyden said the documents he obtained – including the internal Texaco and Chevron memos – suggest that oil companies in the ’90s “sought to eliminate excess capacity to improve* profits*.
He said some of the* refineries* that were closed may have been* shuttered* “specifically to tighten supply and* drive up* costs” to consumers, although he provided no specific documentation of this.
But Wyden obtained a confidential 1996 e-mail from Mobil Corp., which has since merged with Exxon, that suggests major oil companies were not reluctant during the 1990s to try to force smaller independents out of business.
A California refinery owned by Powerine Oil Co., had ceased operation in 1995, but was trying to start* up* again a year later hoping to compete in production of a special, cleaner gasoline required by the state.
This gas was selling at a premium and Powerine’s reentry into the market could cause the price to drop as much as 3 cents a gallon, a Mobil executive warned in the internal e-mail. “Needless to say, we would all like to see Powerine stay down,” the memo continued. “Full court press is warranted in this case.” The refinery remained closed.

By: MikeSnak

MikeSnak — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:51:15 +0000

I think you’re pretty shortsighted in that you don’t seem to realize that a dependency on oil is the main problem here–not the high prices. What would be impressive would be to see BP invest in implementing some alternative fuel technology and the associated research. They could corner that market and move on from oil. That’s better for the environment anyway. It’s pretty lame on your part to write off concerned environmentalists as “tree huggers.” Oil will need to be phased out eventually, and we have the technology, let’s get started by making these alternatives more available and affordable to the public.

By: clintonb

clintonb — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:23:05 +0000

Yes we should.
The other day ole plastic face polosi would not bring the energy bill to the floor for a vote, the reason, she did not want the drill here and now bill to be brought up to the floor for a vote. Now 70% of Americans want that. But ole plastic face does not.
So while she is flying around in her jet (that we pay for, fuel and all) we can thank her. (would not want ole plastic face sitting in traffic)
So here is are the democrats (that supposedly care for the people and feel our pain) saying SCREW YOU what are you going to do to us.
Amazing how they seem to have forgotten
“WE THE PEOPLE”
I say lets all ban together and start a drive to replace all the dead wood in both houses.

By: kill_yr_

kill_yr_ — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:03:26 +0000

I’m reminded of the corporatistas blaming GM’s problems on those pesky labor unions instead of examining the insanely bad management decisions of the last 20 years. True, the oil companies SAY that the fault is environmentalism, but why would a sensible person take them at their word? I suggest you do a bit of research on topics like the role environmental law played in oil companies’ decisions to cease drilling in 12 of the 14 states in which they have oil leases, like what % of production from US refineries is exported oversease, and so on. Then when you have a balanced set of FACTS — instead of corporate PR brought to you by corporate owned media — start asking the appropriate questions.
The proper term for the logical fallacy you are committing is “unwarranted assumption” — you might to research that too to save yourself from making this sort of gaffe in the future. Remember your high school research reports: a peer review journal is an authoritative source while a ‘review of the literature’ is opinion and not acceptable as a “factual source” at all.

By: Last Ranger

Last Ranger — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:13:51 +0000

Yes we should.
Every restriction placed on energy production was done so in the name of the ‘environment’.
The dems are a wholly owned subsidiary of the environmental groups.
There approach is to do nothing until it is too late then tell us that anything done will take so long it will have no immediate impact. Well no $hit! What a surprise another self-fulfilling prophecy.
If they hadn’t been obstructing every effort for 30 years we would have more energy on line NOW.
Their answer yet again will be, to do nothing until the next great crisis.
Remember algore suggested that the government artificially raise the price of gas to $5, and we aren’t there yet. So, the government has not reached its goal yet.

By: Open your eyes

Open your eyes — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:56:30 +0000

Refineries or lack thereof are not the reason that oil prices are so high. The real culprit is unsustainable growth. The world cannot afford to keep growing the way that it has in the last ten, fifteen years. A slowdown was inevitable as was a massive increase in the price of a rapidly dwindling natural resource. The Global elite massively underestimated the amount of oil left in the ground and also the amount of oil growing industrial nations such as China and India would need this decade. To talk aboout refineries in America as being the problem when this is a global phenomenon that the whole world is facing is pitiful and not very well thought out at all. I remember you. You used to be more intelligent than this. Only people that are not informed will agree with you.