Green rules seen on "chopping block" post-Rita

[conjur]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsartic...0_US-HURRICANES-ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT.xml

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Republicans on Wednesday will launch a rapid-fire assault against environmental protections on the pretext of helping the U.S. oil and gas industry recover from hurricane damage, environmental groups charge.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Resources Committee are holding separate meetings to finalize legislation on Wednesday, with the aim of combining them into a single energy bill for the full House to debate next week.

The resources panel, led by Richard Pombo of California, wants to lift a ban on Florida offshore drilling, promote oil shale and sell a dozen national parks for energy development.

"This really has very little to do with the hurricanes or relief efforts or even refiners. This is deregulation pure and simple," said John Walke of Natural Resources Defense Council.

Texan Joe Barton's energy committee wants to expand U.S. gasoline production by loosening federal rules that limit pollution when refineries or coal-fired power plants are expanded. U.S. gasoline supplies have tightened since hurricanes Katrina and Rita roared across the U.S. Gulf Coast, closing up to one-fourth of the nation's refining capacity.

House Republicans received a thumbs up from President George W. Bush on Monday when he said environmental rules and paperwork are obstacles holding up U.S. refinery expansions.

Bush specifically criticized the relatively obscure "new source review" rule administered by the Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Clean Air Act. It aims to protect public health by ensuring that refinery expansions do not increase acid rain and smog.

Environmentalists perked up their ears at Bush's remarks, noting that he rarely mentions the program.

"You know darn well that the president doesn't have a clue what new source review is," said Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch. "It's clear that there's a coordinated effort between the White House and Congress to put key environmental protections on the chopping block."

Barton said his bill would help U.S. refiners gird against another natural disaster like the recent hurricanes, which highlighted the U.S. dearth of refining capacity.

In an interview, Barton said new source review "was a tool to blackmail industry" into deferring plant upgrades.

"We don't want more emissions but we do want to give existing industrial facilities the ability to retrofit and modernize without going through a laborious permitting process," Barton said.

A draft copy of Barton's bill would codify an EPA proposal that allows plants to expand their facilities without triggering anti-pollution rules, NRDC'S Walke said. That proposal was frozen by a federal judge in a lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

"If the new Barton rule were adopted it would set us back 40 or 50 years," said Judith Enck, a Spitzer aide.

It would also adopt a utility-friendly strategy that says the anti-pollution rules only apply if expansion projects boost hourly emission rates, not overall plant emissions. Using that test, a federal appeals court in June ruled that Duke Power did not violate the law by expanding eight North Carolina plants without adding expensive anti-pollution devices.

Pombo's separate bill would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling as well as letting states opt out of an offshore oil leasing ban. He also wants to sell 15 national parks for energy or commercial development, including the Mary McLeod Bethune House in Washington, D.C.

This administration has already used Katrina to move toward eliminating Davis-Bacon. Now they're going to use Katrina and Rita to remove even more environmental protections that don't need to be removed.

I mean, didn't he just say we all need to conserve? Hasn't he been trying to tout some energy bill encouraging alternative fuel research? Then why the need to drill in the Gulf (which is already prone to more and more dangerous hurricanes) and SELLING A DOZEN NATIONAL PARKS?! WTF? Teddy Roosevelt is spinning in his grave!

 

[zendari]

The hippies are going to be out in force.

 

[conjur]

And the trolls come out already. Do you EVER post something that isn't partisan BS, zendari?

Or, do you have no problem with selling national parks to energy companies. Do you have no problem with the contradiction between the President's request to conserve energy and his campaigning for alternative fuels but now wanting to drill more and more for oil (esp. in hurricane-prone areas)?

 

[zendari]

Conservation, energy efficiency in cars and elsewhere, and exploring for new sources of oil can all be acheived at the same time. So my answers are no, and no.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari
Conservation, energy efficiency in cars and elsewhere, and exploring for new sources of oil can all be acheived at the same time.

Do you have no problem with selling national parks to energy companies? Do you have no problem with the contradiction between the President's request to conserve energy and his campaigning for alternative fuels but now wanting to drill more and more for oil (esp. in hurricane-prone areas)?

 

[dmcowen674]

I would allow it only for lower prices with a immediate cease and desist order should prices rise without meetings and proof for increases.

The current system has nothing from stopping them from setting any price they wish without merit and don't give me that supply & demand crap and whatever the market will bare crap either.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari
Conservation, energy efficiency in cars and elsewhere, and exploring for new sources of oil can all be acheived at the same time.

Do you have no problem with selling national parks to energy companies? Do you have no problem with the contradiction between the President's request to conserve energy and his campaigning for alternative fuels but now wanting to drill more and more for oil (esp. in hurricane-prone areas)?

I wouldn't be happy seeing drilling rigs in Yosemete or Yellowstone... But I'd dance for joy if we would just go drill ANWR.

 

[Kalbi]

Originally posted by: conjur
And the trolls come out already. Do you EVER post something that isn't partisan BS, zendari?

Or, do you have no problem with selling national parks to energy companies. Do you have no problem with the contradiction between the President's request to conserve energy and his campaigning for alternative fuels but now wanting to drill more and more for oil (esp. in hurricane-prone areas)?

are you kidding conjur? i only read socialist crap from you...

As for deregulation and expanded drilling...it's about fvcking time.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari
Conservation, energy efficiency in cars and elsewhere, and exploring for new sources of oil can all be acheived at the same time.

Do you have no problem with selling national parks to energy companies? Do you have no problem with the contradiction between the President's request to conserve energy and his campaigning for alternative fuels but now wanting to drill more and more for oil (esp. in hurricane-prone areas)?

I wouldn't be happy seeing drilling rigs in Yosemete or Yellowstone... But I'd dance for joy if we would just go drill ANWR.

Which is going to solve things how exactly? There's not much oil up there...and nowhere near enough to make a noticeable dent in imported oil.


As for the deregulation, is that what we really need? Esp. when new NASA photos show the North Pole ice cap has shrunk by 30% in the last 30 years?

 

[Genx87]

Which is going to solve things how exactly? There's not much oil up there...and nowhere near enough to make a noticeable dent in imported oil.

If there isnt "much" oil up there then we can assume the oil companies wont spend money exploring,drilling, and extracting?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Which is going to solve things how exactly? There's not much oil up there...and nowhere near enough to make a noticeable dent in imported oil.

If there isnt "much" oil up there then we can assume the oil companies wont spend money exploring,drilling, and extracting?

Let's see...ANWR is projected to have about 10.5 billion barrels of oil available. The U.S. consumes about 21 million barrels per day. So, if we were to tap ANWR, we'd have all of about 500 days' worth of oil. Wow...big help there.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Which is going to solve things how exactly? There's not much oil up there...and nowhere near enough to make a noticeable dent in imported oil.

If there isnt "much" oil up there then we can assume the oil companies wont spend money exploring,drilling, and extracting?

Let's see government will subsidize access, exploration, and extraction so I imagine a few will give it a shot. I'm sure the kickbacks and campaign contributions in the US are probably far less onerous than the dictators, oligarchs, and tyrants overseas.

Why not just invest a few billion in Iraq's oil infrastructure . . . oh forgot, we blew that country up.

Why not invest a few billion in Iran's oil infrastructure . . . oh forgot, we don't like them. Did you know Iran gas flares 10 BILLION cubic meters each year?! Could you imagine a natural gas pipeline to Iraq for power generation? Reduce regional air pollution, improve electricity stability in Iraq, and strengthen relations between countries that fought a brutal war in the 80s.

I for one believe we should "explore" ANWR but not develop it. Maybe it's just me, but why not leave something for future generations of Americans . . . aside from ridiculous amounts of debt and ill-will in the world?

Wouldn't it be a shame if John McCain's great great great grandson discovers a petrochemical-based cure for a fatal disease but there are minimal petrochemicals left?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Which is going to solve things how exactly? There's not much oil up there...and nowhere near enough to make a noticeable dent in imported oil.

If there isnt "much" oil up there then we can assume the oil companies wont spend money exploring,drilling, and extracting?

Let's see...ANWR is projected to have about 10.5 billion barrels of oil available. The U.S. consumes about 21 million barrels per day. So, if we were to tap ANWR, we'd have all of about 500 days' worth of oil. Wow...big help there.

That's the argument the greenies love to use... :disgust: Now let's look at reality. And that reality is that ANWR would produce enough oil on a daily basis to reduce our need for Middle East imports almost in HALF.

Now that's not nothing is it?

Did Prudhoe Bay dry up after 600 days? Nope. In fact it's still producing 20% of our domestic oil supply some thirty years after it started pumping. (That is 10 years past original predictions - And still going strong) ANWR is a simalarly sized field. What's more, the method for delivery of that oil is already in place.

We import about 11 million barrels a day. About 2 million of that comes from the ME. Link

ANWR at full production should produce anywhere from 800,000 - over 1,000,000 barrels a day. Link

Drilling in ANWR is good mmmkay?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Interesting links but that guy is a little retarded.

Why are gasoline prices so high?
THEY AREN'T.
Compared to 1981, inflation adjusted-prices today are 27 cents CHEAPER than the $3.11 gasoline cost in March 1981.

So I guess if the price was only 7 cents CHEAPER gas would still be inexpensive?:roll:

I know maybe we should calculate gas prices as a percentage of GDP . . . it gets even cheaper.

Fundamentally, we waste too much oil. Even Bush "sorta" has a clue. I'm willing to bet most people have been reassessing how they use their cars. That's a good thing. It's a shame we didn't have any leadership since 1979 willing to end our wasteful ways.

IMHO, ANWR should not be opened for drilling b/c there is no right to extract every last drop of easily attainable oil in America. There's no right to cheap gasoline either.

If we can be nice to pointy-headed dictators and oligarchs in the Eastern Hemisphere there's no reason we cannot do the same in Venezula. Stop the name calling and help Chavez pump more of that sour-arse crude. We can even agree to drop some off to his buddy Castro on the way to the newly built refineries on the coast of FL.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Which is going to solve things how exactly? There's not much oil up there...and nowhere near enough to make a noticeable dent in imported oil.

If there isnt "much" oil up there then we can assume the oil companies wont spend money exploring,drilling, and extracting?

Let's see...ANWR is projected to have about 10.5 billion barrels of oil available. The U.S. consumes about 21 million barrels per day. So, if we were to tap ANWR, we'd have all of about 500 days' worth of oil. Wow...big help there.

That's the argument the greenies love to use... :disgust: Now let's look at reality. And that reality is that ANWR would produce enough oil on a daily basis to reduce our need for Middle East imports almost in HALF.

Now that's not nothing is it?

Did Prudhoe Bay dry up after 600 days? Nope. In fact it's still producing 20% of our domestic oil supply some thirty years after it started pumping. (That is 10 years past original predictions - And still going strong) ANWR is a simalarly sized field. What's more, the method for delivery of that oil is already in place.

We import about 11 million barrels a day. About 2 million of that comes from the ME. Link

ANWR at full production should produce anywhere from 800,000 - over 1,000,000 barrels a day. Link

Drilling in ANWR is good mmmkay?

<ahem>

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

Consumption
The United States consumed an average of about 20.4 million bbl/d of oil during the first ten months of 2004, up from 20.0 million bbl/d in 2003. Of this, motor gasoline consumption was 9.0 million bbl/d (or 44% of the total), distillate fuel oil consumption was 4.1 million bbl/d (20%), jet fuel consumption was 1.6 million bbl/d (8%), and residual fuel oil consumption was 0.8 million bbl/d (4%)l. Total 2005 petroleum demand is projected to grow by just 1.4% (280,000 bbl/d), to an average 20.7 million bbl/d, in response to the combined effects of somewhat slower economic growth and relatively high crude oil and product prices. All the major products (except residual fuel oil) are expected to contribute to this growth. Motor gasoline demand is projected to increase 1.8%, to 9.22 million bbl/d. Jet fuel demand is projected to post a growth rate of 3.1% in 2005 to average 1.67 million barrels per day, still below 2000 jet fuel consumption but sharply up from post-9/11 lows it reached in 2002 and 2003. Distillate demand in 2005 is projected to grow only 1.5% year-over-year as industrial growth slows. Demand for residual fuel oil is projected to remain about flat in 2005.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/analysis_summary.html

Surveys conducted by the USGS suggest that between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil8 are in the coastal plain area of ANWR, with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels, divided into many fields.9

Didn't realize that the Dept. of Energy were the "greenies".

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: zendari
Conservation, energy efficiency in cars and elsewhere, and exploring for new sources of oil can all be acheived at the same time. So my answers are no, and no.

As are Bush's answers.

Conservation: No.

Energy Efficiency: Hell No.

Exploring for new sources of oil: No, or only if the area is a Wildlife Refuge.

 

[piasabird]

We could stop barge traffic and build a few dams accross the mississippi river. They could be simple spill over dams. There is a spot not far from me where a chain of rocks goes across the mississippi river between Missouri and Illinois; i.e. Chain of Rocks. Something like this could supplement power production. This is a location that boats and barges have to go around already.

There is a dam of some kind near Kiakuk between Illinois and Indiana.

The argument is that Hydro power costs more. However, the savings to the environment may mean cleaner air and lower doctor bills.

I really do not think having Cars Emission Tested actually does any good for the United States. I am against it because not everyone has to do it. Also when a plant has too much polution they let it keep on operating, so I do not see the point to it anyway. I think it is penalizing people who live in an area with higher pollution. Pollution has a cumulative affect so in the midwest we get all the West Coast Pollution. They build new cars so well and pollution free, that you should get waivers if you buy a new car for say the first 100,000 miles or so. This might encourage people to buy more cars. You would be surprised what people will do to keep from being harassed by the government.

 

[Vic]

It's hard to take seriously people who damn if they do and damn if they don't. When you have solutions, Conjur, instead of condemnations, get back to me.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Which is going to solve things how exactly? There's not much oil up there...and nowhere near enough to make a noticeable dent in imported oil.

If there isnt "much" oil up there then we can assume the oil companies wont spend money exploring,drilling, and extracting?

Let's see...ANWR is projected to have about 10.5 billion barrels of oil available. The U.S. consumes about 21 million barrels per day. So, if we were to tap ANWR, we'd have all of about 500 days' worth of oil. Wow...big help there.

It is a simple yes or no answer. You said there isnt much oil up there then come back with 10.5 Billion barrels of oil. Which one is it? Seems to be contradicting yourself.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Which is going to solve things how exactly? There's not much oil up there...and nowhere near enough to make a noticeable dent in imported oil.

If there isnt "much" oil up there then we can assume the oil companies wont spend money exploring,drilling, and extracting?

Let's see government will subsidize access, exploration, and extraction so I imagine a few will give it a shot. I'm sure the kickbacks and campaign contributions in the US are probably far less onerous than the dictators, oligarchs, and tyrants overseas.

Why not just invest a few billion in Iraq's oil infrastructure . . . oh forgot, we blew that country up.

Why not invest a few billion in Iran's oil infrastructure . . . oh forgot, we don't like them. Did you know Iran gas flares 10 BILLION cubic meters each year?! Could you imagine a natural gas pipeline to Iraq for power generation? Reduce regional air pollution, improve electricity stability in Iraq, and strengthen relations between countries that fought a brutal war in the 80s.

I for one believe we should "explore" ANWR but not develop it. Maybe it's just me, but why not leave something for future generations of Americans . . . aside from ridiculous amounts of debt and ill-will in the world?

Wouldn't it be a shame if John McCain's great great great grandson discovers a petrochemical-based cure for a fatal disease but there are minimal petrochemicals left?

A lot of conjecture in that post. Ill throw it out there and say "Who knows, maybe we find out the moon is nothing but oil unders its shell and we claim it".

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: zendari
Conservation, energy efficiency in cars and elsewhere, and exploring for new sources of oil can all be acheived at the same time. So my answers are no, and no.

As are Bush's answers.

Conservation: No.

Energy Efficiency: Hell No.

Exploring for new sources of oil: No, or only if the area is a Wildlife Refuge.

It's not Bush's answers. Our country has said no to conservation.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Which is going to solve things how exactly? There's not much oil up there...and nowhere near enough to make a noticeable dent in imported oil.

If there isnt "much" oil up there then we can assume the oil companies wont spend money exploring,drilling, and extracting?

Let's see...ANWR is projected to have about 10.5 billion barrels of oil available. The U.S. consumes about 21 million barrels per day. So, if we were to tap ANWR, we'd have all of about 500 days' worth of oil. Wow...big help there.

That's the argument the greenies love to use... :disgust: Now let's look at reality. And that reality is that ANWR would produce enough oil on a daily basis to reduce our need for Middle East imports almost in HALF.

Now that's not nothing is it?

Did Prudhoe Bay dry up after 600 days? Nope. In fact it's still producing 20% of our domestic oil supply some thirty years after it started pumping. (That is 10 years past original predictions - And still going strong) ANWR is a simalarly sized field. What's more, the method for delivery of that oil is already in place.

We import about 11 million barrels a day. About 2 million of that comes from the ME. Link

ANWR at full production should produce anywhere from 800,000 - over 1,000,000 barrels a day. Link

Drilling in ANWR is good mmmkay?

<ahem>

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

Consumption
The United States consumed an average of about 20.4 million bbl/d of oil during the first ten months of 2004, up from 20.0 million bbl/d in 2003. Of this, motor gasoline consumption was 9.0 million bbl/d (or 44% of the total), distillate fuel oil consumption was 4.1 million bbl/d (20%), jet fuel consumption was 1.6 million bbl/d (8%), and residual fuel oil consumption was 0.8 million bbl/d (4%)l. Total 2005 petroleum demand is projected to grow by just 1.4% (280,000 bbl/d), to an average 20.7 million bbl/d, in response to the combined effects of somewhat slower economic growth and relatively high crude oil and product prices. All the major products (except residual fuel oil) are expected to contribute to this growth. Motor gasoline demand is projected to increase 1.8%, to 9.22 million bbl/d. Jet fuel demand is projected to post a growth rate of 3.1% in 2005 to average 1.67 million barrels per day, still below 2000 jet fuel consumption but sharply up from post-9/11 lows it reached in 2002 and 2003. Distillate demand in 2005 is projected to grow only 1.5% year-over-year as industrial growth slows. Demand for residual fuel oil is projected to remain about flat in 2005.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/analysis_summary.html

Surveys conducted by the USGS suggest that between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil8 are in the coastal plain area of ANWR, with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels, divided into many fields.9

Didn't realize that the Dept. of Energy were the "greenies".

Ignoring this, Genx87?

10.4 billion total divided by 20.7 million/day = 502 days' worth of oil. An awful lot of political wrangling over not a lot of oil.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Which is going to solve things how exactly? There's not much oil up there...and nowhere near enough to make a noticeable dent in imported oil.

If there isnt "much" oil up there then we can assume the oil companies wont spend money exploring,drilling, and extracting?

Let's see...ANWR is projected to have about 10.5 billion barrels of oil available. The U.S. consumes about 21 million barrels per day. So, if we were to tap ANWR, we'd have all of about 500 days' worth of oil. Wow...big help there.

That's the argument the greenies love to use... :disgust: Now let's look at reality. And that reality is that ANWR would produce enough oil on a daily basis to reduce our need for Middle East imports almost in HALF.

Now that's not nothing is it?

Did Prudhoe Bay dry up after 600 days? Nope. In fact it's still producing 20% of our domestic oil supply some thirty years after it started pumping. (That is 10 years past original predictions - And still going strong) ANWR is a simalarly sized field. What's more, the method for delivery of that oil is already in place.

We import about 11 million barrels a day. About 2 million of that comes from the ME. Link

ANWR at full production should produce anywhere from 800,000 - over 1,000,000 barrels a day. Link

Drilling in ANWR is good mmmkay?

<ahem>

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

Consumption
The United States consumed an average of about 20.4 million bbl/d of oil during the first ten months of 2004, up from 20.0 million bbl/d in 2003. Of this, motor gasoline consumption was 9.0 million bbl/d (or 44% of the total), distillate fuel oil consumption was 4.1 million bbl/d (20%), jet fuel consumption was 1.6 million bbl/d (8%), and residual fuel oil consumption was 0.8 million bbl/d (4%)l. Total 2005 petroleum demand is projected to grow by just 1.4% (280,000 bbl/d), to an average 20.7 million bbl/d, in response to the combined effects of somewhat slower economic growth and relatively high crude oil and product prices. All the major products (except residual fuel oil) are expected to contribute to this growth. Motor gasoline demand is projected to increase 1.8%, to 9.22 million bbl/d. Jet fuel demand is projected to post a growth rate of 3.1% in 2005 to average 1.67 million barrels per day, still below 2000 jet fuel consumption but sharply up from post-9/11 lows it reached in 2002 and 2003. Distillate demand in 2005 is projected to grow only 1.5% year-over-year as industrial growth slows. Demand for residual fuel oil is projected to remain about flat in 2005.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/analysis_summary.html

Surveys conducted by the USGS suggest that between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil8 are in the coastal plain area of ANWR, with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels, divided into many fields.9

Didn't realize that the Dept. of Energy were the "greenies".

Ignoring this, Genx87?

10.4 billion total divided by 20.7 million/day = 502 days' worth of oil. An awful lot of political wrangling over not a lot of oil.

I had no idea they were planning on shutting down all of our domestic oil production and stopping the import of oil while this thing runs at full speed ahead for 502 days.

You simply contradicted yourself, get over it.

Lets use a more realistic extraction plan.

1 million barrels a day
10400 days of production=29 years of production. That is of course if their estimates fall exactly in the middle. It could be 8 billion or 16 billion. And your notion there isnt "much" oil up there was debunked by of all people yourself.

 

[DealMonkey]

Well the administration capitalized on 9.11 politically, I guess I shouldn't be surprised they'd do the same w/ Katrina.

 

[OrByte]

reminds me of 911

911 - bubye privacy laws

Katrina/Rita - bubye greenrules