Quote:
Originally Posted by RAIDER56
I dont know where you got your info.but I do know Bush 2 has been fighting congress for more drilling(anwar) and exploration,which has been blocked
for years .He also has been calling for construction of new refineries.
The impact in Anwar would be minimal
It definately is about money.Standard oil pulled the plug on drilling on
my cousins ranch in Montana when the price of crude dropped in the 80's
Said they would return when prices jumped
|
Bush has been making many statements and claims. For example, he has claimed to have cut taxes and made government smaller, and so on, but an article on mises.org a conservative-libertarian "think tank" on economic policy along the "Austrian school" said this:
Bush has NOT cut taxes - Mark Brandly - Mises Institute
Quote:
Bush should not be credited with cutting our tax burdens. He has engaged in tax shifting and in hiding the burdens of his expansions of the welfare and warfare state, and he has demonstrated that he's opposed to lowering our tax burdens. Deep into his second term, we have plenty of evidence to show that Bush should be blamed for increasing our tax burdens at a phenomenal pace.
The Republican Party claims to be the party of limited government and economic freedom. Don't believe it. Republicans have shown that when they are in power they are even more fiscally irresponsible than their Democratic counterparts, and that takes some doing.
|
So, that is a conservative-liberatarian analysis of what Bush says and does.
In other words, Bush is basically feeding you a load of crap.
Now here is the info on Thomson Point, where Exxon was granted an oil lease three decades ago:
State rejects Exxon's Point Thomson plan: Top Stories | adn.com
Quote:
State rejects Exxon's Point Thomson plan
DORMANT FIELD: Oil firm's commitment to drilling "too risky."
By WESLEY LOY
wloy@adn.com
Published: April 23rd, 2008 12:10 AM
Last Modified: April 23rd, 2008 11:51 AM
Exxon Mobil Corp. can't be trusted to keep its latest promise to develop a huge North Slope oil and gas field that's lain dormant since its discovery decades ago, a top state official decided Tuesday.
The decision denying Exxon's proposed development plan means the fate of Point Thomson -- which figures prominently in plans for a proposed natural gas pipeline -- remains bound up in state court.
Exxon, the top leaseholder in the 106,201-acre field, in February offered a $1.3 billion drilling plan in hopes of halting the state's legal effort to break up the field and possibly lease the acreage to other companies.
Exxon managers touted the plan as an "unconditional commitment" to start producing from the field.
But in a 78-page decision issued Tuesday, state Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Irwin sternly rejected Exxon's development plan -- its 23rd over the years -- saying the company and other leaseholders repeatedly broke past commitments and have engaged in "a constant shell game" for more than two decades.
Irwin, who presided over a court-ordered hearing on the plan in March, questioned the credibility of oil company executives who testified and concluded that allowing the companies "another opportunity to delay development of this valuable state resource is too risky."
Exxon and other Point Thomson leaseholders have 20 days to ask Irwin to reconsider. Then the matter moves back into state Superior Court.
Exxon spokesmen asserted Irwin's decision essentially locks the company's drilling rig out of the field, where Exxon vowed to start work on up to five wells and employ 200 people this winter.
"We're surprised and extremely disappointed," Exxon said in a written statement. "We plan to appeal this action and will pursue all alternatives to protect our rights to develop these resources."
Exxon added that it believes Irwin "has no legal basis" to break up the field's leases and that doing so will lead to years more conflict in court.
Steve Rinehart, a spokesman for BP, the second-largest Point Thomson leaseholder, said his company also was disappointed and that Irwin's decision could delay a natural gas pipeline.
Point Thomson is located on the Beaufort Sea coast next to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, about 60 miles east of the giant Prudhoe Bay oil field.
It holds an estimated 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- about a quarter of the Slope's known 35 trillion cubic feet. It also holds several hundred million barrels of crude oil and a liquid form of natural gas known as condensate.
Development of the field would mean huge tax and royalty revenues for the state.
Exxon drilling led to discovery of Point Thomson's gas and oil reserves in 1977. But the company hasn't developed the field because of the lack of a gas pipeline and the field's extreme subsurface pressure, which would require tougher, costlier wells to control, Exxon managers say.
Irwin, in his decision, said Exxon and other leaseholders have looked to "warehouse" Point Thomson while concentrating on projects elsewhere in the world.
Because of its rich natural gas reserves, Point Thomson is considered a vital piece of any pipeline plan to ship gas to the Lower 48 or abroad.
Two pipeline proposals are now on the table -- one from Calgary-based TransCanada Corp. and another from a partnership of Conoco Phillips and BP.
Exxon, which isn't part of either pipeline proposal, told the state when it submitted its latest development plan in February that it would pledge its share of Point Thomson gas to a pipeline project so long as it received terms as good as those of other companies with gas to ship.
But Exxon's plan didn't impress Irwin.
He said its $1.3 billion proposal to produce 10,000 barrels a day of gas condensate beginning in 2014 -- a small amount in the context of total North Slope production now averaging 750,000 barrels a day -- was a "modest" step to exploit a hugely valuable field.
Anyway, Irwin wrote, Exxon and other Point Thomson leaseholders can't be trusted to keep their word. He noted, for example, that the latest plan of development has a loophole giving Exxon an out based on "permitting delays."
"Approval of this plan merely serves as an invitation for Exxon Mobil to abandon this project under the guise of permitting delays or denials," Irwin wrote.
Find Wesley Loy online at adn.com/contact/wloy or call 257-4590.
|
As for refineries:
U.S. Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Count)
Quote:
U.S. Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Count)
Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9
1980's 301 258 247 223 216 219 213 204
1990's 205 202 199 187 179 175 NA 164 NA 159
2000's 158 155 153 149 149 148 149 149
|
So, it is clear that the oil industry didn't see a need for more refineries, but instead a need for fewer refineries. Bush took office when 155 refineries were operable and today only 149 are operable, continuing a trend of decline that was most rapid during the Reagan years, which might be explained by the decline in oil consumption as energy efficiency measure enacted by Carter, Ford, and Nixon took effect, but by the time Bush and Clinton came to office, the consumption of oil was rising rapidly. Still, the number of refineries continued to decline.
Clearly the only reason Bush is talking the need for Congress to build new refineries is that he has some business partners who he would direct tax dollar to so they can build a refineries with taxpayer dollar and then sell it for a capital gains profit, just as Bush did before with a tax payer built sports stadium.
So, you have Bush's claims which are contrary to the facts, and his reputation of being consistently wrong on the facts, and consistently failing to deliver on promises.
How about making an argument based on actual facts that you can substantiate? Be sure to provide your sources.....