House Democrats reject bill that would make it easier to build refineries

If lower gas prices were the only result, they'd vote yes...

I forgot about the ends justifying the means. You're acting like there's no good reason to vote against it and the solution is so easy and consequence free. That's a pretty simple way of looking at things. I'm surprised at you.

 

Liberals do not have a majority in the house. The supporters of this bill are not going to use anything other than the idea that it "would make it easier to build refineries in hopes of easing tight gasoline supplies". Common sense, simple common sense.

This bill was meant to make Big Oil get even more money, not to protect the American consumer. By loosening the environmental standards, the government effectively lowers the cost of to big oil, but big oil is not charging a lot because they're losing money from regulation laws but because they can. Most importantly, had this bill passed, the big oil would not have built any new refineries. Why? Because the current price bubble is about to bust causing the prices to plummet again.

"The real reason we have a refinery shortage is the companies that own refineries are profiting enormously from the ... refinery bottlenecks,"

 

Arizona is trying to build a refinery near Yuma so that the state doesn't have to import all gasoline via a pipeline from California.

Link

 

Word.

 

And yet the first four paragraphs of your story say this...

Later, there's this...

Why are Republicans obstructing Democratic initiatives to lower the gasoline tax? Republicans missing an opportunity to lower taxes? What has the world come to?

Perhaps the whole thing is a bit more complicated and nuanced than your thread title and selective quotes suggest?

 

No one on this board is a member of Congress. That includes you.

 

Even if this bill had been approved, how long does it take to build a new refinery, thus increasing refining capacity and reducing gas prices? My guess is at least a year and probably more like two. This bill would have done nothing to increase short term refining capacity. That capacity will be helped more if we put resources into getting Katrina and Rita affected plants back up and running.

 

I would rather pay the high gas prices.

 

That was a pretty sad attempt. You may think you are enlightening people on this forum but you are basically just beating off in front of us saying how awesome you think you are.

 

The only way to incentivize companies to drill in the U.S. is to provide a good return on their investment - which means higher prices. It costs $400,000 per day to lease a drill ship to drill a deep water well…..think about that and calculate the $ per minute. AND it may take two to six months to drill a single well. That price doesn’t include the pipe, valves, etc to complete the well. It is an expensive game.

 

No, I am saying that this bill would not have done diddly to help short term prices as much as repairing the existing refineries that are still offline.

Besides, this bill was opposed because it would have allowed the Bush administration to give federal lands to oil companies for free. It had very little to do with new refineries.

 

i think this is a mistake. you can't on one hand talk about your constituents as the victims of high gas prices...and then keep companies from increasing supply by restricting their ability to develop new refineries.

more proof that both sides suck.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm finding it hard to believe that the republican controled congress couldn't get this bill passed if they wanted too.

 

sad but true.

 

who said that refining capacity was an issue?

 

i think that's been a pretty well accepted truth for a while, now.

 

way to go dems, stand up to big oil! someone has to anyways.....................

 

see this thread: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=112375