The reason no refineries have been built is because the oil companies know that very soon there won't be enough oil to refine to justify the investment. It was a business decision and had little or nothing to do with permits or those dreaded environmentalists. It's all just so much political hot air.

Exactly. This whole refineries on bases idea will be over and done with within a week or two. The administration is just talking to take up airtime. Gas prices aren't going down. The solution to this problem lies on the demand side of the equation. CAFE standards must be increased to help the already present shift in the market to more efficient vehicles. GM took a billion dollar hit for a reason, no one wants their huge SUVs when gas costs 2.50 a gallon, and their small cars suck compared to toyota and honda. I believe within a year or two a fuel efficiency hike will be passed before midterm elections or potentially right after if the dems take either house back.

Steve, did you know that these guys are from the same party?

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Yeah, Ron, nothing like throwing 2 or 3 billion down a rat hole! Jeebus, bushies transmitter batteries need a changin!

If no refineries have been built in the U.S. for over twenty years I got to wonder if the U.S. fabrication capacity even exists anymore to do this. I suspect that it was offshored a long time ago.

I think we should put the refineries on Mars. I mean, we're going there anyway, right? Cheap real estate, low taxes, small government ... it's a free trader's dream-come-true if you ask me.

Barely a breath about conservation.

I'm sure people are gonna be lining up to sign up for a shiny new nuclear power plant in their neighborhood too! Hell. Here in NY they got one torn down before it ever produced any electricity and they want to tear another one down because Bush has 'em so scared of terrorists blowing it up. Yet they still don't want a natural gas pipieline through Westchester County either. Lots of SUV's with "Close Indian Point" bumperstickers on 'em though.

This country loves crude so much, that we burn 20 million barrels a day and nobody from either side talks about alternatives or conservation.

Just burn more.

Fact is the majority of the fuel we burn is used for transportation.

Nuclear power plants aren't going to help that. Most of our electricity is coal generated isn't it?

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with nuclear power. I live 20 miles from one right now. But it's not going to stop our thirst for crude.

There's no one here who doesn't benefit from the combustion engine. We are all complicit. I'm all for solar panels on the house and hybrid cars and wind farms, but let's cut the shit, shall we? If you drove to and from work today in anything bigger than a 4-cylinder, you're part of the problem. And even if you walked down to the corner grocery and bought your lousy little organically-grown bean sprouts and imported coffee or whatever the fuck you goatee-strokers live on, you probably didn't think about the big semi that rolled in and delivered them last night.

Toby, you're straining to turn the attention away from Bush towards imaginary leftist hippies.

It's not exactly compelling, you know. So what exactly was your point and end game here?

Policy? Policy?

This administration hasn't ever had a policy. They came into office with a purpose: restoring the world of the early 1960's and looting the public treasury to benefit the wealthy.

They're failing on part one, but going like gangbusters on part two.

Apparently Bush is holding a 'press conference' prime time tomorrow night to discuss his plans for Social Security.

O happy day!

This "policy" just highlights Dubya's disconnect from reality. The last time I looked, virtually every refinery in the country was on some major body of water to facilitate transportation of crude to the refinery. Just how many of those mothballed military bases will be located on s major navigable body of water? The only naval base that I've heard might be closed is the sub base in Groton, CT and I really believe that the folks who live in that area will respond positively to allowing a oil refinery to be constructed there. I can just see some ULCC maneuvering into Long Island Sound trying avoid all of the sailboats and powercraft owned by the corpoarate elite and grounding itself for a replay of the Exxon Valdez.

Dubya's lameduck administration looks increasingly like one of the shot up aircraft from "A Wing and a Prayer" or "God is My Co-Pilot" - in flames, trailing smoke, engine stuttering, pilot incapacitated and wing over.

Toby:

Attacking people for their dependance on the internal combustion engine is ludicrious. No one can give up oil but we've got to start using it wisely. Don't attack the fact that we all get our food off of semi's when some of us drive around by themselves in 12 mpg SUVs. Don't attack the only community of people that is open minded towards changing their lifestyles to work towards a better system. The scale of our economy is such that moderate changes in personal lifestyles if undertaken by a majority of people have great effects on the system as a whole. There is a near criminal lack of leadership in this nation in regard to sound energy policy. If the directive from the Whitehouse was for conservation the American public would conserve. Instead the Whitehouse maintains its cozy relationship with the oil industry and we drive SUVs off into oblivion. So to the "goatee strokers" out there keep it up you are the leaders of a growing energy reform movement that even Toby will have to join one day.

FYI.

Bush's 'Energy Vision' made it onto page 1.....oh wait...sorry...scratch that...page 18 of Thursday's New York Times.

Talk about an administration with no ideas.

muckdog, why do you suppose that Bush never mentions conservation? As for what the "other side" says or does, that is neither here nor there. you know as well as anyone that if the Dems started talking conservation, it wouldn't go anywhere. The Reps would say that the Dems were "out of touch with reality" again.

Are you aware that if fuel efficiency standards were raised by merely 5 miles per gallon we would no longer be dependent upon foreign oil? 5 mpg. That's all. Now, why isn't that part of Bush's energy plan? Why? I just follow the money and it's pretty clear to me....