Bush BownNoses the Saudis

[watermock]

I get tired of this "close and personal" relationship with these Saudi Princes laughing at us.

I keep telling people, this isn't going to go away. The Saudi Oil minister himself said that it won't matter until our infrastructure improves and we build more refining capcity.

I would protest this in the War room, but that place is so seething with propoganda it's totally worthless.

You won't find a single person telling us we need new nuclear plants to supply electricity, more refining capacity for more gasoline and number 2 oil, yet alone give anything to resemble anything regarding a war plan.

It's amusing how the Californians finally agree to build a refinery, (IN ARIZONA), to help them survive. Until people seriously wake up, we are going to be using crank cell phones. We are hitting Malthus' limits of growth and the environmentalists are still thinking we live in the freaking 19th century!

Nothing is going to promote WAR like someone cutting off our oil supplies at this point. Yet, we are supposed to live in the dark. WE HAVE TO LIVE IN THE DARK. Noone can seem to understand we are continuing to renew nuclear powerplants that have had their permits expired, and are 40 years old in design, many dating back to the 70's.

People don't understand these plants need to be phased out for safer plants. We we are begging for a nuclear accident when we have technology 40 years more advanced, right now.

We are running off electrical capacity. That capacity is at it's limits. Not only that, it's the totally prime target for an attack.

People worry: "What will happen if a nuclear missle hits a nuclear plant..."

The answer is the same damn thing that would of happened 40 years ago, only this time it wouldn't put out more than a whisper of radioactivity. The rods go out of line, it's a slower reaction. The real issue here is what is happening to the rest of the country when our enemy's have nuclear missles and we are desperate for fossil fuels? Isn't that the driving force right now anyway? It's simple cause and effect. We take away their money source, and rely on our technology, eliminating the WAR paradigm, the need to even consider going to war. We tell them to go play with their filthy, polluting oil.

I know Bush is accepting filthy oil money. If half of you knew that OIL is the reason the environment was going to hell, you wouldn't worry half as much about nuclear power, yet alone we have floating weapons platforms floating in all 7 seas that would make an nuclear accident look like a leaky boat.

Go ahead and move it to the War Room circle jerk where I am tired of even bothering trying to rationalize. All they want to talk about is what a monster this U.N. nominee is some monster, when the real monster is the U.N. itself. Why shouldn't we be pissed off at the U.N.? Paul Volker is the one who destroyed the economy and brought 22 percent rates and created industry's to circumvent the Credit Card industry, which is the biggest ripoff in the history of Banking. Most profit comes for banks comes not from the Mortgage or Industrial banking industries, it's credit card debt.

The point is I'm sick and tired these adventures into more foreign debt and continued reliance on oil, at least to the pathetic begging that went on today.

I have been screaming this for 20 years, but in the War Room, it's all Bush's fault. That's freaking crazy, and they know it. We all knew demand would outstrip supply for refining capacity, and that nuclear power has been castrated for the past 30 years, the grid is at the point of collapse, and yet everyone thinks they are going to drive a Lincoln SUV yet tell everyone else they are driving a joke Primus Hybryd that only gets 5 MPG better under city conditions, and has tons of toxic batteries. It's a joke.

[Tredici]

~~The Saudi Oil minister himself said that it won't matter until our infrastructure improves and we build more refining capcity. ~~

That in itself is pretty funny. Bush is flapping his gums at the American public for show. He isn't going to get the Saudi's to increase production because THEIR infrastructure isn't capable of additional production, they are pretty much maxed out. And the crude they are pumping has become more and more sour which limits the amount refineries can process.

It's a "show" of Republican concern.

Just like the "show" the Democrats put on until you mention drilling in Wyoming or Alaska.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by watermock

I get tired of this "close and personal" relationship with these Saudi Princes laughing at us.

The whole rant misses the main point which is almost 70% of our oil needs are for fueling motor vehicles. Nuclear power plants doesn't address that at all.
No matter how many holes we started poking in our country we wouldn't make much of a dent in that fact.

If we poured just a portion of the billions into renewable and alternate energy that we do into the military and other programs we would be there in 10 years (weaned off foreign oil).

[watermock]

Originally Posted by Tredici

~~The Saudi Oil minister himself said that it won't matter until our infrastructure improves and we build more refining capcity. ~~

That in itself is pretty funny. Bush is flapping his gums at the American public for show. He isn't going to get the Saudi's to increase production because THEIR infrastructure isn't capable of additional production, they are pretty much maxed out. And the crude they are pumping has become more and more sour which limits the amount refineries can process.

It's a "show" of Republican concern.

Just like the "show" the Democrats put on until you mention drilling in Wyoming or Alaska.

First, that's baloney, and typical myopic thinking not immune from the Clinton administration, yet alone Bush. The Saudi's know that they are shipping more oil. What they are saying is our infrastructure is too weak to carry much more. As far as their oil going "sour", that's the first if can remember of that, but I doubt it's as sour as Venzeuela. Finally, Saudi Arabia didn't say they didn't have the ability to pump more oil, they said I refinery capacity was running at capacity, not the other way around.

[watermock]

So your going to tell me that we don't have enough supposed capacity to refine supposedly "sour" crude oil when we do it allready from Mexico? Making assertions without a basis in fact is typical of you.

[TheDave]

ETHANOL

Relieves alot of short term problems and buys us some time!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by watermock

So your going to tell me that we don't have enough supposed capacity to refine supposedly "sour" crude oil when we do it allready from Mexico? Making assertions without a basis in fact is typical of you.

You need to do a little research. Wanna take a guess at our sour refining capacity as a percentage of our total capacity?


And some hybrid cars ARE getting 45 and over in the city.


EPA estimated miles per gallon: 46 city/ 51 highway w/ 5-speed manual.

Honda seems to be the fuel mileage champ with four vehicles in this section. The Civic Hybrid uses a combination gas engine and electric motor to fulfill its power requirements. Unlike the Prius, the Civic’s gas engine is always engaged and receives a boost in the form of pure torque from the electric motor when the driver demands more power. This setup has its advantages in that, if the electric motor ever fails or runs out of juice, the Civic can still motor along just fine on its 1.3-liter gas engine.

[watermock]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

The whole rant misses the main point which is almost 70% of our oil needs are for fueling motor vehicles. Nuclear power plants doesn't address that at all.

First your wrong. Only 70 percent of oil can be cracked to make gasoline. And to make a better point, who is putting out the "fuel cells" the left so commonly espouse? They haven't come up with anything yet, but the main source for one would be to make Hydrogen, totally inefficient and there is no infrastructure.

No matter how many holes we started poking in our country we wouldn't make much of a dent in that fact.

What fact? The fact that fossil fuel demand has increased? This isn't anything new, Japan started a war over OIL and lost. I'm saying we move off of it, and I start hearing the pandering argument. At least the current administration has a working releationship to increase production. The point is that the production has reached limits of our ability to refine. That is the reality.

If we poured just a portion of the billions into renewable and alternate energy that we do into the military and other programs we would be there in 10 years (weaned off foreign oil).

That is a total assertion. So we pull back our military and other programs and we subsidize "alternative and renewable" energy, but you can't even bring one thing to the table. This is so typical.

When gasoline reached 4.25 you will see a major shift, but by that time, the economic costs will be out of control. The economy has allready braced for up to 3.50 per gallon. That isn't the point at all.

It's such classic myopic vision, looking short term and dreaming long term. The fact is something has to be done NOW, for electrical production that doesn't rely on fossil fuels.

If you can't see an electrical economy, your more myopic than I thought.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by watermock

First your wrong. Only 70 percent of oil can be cracked to make gasoline. And to make a better point, who is putting out the "fuel cells" the left so commonly espouse? They haven't come up with anything yet, but the main source for one would be to make Hydrogen, totally inefficient and there is no infrastructure.

If I'm wrong show me the error of my ways. I'm talking about hybrid cars, ethanol, anything that will help us move away from oil. Fuel cell technology or a new technology is still in the future. We have the ability now to aggressively start moving away from oil now.

Originally Posted by watermock

What fact? The fact that fossil fuel demand has increased? This isn't anything new, Japan started a war over OIL and lost. I'm saying we move off of it, and I start hearing the pandering argument. At least the current administration has a working releationship to increase production. The point is that the production has reached limits of our ability to refine. That is the reality.

You're saying move off oil and proposing what? Nuclear power plants in cars?

Originally Posted by watermock

That is a total assertion. So we pull back our military and other programs and we subsidize "alternative and renewable" energy, but you can't even bring one thing to the table. This is so typical.

When gasoline reached 4.25 you will see a major shift, but by that time, the economic costs will be out of control. The economy has allready braced for up to 3.50 per gallon. That isn't the point at all.

It's such classic myopic vision, looking short term and dreaming long term. The fact is something has to be done NOW, for electrical production that doesn't rely on fossil fuels.

If you can't see an electrical economy, your more myopic than I thought.

It's important enough (because of the stranglehold foreign countries have on us, and the terror risks) now to start spending everything we possibly can to move to renewable and alternative energy. MPG requirements should immediately be imposed on future vehicles. The new industries created from moving to alternative fuels would greatly soften the economic impact of moving away from oil.
As far as power generation, we can do that, for now, with clean coal technology (coal fired power plants, umpteen times cheaper than nuclear power plants).

[Champbaileystopsmoss]

Wasnt there a guy named Ethanol picked in the draft?

[SteveTensi13]

You would think the liberals would be all singing cumbaya over the price of gas, since it would supposedly cut down on the number of cars on the road thus cutting down dangerous pollutants. But, no. All they can do is say "see, Bush and his oil buddies are raping the American public" I bet if this was happening under a demoncat administration they would being singing a different tune.

Wasn't it John *****ing Kerry who wanted a 50 cent a gallon tax hike for gas? Oh but if Bush wanted the same thing he would be accused of pocketing the money for himself. The only people responsible for this gas mess are liberal demoncat environmental wackos. No new oil refineries in 30 years? The gulf of Mexico off limits for drilling? It's all a vast left wing conspiracy sponsored and supported by the demoncats to weaken America and keep us dependant on foreign oil.

[Tredici]

Originally Posted by watermock

First, that's baloney, and typical myopic thinking not immune from the Clinton administration, yet alone Bush. The Saudi's know that they are shipping more oil. What they are saying is our infrastructure is too weak to carry much more. As far as their oil going "sour", that's the first if can remember of that, but I doubt it's as sour as Venzeuela. Finally, Saudi Arabia didn't say they didn't have the ability to pump more oil, they said I refinery capacity was running at capacity, not the other way around.

I know what you said.

Now listen to what I said.

What Bush is doing is Baloney. It's for show. The Saudi's can't produce more, but using US Refining capacity gets both of them off the hook without admitting that. Yes, the Venz oil is sour. But the contracts they have with the refineries who can process it, aren't. Which for the most part are locked in long term.

The Saudis supply the three US Refineries they have joint interest in. And occassionally sell another cargo.

It would be nice if you learned something instead of thinking you can play the player.

[Nuggets4]

Originally Posted by watermock

I would protest this in the War room, but that place is so seething with propoganda it's totally worthless.

Pot. Kettle. Have you two met?

[cbs1177]

Oil producing countries are in fact nervous about surging oil prices b/c when oil gets "too high" it creates a need to look else where for energy ie: solar, wind, nuclear, fuel cell thus often cutting into their economies at home which isnt' very divisfied and relie on oil alone to produce 60 to 90 percent of their economies. One thing that the oil embargo did was made opec realize if high oil is in place other means undermine their intentions ie: less energy use thru efficiency and other fuel sources are researched and brought into production. Opec likes oil to trade between 30 to 40 dollar a barrel and are very nervous about this super inflated oil trading that is out of their hands.

[ClevelandBronco]

No problem. My daily commute consists of walking downstairs and Walmart just built a Superstore within bike riding distance. I just need to hook up the kiddie hauler trailer for cargo space and I'm good to go.

As little as I need to drive, my 15 mpg (16 on a good tank) Sequoia will last until gasoline is 7 bucks a gallon and I'm the only guy left with the kind of SUV that can flatten a hybrid and all its occupants if it doesn't yield the right of way.

(Better just pull over, little cars. I'm talking on my cell phone and eating a Six-Dollar burger.)

[watermock]

EPA estimated miles per gallon: 46 city/ 51 highway w/ 5-speed manual.

"Honda seems to be the fuel mileage champ with four vehicles in this section. The Civic Hybrid uses a combination gas engine and electric motor to fulfill its power requirements. Unlike the Prius, the Civic’s gas engine is always engaged and receives a boost in the form of pure torque from the electric motor when the driver demands more power. This setup has its advantages in that, if the electric motor ever fails or runs out of juice, the Civic can still motor along just fine on its 1.3-liter gas engine."

Let me ask you this. What do you think I can get out of 1.3 liter engine with a 5-speed? I bet I can get 60 MPG out of it with minor alterations. This such classic bullcrap. My 95 Mazda protoge got 40 miles a gallon highway with an automatic. Your talking about a marginal increase. For example, if you change 10 mpg to 20 mpg, your talking about a 100 percent increase in economy for likely little or any sacrifice.

You take a 1.8 liter that gets 35 and substiute it for a 1.3 liter STICK that gets 50, your talking about around a 30 percent fuel savings corrosponding to around a 20% decrease in performance. Why do you think these cars are so tiny? It's because to make them look green. In fact, they cost 2,000 dollars more.

Now you do the economic analysis. You give me two thousand dollars, at 2.00 a gallon, that means I get 500 of gas for just the extra price of a car that is much more likely to cost more in maintainance. If my regular car gets 30 MPG average, with my nicer 1.8 automatic, that means I can drive 18,000 miles, have better performance and less maintainance before I can even expect to break even. Now if I'm a greenie, I shouldn't have to drive more than 3 thousand miles a year right? So I can drive 6 years in a 1.3 liter weenie car with a stick just to break even.

This is what I'm talking about! God forbid I might want to pull something as light as a dirtbike, the flywheel on those things would make the leftovers from a bar mitva look meaty, and I'm not talking about the buffet.

I'm not saying Hybrid cars don't have slightly higher mileage, but generally, their performance is limited, they have higher cost, and can expect much higher maintainance and higher costs of disposal due to their batteries. But tell me, I just gave you the math. If you want to drive around in a crackerbox with a 1.3 liter engine that was designed for a 1.8 and tries to run off a battery, have at it. Just don't expect taxpayers to pay for a subsidy so you can feel green and all high and mighty. The world is full of hollywood types who have a Prius Hybrid in on the street for photo ops, but two Lincolns, a 38 foot runnabout and a Bentley in the garage for regular use, not to mention a cell phone ready to call their limo service.

Give me a break. Then they cry about hydrogen, which can only be efficiently made from either OIL or NUCLEAR ENERGY. It's absurd the crap you people try to sell.

[Taco John]

[watermock]

Originally Posted by Tredici

I know what you said.

Now listen to what I said.

What Bush is doing is Baloney. It's for show. The Saudi's can't produce more, but using US Refining capacity gets both of them off the hook without admitting that. Yes, the Venz oil is sour. But the contracts they have with the refineries who can process it, aren't. Which for the most part are locked in long term.

No, you listen to me. The Saudi's have 3 million they could produce more, and that isn't even if they drilled more pumping capacity. It isn't in their greedy interests to even bother to make more pumps. And to think that Venezuela oil, (which is in the middle of a communist/facist war) can't be refined, your freaking crazy. The fact is, we don't have enough of the refineries to do the job. It's not a matter we can't, it's a matter of fact that we haven't built a new refinery in 25 years, and middle east oil is much better quality.

The Saudis supply the three US Refineries they have joint interest in. And occassionally sell another cargo.

It would be nice if you learned something instead of thinking you can play the player.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, three refineries. Where do you think the rest of this oil comes from? That's right, Mexico, Canada and Venezuala. Oil is traded to Japan from Alaska and re-bought on the market. Saudi imports around 1.5 million today. The conservative estimate on the unopened Alaska reserve is 1.0 per day. But that isn't the point now is it.

My point was that we need to get more electricity wasn't it. It always amazes me because you tell ME how Clinton raised ONE FINGER towards conservation while California went under due to "de-regulation" and wound up buying ELECTRICITY for rediculous prices when CONSERVATION FAILED.

This is just another huge misconception about how suddenly things changed when Bush took office. I drive a Camry with a 2.5 liter engine and am looking at a Mazda which will have a 2.0 engine that will give great performance and get 35 MPG. That doesn't change the reality that electrical demands are going to continue to increase, with a decrease in the need for mass transit. I know damn well what it costs to fill up one of my Semi's. Efficiencies are skinned to the bone. Just don't tell me I can pull my Semi up the Continental Divide on a hybrid motor.

[watermock]

"You look purdy...hold my hand tighter for another couple years..."

Doesn't this illustrate that we need to go nuclear enough?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Define... "friends" !

[Tredici]

Originally Posted by watermock

And to think that Venezuela oil, (which is in the middle of a communist/facist war) can't be refined, your freaking crazy.




The Saudis supply the three US Refineries they have joint interest in. And occassionally sell another cargo.

It would be nice if you learned something instead of thinking you can play the player.

WHAT PART OF THIS DIDN'T YOU COMPREHEND?

Yes, the Venz oil is sour. But the contracts they have with the refineries who can process it, aren't. Which for the most part are locked in long term.

If you had some comprehension skills you would've grasped I was telling you there isn't room for increasingly sour production because many of the refineries who can process it already HAVE long term deals, and the Venz are a big part of that.


Yeah, three refineries.

I said the Saudis have interest in three American Refineries. And the supply going into those refineries is 95% Saudi Crude. -- That's why the Saudis own an interest. Get it?

Gee.... Canada, Mexico and Venz produce crude? Since the US is the largest importer of Canadian crude, who would know?

Since the Mexicans own part of the Deer Park Refinery in Texas, who would know?

Since PdVSA (the Venz State Oil Company) owns and operates the Citgo refineries up and down the Eastern seaboard, who would know?

[Warmonger]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Boy, does Dubya look uncomfortable or what!

[watermock]

Originally Posted by Tredici

WHAT PART OF THIS DIDN'T YOU COMPREHEND?

Yes, the Venz oil is sour. But the contracts they have with the refineries who can process it, aren't. Which for the most part are locked in long term.

Aren't WHAT?

If you had some comprehension skills you would've grasped I was telling you there isn't room for increasingly sour production because many of the refineries who can process it already HAVE long term deals, and the Venz are a big part of that.

Wasn't that my point? That we need new refineries? I could care less about Saudi Oil other than your rediculous assertion it's "going sour", which was preposterous.

Yeah, three refineries.

I said the Saudis have interest in three American Refineries. And the supply going into those refineries is 95% Saudi Crude. -- That's why the Saudis own an interest. Get it?

So what? Now we have to have the Saudi's buying our refineries? I thought it used to be the other way around! Well it was. We drilled and fed the nomadic goat herders that today, Bush is kissing their nuts up to his chin. That's the whole point! Why do the Saudi's have to own a "stake" in our refineries?

Gee.... Canada, Mexico and Venz produce crude? Since the US is the largest importer of Canadian crude, who would know?

The point was that the U.S. has several providers of oil.

Since the Mexicans own part of the Deer Park Refinery in Texas, who would know?

I would imagine Pemex and Citgo.

Since PdVSA (the Venz State Oil Company) owns and operates the Citgo refineries up and down the Eastern seaboard, who would know?

Your a classic. Guess who has been screaming for new refineries for the past three years on this board? It certainly wasn't Clinton. Watch the left oppose it, and worse, watch gas starved California oppose anything they can't place in Arizona or Nevada.

IMO, a new refinery should be able to accept any kind of petrochemical. That was the point that seems to elude you. The fact that certain types of refineries accept different kinds of oil isn't exactly earthshattering. All it really shows is incredible vulnerability. That was the entire point of the thread.

I like my electricity. It keeps me warm. It feeds my family. I like my petrochemicals, it feeds the soil, makes plastic, and drives my vehicles. All the bullcrap about fuel cells and hydrogen and hybrid cars are totally amusing. I understand nuclear electricity carries risks, but they are totally manageble when we have Subs under the water that can create magnitudes beyond compare, what are you crying about now? Three mile Island was DESIGNED 40 FREAKING YEARS AGO.

We have 60 (I think), nuclear plants operating just fine, but they are old and need to be replaced. That is the whole point. I don't care about who's oil is sour and who's is sweet. The fact is, until we convert to nuclear, that recourse is going to continue to go up in price, and eventually, be extinguished, but there is so much oil out there that isn't "economically recoverable" that isn't on the books. To take those reserves would require a hell of alot of more ecological damage, for example, the vast tar deposits in Canada or Coal in the west. So don't bother telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.

We are perfectly willing to ignore 40 year old nuclear plants, nuclear subs with nuclear warheads, our armed forces use nuclear powered aircraft carriers, yet we shudder at the thought of a new generation nuclear powerplant, that is safer, can't melt down, and we don't have to feed the middle east.

Considering Hanoi Jane, who is all apologetic yet manages to promote her book and spew filth on the great Henry Fonda, who couldn't stand her for good reason, you have to wonder.

Maybe you like seeing our President walking hand in hand, kissing a nomadic goat herder. I can't stand it.

[Rigs11]

Originally Posted by watermock

I get tired of this "close and personal" relationship with these Saudi Princes laughing at us.

I keep telling people, this isn't going to go away. The Saudi Oil minister himself said that it won't matter until our infrastructure improves and we build more refining capcity.

I would protest this in the War room, but that place is so seething with propoganda it's totally worthless.

You won't find a single person telling us we need new nuclear plants to supply electricity, more refining capacity for more gasoline and number 2 oil, yet alone give anything to resemble anything regarding a war plan.

It's amusing how the Californians finally agree to build a refinery, (IN ARIZONA), to help them survive. Until people seriously wake up, we are going to be using crank cell phones. We are hitting Malthus' limits of growth and the environmentalists are still thinking we live in the freaking 19th century!

Nothing is going to promote WAR like someone cutting off our oil supplies at this point. Yet, we are supposed to live in the dark. WE HAVE TO LIVE IN THE DARK. Noone can seem to understand we are continuing to renew nuclear powerplants that have had their permits expired, and are 40 years old in design, many dating back to the 70's.

People don't understand these plants need to be phased out for safer plants. We we are begging for a nuclear accident when we have technology 40 years more advanced, right now.

We are running off electrical capacity. That capacity is at it's limits. Not only that, it's the totally prime target for an attack.

People worry: "What will happen if a nuclear missle hits a nuclear plant..."

The answer is the same damn thing that would of happened 40 years ago, only this time it wouldn't put out more than a whisper of radioactivity. The rods go out of line, it's a slower reaction. The real issue here is what is happening to the rest of the country when our enemy's have nuclear missles and we are desperate for fossil fuels? Isn't that the driving force right now anyway? It's simple cause and effect. We take away their money source, and rely on our technology, eliminating the WAR paradigm, the need to even consider going to war. We tell them to go play with their filthy, polluting oil.

I know Bush is accepting filthy oil money. If half of you knew that OIL is the reason the environment was going to hell, you wouldn't worry half as much about nuclear power, yet alone we have floating weapons platforms floating in all 7 seas that would make an nuclear accident look like a leaky boat.

Go ahead and move it to the War Room circle jerk where I am tired of even bothering trying to rationalize. All they want to talk about is what a monster this U.N. nominee is some monster, when the real monster is the U.N. itself. Why shouldn't we be pissed off at the U.N.? Paul Volker is the one who destroyed the economy and brought 22 percent rates and created industry's to circumvent the Credit Card industry, which is the biggest ripoff in the history of Banking. Most profit comes for banks comes not from the Mortgage or Industrial banking industries, it's credit card debt.

The point is I'm sick and tired these adventures into more foreign debt and continued reliance on oil, at least to the pathetic begging that went on today.

I have been screaming this for 20 years, but in the War Room, it's all Bush's fault. That's freaking crazy, and they know it. We all knew demand would outstrip supply for refining capacity, and that nuclear power has been castrated for the past 30 years, the grid is at the point of collapse, and yet everyone thinks they are going to drive a Lincoln SUV yet tell everyone else they are driving a joke Primus Hybryd that only gets 5 MPG better under city conditions, and has tons of toxic batteries. It's a joke.

Oh man you have really lost it. So tell me wise one is anything that is affecting our country Dubya's fault? You give him a pass on the war in Iraq, the deficit, the reversal of environmental laws, dropping out of weapons treaties, and now the oil prices.So tell me has Dubya done anything wrong? Of course we're gonna blame him you dimwit he's the president.You really are a closet republican aren't you? The prices are not all dependent on demand, other factors like threats of terrorism will also drive up prices. Hell Iraq was pumping out more oil prior to the war than it is now. Then you have Rumsfeld and Condi starting shet with venezuela which supplies us with 1.6 million barrels daily.

[Tredici]

Actually it's a fact the crude being produced in Saudi is acquiring more sour tendencies. You can say it's preposterous because you don't trade it. There is a difference between what you think and what I know.

The Saudi's bought into our refineries many moons ago. It's not a new deal. In 2004 they proposed building new refineries in the U.S.

Outside of Valero, who just purchased Premcor assets this week, American companies have shown little interest in owning refining assets. The state of California has tried to regulate it out of existance. The majority of Americans don't even realize how silly they sound in being alarmed by the "dependence on foreign oil", when it is the same "foreigners" who own the US based refineries. Kind of like a Toyota built in Tennessee is a foreign car...

As for a refinery that could accept any type of petrochemical that is a great thought though in practicality impossible. Right now there are US based refineries gearing up to retrofit so they can take advantage of the multitude of crudes being produced in Africa. The problem with those crudes? Metal content not currently compatible with existing equipment. It may be a vulnerability but there are certain crack results and the design of the unit is to produce yields. So refineries are limited in what crudes they are going to process to obtain those yields. Unless there is new technology discovered in a hurry.

I have no problem with developing other forms of energy.

Do I like see Bush holding hands with every Bin Laden except one? Nope. That was the point of my post. It's all a bunch of ****. If he was serious about increasing oil production he'd be strolling the streets of Bagdad, not Riyadh. It's all a little show for the public and the whining Democrats.