Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (705879)	10/5/2005 3:02:31 PM
From: DizzyG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Energy bill triggers oil-spill fears in Puget Sound Inslee fights more tankers in Puget Sound By CECILIA KANG SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER An energy bill expected to come before Congress this week could expose Puget Sound to unlimited oil tanker traffic and an increased risk of oil spills, a local lawmaker and environmental groups said Sunday. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., and environmental, civic and business leaders met in Seattle to discuss the Gasoline for America's Security Act, a bill that would reverse a 28-year-old law that protects Puget Sound by restricting tanker traffic and the capacity of oil refineries. "We are greatly concerned," Inslee said. "We cannot take another tanker disaster. It would take Puget Sound years and years to recover, if ever." Inslee said he will fight the bill when it comes to the floor of the House of Representatives later this week. The bill, passed last week by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, would reverse a 1977 law authored written by former U.S. Sen. Warren Magnuson that restricted oil refining east of Port Angeles to amounts that would be consumed only in the state of Washington. In a brief section of the far-reaching energy bill, language that strikes the 1977 restriction would effectively allow more oil production in the region and usher in unlimited oil tanker traffic in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound. The bill follows a recent lawsuit brought by environmental and civic groups against oil giant British Petroleum after it built a pier at Cherry Point, near Blaine. In the case, an appeals court has decided to review whether the BP facility violates capacity regulations. If the energy bill passes, the company would avoid review, and the capacity limits on BP and other refiners would be lifted. BP could not be reached for comment Sunday. "One corporation lost a lawsuit and tried to do in legislation that we've enjoyed for 28 years," Inslee said. advertising Click to learn more... The energy bill was drafted after Hurricane Katrina squeezed oil supply and sent gas prices higher in the United States. "It serves the national interest to increase refinery capacity for gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel, and jet fuel wherever located within the United States, to bring more reliable and economic supply to the American people," the bill states. But local environmental and civic groups expressed concern that the bill could harm the environment and businesses in the Puget Sound area. Even with the Magnuson law in place, oil spills in recent years have tarnished miles of seashore and harmed marine life, with high-profile disasters in the Dalco Passage and off Vashon Island. And tanker traffic in Puget Sound is already brisk, local environmentalists say. Each year 600 tankers ply Puget Sound waters. About 4,800 oceangoing vessels pass through the Sound annually. "Prevention does work," said Mike Sato of the People for Puget Sound environmental group. "The cost of putting the genie back in the bottle after a spill will be very, very expensive." seattlepi.nwsource.com A bad case of Not In My Back Yard, eh? You are blowing smoke again, Kenneth. Diz-

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (705879)	10/5/2005 3:15:33 PM
From: DizzyG	Respond to of 769670

being more aggressive in pushing for alternative energy research It's been my experience that whenever the government gets involved in the private sector it ends up costing three times as much as it should. Alternative energy research should be driven by the market...not the government. Take a look, Kenneth...it's already happening: Dave Thompson may be making a relatively modest investment of $1 million to launch an alternative-fuels company, but the move signals the entrepreneurial energy that can be unleashed by higher energy prices. azcentral.com Diz-

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (705879)	10/7/2005 12:50:52 PM
From: DizzyG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Democrats Attack Bill to Boost Refineries Oct 07 11:10 AM US/Eastern By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON A new Republican-crafted energy bill, prompted by the hurricane devastation and high fuel prices, came under sharp attack Friday from Democrats who called it a sop to rich oil companies that would do little to curb gasoline or natural gas costs, while hurting the environment. Supporters argue the measure is needed to spur construction of new refineries. The House was expected to vote on it later in the day. In an attempt to ease approval of the bill, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, removed a particularly contentious provision Friday that would have implemented clean air regulation changes long sought by the Bush administration. It would have allowed not only refineries, but also coal-burning power plants and other industries to expand and make changes without adding pollution controls even if emissions increase. Still, Democrats and a few Republicans lambasted the legislation as debate opened on the House floor. It does nothing to curb oil use by requiring more fuel efficient cars or promoting alternative energy sources, said Rep. Edward Markey, D- Mass. He called it "a leave-no-oilman-behind bill." Attempts to add requirements that automakers increase vehicle fuel economy and a measure aimed at producing more natural gas were thwarted by GOP leaders who strictly limited the ability by lawmakers to amend the bill. "Natural gas is an issue this (Congress) needs to deal with," said Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., who was prevented under House rules for the bill from offering a proposal that would have opened offshore natural gas resources to drilling. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita shut down more than a dozen refineries and disrupted natural gas supplies. Gasoline prices soared and huge increases in heating bills are expected this winter for users of both gas and fuel oil. Barton says vulnerabilities in the fuel supply system exposed by the hurricanes show that the country needs to build more refineries, especially away from the Gulf Coast region. No refineries have been built in the United States since 1976 as the industry has consolidated to fewer, but larger facilities. The GOP legislation also would limit to six the different blends of gasoline and diesel fuel that refiners would be required to produce, reversing a trend of using so-called "boutique" fuels to satisfy clean air demands. And it would give the federal government greater say in siting a refinery and pipeline. It also calls on the president to designate military bases or other federal property where a refinery might be built. "The bill weakens state and federal environmental standards ... and gives a break to wealthy oil companies while doing little or nothing to affect oil prices," Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., said in a letter Thursday to colleagues. With prices soaring, "oil companies now have all the profits and incentives they need to build new refineries" without government help, he maintained. Barton countered that it will give industry more "certainty" that a refinery project will not be delayed "without lessening any environmental law now on the books. ... The bill sets in motion a chain of events for lowering gas prices for Americans." Among the groups trying to kill the bill were the National League of Cities, nine state attorneys general, most environmental organizations and groups representing state officials in charge of implementing federal clean air requirements. They said the bill would hinder their ability to ensure clean and healthy air. Environmentalists also have argued that the limit to six gasoline types could jeopardize the requirement for use of low-sulfur diesel fuel. The low-sulfur diesel regulations have been touted by the Bush administration as one of the Environmental Protection Agency's most significant accomplishments. In 1981, the United States had 325 refineries capable of producing 18.6 million barrels a day. Today there are fewer than half that number, producing 16.9 million barrels daily. Still, refining capacity has been increasing, though not dramatically, for the last decade. Imports have made up the difference as demand has continued to increase. breitbart.com Diz-