"Newps" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:
Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...

Did you READ the article?

Of course he didn't, the facts might get in the way of a preconceived
notion.

Apparently neither of you read the article.

The lack of new refineries means nothing, except (as Dave S pointed out)
that the oil companies don't need new refineries to meet their demand and
they don't feel like investing in their own future, except if they can get
taxpayers to subsidize it, and if they can be released from their
obligations to the environment.

The article, which neither of you apparently read, pointed out that not only
have no new refineries been built, oil companies have CLOSED refineries
already built. If they need refineries so badly, why did they close the
ones they had?

Furthermore, whether passing this bill was the right answer or not, the
article points out that it was done in a very underhanded way. At one
point, they had 424 votes, against the bill. Somehow, they managed to
REDUCE the vote count (to 422) and yet increase the number of "ayes". In
what world is it reasonable to just keep recounting the votes until you get
the answer you want? (Please, no one from Washington State answer that one
). The House voting rules provide for five minutes to count the vote,
and yet the Representative standing in for the oh-so-honorable Tom DeLay
held the vote open for more than 40 minutes, waiting until he and his
friends were able to pork-barrel the votes their way.

All of the above is in the article. Why didn't either of you notice those
facts?

Thankfully, the bill did retain the environmental protections required of
the oil companies. But otherwise, it's a huge win for the oil companies,
and unlikely to be much of a real benefit for consumers. We probably do
need more refineries, if for no other reason than to provide backup capacity
for situations like the hurricanes. But oil companies make plenty of
money...there's absolutely no reason they can't provide their own investment
in their own future.

Any taxpayer that thinks that they will wind up paying less money overall by
funding new refineries is fooling themself.

Pete