| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Economy |
| Senate-Panel Deadlock Imperils Oil-Refinery Incentives This Year |
| 2005-10-27 |
| A partisan fight in a Senate committee appears to have doomed new federal incentives to increase the nation's oil-refining capacity, at least for this year. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee deadlocked 9-9 over a Republican proposal to streamline federal and state permit procedures for companies that want to build refineries or expand plants. Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R., Okla.) pushed the plan as a compromise over a House-passed proposal that weakened environmental standards and gave oil companies insurance against permit delays. Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R., R.I.), however, voted with the panel's eight Democrats to reject the measure. "We should be addressing our consumption, not just demand," Sen. Chafee said, adding that he wanted to see tighter federal fuel-economy standards for U.S. cars and trucks. Democrats claimed that Republicans were giving incentives to oil companies, whose profits have climbed amid recent price increases. "We ought not to feed that greed," said Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D., N.J.). Oil-industry officials, who said increased refining capacity is needed to reduce reliance on imported gasoline and to give the nation's supply system more flexibility to handle emergencies such as the recent hurricane outages, were disappointed. "The process isn't over yet, and perhaps something will rise from the ashes," said Robert Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. But there is, as yet, no Senate sponsor for the House version of the measure and little time left this year to try another Senate version. Meanwhile, Democrats see political opportunities in recent announcements of high oil-company profits during the third quarter. By enforcing party-line votes on energy issues and drawing support from Republican moderates, such as Sen. Chafee, Democrats hope to gain a slim majority for their approach, which relies heavily on conservation and environmentally acceptable "alternative" fuels, such as ethanol and oil produced from coal. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) recently proposed a $20 billion "Strategic Energy Fund" that would tax the profits of oil companies that didn't invest in new U.S. refining capacity or in production of alternative fuels. The Energy Department reported that gasoline prices have fallen below prehurricane levels, partly because of a "record volume" of imported gasoline from Europe. But officials noted that the price of diesel oil remains above $3.10 a gallon because imports of diesel are relatively small and demand for the fuel remains high, driven by the need for home heating oil -- which is a similar product -- and farmers' need for the fuel to harvest crops. |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #5 BTW, in case y'all were wondering, the rumor going around the grapevine is that it's going to take about a year to get the Mars Project (a deepwater project way out in the Gulf) about a year to get repaired from the damage from Katrina. |
| Posted by: Phil 2005-10-27 14:48 |
| #4 A refinery (or, to take another oil-field example, the Mars Project) takes a decade or more to pay off. The government is more than welcome to complain about high profits one year as soon as they're willing to make up the shortfall during the bad years. (Three years after the bottom fell out of the oilfield in the US in '85 and just about everyone lost their jobs, they revoked the windfall profits tax. I guess they were worried someone was going to request a refund on their negative profits.) |
| Posted by: Phil 2005-10-27 12:49 |
| #3 Danielle, the alternative fuels everyone talks about (hydrogen, ethanol) are generally a scam; they're dependent on conventional hydrocarbons for their manufacture. Everyone's using the fact that profits are good for the majors as an _excuse_ to keep from doing anything to shore up oil production in _this_ country. Hillary and her strict party-line discipline (and the rest of her party) helped _create_ the higher oil prices that she's complaining about, which is to me the height of hypocricy. |
| Posted by: Phil 2005-10-27 12:47 |
| #2 "We ought not to feed that greed, " said Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D., N.J.). an expert on the subject. |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-10-27 12:34 |
| #1 I think that's one of the few ideas I have ever agreed with, coming from Senator Clinton. The other was not listening to Sheehan! |
| Posted by: Danielle 2005-10-27 10:53 |