Bush on refineries: Mixed messages

Via Wonkette, this absolute gem of a Q and A with Our Preznit.

First the question:

Q    Mr. President, you had mentioned refining capacity.  I'd like to ask you about an offer from the Kuwaiti oil minister, who has said that he is willing to offer to build a capacity -- a refining capacity in the U.S.; it would be the first time in about 30 years.  Says he's asked for White House assistance -- assistance -- assistance getting permits and fed support and so forth.  What do you think of a proposal like that?

And his answer. Emphasis mine:

THE PRESIDENT:  I am for increasing supply, because I understand when the more supply there is of a product, that will take pressure off of price.  I haven't seen this specific proposal.  But I've also talked to U.S. refiners who have said, we'd like to expand onsite, but the amount of paperwork necessary to do so is staggering.  The issue of new source review, for example, is one that we've reviewed and said that, for the sake of, in this case, the expeditious expansion -- and wise and careful expansion -- of refining capacity, we ought to look at those rules and regulations.  And yet we're back in court.

And so I think if you take a good look at what it means to build a refinery, or expand a refinery, you'll find there's a lot of regulations and paperwork that are required, thereby delaying the capacity for more product to come on to the market and discouraging people from doing -- building refineries.  That's why we haven't had one since 1970-something.
So it's an interesting offer, and we'll, of course, look at it.  The first thing we need to look at is how to encourage people to do just that without getting -- without all kinds of time being taken up through the bureaucratic hurdles.

Now, there are people here far more qualified than I am to pick this apart. But if there is one thing I have taken away from diaries by the likes of Jérôme à Paris, it's that the US hasn't built any refineries for so long because there's been no benefit in building them [note: corrected from original].

Bush tips his hand, though, when he corrects "expeditious" to "wise and careful." This is just another excuse to roll back any regulations at all, despite the fact that under existing regulations, NO is a toxic stew. I can't believe that the real goal here is the short term expansion of refining capability to meet an acute spike in demand. He's just using the occasion to gut any regulation of the oil industry.

The transcript is full of fascinating nuggets of Bushthink, and some choice Bushisms. You can watch his sentences fall apart when he discusses poverty. You can see bits of extraordinary magical thinking like this:

I have said that ownership is a way to counter poverty and being stuck in impoverished situations, and so homeownership is up.

•  He never ceases to amaze

  I'm posting this mostly to bring it to the attention of the more energy-savvy contributors here. Just how far off is his plan to boost refinery capacity "expeditiously," and what do you think he's actually trying to accomplish?
  

  by oldjohnbrown on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 04:30:09 PM PDT

  •  and to that end....

    who wants to bet these refineries that are down are down specifically to jack up prices, a la 2000 california gas crisis?  i mean....are we seriously supposed to believe they build refineries IN THE GULF that aren't designed to withstand major hurricanes?  if so, they ought to fire the guy who made that decision.

    oh and 'mixed messages?'
    it's hard work!

    by mediaprisoner on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 04:45:24 PM PDT

  •  Just assguarding

    Bush looks like a fool being an oil man with an energy shortage on his watch.  He'll use this as an excuse to loosen whatever regulations he can.

    But your premise that oilcos didn't build refineries in the US the last 20 years in the US due to fore knowledge of running out of crude is just flat wrong.

    Refiners lost their asses from 1985 to 2000.  Why add capacity while you are rationalizing existing capacity due to a refined product glut and low margins?  That's even dumber than the oilco top deck types I've known.  This shortfall is very recent.

    by HiD on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 05:56:42 PM PDT

    •  You're right, thanks

      Diary corrected.

      by oldjohnbrown on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 06:06:01 PM PDT

•  Okay -- smoking gun.

  Well, almost. He's either nowhere near as addled as he tries to appear, and Bushspeak is a well-practiced schtick that slipped for a moment...

  - or -

  His deteriorating brain still occasionally shows a flicker or two of the basic competence that was needed to graduate from Yale and Harvard back in the day.

  Because, folks, expeditious is out of character. It is not a word that should be falling from his lips.

  by Canadian Reader on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 05:26:38 PM PDT

•  The Repubs are using the hurricanes

  as an excuse to roll back even more environmental laws then they already have. Give the oil boys credit for jumping on the disaster and spinning it to their advantage.

  The Huffington Post reported the leak of internal memos that said companies like Texaco, Mobil, and Chevron had intentionally shut down refineries and promoted tougher regulations to limit refineries in order to drive up the gas prices.

  The greens aren't doing this -- the oil companies are.

  by Naturegal on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 05:35:05 PM PDT