On May 15, NewsBusters noted that the press were missing the seemingly obvious connection between higher gasoline prices and the federally mandated use of ethanol.
In doing so, they were also mysteriously passing on a fine opportunity to bash the Bush administration, something that obviously defied logic and precedent.
Well, it appears nine days later the folks at the New York Times recognized this oversight, and published a front-page business section article entitled “Oil Industry Says Biofuel Push May Hurt at Pump” (emphasis added throughout):
Gas prices are spiking again — to an average of $3.22 a gallon, and close to $4 a gallon in many areas.
[…]
[Oil executives] point to a surprising culprit: uncertainty created by the government’s push to increase the supply of biofuels like ethanol in coming years.
And who do you think the Times blamed for this push:
In his State of the Union address in January, President Bush called for a sharp increase in the use of biofuels, along with some improvement in automobile fuel efficiency to reduce America’s use of gasoline by 20 percent within 10 years.
What a surprise. It’s all the President and his buddies in the oil industry’s fault:
That has forced many oil companies to reconsider or scale back their plans for constructing new refinery capacity.
In hearings before Congress last year, oil executives outlined plans to increase fuel production by expanding existing refineries. Those plans would add capacity of 1.6 million to 1.8 million barrels a day over the next five years, for an increase of 10 percent, according to the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.
But those plans have since been scaled back to more than one million barrels a day, according to the Energy Information Administration, an arm of the federal government.
“If the national policy of the country is to push for dramatic increases in the biofuels industry, this is a disincentive for those making investment decisions on expanding capacity in oil products and refining,” said John D. Hofmeister, the president of the Shell Oil Company. “Industrywide, this will have an impact.”
And the bashing continued:
Refineries are a choke point in the nation’s supply of fuel. Because they have not invested enough in refineries to increase gasoline supplies, oil companies have been unable to meet the country’s growing demand in recent years. That has forced them to rely on imports, which are more expensive than fuel refined domestically.
The fragility of the refining system became apparent after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. At the time, President Bush offered to reopen some military bases as sites for constructing refineries and Congress passed legislation to encourage refiners.
But oil companies rejected the idea of constructing new refineries in the United States, saying it would be impractical and too expensive.
Unbelievable. Absolutely no mention that a new refinery hasn’t been constructed in this country since Marathon Oil’s Garyville, Louisiana, plant went online in 1976. Or that the primary reason for this has been the inability of oil companies to get licenses to build such facilities through an environmentally-friendly Congress, which, through most of this period, was controlled by Democrats.
As a result, the media have created an incredible lose-lose for the oil companies, as in the '70s, '80s, and '90s, they were bad guys because they hurt the environment. Now, they're bad guys because they didn't build enough refineries even though Congress wouldn't allow it.
Just as unconscionable, the Times failed to mention that Congress during this same period consistently prevented oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, whilst restricting offshore activities in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
No, we wouldn't want to address any of that. Instead, this problem today, ladies and gentlemen, has all just come upon us since George W. Bush became president.
Isn’t it wonderful to be able to revise history this way?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Oil companies import gasoline
May 24, 2007 - 14:19 ET by JDWOil companies import gasoline, obviously there are added costs.
Estimated time from start to profit when building a new refinery is about 2 decades. Both the government and ewackos are standing against the project, inspecting every last detail.
The biofuels have not influenced demand for increased refineries, the dems have. Where would prices be today if competition existed in the oil business? If you had the option of purchasing gas at half existing price, which fuel would you choose?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
"Unbelievable. Absolut
May 24, 2007 - 14:28 ET by ckc1227"Unbelievable. Absolutely no mention that a new refinery hasn’t been
constructed in this country since Marathon Oil’s Garyville, Louisiana,
plant went online in 1976."
Well, not specifically, but they do mention refineries are an issue when they say:
"Refineries are a choke point in the nation’s supply of fuel. Because
they have not invested enough in refineries to increase gasoline
supplies, oil companies have been unable to meet the country’s growing
demand in recent years."
Of course, they don't tell you that it's next to impossible to build new refineries or why this is, however.
As for the biodiesal/ethanol argument, it makes sense to me. Unintended consequences almost always occur whenever government "fixes" things, lol. If you tell oil companies that you're going to move away from oil/gas, don't expect them to invest money to produce more of it.
The Bush call for more biodiesal/ethanol may not be the cause of today's high gas prices, but it will be the reason in the near future.
President Bush offered to reo
May 24, 2007 - 15:53 ET by general companyPresident Bush offered to reopen some military bases as sites for constructing refineries and Congress passed legislation to encourage refiners.
But oil companies rejected the idea of constructing new refineries in the United States, saying it would be impractical and too expensive.
As I see it the Oil Co. are fine with things the way they are. Even if scaling back regulation for Refinery's were available. Seems by the above quote they already have their excuses for not wanting to do it. I mean they are in it for the money, and they have never made more. Built in reasons and excuses everywhere!
What I dont understand is why they havent tried to do much of this (refining) in Mexico, would help everyone, wouldnt it?
If you were big oil why wou
May 24, 2007 - 16:01 ET by JDWIf you were big oil why would you consider investing huge dollars in a country that's try to ban it?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Not going to happen in Mexico
May 24, 2007 - 16:02 ET by dscottNot going to happen in Mexico, PEMEX (Mexico's state owned oil company) owns everything related to oil and gas.
The bottom line is it simply is too much hassle to build one due to regulations, starting with the Environmental Impact Statement, and the years of preliminary studies and preparation they are forced to do under the regulations.
Besides, the oil companies have seen the handwriting on the wall. 30 years have taught them to be very cautious about investing billions of dollars in a project that will continually draw the meddling of politicians making it a loosing proposition. There are more cost effective and simpler means to make money... like a shortage. After all those years of taking on the nose, now the time has come to collect.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Why build a brand new refiner
May 25, 2007 - 00:52 ET by UnsaneWhy build a brand new refinery from the ground up, now, with prices as they are now, when it will take at least 15 years for it to go "online"? Who knows what the cost of gasoline/crude oil will be a year from now, much less fifteen years from now?
And why would it take that long? The crying of the environmentalists, NIMBYism, interference from state and local governments, etc...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Meh
May 25, 2007 - 00:57 ET by Mr. BishopAs I recall... it takes several years just to get the long paperwork trail through the relevant bureaucracies, just to begin the long process of trying to break ground. That, combined with the untold billions of dollars oil companies have to spend on the tons of EPA compliancies -- it really doesn't make it worth the effort, or the money at this time, for the oil companies to invest in such a thing. Now... if the EPA restrictions were lifted, or even lightened, and the paperwork trail shortened in time and length -- maybe, just maybe -- we could get some refineries up and running sometime in the next 2 decades...
__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
Why is it that the Democrat P
May 24, 2007 - 14:34 ET by dscottWhy is it that the Democrat Party points the finger at the oil companies saying they are making record profits? Well they are, that’s true, however, like all convincing lies elements of the truth are necessary to misrepresent reality. What most Democrats practicing Socialism fail to tell their followers is about the Laws of Supply and Demand (which they didn’t legislate): When demand over takes supply, the price must rise accordingly to limit demand. Another basic corollary to the Laws of Supply and Demand is when prices are kept low, demand for that product or service will increase until the supply is constrained. In practice, what that means is as long as supply can grow to match demand, the price will stay the same until such time as there is an imbalance in the supply demand equation. Any tampering with supply or demand will have the effect of changing the balance. What will be the Democrat Party’s prescription? Demand the oil companies lower prices (Price Controls) artificially with no increase in refinery capacity? The end result of such foolish Socialistic ideas is a shortage. For those of us who lived during the 1970s, we know first hand that Price Controls lead only to one thing: gas lines.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus AureliusDemand the oil companies low
May 25, 2007 - 08:41 ET by taznarI keep trying to figure out how this will all play out. As I remember the numbers, if gas prices stay above $3 for an extended period of time ethanol and other biofuels have a chance of competing on price.
So, oil companies don't want to invest in new refineries because they see biofuels as a future threat that could moot the investment. Plus, cheaper gas = less profit/gallon and they probably won't make up the difference on volume.
But biofuels companies can only be profitable if gas stays above $3/gallon, but they don't want to invest because they're afraid that if they become a "threat" to big oil, the oil companies will drop prices below $3 and their investment goes up in smoke.
I don't know how it will play out, but I doubt I'll ever see gas below $2 a gallon like I have on two occasions in the last year.
Profit margins of oil companies
May 25, 2007 - 11:46 ET by Evil CapitalistRubbish on multiple levels.
1) Absolute profits do not matter. What matters is the profit margin. Oil companies are making record profits due to record sales at profit margins so low most of other businesses with such margins would pack up and leave.
2) Biofuels have no chance with gas at $4, $5 or $10 per gallon because real cost of producing biofuels is a lot higher. Right now government subsidizes production of biofuel via not just tax breaks but via tax credits.
So, oil companies don't want
May 25, 2007 - 13:52 ET by dscottSo, oil companies don't want to invest in new refineries because they see biofuels as a future threat that could moot the investment. Plus, cheaper gas = less profit/gallon and they probably won't make up the difference on volume.
Well there is a problem with that scenerio, the adding of biofuel is integral to the refining process, hence it doesn't matter how much the percentage is because the refinery is still needed. The blending of ethanol is not simply mixing gas and ethanol otherwise we wouldn't have price spikes when they switch to the summer blend. As long as you have gasoline and government regulations, the refinery is 100% necessary. So we are all screwed for the next 10 or 15 years before the next refinery comes on line.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
"Oil companies don't wan
May 25, 2007 - 14:00 ET by vrwc13"Oil companies don't want to invest in new refineries"
I happen to work in the 5th largest EPC company in the world that works with all the oil companies. Business has never been better, there is a world-wide boom in oil/gas/chemical plant design/construction. Multi-billion dollar projects are on-going everywhere in the world...except here in the US. Why, environmental restrictions. Another reason, more environmental restrictions. Our existing facilities are all over 30 years old.
face piles of trials with smiles
As expected..
May 24, 2007 - 14:41 ET by Gary HallAs I noted befoee.. "But mark my words: Ethanol will loose favor (and you touched [NS] on some of the reasons here) and this President Bush will take the blame for it." The media will blame him for the cost, the ultimate understanding that ethanol was not a net win on emissions - nor on reducing fossile fuels, and that food crops will be converted to fuel crops - and guess how difficult that will be on the poor. Bush will be blamed enriching the bio-fuels industry and farmers at the expense of the poor - and all Bush is doing is continuing the design wanted by Gore and Clinton.
Super context and focus, Noel. (;~>
Most oil companies are public
May 24, 2007 - 15:05 ET by TeamcheeserMost oil companies are publicly traded, so all these folks complaining about the record profits could stop whining and buy some stock and cash in themselves.
In California, nearly 50 cents per gallon go toward taxes (and I don't believe this includes the added cost for the special formula required in CA.)
Why doesn't OPEC draw any ire?
Actually they are, the House
May 24, 2007 - 15:26 ET by dscottActually they are, the House has passed a bill to sue OPEC. It's a ruse on their part to deceive the public about who caused this problem in the first place. But the problem as Noel has pointed out in another thread is the price of crude oil is less than last year, so any increase in the price of gasoline is strictly a refinery bottleneck issue.
BTW- Ethanol is added to gasoline as part of the refining process, it is not simply mixed in after the fact as a result formulation changes for Winter and Summer Blend cause price hikes.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Why is the NYT trying to take
May 24, 2007 - 15:28 ET by dahliatraversWhy is the NYT trying to take credit away from their darling, the environmental movement? They alone are responsible for the movement towards ethanol, the restrictions on domestic drilling, the exhorbitant cost of building refineries and the resultant spike in gasoline prices.
In that vein, I do hope that big oil has expressed its heartfelt appreciation to the environmental movement for the record profits that big oil, domestic and foreign, is experiencing.
"President Bush called f
May 24, 2007 - 16:37 ET by daenku32"President Bush called for a sharp increase in the use of biofuels"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you really blaming NYT for quoting Bush correctly? I guess what you miss is that the Oil Industry itself is blaming your beloved Bush administration.
"blaming your beloved Bush administration"
May 24, 2007 - 16:52 ET by RJ"blaming your beloved Bush administration"
Well, well, what do we have here? Another case of BDS to match the NYT? Bush is to blame for everything? How silly. Did you even read Noel's refutation? The point is, President Bush is not personally to blame for the current situation. In fact, even the NYT and the Democrats were on board with the dumb ethanol revolution.
The states are requiring various ethanol formulations of gasoline, not George Bush. Sure Bush encouraged it, and he's just as wrong as the enviros who have sold him this nonsense. If you had been reading the board for any time, you'd have seen wide-spread derision toward ethanol. It's a stupid idea and a panacea for what we should be doing: drilling exsting deposits and building refineries....but the greenies won't let us.....they'd rather do nothing and hypocritically point their fingers everywhere but at themselves.
Sure Bush encouraged it, and
May 24, 2007 - 21:52 ET by dahliatraversSure Bush encouraged it, and he's just as wrong as the enviros who have sold him this nonsense.
That's right. Well said.
Daenku
May 24, 2007 - 16:54 ET by Noel SheppardD,
No, not at all. In fact, I predicted it would happen -- just surprised it took so long.
As for the oil industry blaming anybody, isn't it a bit disingenuous of a newspaper that hates the oil industry to now give its officials credibility? If these are greedy crooks always out for money, why is their opinion on what is causing high gas prices even considered?
Oh, that's right. Now that they're blaming the problem on Bush, these oil industry officials are suddenly as honest as the day is long. :-) ns
Well, well, well ... let's pl
May 24, 2007 - 18:18 ET by josephsamuelsonWell, well, well ... let's play pin the blame on the Republican. I thought that game was supposed to be played with a donkey.
So they haven't found the lin
May 24, 2007 - 18:38 ET by josephsamuelsonSo they haven't found the link between cancer and George Bush yet? Who's been nappin' on the job, now ... Rosie, is it you? Alec Baldwin? Howard Dean? Michael Moore? Sean Penn?
Accusationists, persecutionists, and resentists absolutely LIVE to find sin, fault, and blame with those they hate.
Well, guess what ... there's at least 2 dozen verses on that crap. Here's the first two :
Isaiah 29:20-21
(20) For the terrible one [the oppressor, the persecutionist] is brought to naught, and the scorner is consumed, AND ALL THAT WATCH FOR INIQUITY ARE CUT OFF:
(21) THAT MAKE A MAN AN OFFENDER FOR A WORD, AND LAY A SNARE FOR HIM THAT REPROVETH [for him that speaks the Truth] IN THE GATE, AND TURN ASIDE THE JUST FOR A THING OF NAUGHT.
President Bush, Should have
May 24, 2007 - 23:36 ET by MilesDPresident Bush,
Should have listened to your Vice President
A long time ago
When he was talking about energy supply!!!
Should have ignored the screaming from the left about "oil companies"!
Should have ignored the arm twisting from the vegetable fuel people!!!