BP Statistical Review 2005: Consumption Up, Reserves Not
Combining Two CNG/LPG Conversion Companies

Senate Begins Energy Bill Debate; White House Criticizes Cost, Oil Reduction, Renewables

The Senate began consideration today of its version of an Energy Bill (S. 10—earlier post) today, with introduction and support for the legislation coming from both the ranking Republican and Democrat (Domenici, R-NM and Bingaman, D-NM) on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

More aggressive than the House Bill in terms of proposing conservation, the Senate proposal has drawn fire from the White House because of its projected  US$10.9 billion cost. (Reuters).

The White House, according to the Reuters report, also opposes the measure in the bill that requires the president to reduce US oil demand by 1 million barrels per day by 2015. 

The 1 million bpd provision would “effectively require a rapid, near-term increase” in vehicle fuel standards, which could have “undesirable safety impacts,” the White House said.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) is planning to offer an amendment requiring the government to find ways to cut dependence on oil even more—by 40% in 20 years. Imports now account for about 60% percent of US demand and are projected to grow to 70% by 2025.

“If you look at the projections for oil consumption and demand by other countries like China, we’re crazy not to set a goal,“ Cantwell said.

The White House also opposes a mandates in the bill requiring utilities to generate 10% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, and to take action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Setting renewable goals should be left to states, and more study is needed before the United States takes further action on climate change, according to the administration.




Looks like "the administration" is against us. Or could it be they are "for" the oil companies?

That's all right. We will all suffer because of their greed and short-sightness.


Greed can make you do funny things like the current administration does. On one hand, the current administration says publically it wants to protect American interests and spread freedom. But on the other hand the current administration becomes subserviant to foreign interest because of the greed from the big gas refineries.

Someday the oil and gas refiniery companies will realize their jobs are already lost. You can not make a profit if there is no product.


The 1 million bpd provision would “effectively require a rapid, near-term increase” in vehicle fuel standards, which could have “undesirable safety impacts,” the White House said.

LOL, lop off the worst performers in saftey and mpg, and everybody would be happier.

Sometimes it's sad just how stupid whitehouse excuses are.


Great, we get a watered down proposal from a bunch of cowards (5% reduction in oil consumption over 10 years?), which is rejected as being too tough by President Oil Guy.

We should find a good JPG of a violin and e-mail it to all the politicians involved in this debacle, because they're fiddling while America is burning (oil).


If Congress wanted to do something about the problem, they would re-instate the PNGV (with a couple year's delay in schedule) and further mandate that some fraction of production be able to drive at least 10 miles on electricity from the grid without starting its engine.

Today, a producer of 5-passenger sedans achieving 80 (or even 60) MPG and able to run to the store and back without burning fuel would be pretty popular.  Five years from now, if there were only one company making such cars they would be unbeatable.

vduali drxp

vocnqpfby nsabdkog dwlzvbhr bfunwo rfehclbjo qwazkcn terboa

The comments to this entry are closed.