One Small Voice. A Lot of Big Ideas. Let Freedom Ring!

YIPPEE! Two New Oil Refineries in Development. First in US in 35 Years.

2/17/12 update: Although I wrote this post almost a year ago, it is by far and away my highest-grossing post for views with numerous hits every single day. Obviously, energy costs are a hot topic. By clicking on the links provided for Arizona Clean Fuels and Hyperion, you’ll find where the companies are in the process. One must look at the unfavorable regualtion climate of the Obama administration to understand why progress is so SLOW on these much-needed refineries.

Oil prices are on the rise. Gas prices are on the rise. And the Obama Administration is not inclined to open up any new drilling in the US.

 However there is some good news. Two new oil refineries are being developed in the United States: Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma, LLC is building an oil refinery in Yuma, Arizona and Hyperion Energy Center is building a refinery in Union County, South Dakota.

 Currently there are 149 refineries in the US. The last time a new oil refinery came online was 1976.

 I don’t know about you, but knowing that two refineries are in development is great news. It gives me renewed hope  that someone is willing to fight extremely overbearing government regulations and hostile environmentalism to bring America something it needs. (I know these companies stand to make billions and billions and why shouldn’t they? They are taking the risks and that’s American capitalism).

 Which refinery will actually become operational first appears to be a matter of who can jump through the hoops the quickest. Arizona Clean Fuels was originally scheduled to open in 2009. But it took SEVEN YEARS TO GET AN AIR QUALITY PERMIT.

 According to the US Energy Information website, Arizona Clean Fuels is now expected to open in 2012. But the latest information on the company’s website says “Next major milestone, expected within the next few months, will be the announcement of the EPC contractor.” There have been no press updates posted on their site since 2009.

When the $3 billion refinery opens they will have a refining capacity of 150,000 barrels a day and provide 600 jobs.

 The Hyperion Energy Center oil refinery is an even bigger mega-project. Located on over 3.600 acres of land, the $10 billion refinery will produce 400,000 barrels of fuel per day and promises over 1,800 oil refinery jobs. (And over 4,000 construction jobs). They bill themselves as a “Greenfield refinery” that will produce ultra-low sulfur gasoline, ultra-low sulfur diesel and ultra-low sulfur aviation fuel. Construction is slated to begin in 2012.

 Hyperion and Arizona Clean Fuels both face extreme opposition from environmental groups, but have so far defeated court challenges by the Sierra Club and other groups. The Sierra Club is so determined to shut down the Hyperion project  they have devoted an entire web site to the cause.

 When you add the cost and delays caused by overly stringent and ever-changing EPA regulations and the constant court challenges of environmental groups to the tremendous expense of actually constructing a new oil refinery, it’s a wonder that Arizona Clean Fuels and Hyperion were able to find investors at all. (And its little wonder that more oil companies and investors aren’t taking the gamble). 

New oil refineries don’t replace the need for new drilling. But they are extremely important to our national energy security. The troubles in the Mideast are a real threat to US oil supply and ultimately to the American way of life. Without sufficient energy, we’re toast.

Green energy is not ready to replace fossil fuels today or for the foreseeable future. And I doubt green energy will ever be able to fully replace our need for oil.

More refineries means we can process more or our own oil and more  oil from friendly producers, such as Canada. These refineries will bring in millions in new tax revenue and produce countless new jobs.

Unfortunately, the extreme environmentalists don’t seem concerned about rising gas prices, creating jobs or preserving the American way of life.

 Arizona Clean Fuels and Hyperion Energy Center—this is one American who sends a BIG HIGH FIVE.

About these ads

112 comments on “YIPPEE! Two New Oil Refineries in Development. First in US in 35 Years.

  1. cocomino
    March 4, 2011

    I learned a lot.The gasoline costs 1.7 US dollars per liter.I spent about 75 US dollars per month.
    My wife only drive a car for 20 minutes everyday for go to office and take daughters,

  2. Freedom, by the way
    March 4, 2011

    If my calculations (conversion from liters to gallons) are correct, then gas in Japan costs about $6.75 a gallon. Wow. I guess you think we Americans are complaining because it costs about $3.40 a gallon here. It’s good that your family doesn’t have to do a lot of driving. Fuel must be a huge expense in Japan.

    • cocomino
      March 4, 2011

      Your calculations should be correct.How cheap!I envy your country.
      But I heard that we would get electric car for the same prices of a gasoline car in a few years.

      • Norikohnazty
        March 25, 2013

        “so what am I not understanding?”That since tkniag office, Obama has declared 85 percent of our offshore areas off-limits, decreased oil and gas leases in the Rockies by 70 percent, declared an illegal drilling moratorium in the gulf, and cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline. He routinely calls for higher taxes on oil companies that would only drive prices up. He pushed for a cap-and-trade legislation that would make gas prices even higher if he had succeeded. He and his Energy Secretary are both on record calling for higher gas prices. During the 2008 campaign, he openly declared he had a plan to make electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket.” He has 10 different federal agencies sniffing around the areas where fracking is occurring. Think they’re there to promote it?>Clear anything up for you?

        • richard
          April 12, 2013

          The US oil companies care nothing about nothing else but money,period.
          The oil from Alaska,the gulf,east coast,and US mainland belongs to us.
          They pay little to no royalties for it. Then slap us in the face by shipping
          gasoline,and other oil products to China,India,Mexico,Venezuela,etc and
          keep raising prices here, and they still get hundreds of millions dollars
          in tax breaks.Why risk the chance of any oil spills in the gulf,Atlantic,or
          mainland from new wells or pipelines? Companies run by asses who care
          nothing about the hardships their fellow citizens are having,just as long
          as the green keeps flowing. There is nothing wrong with a company or it`s
          investors making a profit, but when people can`t afford heating oil, gasoline
          to go to work,just because of greed,yes I have a problem with that.They
          would still make billions,with giving us a break,all they would have to do is
          let their relatives in the year 3000 earn their own money. Does that clear
          things up for you?

          • recce1
            April 12, 2013

            Your comments cleared things up for me quite well. You’re a socialist willing to grudgingly concede a little profit to those who invest and work to produce petroleum products.

            Most of our domestic oil comes from wells on private lands. It doesn’t belong to the people but to those who invested and took the risk to explore, drill, pump it, and refine it. Obama has significant decreased oil production on public lands and off the coast. The regulation to relax restrictions put in a clause that wells in state waters which needed state approval would only pay fair royalties to the federal government. Would you care to guess what many states have done?

            The oil companies are not, I repeat, are not public utilities although some Democrats would like to make them so.

          • Anonymous
            April 22, 2013

            Land owners do not have rights to the oil or gas that is on their property,so
            yes the oil does belong to the people.The government offers leases for 10 years to oil companies for very little compensation for cheating the citizens of this country of this valuable resource. They often get waivers on environment issues and when things go wrong it`s the tax payers who often pay for the cleanup.
            I would deny a little profit for all the risks the oil companies takes you say.
            Record setting 10 billion profit per quarter must be a real insult to them.I`m
            surprised they have not closed shop and moved to China or India.
            You call me a socialist, I only wanted to point out something is wrong here. U.S. based companies giving nothing back to their fellow Americans.

          • Anonymous
            April 22, 2013

            Annoymous, you’re quite mistaken.Many land owners have mineral and water rights on their land. Sometimes it’s previous owners be they individuals or companies. On the land I owned in NE it was companies that owned the mineral rights.

            You claim that, “U.S. based companies (give) nothing back to their fellow Americans.” That’s a progressive partisan prevarication. According to Forbes ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips paid more than 40% in taxes, higher than the statutory U.S. rate of 35%. Exxon paid more than $10 billion in taxes in the US.

            So yes, I claiming you’re a socialist.

          • Anonymous
            April 23, 2013

            do a search ,land owners have mineral and water rights,but not oil or natural gas rights.Any taxes paid,if any,does not help the people.You must have plenty of shares in oil.Call me what you like, I happen to think of people first.You know the poor who can not afford heating oil at $4.00 a gallon,how
            many men,women and children die each winter in fires due to wood stoves,
            electric heaters,kerosene heaters? People working, needing to spend
            hundreds each month on gasoline.The economy would certainly improve
            with lower energy costs, and your oil companies would still make plenty of
            money from our oil.This is not some third world country, no one working
            should be taking out loans just to pay for heating oil.and they do.I will not
            reply again,we disagree,many people do,and we are the intelligent species,
            money at all costs.

        • chrales
          August 18, 2013

          it is because he has no earthly clue that the refineries are the bottle neck of the market we as councumers can not do this any longer I own an oilcompainy and we are going broke because of the imports and free trade agreement ….

      • Anonymous
        June 12, 2013

        Funny thing about the whole electric car is, where do you think the electricity comes from. Power plant! Nukler, coal!

    • righthook38
      March 15, 2012

      While our gas may seem cheap to others, we know that there’s no reason for it to cost what it does. That’s the rub. We have the resources we need to keep prices down. If we have a shortage, why are we exporting gasoline? If we don’t have a shortage, why are the prices so high? If they’re high because of the potential issues in Iran, then why aren’t we drilling more to become energy independent? It makes no sense. Of course, he claims we’re drilling more than ever, basically giving himself the credit, but the fact is, it’s all on private land. He still refuses to sign permits for any other drilling. He’s even in contempt of court over these matters.

      Then Obama wants to blame “big oil” companies for the high prices, when in fact, the government makes a higher tax on each gallon of gas than the oil companies do. It’s a total BS argument.

      • recce1
        March 15, 2012

        Excellent points. For a government to want high energy prices, and Mr. Obama is on record as saying so, it must want to stifle travel and herd people into cities so as to better control them. This policy Cass Sunstien, an Obama advisor, alluded to.

        In addition, high energy costs, which effect many other prices, is part of the Cloward and Pivens plan to collapse the USA and form a USSA.

        • walthe310
          March 23, 2012

          “For a government to want high energy prices, and Mr. Obama is on record as saying so, it must want to stifle travel”
          That is false

          • recce1
            March 24, 2012

            Quite contraire. Obama has called for higher energy prices and has said he wanted to bankrupt segments of the energy business. His administration thru the EPA has mandated higher auto milage rates that will necessitate people moving to the cities and is trying an end run around Congress with Cap and Trade policies.

            His secretaries and advisors have stated the administration wants higher gasoline prices and people moved to the cities. Consider Sec. of Energy Chu and Cass Sunstein,

          • Dennis
            April 7, 2012

            I heard Obama say with his own mouth in his own words that he wants gas prices to be equal to those of europe. Obama is trying to destroy this country. Remember the russian leader who said they would take over america without firing a shot???? Well Obama is part of that plan.

          • Freedom, by the way
            April 7, 2012

            Yes, the only reason Obama is feining concern right now is because of the election. HIs administration does not want cheap gas prices because they want to push green energy at any cost. Thank you for visiting.

      • Scott
        March 23, 2012

        We export diesel fuel, not gasoline. We have excess capacity to refine diesel fuel but a shortage in capacity to refine gasoline. We therefore ship diesel fuel to Europe where nearly 50% of passenger cars run on diesel and we import gasoline. Our country has not seen a new refinery go online since the 1970’s and therefore does not have the capacity to meet our demand for gasoline.

        The reason that prices go up when there is turmoil in foreign countries is that crude oil is a world commidity that is bought and sold buy not only refiners, but by speculators trying to make money off of a product they never intend to take delivery of or use. Even if we continue to increase our domestic oil production, it will not necessarily lower prices, since the companies that own the production rights will sell the oil on the open market the same as all current oil is sold, to the highest bidder. These companies love the high prices and are getting fat off of the current world turmoil.

      • captaind1
        April 12, 2012

        I couldn’t have said it better, straight talk and no BS
        May I add, If Osamabama had a capitalistic bone in his body he would have supported oil independence and used the billions, possibly trillions of extra taxes, income from more people working and used the money to expand his green earth agenda. I’m only a high school grad and I figured this out on my own. Says a lot about our President.

      • geoguy
        May 10, 2012

        the government makes over $60 per barrel of oil (if a barrel is selling for $100) no expenses, no risk….what a deal. Never think the poor government isn’t making enough.

        April 13, 2013

        Indeed; I still get notifications of comments on this post. Check this out:
        Filed under: Commentary — Leave a comment
        May 17, 2012
        Copyright so I can’t post; apparently, there is no supply shortage, just corporate chicanery.
        It isn’t Drill, Drill, Drill that’s needed.

        Their corporate bottom line is their main concern; being able to make much greater profits selling to overseas markets. I think that -given- the gov’t traded a 5% corporate tax, in exchange for the refiners keeping at least an additional 1/3 of their production for domestic use, [the current tax being well over 30%] would drop domestic gas prices down significantly.

  3. Dianne Shatin
    March 6, 2011

    I don’t give a rat’s a** how much gasoline costs in Japan or anywhere else outside of the USA. The demaind for gasoline has grown enormously, however, oil companies have shut down refineries and only now are planning on opening only 2 oil refineries. The U.S population unfortunately is over 400 million people and yet no effort has been made to provide an efficient, stable supply of gasoline and heating oil This is due to the indifference of the Federal Government, the Multinational Oil Companies, and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. Energy futures traders and oil companies use every single tiny event anywhere in the world that may be remotely construed to have the slightest bearing on oil as The Excuse to jack up the prices hugely, percipitating economic turmoil, volatility, and unemployment in the USA. Lack of leadership in the USA, knee jerk reacting to the international market place where China and other countries constantly interfere with the ability of the U.S. to continue to succeed aided and abetted by the likes of those commenting on this blog result in such insanity as the U.S. military troops dying in IraQ so that China and France clinch the first oil leases with Iraq.

    It is the immediate responsibility of Congress and the Commodities Future Trading Chairman Gary Gensler to get on the stick and either control the wild commodity traders and/or release the U.S. Stockpiles of petroleum to drive down gas prices for the economically stressed American worker.

    • Freedom, by the way
      March 7, 2011

      Thanks for visiting and commenting, Dianne. Excellent points. But let’s not forget that oil companies closing refineries is often due to stricter (suffocating, really) new EPA requirements. If it’s not profitable for them to refurbish or rebuild, they walk away. (Not to mention the extremely strong environmental activist lobbying). That’s why the government needs to put a priority on energy independence which includes making it easier for companies to invest in new refineries, new drilling and new technology. I am not knowledgeable enough to speak to your point about the role commodity traders play.

      • Anonymous
        March 12, 2012

        A reply to your 2012 update.

        The Arizona project waited 7 years for an air quality certification. Due to open in 2009. How did the Obama administration (now 3 years old) hold up the certificate for 7 years?

        I suspect that most of that time was Bush Administration time. Why don’t you give credit where it is due?

        • Talon's Point
          March 23, 2012

          No credit is due Obama but your point is somewhat valid. Blame is due to Bush for not fighting the twisted leftist bureaucracy he inherited.

          • jim
            March 24, 2012

            So you going to blame Bush for the closing of three US oil refineries also with a loss of 650k of oil a day also? Three US oil refiniers closed this year..Sunoco in Marcus hook PA, ConocoPhillips in Trainer , PA and Hovensa, St. Croix with a total number of 650 k barrels of oil LOST from being refined in the US.. Obama’s an ass… People are having a con game run on them left and right by this sock puppets.. It’s time to clean the political house out of these misfit rejects in washington..

          • Talon's Point
            March 25, 2012

            I guess jim you didn’t read my post slowly enough. Entrenched leftist bureaucracies run virtually unimpeded when Republicans sit in the big chair to their shame and the harm of our country. When Dems sit in the big chair these entities are emboldened to expedite our harm.

      • richard
        February 26, 2013

        oh the poor oil companies, remember $5.00 dollar plus gasoline prices,
        heating oil, and kerosene $5.00 plus prices. All due to the to the price of
        crude? so they said. Then why were they making record profits, 10 billion
        or more per quarter? They received then and still today get hundreds of million in tax breaks.How many U.S. oil companies took President Bush`s offer to used closed military bases to build new refineries? Difficult question
        I know, but zero keeps popping up. The number of major oil companies
        in the U.S. keeps falling due to buy outs, production of gasoline and heating oil has been falling since the late 1970`s. Don`t need to trust me, search it.
        It`s not the president of today or past. It`s your elected officials democrats
        and republicans alike. The oil companies along with many others (banks
        and loan institutions,pharmaceutical co,and many more) have paid off the
        one`s who say they will represent you in Washington. These companies
        do not spent millions on lobbyists and campaign donations, and expect
        nothing in return. I think the dictionary calls it a bribe,payoff, did not see it
        listed under donations. Then are representatives vote on rules and regulations for these companies,invest in many of these companies and
        except themselves from any conflict of interest rules. They even police
        themselves with the ethics comity. In my opinion our founding fathers made a huge mistake in not setting term limits for senators and representatives in federal government. Also think state government should have term limits.It should be an honor to serve not a career. The lust for power and money is in many people, without term limits unfortunately it`s the same-o same-o.
        I believe people have the power to make change, look what the Hispanics
        have done and they make up 10 percent of the U.S.
        In my opinion it does not take republicans, democrats,tea party, or any
        other group, it takes we the people to demand with our vote our voice,
        and solidarity to have a government by the people and for the people.

    • Recce1
      January 1, 2012

      You should care as much of the crude coming into this country is being refined to sell overseas due to greater profits in foreign markets.

    • JL
      January 13, 2012

      Rather than complain about how much oil costs, the smarter, long-term solution is finding a way to use less of it. Electric cars solve oil pricing problems very quickly. What’s needed for mass deployment of electric cars? Distributed electrical generation (i.e. solar panels), re-direction of government subsidies from carbon fuels to renewables, and some education of the general public, who will continue to burn oil as much oil as possible, for as long as possible, until they’re taught a better way.

      It’s not that hard.

      • Recce1
        February 9, 2012

        The problem is far harder than you believe, much of it due to government actions. The problem with electric cars is several fold.

        First, where does electricity come from? Is it not from coal and OIL fired plants primarily?Didn’t Obama say he planned to bankrupt the coal industry? And isn’t the government slowing or prohibiting new nuclear and hydro electric plants?

        Secondly, isn’t the charging time for electric vehicles too long and the range too short? They’re great for urban driving, and that’s what Obama wants so as to herd the population back into the cities for easier control over.

        Third, from what are batteries made of; are they not from oil based plastics and heavy metals? Don’t they produce environmental problems of their own and also aren’t they becoming more scarce?

        Until we develop fusion nuclear energy plants, if ever due to the government, we’ll be facing increasing energy shortages. Solar, wind, and geothermal sources of energy while regionally important, aren’t practical as nationwide resources. In short, we’re between a rock and a hard place.

        To “teach” the public to accept far more costlier energy sources, mobility restrictions, and a lower standard of living in the name of a more “equitable” society is to teach them to want to undergo firearms training, if you catch my drift.

      • Anonymous
        April 9, 2012

        Oil companies do not receive govt subsidies; they receive tax breaks just like any other manufacture. The leftist are the ones who use the term “subsidies” to describe tax breaks

        • recce1
          April 11, 2012

          You’re quite correct. They also say that they’re giving the government’s money to the rich by not taxing them more. On O’Reily a liberal guest complained because we weren’t taking millionaires at over 90% as we did after WWII. Of course that was coming out of a depression aggravated and prolonged by a socialist president, FDR.

          In the 60s a Democrat congressman once said that all US money belonged to the US government and out that out of the kindness of its heart it let us keep some for our own use. I think Mr. obama believes it.

          • Freedom, by the way
            April 11, 2012

            Yeah, I’m still scratching my head over the remark about the earnings of the wealthy being the government’s to start with. Did all who earn an income in this country become slaves overnight?

            Everything we are witnessing today, from government-instituted class warfare to the horrible waste of taxpayer dollars makes me believe the only fair solution is a flat tax–no deductions. (And we could get rid of the IRS in the process).

          • recce1
            April 11, 2012

            Why would you want to get rid of the Infernal Retribution Sackers who show up and tell you they’re there to help you? ;-)

  4. Pingback: Gas Pains | Be Sure You're RIGHT, Then Go Ahead

  5. Bob Mack
    March 7, 2011

    We have enough oil and natural gas in the Bakken ( to become 100% energy independent. What we don’t have is enough politicians with the cojones to get from under the thumbs of the environmental lobbyists and start representing their constituents. I linked to your post in

    • Freedom, by the way
      March 7, 2011

      Thanks, Bob. Who needs Facebook with patriots like you? I have added your blog to my blog roll. And speaking of the Bakken, you may wish to visit a post from January,

      • Bob Mack
        March 7, 2011

        Added the additional link to my post. Thanks.

    • Anonymous
      August 19, 2011

      Has anyone on this blog read Russ Baker’s book Family of Secrets?

      The Bakken formation could provide a petroleum-based substance, but it will NOT be anything like the Beverly Hillbillies. The 3:1 ratio of water to ‘oil’ required to convert it into a transportable slurry would deplete the acquifers in the Bakken area significantly.

      You can’t drink oil guys.

      • Freedom, by the way
        August 19, 2011

        I am not going to pretend to know the science behind converting shale into usuable oil. But I don’t doubt that a reasonble balance could be achieved between the need for water vs. the need for new US energy sources. We need at least allow preliminary engineering on all available oil reserves to understand the cost benefit. Thanks for stopping by.

        October 12, 2011

        3 to 1? “Russ Baker’s book Family of Secrets”.. And how much does this publication cost? Or is it in the Library?

      • Joe Vargas
        April 5, 2012

        hmmm… interesting to be so ill informed. Most fracking water comes from reusable pools. There is steam and evaporation, which means there are always new water requirements… but on the whole, especially in ‘dry’ North Dakota, it is being reused – its actually – in the long run – more cost effective.

      October 12, 2011

      AMEN. Again: AMEN! Got to draw a line in the sand with the balance between the environment, and the stability of our country.
      We had an edge on “clean” at the turn of the last century. Most big cities had electric mass transit; however, the oil, tire, and auto interests conspired to foster the internal combustion engine. They would buy up these companies, tear up the electric trolley lines, and replace them with bus systems.
      By now, if we’d not done that, think how far advanced our electric systems might be!
      Say, coast to coast monorail lines. = far less need for freeways, cars in general, cleaner air, negligible dependence on oil…I get angry all over again every time I think of those possibilities. After all, it wasn’t till ’37 when oil was discovered in the Arabian gulf. And they’d almost given up when it was found.

    • Jeff
      May 20, 2012

      We have even a larger supply of oil sitting in the
      “Green River Formation”.. Almost 3 trillion barrels of crude oil..

      • Bob Mack
        May 20, 2012

        Ah, but Obama is the “Green River Killer” as well as the “Nothing Shakin’ In The Bakken”, “Coal Has No Soul”, and “Wood Is No Good” guy. And, btw, it’s almost time for his new, algae-powered Green Navy to set sail … and I do mean “sail”. Hail To The Thief!

  6. Pingback: Senate repeals ethanol subsidies - Page 3 - CycloneFanatic

  7. Anonymous
    July 11, 2011

    when you do nothing about a national energy policy, only greed and chaos will follow. the less oil and oil refining capacities needed will only increase the price and benefit oil companies and share holders. the same ten percent of the country will prosper and the rest will see a lower standard of living

    • Freedom, by the way
      July 11, 2011

      We need a REAL energy policy–one that takes advantage of all of our natural resources as well as promote new energy sources. Take a look at the WH web site–NO oil is mentioned. Like it’s not even there, waiting for us.
      Thanks for stopping by.

      • Btopbob
        March 12, 2012

        None-the-less, US oil production has risen in the past three years. This is the first administration to be able to say that in a generation.

        US oil production is likely to rise by 2-1/2 million bps by 2015. Does the incumbent president get credit? Or only if you agree with him?

        • Freedom, by the way
          March 12, 2012

          Yes, US oil production is up ON PRIVATE LANDS. There is less production and exploration on federally owned, and federally controlled (ie. the gulf, oceans). So no, you cannot credit this president for the increase in oil production. You can credit the private companies who do not have to get permission for drilling on private land.

        • recce1
          March 12, 2012

          I take it you’ll only accept a certain answer. However, Obama blames all failures on Bush but in this case is taking credit for a Bush program. The lead time for bringing a well on line takes years. The increase in oil production is due to the Bush administration allowing more drilling permits.

          Let’s see if wells allowed by Obama come on line. Then he should get credit. However, Obama has curtailed offshore, public land, shale and tar sand production. as a matter of fact, companies that got permits to drill have hit oil and then have had the permits revoke by Obama, costing them millions.

          Here is a definition I found on the internet. It is an economic model in which the state dictates the utilization of privately held assets to achieve public policy goals. I don’t see how anyone can deny that this is the policy of the Obama administration particularly when it comes to energy and health policies. By the way, the definition is that of fascism.

          • Andy Shafer
            March 13, 2012

            Get rid of the EPA and burdensome regulations that are choking the life out of every innovation that is trying to sprout up in the infertile soil that the democraps and liberallllllls have left on the ground.

            We don’t need hope and change. We need a motivated and industrial America.

          • recce1
            March 24, 2012

            Andy, rather than getting rid of the EPA and other alphabet soup agencies; including cabinets like the Dept. of Education, Commerce, and Energy, let’s reduce them and their budgets to research and advisory agencies only. Strip them of all “law making and enforcement” powers by passing the Write the Bills and Enumerated Powers Acts.

            Then let’s overturn the SCOTUS Kelo Decision and reinstate the 5th Amendment and eliminate also the concept of effective taking of private land. Restore the 10th Amendment and return to the States the right to control their own land.

            Heck, let’s just restore the Constitution, particularly the former Bill of Rights.

        • il
          March 24, 2012

          total BS the US LOST 650k barrels of refined crude oil from the closing of three US refineries as of the beginning of 2012.. I’ll repeat this one more time..We lost the ablity to refine 650k barrels of crude a day from these 3 plants closing alone..

          You’re having a con run on you if you think oil production is up… NOWAY possible.. The crude oil isn’t there to produce the product..

      October 12, 2011

      So much for my favorite target: the bloated, useless Dept of Energy. Carters (omitted) baby. It’s mandate was to “rid us of dependence on foreign oil” HA! Our spineless congress, and senate, in lock step with big oil, can’t find the cajones to round file it, and at least ten other big bloated gov’t agencies.

  8. thomas schneioder jr.
    September 19, 2011

    in 2006 congress gave the oil companies 12-15 billion dollars to build oil refineries,we should have had them by the news it was said it took 2 years to build an oil refineriy.thomas

    • recce1
      March 12, 2012

      Under the Bush administration that was true. But the Obama administration has held up permits and has revoked some.

  9. Anonymous
    December 17, 2011

    We are helded hostage by the refineries in the gulf every time there is a strom. In 2006 gas prices soared and after using every available excuse it was finally blamed on our oil refining capassity. We have built no new refineries in 35 years . Why would we build them in the gulf states when the source is in the far north. The Trans Alaska pipe line is on its last decade ,Only the constant monitoring and repair has keep it going this long. There is not eought pipe to replace it laying around someplace. It must be produced and shipped , that will take years at full speed . Now congress wants another one and I agree but not 3000 miles of it . We need the new refieneries up north and a shorter more defenceable pipe line. Rest asure that as soon as this boonedogle is complete .Oil companies will cry for new refineries in the gulf because they can not handle the new supply and gas prices rise.

    • recce1
      March 12, 2012

      Still, even in AK we need pipelines. The same is true from Canada. As for more defensible pipelines, who is the enemy, Alaskans, Canadians, or domestic terrorists?

      Building refineries in AK isn’t practical. We have refineries in the Gulf states because there’re large ports there for companies to ship the refined products overseas to get a better price. That’s a major problem as witnessed by the fact that the supply of petroleum in the US is up, the demand is down, yet the prices keep going up.

      Nevertheless, I do like you idea of more refineries in the norther tier states.

    • Andy Shafer
      March 13, 2012

      BS, You don’t know what you talking about, Anonymous.

  10. Lou Becker
    December 19, 2011

    According to the Williston Herald(Williston ND), Williams county has re-zoned a large area near Trenton ND from agricultural to industrial. The reason?- another new refinery! Current plans are production of 20,000 bbl. of diesel per day. It is proposed to be of modular construction. Once all the components are on site, it should be up and running in about 16 weeks.

    • Freedom, by the way
      December 26, 2011

      Thank you for the update. It’s very difficult to get current news on refineries. It’s not something the msm covers at all. Thanks for stopping by!

  11. nottosmart
    February 11, 2012

    What do you call the doubling of the Marathon Oil refinery in Detroit that is coming on line right about now?

  12. Anonymous
    March 10, 2012

    Why? It’s very simple, so big oil can control the market. Excess production would drive the price down. When those people in Washington remember who they are suppose to be representing ” THE PEOPLE” not lining their pockets with kick-backs maybe we wil see some results. They seem to forget the goverment was established for the people, not to become big business themselves and their own personal gain.

    • Btopbob
      March 12, 2012

      I am not sure I understand what you propose. Surely not government refineries. Force oil companies to build refineries?

      • recce1
        March 12, 2012

        Rep. Maxine Waters of CA and Rep Hinchy of NY have called for the nationalization of oil refineries.

        • Andy Shafer
          March 13, 2012

          Your ideas suck!

          • recce1
            March 15, 2012

            Are you denying that Reps. Waters and Hinchey did in fact call for the nationalization of oil refineries? Do you find it reprehensible that I should state the truth about two socialist, if not communist, Democrats? Or did you mistakenly think I was agreeing with them?

            Rep Waters in May 2008. while serving on a Congressional committee grilling oil company CEOs said, “This liberal will be all about socializing, uh, uh . . . would be about . . . basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.” You can find a video of her saying so on

            On June 18, 2008, Rep. Hinchey stated. ““We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.” Go to


            I happen to believe in a democratic Republic under the rule of constitutional law with a free market capitalist economy and true contract law. What do you believe in?

          • recce1
            March 28, 2012

            Why have you not yet had the courage to reply? Is it that you can’t form an idea?

  13. craigwill
    March 13, 2012

    Hate to pop anybody’s balloon, but it’s peak oil that’s determining the number of refineries. The big oil companies know how much oil they will have in the future to refine, and they know that amount is growing smaller. The vast amount of oil available today is under polar ice, a mile deep in the ocean, saturated with sand, or under radical hostile regimes. Why would they want to spend billions on refineries when they won’t be able to get the oil to keep them at capacity. Maybe a few new refineries to replace some old ones that have shut down, but we have reached the maximum level of production that this planet can support. Here’s a good primer on peak oil if you’re unfamiliar with the concept:

  14. Sinner
    March 14, 2012

    In a first, gas and other fuels are top U.S. export this is why your gas prices are so high. check out this link :

    This is greed at it best!!!! We need to use our 149 refineries for our use only not other counties. So who cares about these two refineries. What about the other 149 and are those refineries even for our use? I doubt it.

  15. Demetrius Tumlin
    March 19, 2012

    When I originally commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added” checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get three e-mails with the same comment. Is there any way you can remove people from that service? Bless you!

  16. Pingback: GIASTAR – Storie di ordinaria tecnologia » Blog Archive » The US Is Sitting On A 200-Year Supply Of Oil

  17. Pingback: The US Is Sitting On A 200-Year Supply Of Oil – Finding Out About

  18. Pingback: The US Is Sitting On A 200-Year Supply Of Oil | Bailout and Financial Crisis News

  19. Pingback: The US Is Sitting On A 200-Year Supply Of Oil | Athens Report - Top Stories

  20. Pingback: The US Is Sitting On A 200-Year Supply Of Oil – - BizNewsX - Business News AggregatorBizNewsX – Business News Aggregator

  21. Pingback: The US Is Sitting On A 200-Year Supply Of Oil « Economy « PEOPLEUNLIKEUS

  22. Scott
    March 23, 2012

    We currently have an affordable alternative to gasoline for automobiles in the U.S. There is even a distribution system in place in a good share of the country. I believe it was the University of Wisconsin that developed an engine with will run on ammonia. In California there are a irrigation rigs that run on ammonia to water their crops. Engines that run on ammonia produce no greenhouse gases, only water and nitrogen gas as a by-product. Ammonia is also cheaper than gasoline and can easily be manufactured and is renewable, unlike gasoline.

  23. Talon's Point
    March 23, 2012

    Great article.

  24. Talon's Point
    March 23, 2012

    Reblogged this on Talon's Point and commented:
    We need more of this with less delays

  25. Pingback: The US Is Sitting On A 200-Year Supply Of Oil | ccnew

  26. Pingback: Bookshelf Update: Top Newsstuffs (March 18-25) « The Buttonwood Tree

  27. Cam
    March 27, 2012

    I haven’t seen this many unsubstantiated conspiracy claims since Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Seriously folks, you are making good conservatives look bad. There are pluses and minuses to both sides of all these arguments. EVERYONE wants better energy supplies and more of them. But there are strong disagreements to that path. Not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiots trying to hurt the country. Bush certainly was doing his best to help and get slaughted by people on the left doing the same thing you are on this blog.

    it is the tone of this blog and its opponents that is a bigger problem than any policy.

    It would be great to see a detail breakdown here of all the regulations that were changed by Obama that made it more difficult to open a new refinery. But… no where.

    And from talking to people that work in this business, these things take a LONG time. They often span 2 or 3 presidents. In this case that is true. Again… no where to be found.

  28. Chris
    March 27, 2012

    “that’s what Obama wants so as to herd the population back into the cities for easier control over.” When you post nonsensical, paranoid drivel like this you immediately lose all credibility. Lay off the kool-aid.

    • recce1
      March 28, 2012

      Chris, the problem is that’s a policy put out by Cass Sunstein who’s the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, i.e., Obaqma’s chief czar. It’s people like you who’re abysmally ignorant, perhaps willingly so, of Obama’s and his advisors’ positions who lack credibility. Your blind support of a fascist/socialist regime is disturbing.

      Many people like to conflate fascism with naziism so as to confuse the issue. So for your enlightenment here’s a good definition of fascism; “Fascism is an economic model in which the state dictates the utilization of privately held assets to achieve public policy goals.”

      Fascism need not be the sound of jackboots in the streets; it can wear a velvet glove, with an iron fist in it to be sure. In addition, fascism is one side of a coin that leads to another more sinister side. That other side is socialism. First the state forces privately owned companies to do its bidding then it takes them over. Sunstein, Waters, Hinchey, and Obama have stated that clearly in many areas.

  29. Bodybuilding
    March 30, 2012

    I wonder if some of this stuff might have been stolen, it’s scattered across the internet and other peoples websites, unless you’re the original author?.

    • Freedom, by the way
      April 2, 2012

      I am the original author, blogging under the name of my blog, Freedom, by the way.

  30. offshore-working Oil Rigs
    March 31, 2012

    I drop a leave a response whenever I appreciate a post on a website or if I have something to valuable to contribute to the conversation. Usually it’s triggered by the passion displayed in the article I looked at. And after this article %BLOGTITLE%. I was moved enough to leave a thought ;-) I actually do have some questions for you if you tend not to mind. Is it simply me or does it look like like some of these responses appear like coming from brain dead folks? :-P And, if you are posting on other sites, I’d like to follow anything new you have to post. Could you make a list every one of your communal pages like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?

    • recce1
      April 1, 2012

      What constitutes being “brain dead?” I hope it’s not merely posting a comment that you disagree with. What some are saying are only wild conspiracy theories are really problems due to political machinations. Sadly, the energy issue involves questions of human progress and also human greed.

    • Freedom, by the way
      April 1, 2012

      Offshore: Yes, this post seems to have attracted a wide spectrum of voices. Unless it’s obvious spam or downright rude jibberish, I’m letting it fly. I am a proponent of free speech, even if it’s senseless talk :)
      I do not have a Facebook page–privacy issues. I don’t twitter–yet. I would have to twitter as Freedom by the way, not so personal, is it? I am on linked-in, but if I were to share that I would be sharing my identity, which I am reluctant to do because I do not wish for my blunt little political blog to turn off clients of the opposite persuasion. As much as I detest PC most of us are forced to be PC in some capacity of life. With me, it’s work.
      If I do decide to twitter, I will be making an annoucement on this blog and will be sure to look you up.

  31. IrishAce11
    April 1, 2012

    Gas cost 12 cents a gallon 100 years ago. The all time high was in 2008 when it hit 4.12 national average. It was up to 31 cents in 1972. In 40 years gas has hit a record high 393 times. For each penny it was a new record. Under ever president republican or democrat. It’s a finite resourse that is getting harder to find, deeper to drill, more environmentally toxic. So almost four years in, Obama will technically be the first President in 40 years not to have seen an all time high.
    Currently there is a tar sands pipeline into Amoco’s Whiting , Indiana’s refinery. Not a normal pipeline in any sense. Tar sands oil is what is known as diluted bitumen, or ‘Dilbit’ which is highly corrosive, acidic, and highly unstable due to natural gas compounds. The pipeline must be heated to minimum 159 degrees, and pressurized, buried at a minimum of 4 feet of ground cover. Starting volume of 500,000 barrels a day or roughly 20,000 barrels an hour. a rupture in an out of the way location undetected for even 6-8 hours would mean an Exxon Valdez catastrophe over some of America’s most sensitive environs. And all this for what, jobs? New estimated say 4000-5000 construction jobs for two years. all so Canada can make more profit not by selling to US customers but global consumers at market rates.Why are we Americans so lucky? Why are so deserving of Canada’s kindness? Because Canada’s oil companies don’t want to fork out 4 billion to build their own refinery. It’s unbelievably harmful to refine dilbit. 20 times the greenhouse gases from Brent Sea crude.
    Why doesn’t someone step up and say, We will refine your dilbit into whatever you want but the US wants all the oil for the US. Deal or No Deal. And a compromise can be reached. Because for us in the Midwest or Chicago area will have to be compensated for the loss of supply which it currently enjoys. (Still some of the highest prices in the country due to taxes, though.)

    • Freedom, by the way
      April 1, 2012

      Thanks for the technical insight.

    • recce1
      April 1, 2012

      I’m not quite 100, but I remember gasoline prices in the teens.

      Is it not true that we already have such technologically complex pipelines and have not had a major spill from them? Are you not arguing from the point of a worst case scenario and therefore saying it’s better for the US to suffer from a shortage of energy rather than take any risks?

      • Freedom, by the way
        April 2, 2012

        I’m with you, recce1. The risk of a “spill” is just an excuse. We’re more technically advanced than that. By the way, thanks for helping to keep the conversation going on this post, I appreciate it. If you have a blog or web site, please share the link. I would like to visit.

        • recce1
          April 3, 2012

          Unfortunately, I don’t have a website or blog. I guess as a politically incorrect conservative curmudgeon I haven’t gotten around to it.

  32. Anonymous
    April 7, 2012

    The writer is a bit naive. No refineries have been added in 35 years even though others are being taken off-line because of age simply because that’s the way the oil industry wants it. Fewer refineries mean less gas available and higher prices. Now, 83% of the nation’s refinery capacity is owned by just 10 companies even as those companies continue to increase exports of U.S.-refined oil, to the extent that last year the U.S. exported more oil than it imported. It is easy to check all this out. Why didn’t you?

    • Freedom, by the way
      April 7, 2012

      We’re exporting more oil because demand is at its lowest level in years in the US while demand is growing elsewhere in the world. Personally, I would like to see the American citizens share in the profits of oil taken from state & federal owned land. Profit sharing is already happening in North Dakota, Alaska and other places. “This writer” has never positioned herself as an encyclopedia to cover every detail of issues and I appreciate the commenters who do, indeed, have expertise in different areas and are willing to share their knowledge. Freedom, by the way is a personal opinion blog, period. I do appreciate you stopping in.

  33. Josefine Sharma
    April 11, 2012

    Finally! In the interests of promoting renewable energy I have started a wind energy blog, if anyone is interested in commenting. Please come visit!

  34. Republican
    May 3, 2012

    The United States Political field has deteriorated over the past few years due to polarization. We need to rise up in arms and take back our society from Big Pharma, Big Tobbacco, Big Insurance and really just big corporations. It is time for our elections to cease being stolen.

  35. educated lefty
    May 9, 2012

    The Obama administration listens to what the epa recommends, there is plenty of data to justify their position on the oil industry. Why people think that President Obama makes these decisions himself is beyond my comprehension. If you dont like it be sure to vote this november.

    • Freedom, by the way
      May 10, 2012

      Let’s not be naive and think that Obama is simply altruistic about “saving” the Earth. The Green movement, and thus more government control, is a big part of his agenda.
      I would not miss voting in November for anything! Thanks for stopping by.

    • recce1
      May 11, 2012

      I hope you don’t think the EPA is a non-partisan scientific government entity. A president sets policy and agenda and then appoints officials to carry out his views. That’s all to be perfectly expected in our republican political system.

      However, Mr. Obama is a Fabian socialist with an agenda to cripple the US economically and militarily. He is using the EXECUTIVE BRANCH agencies to accomplish that goal. He is more than willing to falsify and ignore inconvenient data to achieve his Fabian socialist agenda.

  36. Kelly
    September 13, 2012

    Oil refineries make a lot of money just not super huge profits. A few years ago Shell was going to close a refinery in Bakersfield, CA. They did not even attempt to sell it. Shell claimed that bigger bucks could be made in other areas of the business. Those darn liberals in the state forced Shell to put it up for sale and a buyer was found and the refinery remained open. Oh the biggest objections to the Keystone pipeline came from the very red state of Kansas. So don’t blame the Dems. One day in the not too distant future the oil will run out. Have any of the ulra right wingers and conspiracy buffs ranting on the page ever lived near an oil refinery? It is not the sweet smell of success. Has anyone seen a refinery explode like the one in Northern California this summer. Scary stuff. Hey folks get a grip.

  37. Jay
    October 5, 2012

    I find it funny how this is all blamed on Obama. You say it took 7 YEARS to obtain a clean air permit, this was written in 2011, how many years was Obama in office? As far as new drilling, how will that help much? We are already the 3RD LARGEST producer of oil in the world!! And the US right now as of oct 2012 is EXPORTING RECORD AMOUNTS OF REFINED OIL!!! now that can be blamed on Obama. Why is no one talking about this. the reason for high gas is scarcity in refined gasoline NOT OIL. anyone can look at a chart of gas and oil prices and compare them price of gas now is below 100 a barrel around 89 today and yet gas is at RECORD prices!

  38. Anonymous
    October 16, 2012

    I think the oil refinery needs to be put in asap! We need to use our natural resources that we have here instead of rely on the natural resources of other countries. I found a company that is selling land right next to the proposed oil refinery and now would be a good time to invest in some property down there. GO visit their website click “[url=””]here[\url]”

  39. Anonymous
    March 8, 2013

    It is now March 2013. I don’t think we will ever have the refineries until Obama and his regime are gone.

  40. Steve Grosso
    April 30, 2014

    The supposed refinery in AZ received EPA permission back in 2006. Still no dirt turned there-I smell a land speculation deal. Good luck to the Hyperion hype I hope it comes true in ND

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on March 2, 2011 by in Freedom, news and tagged , , , , , , .

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 204 other followers

%d bloggers like this: