A Win-Win Oil Glut Solution?

One can only say this in so many ways before
one gives up.
Recent article:

"Political tensions must ease for oil to fall: Opec

The anxiety in the market is so great that Iran’s OPEC
governor Hossein Kazempour Ardebili said the cartel was
unlikely to cut production when it meets June 1, despite
an apparent oil glut.

'In opening the largely closed-door workshop (a joint
OPEC-International Energy Agency workshop on demand)
in the Norwegian capital of Oslo, Mr Barkindo said
“there is absolutely no supply shortage.” '

“Remove the impediment of geopolitical concerns, tensions,
and the resulting speculation and the oil price will find
its rightful place in the market,” said Mr Barkindo.

Mr Ardebili also said there appeared to be an excess
supply of 1.2m barrels of oil per day for the April
through June period."

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1539530.cms

So, why do we still have high prices at the pump?

Because the existing refineries are processing more
foreign oil than U.S. oil, and people in the futures
market are controlling the per-barrell price based
on, or so they say, fear of whatever the wind blows
up today. Actually, they are just riding a recently
discovered "high". This is evidenced by the variety
of reasons given for maintaining and pushing the
per barrel price higher and higher.

President Bush is suggesting that new oil refineries
be built on abandonded military complexes. That would
certainly provide an economic boost to some areas that
felt the pinch when the bases were closed.

What I am not finding in these suggestions or
considerations by the President or Congress is the
proprietary end of these possible new refineries.

Since the oil companies decided in the 70's to forego
the building of new refineries and turned over the
majority of their processing capacity to foreign oil,
it just doesn't seem fair or right to anyone
concerned to give them access to any military
'base-ed' refinery. Their profits in the last couple
of years hasn't given them the impetus to see a need
for new refineries as any adventurous entrepreneur
would, so let them continue with what they have. They
certainly don't need any new incentives, concessions,
or encouragement from Congress. Let them run their
business as they have seen and continue to see, fit.

I would suggest, as the President is prone to do,
the use of the military for this construction. It
could very well be an educational process for both
the military and the country.

To even consider that the existing oil companies
be a necessary part of new refineries would be
a major mistake. It would keep the process within
the hands of the few who have helped us into the
current situation and little would be changed
except the existing oil companies experiencing
more benefits of non-invested sweat equity or
money.

As with many other countries, a refinery OWNED
by the people of the United States would be an
impetus for the people to become more involved
in their use of their resources. I would daresay
that every owner or user of an automobile in
the United States would gladly and willingly
give $1.00, or more, out-of-pocket, for a piece
of and for the building of such a refinery.

New, military base refineries could take up the
slack in what the current U.S. Oil Cartel of
Companies are not producing from current supplies
of U.S. oil.
New, military base refineries could also funnel off
a very small percentage of its production FROM DAY
ONE into a 'reserve bank' for future problem periods.
Sales of processed oil would go toward paying off
the construction of a refinery and then the national
debt.

The military as builders and partners, but
non-owners, of the day-to-day operations could also
give an added bonus in Research and Development of
more efficient fuels, both for military use and for
consumer use.

As my suggestion is a win-win proposition, though
not without some problems to be ironed out, it
is doubtful that any of it will be adopted by
anyone. However, I will point out that to build
a refinery by the military would involve less
logistics and expense than a war.