Probably a case of "too little -- too late" -- but finally a step in
the right direction! (This just in, from Yahoo News):

************************************************** ******
House narrowly approves bill to help US refineries
By Chris Baltimore

In a cliffhanger vote held open by Republican leaders until they won,
the U.S. House of Representatives passed by two votes on Friday a bill
clearing the way for U.S. oil refineries to expand.

The legislation, written by Republican Joe Barton of Texas, barely won
approval despite dropping a White House-backed provision that would
have gutted clean air rules to help refineries and coal-powered
utilities.

In the first major House vote since Texan Tom DeLay was forced to step
down as majority leader, Republicans won, 212-210, in a roll call that
ran more than 40 minutes, far beyond the allotted five minutes.

Democrats in the chamber chanted "shame, shame, shame" as the final
tally was announced.

When over two dozen Republicans initially voted no, DeLay, Barton,
House Speaker Dennis Hastert and new Majority Leader Roy Blunt circled
the chamber and cajoled the holdouts.

The palm-sweating vote switched from "yes" to "no" several times, but
Republican Rep. Mike Simpson (news, bio, voting record), the speaker
pro tempore, did not gavel the vote closed until it swung in the
Republicans' favor.

Several Democrats protested that the vote was being held open. "I am
informed that every member of Congress who is in town has voted,"
Democratic whip Rep. Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland
said at one point, when the tally was 210 yes, 214 no.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi also complained, saying the
proceedings were bringing "dishonor to the House."

The bill aims to add 2 million barrels per day of capacity by offering
abandoned military bases for refinery construction sites.

It also speeds up permits by giving the Energy Department more
authority over the process, and offer federal insurance to refiners in
case new projects are delayed.

The bill was prompted by hurricanes Rita and Katrina, which plowed
through the heart of the U.S. energy producing region and shut offshore
drilling rigs and refineries.

Its most controversial item would have deleted a portion of the Clean
Air Act known as "new source review" that requires costly new equipment
to cut emissions when refineries and coal-fired power plants are
expanded.

However, Barton was forced to drop that proposal from the bill late on
Thursday because of opposition from Democrats and moderate Republicans.
Although the plan to dismantle new source review was a White House
priority, the administration released a statement saying it still
supported the legislation.

"We look forward to working with Congress to improve the bill further
as it moves forward in the legislative process," the White House said.

No new U.S. refinery has been built since 1976 and dozens of plants
have been closed despite rising fuel consumption.

"We haven't built a new refinery in a generation. We need more," said
Rep. Fred Upton (news, bio, voting record), Michigan Republican.

Democrats say refiners are loath to build new facilities amid
record-high profits, while Republicans say permitting and environmental
requirements keep them from expanding.

Refiners are "making more money from refining less gasoline," said Rep.
Rick Boucher (news, bio, voting record), Virginia Democrat.

Rep. Edward Markey (news, bio, voting record), Massachusetts Democrat,
said refiners have engaged in a "systematic conspiracy" to idle
capacity, pointing to some 30 plants that were closed in recent years.

Democrats were unsuccessful in pushing an alternate bill that would
create spare refineries that the federal government could activate
during gasoline shortages.

The House Rules Committee blocked a bipartisan plan by Markey and
Sherwood Boehlert of New York to require an 8-mile-per-gallon rise in
vehicle mileage to curb gasoline demand.

Consumer groups said the legislation would do little to help American
households facing near-record fuel prices.

"Its approach leaves the decision to increase refining capacity in the
hands of an industry that has deliberately taken advantage of tight
supplies in recent years," said Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation
of America.

Other provisions in the bill include:

* Expanding Northeast Heating Oil Reserve to 5 million barrels, from
current 2 million barrels;

* Limiting anti-pollution gasoline blends to six, from the current 17;

* Requiring FTC to prepare a report on the price of gasoline and
heating oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange;

* Waives federal, state and local fuel additive requirements after a
natural disaster that disrupts supplies;

* Gives Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the power to monitor
offshore gas gathering lines to prevent anti-competitive practices.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> [article with zero aviation content snipped]

You forgot to put "OT:" in your subject line.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> [article with zero aviation content snipped]
>
> You forgot to put "OT:" in your subject line.

Quite right - as any good airman knows, aircraft are powered by wishing
really really hard, not gasoline!

So gasoline has nothing to do with aviation, and anything you read
otherwise are lies.

Remember - don't fill your tanks with gas - fill them with wishes! Saves
money and you get to make engine noises like you did when you were a kid.

Pesky Irritant wrote:
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
>>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>>>[article with zero aviation content snipped]
>>
>>You forgot to put "OT:" in your subject line.
>
>
> Quite right - as any good airman knows, aircraft are powered by wishing
> really really hard, not gasoline!
>
> So gasoline has nothing to do with aviation, and anything you read
> otherwise are lies.
>
> Remember - don't fill your tanks with gas - fill them with wishes! Saves
> money and you get to make engine noises like you did when you were a kid.

ROTFLMAO :)

> Remember - don't fill your tanks with gas - fill them with wishes! Saves
> money and you get to make engine noises like you did when you were a kid.

People with wishes and no gas manage to fly all the time. People with
gas but no wishes should probably fly away.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Pesky Irritant" > wrote in message
...
> Quite right - as any good airman knows, aircraft are powered by wishing
> really really hard, not gasoline!
>
> So gasoline has nothing to do with aviation, and anything you read
> otherwise are lies.

The cost of gasoline affects any number of things. It does not mean that
the cost of gasoline is relevant in any number of newsgroups, especially
when the topic isn't even directly related to *aviation* gas.

That said, I did find your post quite funny...good job! :)

It's still all off-topic.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message ups.com...
>> [article with zero aviation content snipped]
>
> You forgot to put "OT:" in your subject line.
>

Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a better handle on what subsidies look like and what
profits are for...

> That said, I did find your post quite funny...good job! :)

Just to keep things pure, next time I'll make the subject "AVgas Prices --
Help at Last?"
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
> better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...

Did you READ the article? There hasn't been a new refinery built in the
U.S. since I was a senior in high school -- 29 years ago!

Gee, don't you think that *maybe* we might have gone a wee bit too far with
gubmint regulations?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I watched a show on the Discover Channel, how the aircraft carriers (built a
long time ago) cruise for 24 yrs. before refueling and "us" in
cars/airplanes go...6+ hours... Go figure

Pat Thronson
Babb, MT


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:NpE1f.408067$_o.120015@attbi_s71...
>> Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
>> better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...
>
> Did you READ the article? There hasn't been a new refinery built in the
> U.S. since I was a senior in high school -- 29 years ago!
>
> Gee, don't you think that *maybe* we might have gone a wee bit too far
> with gubmint regulations?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
>>better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...
>
>
> Did you READ the article?

Of course he didn't, the facts might get in the way of a preconceived
notion.

What a prick.

Jim



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> [article with zero aviation content snipped]
>
> You forgot to put "OT:" in your subject line.
>

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
>>better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...
>
>
> Did you READ the article? There hasn't been a new refinery built in the
> U.S. since I was a senior in high school -- 29 years ago!
>
> Gee, don't you think that *maybe* we might have gone a wee bit too far with
> gubmint regulations?

Yes, Jay.. I read the whole story.. and I knew that fact long before it
was posted in here.. (gasoline refineries). There HAVE however, been all
sorts of OTHER petrochemical units and operations built since then. I
participated in the new construction of a Polypropylene unit a little
over 10 years ago. The truth is.. the OLD gasoline refineries were all
grandfathered. They were permitted to operated DIRTY, and CHEAPLY. Tis
is all about profits.

The oil companies havent gone into bankruptcy in droves over 20 odd
years, if anything they have made money hand over fist. They have not
increased their refining capacity because it would decrease their
overall PROFIT margin. Building new refining capacity to "standard"
would drive their incremental cost of production UP, and eat into the
stockholders dividends. But make no mistake, it would still be PROFIT.

What we are celebrating is the deliberate browbeating of the elected
Republican representatives of the House by the Republican Leadership. I
will bet dollars to doughnuts that they made it clear - vote against us
and we will REPLACE you at the next election with another fellow
Republican who is loyal. The fact that the election was held open until
the bill passed supports that claim.

You want the truth about oil and gas prices? 5 weeks ago when the oil
prices his $70 or so a barrel, the gas prices popped up over $3 a gallon
within days. The OIL that was that expensive was still to be in the boat
being shipped over from Saudi and Venezuela for days to weeks longer. We
paid a premium on refined product that was already in the inventory.
Legalized price gouging, anyone?

You wanted OT.. you got it :)
Dave

"RST Engineering" > wrote


> What a prick.

Yep. He is right at the top of my kill file.
--
Jim in NC

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> [article with zero aviation content snipped]
>>
>> You forgot to put "OT:" in your subject line.
>>
>
> Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
> better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...


Well, hopefully LITTLE OIL can keep your fuel tanks full.


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:NpE1f.408067$_o.120015@attbi_s71...
>> Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
>> better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...
>
> Did you READ the article? There hasn't been a new refinery built in the
> U.S. since I was a senior in high school -- 29 years ago!
>
> Gee, don't you think that *maybe* we might have gone a wee bit too far
> with gubmint regulations?

I'm sure the polls and bureaucrats have all the gas they can handle.


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
>>>better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...
>>
>>
>> Did you READ the article? There hasn't been a new refinery built in the
>> U.S. since I was a senior in high school -- 29 years ago!
>>
>> Gee, don't you think that *maybe* we might have gone a wee bit too far
>> with gubmint regulations?
>
> Yes, Jay.. I read the whole story.. and I knew that fact long before it
> was posted in here.. (gasoline refineries). There HAVE however, been all
> sorts of OTHER petrochemical units and operations built since then. I
> participated in the new construction of a Polypropylene unit a little over
> 10 years ago. The truth is.. the OLD gasoline refineries were all
> grandfathered. They were permitted to operated DIRTY, and CHEAPLY.

No, they haven't; they are just as susceptible to federal and local
regulations as ever.

And older plants are COSTLY to operate, mainly due to maintenance costs.

> Tis is all about profits.

Or an agenda.

>
> The oil companies havent gone into bankruptcy in droves over 20 odd years,
> if anything they have made money hand over fist.

In most years they make less profit than the Feds and states take in fuel
taxes.

> They have not increased their refining capacity because it would decrease
> their overall PROFIT margin. Building new refining capacity to "standard"
> would drive their incremental cost of production UP, and eat into the
> stockholders dividends. But make no mistake, it would still be PROFIT.

So why should they use their profits and capital to build more capacity when
so many just squeal and whine?

>
> What we are celebrating is the deliberate browbeating of the elected
> Republican representatives of the House by the Republican Leadership. I
> will bet dollars to doughnuts that they made it clear - vote against us
> and we will REPLACE you at the next election with another fellow
> Republican who is loyal. The fact that the election was held open until
> the bill passed supports that claim.
>
> You want the truth about oil and gas prices? 5 weeks ago when the oil
> prices his $70 or so a barrel, the gas prices popped up over $3 a gallon
> within days.

You grasp of an issue with mutiple facets is...lacking.

> The OIL that was that expensive was still to be in the boat being shipped
> over from Saudi and Venezuela for days to weeks longer. We paid a premium
> on refined product that was already in the inventory. Legalized price
> gouging, anyone?

If the market says the next boat load will cost 10-20-30% more, just how
would YOU price your inventory?
>
> You wanted OT.. you got it :)

And you're (relatively) clueless.

--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>
>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>>Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
>>>>better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...
>>>
>>>
>>>Did you READ the article? There hasn't been a new refinery built in the
>>>U.S. since I was a senior in high school -- 29 years ago!
>>>
>>>Gee, don't you think that *maybe* we might have gone a wee bit too far
>>>with gubmint regulations?
>>
>>Yes, Jay.. I read the whole story.. and I knew that fact long before it
>>was posted in here.. (gasoline refineries). There HAVE however, been all
>>sorts of OTHER petrochemical units and operations built since then. I
>>participated in the new construction of a Polypropylene unit a little over
>>10 years ago. The truth is.. the OLD gasoline refineries were all
>>grandfathered. They were permitted to operated DIRTY, and CHEAPLY.
>
>
> No, they haven't; they are just as susceptible to federal and local
> regulations as ever.
>
> And older plants are COSTLY to operate, mainly due to maintenance costs.

If they are all so costly, then why havent they built new capacity? The
law doesn't outlaw building them, just says you need to build it to meet
modern environmental standards. That makes the older GRANDFATHERED units
"cheap".

>
>
>> Tis is all about profits.
>
>
> Or an agenda.
>
>
>>The oil companies havent gone into bankruptcy in droves over 20 odd years,
>>if anything they have made money hand over fist.
>
>
> In most years they make less profit than the Feds and states take in fuel
> taxes.

Considering in Texas I pay 38.5 cents/gallon in taxes to the State and
Federal Governments on my auto gas, and it's been at that tax rate for a
very long time (years), I am not surprised that the Fed's make more
money on the gas than do the oil companies. When gas was $2.00/gal, that
amounts to 20% going to uncle sam. When its at $3.00/gal like it is now,
the gubmint only is taking in maybe 12% of the gross. Thats just from
the gas sales, and doesnt count taxes paid on the property, inventory
and income by the oil companies to the state, local and federal governments.

I somehow don't feel sorry for the oil companies because they aren't
making a clean 12-20% profit on their product after ALL their expenses.
Saying the companies make less in profit than the government does in
taxes isn't telling the whole story.

>
>> They have not increased their refining capacity because it would decrease
>>their overall PROFIT margin. Building new refining capacity to "standard"
>>would drive their incremental cost of production UP, and eat into the
>>stockholders dividends. But make no mistake, it would still be PROFIT.
>
>
> So why should they use their profits and capital to build more capacity when
> so many just squeal and whine?

I didn't say they should. The status quo serves them the best. And now
they are about to benefit (if passed) from legislation that will let
them modernize their capacity (WITHOUT environmental protection
requirements) and improve their profit MARGINS. Perhaps the government
should get into the production and refining business and offer some
"competition" or incentive to the oil industry. Any government profits
could be used to support the general fund or any other lawful government
endeavor.

>
>
>>What we are celebrating is the deliberate browbeating of the elected
>>Republican representatives of the House by the Republican Leadership. I
>>will bet dollars to doughnuts that they made it clear - vote against us
>>and we will REPLACE you at the next election with another fellow
>>Republican who is loyal. The fact that the election was held open until
>>the bill passed supports that claim.
>>
>>You want the truth about oil and gas prices? 5 weeks ago when the oil
>>prices his $70 or so a barrel, the gas prices popped up over $3 a gallon
>>within days.
>
>
> You grasp of an issue with mutiple facets is...lacking.

My grasp is not what the subject is. The truth is, when oil futures
prices rise, the gas prices of current inventory go up right away. When
oil futures prices drop, inventory prices don't decrease in a
correspondingly deliberate manner. Regardless of the causation, or my
alleged grasp, look at what really happens.

>
>
>>The OIL that was that expensive was still to be in the boat being shipped
>>over from Saudi and Venezuela for days to weeks longer. We paid a premium
>>on refined product that was already in the inventory. Legalized price
>>gouging, anyone?
>
>
> If the market says the next boat load will cost 10-20-30% more, just how
> would YOU price your inventory?

I guess if I was a profiteer, I would make ad additional surplus profit
on existing inventory, in addition to making my standard profit margin
on the more expensive stuff once it gets refined and delivered. Lets be
clear.. I am not blaming the end distributors for the pricing of their
product. They are at the mercy of their suppliers. The stations
typically make a few pennies profit per gallon and operate on a very
tight margin between cost and profit. They survive on volume, and
convenience store sales. This rant of mine focuses on the suppliers and
refiners who are responsible for their portion of the present situation.
We havent even begun to discuss the fellow consumers who contribute to
the increased gasoline demand and consumption.

>
>>You wanted OT.. you got it :)
>
>
> And you're (relatively) clueless.
>
I've been called worse, by better. Just because I discuss only a few
facets of a complex topic in a usenet rant does not mean ignorance of
other facets. Don't confuse concise with simplistic.

Dave

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
>>>better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...
>>
>> Did you READ the article?
>
> Of course he didn't, the facts might get in the way of a preconceived
> notion.

Apparently neither of you read the article.

The lack of new refineries means nothing, except (as Dave S pointed out)
that the oil companies don't need new refineries to meet their demand and
they don't feel like investing in their own future, except if they can get
taxpayers to subsidize it, and if they can be released from their
obligations to the environment.

The article, which neither of you apparently read, pointed out that not only
have no new refineries been built, oil companies have CLOSED refineries
already built. If they need refineries so badly, why did they close the
ones they had?

Furthermore, whether passing this bill was the right answer or not, the
article points out that it was done in a very underhanded way. At one
point, they had 424 votes, against the bill. Somehow, they managed to
REDUCE the vote count (to 422) and yet increase the number of "ayes". In
what world is it reasonable to just keep recounting the votes until you get
the answer you want? (Please, no one from Washington State answer that one
:) ). The House voting rules provide for five minutes to count the vote,
and yet the Representative standing in for the oh-so-honorable Tom DeLay
held the vote open for more than 40 minutes, waiting until he and his
friends were able to pork-barrel the votes their way.

All of the above is in the article. Why didn't either of you notice those
facts?

Thankfully, the bill did retain the environmental protections required of
the oil companies. But otherwise, it's a huge win for the oil companies,
and unlikely to be much of a real benefit for consumers. We probably do
need more refineries, if for no other reason than to provide backup capacity
for situations like the hurricanes. But oil companies make plenty of
money...there's absolutely no reason they can't provide their own investment
in their own future.

Any taxpayer that thinks that they will wind up paying less money overall by
funding new refineries is fooling themself.

Pete

> The oil companies havent gone into bankruptcy in droves over 20 odd years,
> if anything they have made money hand over fist. They have not increased
> their refining capacity because it would decrease their overall PROFIT
> margin. Building new refining capacity to "standard" would drive their
> incremental cost of production UP, and eat into the stockholders
> dividends. But make no mistake, it would still be PROFIT.

You say that like it's somehow wrong. That, my friend, is the Capitalist
system.

Stockholders (owners) want a return on their money. Anything that is seen
as a stupid, costly impediment (read: Over-regulation of new oil refineries)
to providing a return on their money isn't going to be done. Any person who
orders such action risks (at least) his job.

> What we are celebrating is the deliberate browbeating of the elected
> Republican representatives of the House by the Republican Leadership. I
> will bet dollars to doughnuts that they made it clear - vote against us
> and we will REPLACE you at the next election with another fellow
> Republican who is loyal. The fact that the election was held open until
> the bill passed supports that claim.

Tsk. Welcome to the world of party discipline. When the party leadership
wants their troops to fall in line, all sorts of behind-the-scenes
arm-twisting goes on. (And ours is NOTHING compared to most systems. You
should see Britain's Parliament in action!)

> You want the truth about oil and gas prices? 5 weeks ago when the oil
> prices his $70 or so a barrel, the gas prices popped up over $3 a gallon
> within days. The OIL that was that expensive was still to be in the boat
> being shipped over from Saudi and Venezuela for days to weeks longer. We
> paid a premium on refined product that was already in the inventory.
> Legalized price gouging, anyone?

I'm not one to defend the oil companies, and I'm as ****ed about gas prices
as anyone. On the other hand, the facts speak for themselves. When no new
oil refineries -- none, zero, zilch, nada -- have been built in a
generation, there is a REASON. And you can't just sit there and blame it on
individual (or collective) greed, cuz that dog don't hunt -- especially when
construction of refineries ceased at precisely the same moment the new
regulations were rolled out.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
> "Newps" > wrote in message ...
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a better handle on what subsidies look like and
>>>>what profits are for...
>>>
>>> Did you READ the article?
>>
>> Of course he didn't, the facts might get in the way of a preconceived notion.
>
> Apparently neither of you read the article.
>
> The lack of new refineries means nothing, except (as Dave S pointed out) that the oil companies don't need new
> refineries to meet their demand and they don't feel like investing in their own future, except if they can get
> taxpayers to subsidize it, and if they can be released from their obligations to the environment.
>
> The article, which neither of you apparently read, pointed out that not only have no new refineries been built, oil
> companies have CLOSED refineries already built. If they need refineries so badly, why did they close the ones they
> had?
>
> Furthermore, whether passing this bill was the right answer or not, the article points out that it was done in a very
> underhanded way. At one point, they had 424 votes, against the bill. Somehow, they managed to REDUCE the vote count
> (to 422) and yet increase the number of "ayes". In what world is it reasonable to just keep recounting the votes
> until you get the answer you want? (Please, no one from Washington State answer that one :) ). The House voting rules
> provide for five minutes to count the vote, and yet the Representative standing in for the oh-so-honorable Tom DeLay
> held the vote open for more than 40 minutes, waiting until he and his friends were able to pork-barrel the votes their
> way.
>
> All of the above is in the article. Why didn't either of you notice those facts?
>
> Thankfully, the bill did retain the environmental protections required of the oil companies. But otherwise, it's a
> huge win for the oil companies, and unlikely to be much of a real benefit for consumers. We probably do need more
> refineries, if for no other reason than to provide backup capacity for situations like the hurricanes. But oil
> companies make plenty of money...there's absolutely no reason they can't provide their own investment in their own
> future.
>
> Any taxpayer that thinks that they will wind up paying less money overall by funding new refineries is fooling
> themself.
>
> Pete
>

Thanks Peter, all points covered. I stand by my original comments...

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 00:27:36 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>Just to keep things pure, next time I'll make the subject "AVgas Prices --
>Help at Last?"

so they will refine 100LL at the new site?

#m
--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>
>> No, they haven't; they are just as susceptible to federal and local
>> regulations as ever.
>>
>> And older plants are COSTLY to operate, mainly due to maintenance costs.
>
> If they are all so costly, then why havent they built new capacity?

I'll let you figure that out (Hint: capital expenditure that might not
produce a drop of fuel for ten years)

> The law doesn't outlaw building them, just says you need to build it to
> meet modern environmental standards. That makes the older GRANDFATHERED
> units "cheap".

It costs (say) $25 billion to build a new one, ten years playing
bureaucratic games and in the mean time, the old one costs $1 billion
additional in operating costs. You figure it out.

>
>>
>>
>>> Tis is all about profits.
>>
>>
>> Or an agenda.
>>
>>
>>>The oil companies havent gone into bankruptcy in droves over 20 odd
>>>years, if anything they have made money hand over fist.
>>
>>
>> In most years they make less profit than the Feds and states take in fuel
>> taxes.
>
> Considering in Texas I pay 38.5 cents/gallon in taxes to the State and
> Federal Governments on my auto gas, and it's been at that tax rate for a
> very long time (years), I am not surprised that the Fed's make more money
> on the gas than do the oil companies. When gas was $2.00/gal, that amounts
> to 20% going to uncle sam. When its at $3.00/gal like it is now, the
> gubmint only is taking in maybe 12% of the gross. Thats just from the gas
> sales, and doesnt count taxes paid on the property, inventory and income
> by the oil companies to the state, local and federal governments.

Well, HALLELUGHA!!


>
> I somehow don't feel sorry for the oil companies because they aren't
> making a clean 12-20% profit on their product after ALL their expenses.

Thats because at heart your a parasite and a whiney, bitchy kid (or act like
one).

> Saying the companies make less in profit than the government does in taxes
> isn't telling the whole story.

Well, enlighten us from your vast public academia/MSM repertoire.

>
>>
>>> They have not increased their refining capacity because it would
>>> decrease their overall PROFIT margin. Building new refining capacity to
>>> "standard" would drive their incremental cost of production UP, and eat
>>> into the stockholders dividends. But make no mistake, it would still be
>>> PROFIT.
>>
>>
>> So why should they use their profits and capital to build more capacity
>> when so many just squeal and whine?
>
> I didn't say they should. The status quo serves them the best. And now
> they are about to benefit (if passed) from legislation that will let them
> modernize their capacity (WITHOUT environmental protection requirements)
> and improve their profit MARGINS. Perhaps the government should get into
> the production and refining business and offer some "competition" or
> incentive to the oil industry.

HAHAHAHAHAH


Christ almighty....you are _really_ dense!!!


> Any government profits could be used to support the general fund or any
> other lawful government endeavor.

Okay, time to bring in someone fairly sane,

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:EcP1f.410391$_o.119605@attbi_s71...
>> The oil companies havent gone into bankruptcy in droves over 20 odd
>> years, if anything they have made money hand over fist. They have not
>> increased their refining capacity because it would decrease their overall
>> PROFIT margin. Building new refining capacity to "standard" would drive
>> their incremental cost of production UP, and eat into the stockholders
>> dividends. But make no mistake, it would still be PROFIT.
>
> You say that like it's somehow wrong. That, my friend, is the Capitalist
> system.

And that's evidently what he despises!

WHINE !! BITCH!! MOAN!! NOT IN MY BACK YARD!! I want gas! I want cheap gas!!
I want this I want that!

Grow the **** up, America!!

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 12:46:28 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>(And ours is NOTHING compared to most systems. You
>should see Britain's Parliament in action!)

Jay, what do _you_ know about the British system?

#m

--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 12:46:28 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>I'm not one to defend the oil companies, and I'm as ****ed about gas prices
>as anyone.

really? last time I was in the US (2002) I paid less for gas than for
bottled water ... either your gas price is too low or you're asking too
much for (bottled) water.

#m

--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 12:46:28 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not one to defend the oil companies, and I'm as ****ed about gas prices
>>as anyone.
>
>
> really? last time I was in the US (2002) I paid less for gas than for
> bottled water ... either your gas price is too low or you're asking too
> much for (bottled) water.
>
> #m
>

Heh... and this is really the punchline. Think about it: crude oil is
far and away our civilizations most precious natural resource and it's
being sold for less than drinking water (or it had been up until now). I
don't think anyone really believes that prices like that are
sustainable, especially given that the oil supply is finite and
non-renewable.

Also, as someone else pointed out, them thar refineries ain't cheap. In
fact, those things cost buttloads of money to build, run and maintain.
Huge buttloads...... Not only that, don't forget about those oil rigs
down in the gulf that broke off their moorings during the hurricanes and
are now Galveston beachfront resorts. Those things are going to cost a
hell of a lot to replace too......

I hate to say it, but we're lucky to be paying only 3 bucks a gallon
given our current situation.....

LS
N646F

> >(And ours is NOTHING compared to most systems. You
> >should see Britain's Parliament in action!)
>
> Jay, what do _you_ know about the British system?

Why, only what they taught us at St. Catherine's High School, the
University of Wisconsin, what I read and, of course -- hilariously --
what I see on TV.

Those Brits are NUTS, God love 'em -- in a good way, of course.

:-)

Why?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
http://www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> >I'm not one to defend the oil companies, and I'm as ****ed about gas prices
> >as anyone.
>
> really? last time I was in the US (2002) I paid less for gas than for
> bottled water ... either your gas price is too low or you're asking too
> much for (bottled) water.

Bottled water in America is a very effective I.Q. test.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Heh... and this is really the punchline. Think about it: crude oil is
> far and away our civilizations most precious natural resource and it's
> being sold for less than drinking water (or it had been up until now). I
> don't think anyone really believes that prices like that are
> sustainable, especially given that the oil supply is finite and
> non-renewable.

Interesting.

a. In one corner we've got folks saying that the big, bad Oil Companies
are making obscene, HUGE profits at current prices.

b. In the other corner, we've got guys like you saying that the price
is too low, and shouldn't be so cheap.

If supply and demand is in action here, (a) and (b) can't co-exist.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> a. In one corner we've got folks saying that the big, bad Oil Companies
> are making obscene, HUGE profits at current prices.
>
> b. In the other corner, we've got guys like you saying that the price
> is too low, and shouldn't be so cheap.
>
> If supply and demand is in action here, (a) and (b) can't co-exist.

Think taxes. There are people (waaaay too many) that think gas
should be taxed so that it costs a "more reasonable" price at the
pump (i.e., the insane prices in other countries).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:EcP1f.410391$_o.119605@attbi_s71...
>>> The oil companies havent gone into bankruptcy in droves over 20 odd years, if anything they have made money hand
>>> over fist. They have not increased their refining capacity because it would decrease their overall PROFIT margin.
>>> Building new refining capacity to "standard" would drive their incremental cost of production UP, and eat into the
>>> stockholders dividends. But make no mistake, it would still be PROFIT.
>>
>> You say that like it's somehow wrong. That, my friend, is the Capitalist system.
>
> And that's evidently what he despises!
>
> WHINE !! BITCH!! MOAN!! NOT IN MY BACK YARD!! I want gas! I want cheap gas!! I want this I want that!
>
> Grow the xxxx up, America!!
>

Not exactly - everyone needs to get used to $6.00 a gallon gas, then the alternative energy possibilities will be cost
competitive. Providing subsidies or tax incentives or old military bases to the oil companies simply puts off the free
market solution. I say let the oil companies run their business like everyone else. All businesses have to put up with
regulations as a part of their doing business.

Every business in the USA is trying for the nirvana 100% capacity utilization. The problem with this in a core utility
business like the oil companies is when a portion of the production capacity is lost then demand will exceed supply.
Maybe the gob's should regulate big oil like the way the utility companies are regulated. Lets see how that flies

> Not exactly - everyone needs to get used to $6.00 a gallon gas, then the alternative energy possibilities will be cost
> competitive. Providing subsidies or tax incentives or old military bases to the oil companies simply puts off the free
> market solution.

There is no "free market" here with regard to the construction of
refineries.

In fact, the removal of onerous legislative barriers -- which is what
this bill attempts (and fails, BTW) to do -- will once again allow the
free market to prevail.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 8 Oct 2005 12:05:16 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

>Bottled water in America is a very effective I.Q. test.

ah. I see. Mr. knoweverythingbetter. What about a x-country and a wife
wearing&needing lenses?

Your with chlorine (sp?) cleaned water is %$&§$%!!!

#m
--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 16:38:46 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

>Think taxes. There are people (waaaay too many) that think gas
>should be taxed so that it costs a "more reasonable" price at the
>pump (i.e., the insane prices in other countries).


hmm. what is insane about it? so you are in need to be conservative about
spending gas (or have a good income) and you are more likely willed to
search for alternatives.

#m

--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 21:38:39 GMT, .Blueskies. wrote:

>Not exactly - everyone needs to get used to $6.00 a gallon gas, then the alternative energy possibilities will be cost
>competitive.

now you are talking like a socialist European ... what a shame ...

:-)

#m

--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

> >Bottled water in America is a very effective I.Q. test.
>
> ah. I see. Mr. knoweverythingbetter. What about a x-country and a wife
> wearing&needing lenses?

Oops. Sorry. I thought we were talking about "bottled water" in the
abstract, versus the price of gasoline.

I didn't realize that you, Martin, of all people, would be suckered,
er, I mean, "influenced" into paying more for a bottle of *water* than
for a gallon of milk!

:-)

BTW: Contact lens wearers (which I presume is what you are referring
to) should use sterile saline solution in their eyes -- not Evian!
That crap is FULL of stuff you wouldn't want to put in your eyes.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> >Think taxes. There are people (waaaay too many) that think gas
> >should be taxed so that it costs a "more reasonable" price at the
> >pump (i.e., the insane prices in other countries).
>
> hmm. what is insane about it? so you are in need to be conservative about
> spending gas (or have a good income) and you are more likely willed to
> search for alternatives.

Okay -- let's follow that train for a moment.

Europe has been subjected to insane fuel prices (thanks to
over-taxation) for a generation.

Other than governments grown fat and wasteful, what good has come of
it? Where are all the "alternative fuels" that you
environmentally-aware Europeans have "discovered" simply because you
artificially (and, apparently, proudly) paid a fortune for oil-based
fuels?

The answer is: There aren't any. The closest you've come is diesel,
and THAT is an alternative fuel ONLY because your governments haven't
taxed it as much.

Which either means (a) your theory doesn't hold water, or (b) Europeans
simply don't have the scientific and industrial wherewithal to develop
alternative fuels, whatever the cost.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message ups.com...
>> Not exactly - everyone needs to get used to $6.00 a gallon gas, then the alternative energy possibilities will be
>> cost
>> competitive. Providing subsidies or tax incentives or old military bases to the oil companies simply puts off the
>> free
>> market solution.
>
> There is no "free market" here with regard to the construction of
> refineries.
>
> In fact, the removal of onerous legislative barriers -- which is what
> this bill attempts (and fails, BTW) to do -- will once again allow the
> free market to prevail.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

I read that the proposal was the gov't was going to basically give away some old "military bases" to build refineries
on, if that is not a subsidy then nothing is. If you look at the true cost of an oil based economy; maintenance of
roads, keeping air breathable, water drinkable, soil growable, then the rules and regs that the oil companies currently
operate under are more than lenient enough. If you want to go back the old black skies Pittsburg steel mill balls to the
wall screw the environment way of doing business, then you might as well go to China. I personally want the USA to stay
nice for my kids. 'Free Market' business needs to be held accountable. I imagine you keep the sheets clean at the
Alexis, no? Well unfortunately someone needs to make sure the sheets stay clean down at the old refinery also....

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 21:38:39 GMT, .Blueskies. wrote:
>
>>Not exactly - everyone needs to get used to $6.00 a gallon gas, then the alternative energy possibilities will be cost
>>competitive.
>
> now you are talking like a socialist European ... what a shame ...
>
> :-)
>
> #m
>
> --
> Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
> <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

No socialism here, just want to make sure the true costs are accounted for. Maybe the costs of roads should be captured
in the cost of a new car?

In article >,
".Blueskies." > wrote:

> No socialism here, just want to make sure the true costs are accounted for.
> Maybe the costs of roads should be captured
> in the cost of a new car?

Would that be actual cost, rather than the taxation used in some
states (excise taxes based on value)?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>Think taxes. There are people (waaaay too many) that think gas
>>>should be taxed so that it costs a "more reasonable" price at the
>>>pump (i.e., the insane prices in other countries).
>>
>>hmm. what is insane about it? so you are in need to be conservative about
>>spending gas (or have a good income) and you are more likely willed to
>>search for alternatives.
>
>
> Okay -- let's follow that train for a moment.
>
> Europe has been subjected to insane fuel prices (thanks to
> over-taxation) for a generation.
>
> Other than governments grown fat and wasteful, what good has come of
> it? Where are all the "alternative fuels" that you
> environmentally-aware Europeans have "discovered" simply because you
> artificially (and, apparently, proudly) paid a fortune for oil-based
> fuels?
>
> The answer is: There aren't any. The closest you've come is diesel,
> and THAT is an alternative fuel ONLY because your governments haven't
> taxed it as much.

And they have paid a high environmental price for its use. This is now
being addressed finally (and the company I work for is immensely
grateful!), but it will take time to get diesels as clean as gasoline
engines have been for a decade or so now.

Matt

..Blueskies. wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message ups.com...
>
>>>Not exactly - everyone needs to get used to $6.00 a gallon gas, then the alternative energy possibilities will be
>>>cost
>>>competitive. Providing subsidies or tax incentives or old military bases to the oil companies simply puts off the
>>>free
>>>market solution.
>>
>>There is no "free market" here with regard to the construction of
>>refineries.
>>
>>In fact, the removal of onerous legislative barriers -- which is what
>>this bill attempts (and fails, BTW) to do -- will once again allow the
>>free market to prevail.
>>--
>>Jay Honeck
>>Iowa City, IA
>>Pathfinder N56993
>>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>"Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>
>
> I read that the proposal was the gov't was going to basically give away some old "military bases" to build refineries
> on, if that is not a subsidy then nothing is. If you look at the true cost of an oil based economy; maintenance of
> roads, keeping air breathable, water drinkable, soil growable, then the rules and regs that the oil companies currently
> operate under are more than lenient enough. If you want to go back the old black skies Pittsburg steel mill balls to the
> wall screw the environment way of doing business, then you might as well go to China. I personally want the USA to stay
> nice for my kids. 'Free Market' business needs to be held accountable. I imagine you keep the sheets clean at the
> Alexis, no? Well unfortunately someone needs to make sure the sheets stay clean down at the old refinery also....

Well, I'll bet the value of the land isn't even close to the costs to
install the required pollution and safety equipment mandated by the
government. So this is hardly what I call a subsidy. If the government
lowers or offsets part of my taxes, I don't call that a subsidy if I'm
still paying taxes.


Matt

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:

> >Think taxes. There are people (waaaay too many) that think gas
> >should be taxed so that it costs a "more reasonable" price at the
> >pump (i.e., the insane prices in other countries).
>
> hmm. what is insane about it? so you are in need to be conservative about
> spending gas (or have a good income) and you are more likely willed to
> search for alternatives.

Why is it sane to artificially raise the price of gas? Does the end justify
the means? Conservation and alternative fuels are certainly some to
look forward to, but at what price?

Do you understand how the "solutions" throughout Europe might not
be applicable in parts of the US? For example, while public transportation
could be more efficient than autos in major US cities, it would be much
more challenging to create public transportation in areas where houses
are 20+ miles from the nearest store. Tell me how conservation, alternative
fuels, and public transportation would work in Alaska or in areas of US
farmlands.

Looking at it from a different direction, it could be argued that the
population densities that lead to efficient public transportation are
a symptom of overpopulation. We simply shouldn't have that many
people trying to live in such a small area.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Another German jerk know-it-all. I've got my well pipe down 250' (that's 75
meters for you idiots on the metric system) into pure snow and ice runoff
from the Sierra. Betcha mine is cleaner than yours.

Jim



"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...


> Your with chlorine (sp?) cleaned water is %$&§$%!!!
>

> Also, as someone else pointed out, them thar refineries ain't cheap. In
> fact, those things cost buttloads of money to build, run and maintain.
> Huge buttloads...... Not only that, don't forget about those oil rigs
> down in the gulf that broke off their moorings during the hurricanes and
> are now Galveston beachfront resorts. Those things are going to cost a
> hell of a lot to replace too......

All of which are depreciated and amortized over a scheduled period of
time. The actual cost is paid by all consumers, amounting to pennies on
the gallon.

"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net
>
> Perhaps the government
> should get into the production and refining business and offer some
> "competition" or incentive to the oil industry. Any government profits
> could be used to support the general fund or any other lawful
> government endeavor.

Seriously?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

John T wrote:
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> nk.net
>
>>Perhaps the government
>>should get into the production and refining business and offer some
>>"competition" or incentive to the oil industry. Any government profits
>>could be used to support the general fund or any other lawful
>>government endeavor.
>
>
> Seriously?
>

Yes, has anyone an example of a government run business or anything else
for that matter that ever turned a profit?


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Yes, has anyone an example of a government run business or anything else
> for that matter that ever turned a profit?

I could try to dig up some numbers, but I believe there
are (or at least were) a couple of examples of post offices
(gvt run administrations in a few countries) that actually are
doing reasonably well.

--Sylvain

"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> The oil companies havent gone into bankruptcy in droves over 20 odd years,
> if anything they have made money hand over fist. They have not increased
> their refining capacity because it would decrease their overall PROFIT
> margin. Building new refining capacity to "standard" would drive their
> incremental cost of production UP, and eat into the stockholders
> dividends. But make no mistake, it would still be PROFIT.
>

Refining capacity for gasoline has increased 3X over the period while no new
refineries were built.

Mike
MU-2

"Newps" wrote:
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>>Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
>>>better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...
>>
>>
>> Did you READ the article?
>
> Of course he didn't, the facts might get in the way of a preconceived
> notion.

Boom!

Dammit. Another irony meter blown to smithereens.

Sylvain wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>> Yes, has anyone an example of a government run business or anything else
>>
>> for that matter that ever turned a profit?
>
>
> I could try to dig up some numbers, but I believe there
> are (or at least were) a couple of examples of post offices
> (gvt run administrations in a few countries) that actually are
> doing reasonably well.

I believe the context here was the USA so that limits it to the American
government. Although, international examples would be interesting to
see if they really made money, or made money because they had a
monopoly. Most postal services don't have any across the board
competition (at least in the USA, last I knew, only the Federal Postal
Service could carry letters).

Matt

Peter Duniho wrote:

> The article, which neither of you apparently read, pointed out that not only
> have no new refineries been built, oil companies have CLOSED refineries
> already built. If they need refineries so badly, why did they close the
> ones they had?

They close them because it reduces supply and allows them to charge more. Of
course, they really prefer it if they can force *another* company to close
*their* refineries (as Mobil Oil did in California) rather than closing their own.

The rest of Pete's post matches the report of the vote on "All Things
Considered" (NPR) the other day.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Jay Honeck wrote:

> The answer is: There aren't any. The closest you've come is diesel,
> and THAT is an alternative fuel ONLY because your governments haven't
> taxed it as much.

Diesel's been around for over 100 years. And the only reason most European
governments keep the taxes low on it is that it's the primary heating fuel. Tax
diesel, and lots of people would start pumping their heating oil into their cars.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Bottled water in America is a very effective I.Q. test.

Maybe where you live, but not around here. Run the normal series of tests that
any keeper of marine fish runs on his tank on my tap water and then tell me it's
dumb to pay $1/gallon for bottled water. Next Wednesday I have a job replacing a
toilet. Different water company. The old one clogged up with iron and other
deposits within two years of installation. The plumbing salesman asked "and she
drinks that?"

Good question.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I didn't realize that you, Martin, of all people, would be suckered,
> er, I mean, "influenced" into paying more for a bottle of *water* than
> for a gallon of milk!

You've *very* obviously never been to Europe.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

> (that's 75 meters for you idiots on the metric system) into pure snow

You have got to be kidding me. Do you actually think some arbitrary
measurement scheme is superior to something which actually makes SENSE?

And you dare claim to be an "engineer". Amazing.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:TLZ1f.1668$Uj2.1379@trndny03...
> They close them because it reduces supply and allows them to charge more.

The question was rhetorical. The point is, it's a bit disingenuous for the
oil companies to claim they need to build new refineries when they are the
ones who have chosen to close the ones they had.

> [...]
> The rest of Pete's post matches the report of the vote on "All Things
> Considered" (NPR) the other day.

I guess whether that's a good thing or not depends on the person considering
that coincidence.

Pete

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> Boom!
>
> Dammit. Another irony meter blown to smithereens.

Maybe you and Jose can get a bulk-rate discount on replacements. :)

> I read that the proposal was the gov't was going to basically give away
> some old "military bases" to build refineries on, if that is not a subsidy
> then nothing is.

I see that as an eminently logical attempt to offset the "Not In My Back
Yard" problem. We're abandoning military bases in droves, leaving behind
toxic waste dumps, old firing ranges, and devastated local economies.
Allowing a new refinery to be built on that land is just about the only
quick way to get one built nowadays, with all the crazy "environmental
impact statements" that must be filled out every time someone farts, and
take years to compile.

Face it, we've "regulated" ourselves into much of this mess. And don't fool
yourself -- this oil/gas price situation is a mess that could ultimately
lead to a world-wide economic downturn. It's high time Congress does
something to level the playing field.

> If you want to go back the old black skies Pittsburg steel mill balls to
> the wall screw the environment way of doing business, then you might as
> well go to China. I personally want the USA to stay nice for my kids.

Somewhere down the road, when you're complaining that the only jobs for
American kids anymore is flipping burgers at Mickey D's, remember this
discussion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> Bottled water in America is a very effective I.Q. test.
>
> Maybe where you live, but not around here. Run the normal series of tests
> that any keeper of marine fish runs on his tank on my tap water and then
> tell me it's dumb to pay $1/gallon for bottled water. Next Wednesday I
> have a job replacing a toilet. Different water company. The old one
> clogged up with iron and other deposits within two years of installation.
> The plumbing salesman asked "and she drinks that?"

Yech.

Sounds like you folks need a new well? (And/or water treatment plant?)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>>Just to keep things pure, next time I'll make the subject "AVgas Prices --
>>Help at Last?"
>
> so they will refine 100LL at the new site?

At this stage of the discussion, there's no way to know.

It's doubtful, at best, however, given the fact that 100LL is about to be
regulated out of existence in America.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Refining capacity for gasoline has increased 3X over the period while no
> new refineries were built.

No thanks to our government, BTW.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> The question was rhetorical. The point is, it's a bit disingenuous for
> the oil companies to claim they need to build new refineries when they are
> the ones who have chosen to close the ones they had.

Source?

It will make fascinating reading, trying to discern the real reasons that an
oil company would close a badly needed oil refinery.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Ij02f.465927$xm3.216500@attbi_s21...
>> The question was rhetorical. The point is, it's a bit disingenuous for
>> the oil companies to claim they need to build new refineries when they
>> are the ones who have chosen to close the ones they had.
>
> Source?

What do you mean "source"? You posted the source. Duh.

> It will make fascinating reading, trying to discern the real reasons that
> an oil company would close a badly needed oil refinery.

I agree.

The fact that the refineries were closed is indisputable. So either they
closed a badly needed refinery, or they closed a refinery they didn't need.
Dozens of times. If you have information that suggests "the real reasons
that an oil company would close a badly needed oil refinery", I'm all ears.

Personally, I think the more likely answer is that the oil refinery wasn't
all that badly needed in the first place.

In any case, whether the refineries are needed now or not, that doesn't
justify blatantly violating the legislative rules for lawmaking, nor does it
show that the oil companies need the US government to bend over backwards to
subsidize their refineries.

Pete

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:u802f.226888$084.41833@attbi_s22...
> [...]
> Face it, we've "regulated" ourselves into much of this mess.

Yeah, right. We'd be SO much better off if we'd just instead allowed
ourselves to be "unregulated" into the unmitigated environmental disaster
oil companies (and others, of course) would have created absent those
regulations.

> And don't fool yourself -- this oil/gas price situation is a mess that
> could ultimately lead to a world-wide economic downturn.

Yup, it sure could. But whatever happens, it will be a minor shadow of what
could have occurred with long-term environmental destruction.

Pete

> In fact, the removal of onerous legislative barriers -- which is what
> this bill attempts (and fails, BTW) to do -- will once again allow the
> free market to prevail.

The free market fails when costs can be passed on to others without
recourse. Pollution passes costs on to others without recourse,
sometimes permanently. "Onerous legislative barriers" are one way to
ensure that this doesn't happen (as much).

They are a Good Thing.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 8 Oct 2005 15:04:49 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

>Which either means (a) your theory doesn't hold water, or (b) Europeans
>simply don't have the scientific and industrial wherewithal to develop
>alternative fuels, whatever the cost.

yeah, sometimes we really come out of our caves, but mostly only because of
the tourists.

#m
--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 01:05:01 GMT, George Patterson wrote:

>Diesel's been around for over 100 years. And the only reason most European
>governments keep the taxes low on it is that it's the primary heating fuel. Tax
>diesel, and lots of people would start pumping their heating oil into their cars.

taxation for heating oil is different than for car diesel. and it is not
allowed to use heating oil in your car (special colored stuff, can be
traced)

#m
--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:42:48 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

>> hmm. what is insane about it? so you are in need to be conservative about
>> spending gas (or have a good income) and you are more likely willed to
>> search for alternatives.
>
>Why is it sane to artificially raise the price of gas? Does the end justify
>the means? Conservation and alternative fuels are certainly some to
>look forward to, but at what price?

at any price.

>Do you understand how the "solutions" throughout Europe might not
>be applicable in parts of the US?

sure; solar panels might be a good idea for Spain, but not for Sweden,
hydrogen powered vehicles might be a good solution everywhere, bio-diesel
might be as well a good idea. Research in insulation materials is a good
idea eveywhere (it is good both for cold and warm climate).

> For example, while public transportation
>could be more efficient than autos in major US cities, it would be much
>more challenging to create public transportation in areas where houses
>are 20+ miles from the nearest store. Tell me how conservation, alternative
>fuels, and public transportation would work in Alaska or in areas of US
>farmlands.
>

it is not only about oil. it is about electricity, water, etc - all those
natural resssources.

>Looking at it from a different direction, it could be argued that the
>population densities that lead to efficient public transportation are
>a symptom of overpopulation. We simply shouldn't have that many
>people trying to live in such a small area.

so send them all to Iowa :-)

#m

--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 16:06:00 -0700, RST Engineering wrote:

>Another German jerk know-it-all.

you can call me everything, but not a German. :-)

> I've got my well pipe down 250' (that's 75
>meters for you idiots on the metric system)

to each his own

> into pure snow and ice runoff
>from the Sierra.

Good for you. How man of you have access to such good water? True enough,
many parts of Europe also face problems with their water supply. Next wars
will be fought because of water, not oil.

> Betcha mine is cleaner than yours.

I hold this bet.

>Jim

#m

--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 23:36:05 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

>
>Yes, has anyone an example of a government run business or anything else
>for that matter that ever turned a profit?
>

Davis Monthan Air Force Base with selling aircraft parts (hey, seems to be
on topic) is the only US military facility making a profit (so I was told
at a tour there)

#m
--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 22:43:10 -0000, Pesky Irritant
> wrote:

>"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> [article with zero aviation content snipped]
>>
>> You forgot to put "OT:" in your subject line.
>
>Quite right - as any good airman knows, aircraft are powered by wishing
>really really hard, not gasoline!

No, you missed that one in ground school.

Aircraft are powered by money. Cost of operation is based on the
square of the speed, distance/range, and capacity of the aircraft and
proportional to the square of the time spent in storage.

IE, it's going to cost a bunch based on the capability of the aircraft
whether you fly it or not.

Aircraft have emotions and will get even if you let them just set in a
hangar some where.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>So gasoline has nothing to do with aviation, and anything you read
>otherwise are lies.
>
>Remember - don't fill your tanks with gas - fill them with wishes! Saves
>money and you get to make engine noises like you did when you were a kid.

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 15:09:52 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> [article with zero aviation content snipped]
>
>You forgot to put "OT:" in your subject line.

Three days and the original post has never made it to my server yet.
Unless some one broke the thread.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
Roger

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 05:36:35 GMT, Dave S >
wrote:

>
>
>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
>>>better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...
>>
>>
>> Did you READ the article? There hasn't been a new refinery built in the
>> U.S. since I was a senior in high school -- 29 years ago!
>>
<snip>
>
>The oil companies havent gone into bankruptcy in droves over 20 odd
>years, if anything they have made money hand over fist. They have not
>increased their refining capacity because it would decrease their
>overall PROFIT margin. Building new refining capacity to "standard"
>would drive their incremental cost of production UP, and eat into the
>stockholders dividends. But make no mistake, it would still be PROFIT.
>
>What we are celebrating is the deliberate browbeating of the elected
>Republican representatives of the House by the Republican Leadership. I
What we are seeing is two things.
Environmental regs that are preventing new refineries, but new
refineries would be one of the worst mistakes we could make.

The refineries are getting rich and we are becoming more dependent on
foreign oil for one reason. The whole system operates on supply and
demand. If we as individuals didn't use so much of the stuff the
refineries wouldn't be charging so much, we wouldn't be importing so
much and the world would be a more peaceful place.

If I have my figures any where near correct, if we had a quarter of
the cars on the road getting the mileage of the Prius, we'd have no
need for importing oil and the price of oil would go down.

However, I've come to the unhappy conclusion that the average driver
is only going to conserve when forced to do so by high prices. With
prices between $2.75 and $3.00 the demand for crude has already
dropped. At $3.50 the refineries would no longer be operating at
capacity. We really need about 3 or 4 months of at least $3.00 gas.
Then it'll get cheap and the refineries will be operating no where
near capacity so the need to build more will be gone. I'm not
thrilled about paying high prices as I'm retired, on a pension, and
social security, but it's about the only thing that will make people
conserve.

Another unfortunate conclusion is it's going to take fuel prices in
that range to make alternative energy sources widely competitive.

If the drivers conserved to the point of forcing gas prices down
there'd be plenty of capacity for avgas. Unfortunately, some where in
the future I think the higher compression engines (like mine) are
going to require specialty fuels, or additives. Once the higher
powered diesels become widely available 100LL, its equivalent, or
additives for something to get that high are going to make today's
prices look mighty good. The only gas burners left will be the low
compression ones that can burn autogas. Except of course here in
Michigan where they no longer list on the pump whether the gas
contains alcohol or not.

That means there will be a lot of planes in the $60,000 to $120,000
range requiring $50,000 to $60,000 conversions to keep flying. How
many do you think will do that to a plane that is worth about the cost
of the conversion?
<snip>
>
>You want the truth about oil and gas prices? 5 weeks ago when the oil
>prices his $70 or so a barrel, the gas prices popped up over $3 a gallon

Some where along the line some one had to pay for that crude. It's
called speculation.

>within days. The OIL that was that expensive was still to be in the boat
>being shipped over from Saudi and Venezuela for days to weeks longer. We
>paid a premium on refined product that was already in the inventory.
>Legalized price gouging, anyone?

It doesn't work that way. You have to pay what it is going to take to
replace what is in the inventory. Then you base future charges on
what you think you are going to have to pay to fill the tanks next
time.

If you want to complain, wait until you see what LP gas does this
winter. As for natural gas, they sold most of ours in Michigan to
California two years ago when California screwed up. We had a nice
reserve until then. There currently is a limited supply that can be
used/accessed so it's going to get down right expensive this winter
and at the mid 30s right now I already have the heat on in both the
house and shop.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>You wanted OT.. you got it :)
>Dave

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 02:35:30 -0400, Roger wrote:

>Environmental regs that are preventing new refineries, but new
>refineries would be one of the worst mistakes we could make.

not really, IMVHO.

your current refineries work with high losses. a poor product, little
overall output and old technology. A new refinery will be able to work up
to current standards, produce better products at lesser costs.

Meanwhile you would be able to search for viable alternatives. Within the
next 20 or so years you should have applied them (this is true for all of
us).

#m

--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

>>> Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
>>> better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...

Personally, I would much rather have Big Oil in charge of energy
development than the U.S. Senate.

Jane Fonda has promised to lead an anti-war rally next spring (!)
driving to Washington in a bus powered by soy oil. That's what we'd
have with a U.S. Senate-based energy policy: vegetable-powered busses
that take six months to get ready for a trip.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

> If they need refineries so badly, why did they close the
>> ones they had?

EPA.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 03:41:28 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>It will make fascinating reading, trying to discern the real reasons that an
>oil company would close a badly needed oil refinery.

Because meeting EPA regulations costs more than the refined products
could ever pay back.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:38:26 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>> If they are all so costly, then why havent they built new capacity?

Because we won't let them!

The one in Arizona is going on ten years now, and the environmental
lobby is looking to stretch out approval for a few more months, until
the clock runs out on the existing environmental impact statement.
Then the company can start all over again.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

>> The law doesn't outlaw building them, just says you need to build it to
>> meet modern environmental standards. That makes the older GRANDFATHERED
>> units "cheap".

No, it doesn't, because you have to retrofit the old and probably
uneconomical plant.

Imagine if you had to meet current automobile tailpipe emissions on
your ancient 172.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

>> Perhaps the government
>> should get into the production and refining business and offer some
>> "competition" or incentive to the oil industry. Any government profits
>> could be used to support the general fund or any other lawful
>> government endeavor.

Yes, that would solve everything, that would!

The U.S. Postal Service selling gasoline. The state Motor Vehicle
Department distributing it. The teachers' lobby refining it. The U.S.
Congress exploring for it. FEMA drawing up the longterm plans. Kofi
Anna as energy czar!

Kinda makes you feel warm all over, don't it? Our future is secure!


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 07:59:49 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>Davis Monthan Air Force Base with selling aircraft parts (hey, seems to be
>on topic) is the only US military facility making a profit (so I was told
>at a tour there)

Must have been a government accountant, then!

You could make a profit by selling your airplane in pieces, too, if
you didn't count the cost of the airplane.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Heh... and this is really the punchline. Think about it: crude oil is
>>far and away our civilizations most precious natural resource and it's
>>being sold for less than drinking water (or it had been up until now). I
>>don't think anyone really believes that prices like that are
>>sustainable, especially given that the oil supply is finite and
>>non-renewable.
>
>
> Interesting.
>
> a. In one corner we've got folks saying that the big, bad Oil Companies
> are making obscene, HUGE profits at current prices.
>
> b. In the other corner, we've got guys like you saying that the price
> is too low, and shouldn't be so cheap.
>
> If supply and demand is in action here, (a) and (b) can't co-exist.

It's safe to say, however, that both of these analyses are overly
simplistic. In fact, a) and b) can coexist and here's how:

a) While it might be true that the oil companies are making record
profits at the current time, I can promise you they're sweating bullets
right now about the price of gas and other petrolium products. Why?
Well, they know, like any other business owners/ops know, that there's
an upper limit to the price of their products. This works like any other
business - you want the highest possible price for your product that
does NOT reduce demand for it. In fact, any time you bump up the price
of your product you're taking a risk in this regard. You know how all
this works so I won't go into it. But I think the dynamic going on here
should be obvious.
This was an ugly, ugly lesson for the oil companies back in the 70's
when US production peaked, causing prices to skyrocket and shocking the
economy into conservation. I promise you this experience is still fresh
in their minds and a lot of sleep is being lost over it.

b) The obverse is true as well - you don't want your product priced
excessively _low_ either. There are two consequences of this: 1)
excessively low margin and 2) possibly excessive demand. Up until now,
the margins and supply have been permissive enough to allow selling gas
more cheaply than H2O here in the US.

That's no longer true, for reasons that I think are obvious. The need
for more refining capacity (big cost!), increasing
shipping/processing/etc costs, gubbamint regulation and questionable
supply (this is a dissertation-long issue here) have made the old
cheap-as-hell pricing scheme simply unsustainable.

So, you can see the rock/hardplace situation here: cheap gas is not
sustainable, but TOO high of a price hike might shock the economy into
conservation which NO business would EVER want for its products....

Truth is, I wouldn't want to be an oil company right now, because
they're fixin' to get into some really hard times. The current drama
going on at the gas pumps right now speaks directly to this issue...

As I said, we're lucky to only be paying 3 bucks right now...


LS
N646F
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

I just *love* it when liberals tell us we have to be taxed, or taxed more,
on a commodity "for our own good." Is it to cut consumption? Well, then
*you* trade your SUV in for a bicycle, and we'll how that works for you.

>>Why is it sane to artificially raise the price of gas? Does the end
>>justify
>>the means? Conservation and alternative fuels are certainly some to
>>look forward to, but at what price?

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 03:41:28 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
>>It will make fascinating reading, trying to discern the real reasons that an
>>oil company would close a badly needed oil refinery.
>
> Because meeting EPA regulations costs more than the refined products
> could ever pay back.
>
>
> -- all the best, Dan Ford
>
>

Unless of course you charged what it really costs!

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:Ij02f.465927$xm3.216500@attbi_s21...
>>> The question was rhetorical. The point is, it's a bit disingenuous for the oil companies to claim they need to
>>> build new refineries when they are the ones who have chosen to close the ones they had.
>>
>> Source?
>
> What do you mean "source"? You posted the source. Duh.
>
>> It will make fascinating reading, trying to discern the real reasons that an oil company would close a badly needed
>> oil refinery.
>
> I agree.
>
> The fact that the refineries were closed is indisputable. So either they closed a badly needed refinery, or they
> closed a refinery they didn't need. Dozens of times. If you have information that suggests "the real reasons that an
> oil company would close a badly needed oil refinery", I'm all ears.
>
> Personally, I think the more likely answer is that the oil refinery wasn't all that badly needed in the first place.
>

It is the run it at 100% capacity rule. If you are only running at 60% capacity then you have too much capacity...in the
eyes of the company. As far as critical infrastructure is concerned however the gov't should mandate that some capacity
be held in reserve, just like they do with other critical industries...

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:u802f.226888$084.41833@attbi_s22...
>
> Somewhere down the road, when you're complaining that the only jobs for American kids anymore is flipping burgers at
> Mickey D's, remember this discussion.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>


Yup, and at least they could use the oil from the fries to run the car! ;-)

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message ...
> On 8 Oct 2005 15:04:49 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>Which either means (a) your theory doesn't hold water, or (b) Europeans
>>simply don't have the scientific and industrial wherewithal to develop
>>alternative fuels, whatever the cost.
>
> yeah, sometimes we really come out of our caves, but mostly only because of
> the tourists.
>
> #m
>

I am really surprised you guys didn't start quoting the 'alternatives' you have over there. I was researching solar
panels to use on my new house (still too expensive compared to NG) and very many references point to Europe. Some great
devices that capture the heat of the sun directly to heat the house, others to generate electricity, etc. A lot of ocean
wave to electricity work being done also. You Europeans are so used to the trains going all over that you don't even
consider it an option anymore, it is SOP. GM was very instrumental in removing mass transit capability in many of the US
cities by promoting and basically giving away busses. Now the mass transit capabilities are severely handicapped and
folks think they have to use their own car. It is interesting how making the cost of oil more realistic leads to
differences...

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message ...
>
> so send them all to Iowa :-)
>
> #m
>
> --
> Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
> <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>


I know where there is a nice Inn...

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> Refining capacity for gasoline has increased 3X over the period while
> no new refineries were built.

The question is: Is that kind of growth sustainable?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 23:36:05 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, has anyone an example of a government run business or anything else
>>for that matter that ever turned a profit?
>>
>
>
> Davis Monthan Air Force Base with selling aircraft parts (hey, seems to be
> on topic) is the only US military facility making a profit (so I was told
> at a tour there)

Yes, it is easy to make money when you don't have to buy what you are
selling! Do you have a real example?


Matt

>>>It will make fascinating reading, trying to discern the real reasons that
>>>an
>>>oil company would close a badly needed oil refinery.
>>
>> Because meeting EPA regulations costs more than the refined products
>> could ever pay back.
>
> Unless of course you charged what it really costs!

That's the point. If they could, they would.

And, besides -- calling what amounts to an artificial tax on all of us the
"real cost" of oil is disingenuous, at best.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Yeah, right. We'd be SO much better off if we'd just instead allowed
> ourselves to be "unregulated" into the unmitigated environmental disaster
> oil companies (and others, of course) would have created absent those
> regulations.
>
>> And don't fool yourself -- this oil/gas price situation is a mess that
>> could ultimately lead to a world-wide economic downturn.
>
> Yup, it sure could. But whatever happens, it will be a minor shadow of
> what could have occurred with long-term environmental destruction.

I don't believe anyone here has argued in favor of unfettered industrial
waste. For example, I'm as glad as anyone that my beloved Great Lakes are
cleaner than they've been since the days of Marquette & Joliet.

(Of course, I'm also cognizant of the fact that many of my classmates are
currently unemployed because all of the heavy industry has been driven
overseas or south of the border. To you, I suppose, that's just
"collateral damage." To them, it's been a family catastrophe without
end. )

The bottom line is this: If we've been unable to build new refineries
because we made them a regulatory nightmare, it's time to ratchet the
regulations back a notch or three.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> consider it an option anymore, it is SOP. GM was very instrumental in
> removing mass transit capability in many of the US cities by promoting and
> basically giving away busses.

Busses aren't "mass transit" anymore?

In most parts of the U.S., they are the only practical alternative to
driving. Despite this fact, they are failing, and/or require huge
government support to survive.

For example, here in Iowa City (and our sister city, Coralville) we spend
something approaching $18 million annually on the bus system. That is
enough to buy every single rider a pretty decent (better than the Mighty
Grape) used car -- every year.

In case you haven't noticed, "Mass transit" is something most Americans use
only as a last resort -- and for very good reasons.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> so send them all to Iowa :-)
>
> I know where there is a nice Inn...

We have several Europeans staying with us this weekend. And a couple more
who are with us for a few months, visiting the University.

Nice folks -- but we tend to avoid discussing politics with them...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jose opined

>> In fact, the removal of onerous legislative barriers -- which is what
>> this bill attempts (and fails, BTW) to do -- will once again allow the
>> free market to prevail.

>The free market fails when costs can be passed on to others without
>recourse. Pollution passes costs on to others without recourse,
>sometimes permanently. "Onerous legislative barriers" are one way to
>ensure that this doesn't happen (as much).

Quite true.

But if no pollution is allowed, we'd be in real trouble. Even the smoke from a
campfire is pollution.


>They are a Good Thing.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:I592f.412202$x96.147537@attbi_s72...
>> consider it an option anymore, it is SOP. GM was very instrumental in removing mass transit capability in many of the
>> US cities by promoting and basically giving away busses.
>
> Busses aren't "mass transit" anymore?
>
> In most parts of the U.S., they are the only practical alternative to driving. Despite this fact, they are failing,
> and/or require huge government support to survive.
>
> For example, here in Iowa City (and our sister city, Coralville) we spend something approaching $18 million annually
> on the bus system. That is enough to buy every single rider a pretty decent (better than the Mighty Grape) used
> car -- every year.
>
> In case you haven't noticed, "Mass transit" is something most Americans use only as a last resort -- and for very good
> reasons.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Put the vehicles on rails, power them with electricity, and define the route. Amazing how folks will build along the
route to take advantage of the easily available transportation. Oh wait, that was back in the 1800's....

The reason the busses need so much help is because they are not the best solution and begin to reflect the real cost of
transportation. Think subways, trains, trolleys.

"LWG" > wrote in message . ..
>I just *love* it when liberals tell us we have to be taxed, or taxed more, on a commodity "for our own good." Is it to
>cut consumption? Well, then *you* trade your SUV in for a bicycle, and we'll how that works for you.
>
>

What SUV? Interesting how a conservative would bid for less conservation. Even the prez finally asked us to conserve,
just a little, for the better good. How do you keep children from doing something bad? There has to be some sort of
'penalty. Generally folks don't do things on their own, they will simply imitate each other...

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 13:40:56 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>In case you haven't noticed, "Mass transit" is something most Americans use
>only as a last resort -- and for very good reasons.

mostly because of the ego. it is the same here, too. (but using the bus
here is not seen as being poor or something)

#m
--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 13:40:56 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>For example, here in Iowa City (and our sister city, Coralville) we spend
>something approaching $18 million annually on the bus system. That is
>enough to buy every single rider a pretty decent (better than the Mighty
>Grape) used car -- every year.

one day you might think about eating those cars. :-)
you and your kids need a clean environment to _survive_, cars don't help
you to survive.

#m
--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

> I don't believe anyone here has argued in favor of unfettered industrial
> waste.

You appear to be.

> The bottom line is this: If we've been unable to build new refineries
> because we made them a regulatory nightmare, it's time to ratchet the
> regulations back a notch or three.

That's not the measure of the worth of regulation.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 14:06:09 GMT, .Blueskies. wrote:

>Put the vehicles on rails, power them with electricity, and define the route. Amazing how folks will build along the
>route to take advantage of the easily available transportation. Oh wait, that was back in the 1800's....

and they are building a new system in Phoenix, AZ:
<http://www.valleymetro.org/rail/>

#m
--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 13:42:57 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>Nice folks -- but we tend to avoid discussing politics with them...

this is a good idea if you want to keep your guests.

#m
--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

Martin Hotze wrote:


> hydrogen powered vehicles might be a good solution everywhere,

You'll never see hydrogen powered cars in any number. It takes too much
energy to put the hydrogen in a bottle for my use in a car.

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 10:00:56 -0600, Newps wrote:

>> hydrogen powered vehicles might be a good solution everywhere,
>
>You'll never see hydrogen powered cars in any number. It takes too much
>energy to put the hydrogen in a bottle for my use in a car.

given the fact that there is no oil or gas available (timewarp yourself to
the future): what kind of energy and energy storage would you use for
powering small units like cars?

#m
--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 13:40:56 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>
>>In case you haven't noticed, "Mass transit" is something most Americans use
>>only as a last resort -- and for very good reasons.
>
>
> mostly because of the ego. it is the same here, too. (but using the bus
> here is not seen as being poor or something)

Shows how little you understand Americans.

Matt

> But if no pollution is allowed, we'd be in real trouble. Even the smoke from a
> campfire is pollution.

True. Breathing causes pollution too.

But that's not the point. Reasonable limits must be placed on pollution
through external means (such as "onerous legislative barriers") because
big business has no incentive not to pollute, and us little folks have
little or no recourse against them should they decide (within the law)
to foul our nest while they feather theirs.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 17:51:25 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

>> mostly because of the ego. it is the same here, too. (but using the bus
>> here is not seen as being poor or something)
>
>Shows how little you understand Americans.

Ot might be different in the big metros like NY/DC or LA (IIRC there is a
train connecting cities along the cost) - I've never been to the really big
metros; but the areas where I've been I never saw business-like dressed
people waiting or boarding a bus.

>Matt

#m
--
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:

> but the areas where I've been I never saw business-like dressed
> people waiting or boarding a bus.

because it would be a colossal waste of their time?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 17:51:25 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>>mostly because of the ego. it is the same here, too. (but using the bus
>>>here is not seen as being poor or something)
>>
>>Shows how little you understand Americans.
>
>
> Ot might be different in the big metros like NY/DC or LA (IIRC there is a
> train connecting cities along the cost) - I've never been to the really big
> metros; but the areas where I've been I never saw business-like dressed
> people waiting or boarding a bus.

There are lots of reasons, but one is that many areas aren't served with
any decent mass transit system. Much of America is rural or suburban
and has no train service and marginal bus service if at all. The buses
run infrequently and don't always stop in convenient locations.

Also, they are very inconvenient compared to cars, except in the most
urban areas where car parking is a big problem. Cars take you where you
want to go, when you want to go there and do so in great comfort
compared to most mass transit.


Matt

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 10:00:56 -0600, Newps wrote:
>
>
>>>hydrogen powered vehicles might be a good solution everywhere,
>>
>>You'll never see hydrogen powered cars in any number. It takes too much
>>energy to put the hydrogen in a bottle for my use in a car.
>
>
> given the fact that there is no oil or gas available

I won't give you that as it will never happen.

what kind of energy and energy storage would you use for
> powering small units like cars?

Yet to be developed. Hydrogen can work but it takes much more energy
than we use right now for cars to make it work.

HOLY CRAP!,
Martin it must be a very very strange day , a full moon coming up or
something...cause I agree with you! We need new refinieres! I think new
refineries could do the job cleaner, more efficant and more cost effective.
Did anyone else think it was funny to see the DemoRats whining because
the 5 min vote took longer? Strange how when they are running for election
"EVERY" vote should be counted....felons through illegals..all should count
(No matter how long it takes!). But when legislation is being voted on we
have to have a time limit and those elected officials "we the people" sent
there shouldn't have the opportunity to vote !
And for those who could not be there on time to vote....well if I showed
up at my job late..I would not have a job. Elected officials need to take
their jobs seriously..I don't think most do. Most know they have a free ride
and will always get re-elected no matter what. Until we change that we will
never change Washington.
MHO of course!

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech


"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 02:35:30 -0400, Roger wrote:
>
>>Environmental regs that are preventing new refineries, but new
>>refineries would be one of the worst mistakes we could make.
>
> not really, IMVHO.
>
> your current refineries work with high losses. a poor product, little
> overall output and old technology. A new refinery will be able to work up
> to current standards, produce better products at lesser costs.
>
> Meanwhile you would be able to search for viable alternatives. Within the
> next 20 or so years you should have applied them (this is true for all of
> us).
>
> #m
>
> --
> Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
> <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html>

Hee Hee,
They'll have to use the oil from the fries , because they will not be
able to afford to go to work for 6 bucks an hour when it doesn't buy the gas
to get them to work! ;) Ah it's a tangled web we weave!

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech



".Blueskies." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:u802f.226888$084.41833@attbi_s22...
>>
>> Somewhere down the road, when you're complaining that the only jobs for
>> American kids anymore is flipping burgers at Mickey D's, remember this
>> discussion.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>
>
> Yup, and at least they could use the oil from the fries to run the car!
> ;-)
>

> Another unfortunate conclusion is it's going to take fuel prices in
> that range to make alternative energy sources widely competitive.

You make many good points, Roger, except this one. I keep reading (and
hearing) this statement over and over, from TV, radio and newspaper
commentators -- and everyone just blithely accepts it as "Truth" with a
capital "T".

Unfortunately, Europe -- supposedly home to some of the best minds in the
world -- has been subjected to gas prices two and three times what we are
currently paying, thanks to a generation of outrageous taxation. If your
statement were true, by now Europe should have developed many alternate
energy sources, rather than suffer gasoline priced at over $6.00 per gallon.

Where are they? What are they?

The frightening answer is: There aren't any -- even at $6.00 per gallon.
The only other alternative is that Europe simply doesn't possess the
scientific and industrial wherewithal to develop them -- which seems highly
unlikely.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> The bottom line is this: If we've been unable to build new refineries
>> because we made them a regulatory nightmare, it's time to ratchet the
>> regulations back a notch or three.
>
> That's not the measure of the worth of regulation.

Of course not. It's the measure of the disaster of over-regulation.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>>In case you haven't noticed, "Mass transit" is something most Americans
>>use
>>only as a last resort -- and for very good reasons.
>
> mostly because of the ego. it is the same here, too. (but using the bus
> here is not seen as being poor or something)

That's not the problem -- at least not in small-to-medium sized American
cities.

I, for example, would be a perfect candidate for mass transit. My home is
four miles from my office, and I arrive and depart work at about the same
times each day. (And I've got two vehicles at the inn to use, should I need
them in a pinch.)

The bus stops 1 block from my home -- which sucks in bad weather. It then
goes downtown -- a distance of 2.5 miles -- but takes forever to get there.
It travels down narrow city streets that were never designed for busses,
stopping every block, backing up traffic everywhere along the way.

Once downtown, I would have to transfer to another bus to travel the
remaining 1.5 mile to the hotel, with it once again stopping every 200 yards
along the way. The entire trip would take a bit more than an hour.

Or, I can drive to my office in less than 15 minutes.

The real, understated problem with mass transit is that productive people
have better things to do with their time.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>>Nice folks -- but we tend to avoid discussing politics with them...
>
> this is a good idea if you want to keep your guests.

Actually, it's a good idea in Iowa City, period. There hasn't been a
Republican elected to office here since before I was born -- and I'm 47
years old!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Europe [...] has been subjected to gas prices two and three times what we are
> currently paying, thanks to a generation of outrageous taxation. If your
> statement were true, by now Europe should have developed many alternate
> energy sources, rather than suffer gasoline priced at over $6.00 per gallon.

They conserve, by dint of not being huge. America has huge open spaces
to traverse. We live further from work than Europeans. The distance
from Iowa to New York is greater than the total size of entire
=countries= in Europe.

They don't need cheap fuel as much as America does.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

>>That's not the measure of the worth of regulation.
>
> Of course not. It's the measure of the disaster of over-regulation.

The ability to breathe clean air and drink clean water is a measure of
the success of "over"-regulation. New Jersey in the 1960s was the
disaster (as kids we held soaps up to our noses while driving down the
turnpike in order to not throw up).

I don't want to return to that ever again.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>> Europe [...] has been subjected to gas prices two and three times what
>> we are
>> currently paying, thanks to a generation of outrageous taxation. If
>> your statement were true, by now Europe should have developed many
>> alternate energy sources, rather than suffer gasoline priced at over
>> $6.00 per gallon.
>
>
> They conserve, by dint of not being huge. America has huge open spaces
> to traverse. We live further from work than Europeans. The distance
> from Iowa to New York is greater than the total size of entire
> =countries= in Europe.
>
> They don't need cheap fuel as much as America does.

And _gasoline_ in Europe is cheaper than in the USA. The trouble is it
is sold bundled with lots of _taxes_.

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Nice folks -- but we tend to avoid discussing politics with them...
>>
>>this is a good idea if you want to keep your guests.
>
>
> Actually, it's a good idea in Iowa City, period. There hasn't been a
> Republican elected to office here since before I was born -- and I'm 47
> years old!
>
> :-)

Wow, you are much more backwards then I even imagined!

Matt

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:38:26 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>> If they are all so costly, then why havent they built new capacity?
>
> Because we won't let them!

That's true, but that quote isn't mine.

Mind your P's and snips :~)

>
> The one in Arizona is going on ten years now, and the environmental
> lobby is looking to stretch out approval for a few more months, until
> the clock runs out on the existing environmental impact statement.
> Then the company can start all over again.

Can't let people take priority over those rats and snails ...

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:g7i2f.468745$xm3.183303@attbi_s21...
>> Another unfortunate conclusion is it's going to take fuel prices in
>> that range to make alternative energy sources widely competitive.
>
> You make many good points, Roger, except this one. I keep reading (and
> hearing) this statement over and over, from TV, radio and newspaper
> commentators -- and everyone just blithely accepts it as "Truth" with a
> capital "T".
>
> Unfortunately, Europe -- supposedly home to some of the best minds in the
> world -- has been subjected to gas prices two and three times what we are
> currently paying, thanks to a generation of outrageous taxation. If your
> statement were true, by now Europe should have developed many alternate
> energy sources, rather than suffer gasoline priced at over $6.00 per
> gallon.
>
> Where are they? What are they?
>
> The frightening answer is: There aren't any -- even at $6.00 per gallon.
> The only other alternative is that Europe simply doesn't possess the
> scientific and industrial wherewithal to develop them -- which seems
> highly unlikely.
> --


In Europe they are about twice as efficient using petroleum for
transportation as in the US. Instead of developing alternative fuels, they
have become more efficient at using existing fuels. In contrast, Brazil has
replaced about half of gasoline with ethanol (made from sugar cane), so it
can be done, it just doesn't make sense everywhere. You need a lot of land
and the right climate to produce enough bio fuels to run a modern economy.

When you say:

">I keep reading (and
> hearing) this statement over and over, from TV, radio and newspaper
> commentators -- and everyone just blithely accepts it as "Truth" with a
> capital "T"."

I am reminded of you connecting the number of refineries with the capacity
to produce gasoline when there is no direct connection. You accepted this
as the "Truth" simply because you wanted to. Even when I pointed out that
gasoline production has risen by about a third in the past 20yrs (while the
number of refineries has shrunk) you continue to rant about the
"enviro-nazis" and how they have "prevented" new refineries, when the fact
is that there have been no new refineries because it is more economic to
expand production at existing refineries. Why would anyone want to build a
new refinery when you can more cheaply expand an existing one that already
has an adjacent deep-water port, pipelines to major markets ect?

Higher prices definately allow alternatives to become viable. In the past
year or two, petroleum extraction from tar sands has become economically
feasible for instance. It is now economic to drill for oil off the West
coast of Africa even thought the region is politically unstable, the
potential has overcome the risks.

All this isn't going to make the price come down to where it was three years
ago, that just isn't going to happen. Destroying or poisening the
enviornment isn't going to get the price of gasoline down that muich either.
Pay attention now, for here is the Truth, the fundemental reason why energy
is more expensive and why it will stay that way:

HERE IT IS:

****Until recently, only about 25% of the worlds population used any
meaningful amount of energy, now about 60% does.****

Read it again because that is it in a nutshell and none of the other BS
matters. Anybody who didn't see this coming and make a lot of money from it
is an idiot.

Mike
MU-2

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Martin Hotze > wrote:
>
>> but the areas where I've been I never saw business-like dressed
>> people waiting or boarding a bus.
>
> because it would be a colossal waste of their time?
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> no one likes an educated mule
>

But being stopped in rush hour traffic alone in their car isn't? Many commutes in So Cal are 45 minutes or more. Riding
the train or bus allows active work to be done...

Jay Honeck wrote:

> It's doubtful, at best, however, given the fact that 100LL is about to be
> regulated out of existence in America.

Got evidence of that? The EPA's position is and has been that leaded aviation
fuel doesn't constitute enough of a hazard for them to target it, and the fuel
experts at the Oshkosh symposiums said that legislation isn't a problem. They
said that what will kill 100LL is the fact that the market is declining and the
manufacturer of lead-tetraethyl will almost certainly find it unprofitable to
make it within the next 8 years.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

..Blueskies. wrote:

> It is the run it at 100% capacity rule.

I don't know of any companies who follow this rule. Most try to run between 85%
and 90% to give them time to expand with demand.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

> I, for example, would be a perfect candidate for mass transit. My
> home is four miles from my office,

Your route sounds like an even better candidate for a bicycle commute.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:u802f.226888$084.41833@attbi_s22...
>> If you want to go back the old black skies Pittsburg steel mill balls to
>> the wall screw the environment way of doing business, then you might as
>> well go to China. I personally want the USA to stay nice for my kids.
>
> Somewhere down the road, when you're complaining that the only jobs for
> American kids anymore is flipping burgers at Mickey D's, remember this
> discussion.

And remember the old 80/20 dilemma: that 20% of regulation clears 80% of the
air...but more like 95%.

After 20%, the rest is bureaucratic/environmental self-service.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:T092f.412183$x96.405147@attbi_s72...
>>
>> Yup, it sure could. But whatever happens, it will be a minor shadow of
>> what could have occurred with long-term environmental destruction.
>
> I don't believe anyone here has argued in favor of unfettered industrial
> waste. For example, I'm as glad as anyone that my beloved Great Lakes are
> cleaner than they've been since the days of Marquette & Joliet.

He's arguing from a "false alternative" premise: either overarching
regulation or an environmental disaster. It's hysterical hyperbole.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> I don't believe anyone here has argued in favor of unfettered industrial
>> waste.
>
> You appear to be.

No he doesn't.
>
>> The bottom line is this: If we've been unable to build new refineries
>> because we made them a regulatory nightmare, it's time to ratchet the
>> regulations back a notch or three.
>
> That's not the measure of the worth of regulation.

What is?

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> In fact, the removal of onerous legislative barriers -- which is what
>> this bill attempts (and fails, BTW) to do -- will once again allow the
>> free market to prevail.
>
> The free market fails when costs can be passed on to others without
> recourse.

That increases a producers cost and makes them uncompetitive.

> Pollution passes costs on to others without recourse, sometimes
> permanently. "Onerous legislative barriers" are one way to ensure that
> this doesn't happen (as much).
>
> They are a Good Thing.
>
Most environmental regulation is based on junk science.

> No he doesn't.

Yes, he does.

That is, he does appear to be arguing in favor of unfettered industrial
waste (as the reasonable alternative to overregulation).

> What is [the measure of the worth of regulation]?

Whether it accomplishes its goal, whether the goal is worthy and
consistent with a free society, whether there are better methods which
will accomplish this goal, and what the likely outcome would be were
that regulation not to exist.

The goal of preserving a clean environment is certainly worthy, sharply
limiting industrial pollution =is= consistent with a free society, since
"your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", the likely
outcome of eliminating "onerous environmental regulations" would be
unfettered pollution and a country that smells like 1960s New Jersey.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

>> The free market fails when costs can be passed on to others without
>> recourse.
>
> That increases a producers cost and makes them uncompetitive.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that by not
allowing a producer to pass costs on to others without recourse, this
makes producers uncompetitive? I suppose I'd agree. My own business is
unfairly restricted because I have to take care of my own garbage rather
than just toss it at my neighbor, I have to buy my own supplies rather
than just raid my neighbor's house, and I have to follow laws. Bloddy
inconvenient, I say.

> Most environmental regulation is based on junk science.

It doesn't take much science to compare before and after. I'll take
"after".

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article >,
".Blueskies." > wrote:

> >> but the areas where I've been I never saw business-like dressed
> >> people waiting or boarding a bus.
> >
> > because it would be a colossal waste of their time?
> >
> But being stopped in rush hour traffic alone in their car isn't? Many
> commutes in So Cal are 45 minutes or more. Riding
> the train or bus allows active work to be done...

I suspect that Martin hasn't visited So Cal all that much.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

In article >, "JohnH" >
wrote:

> > I, for example, would be a perfect candidate for mass transit. My
> > home is four miles from my office,
>
> Your route sounds like an even better candidate for a bicycle commute.

Yeah, that would be a sight in January... :-/

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"George Patterson" > wrote

> I don't know of any companies who follow this rule. Most try to run
between 85%
> and 90% to give them time to expand with demand.

I occurs to me that a large part of the current problem is the fact that
once some of the refineries were damaged, or had to shut down, there was no
stockpile (or inadequate stockpile) to keep the supply of fuel going, until
the refineries could ramp up production, to get production even with demand.

Along with increased production by building increased refinery production, a
large emphasis should be placed on building large storage facilities. There
could be a national fuel reserve, instead of just a strategic oil reserve.

We need this capability, badly, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

"JohnH" > wrote in message
...
>
> > I, for example, would be a perfect candidate for mass transit. My
> > home is four miles from my office,
>
> Your route sounds like an even better candidate for a bicycle commute.

This sounds like a certain death sentence, to me.

There are no provisions for bike lanes, and traffic would soon kill bike
riders. Once again, it is the problem of the vastness of the US, that
prohibits building enough bike lanes to make a significant difference.
--
Jim in NC

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >, "JohnH"
> > wrote:
>
>>> I, for example, would be a perfect candidate for mass transit. My
>>> home is four miles from my office,
>>
>> Your route sounds like an even better candidate for a bicycle
>> commute.
>
> Yeah, that would be a sight in January... :-/

And what "sight" would that be? Some warmer clothes?

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>>>That's not the measure of the worth of regulation.
>> Of course not. It's the measure of the disaster of over-regulation.
>
> The ability to breathe clean air and drink clean water is a measure of the
> success of "over"-regulation. New Jersey in the 1960s was the disaster
> (as kids we held soaps up to our noses while driving down the turnpike in
> order to not throw up).
>
> I don't want to return to that ever again.

Analogy: death sentence for speeding.

Rationality dictates a response appropriate to the problem. Irrationality
dictates over-reaction and hysterics.

Also, most regulation is based on junk science.

You made your bed, now sleep in it.

>> Actually, it's a good idea in Iowa City, period. There hasn't been a
>> Republican elected to office here since before I was born -- and I'm 47
>> years old!
>>
>> :-)
>
> Wow, you are much more backwards then I even imagined!

Not to worry. Go five miles outside of this barren, forsakenly liberal
land, and to be labeled a "Democrat" is political suicide...

That's why we call Iowa City "36 square miles surrounded by reality..."

;-)

Most of Iowa is solidly conservative.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>>> The free market fails when costs can be passed on to others without
>>> recourse.
>> That increases a producers cost and makes them uncompetitive.
>
> I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that by not allowing
> a producer to pass costs on to others without recourse,

I'm saying you knowledge of how free markets work is typically the bilge of
academia.

> this makes producers uncompetitive? I suppose I'd agree. My own business
> is unfairly restricted because I have to take care of my own garbage
> rather than just toss it at my neighbor, I have to buy my own supplies
> rather than just raid my neighbor's house, and I have to follow laws.
> Bloddy inconvenient, I say.
>
>> Most environmental regulation is based on junk science.
>
> It doesn't take much science to compare before and after. I'll take
> "after".

Your knowledge on science is akin to your knowledge of free markets.

In article >, "JohnH" >
wrote:

> >>> I, for example, would be a perfect candidate for mass transit. My
> >>> home is four miles from my office,
> >>
> >> Your route sounds like an even better candidate for a bicycle
> >> commute.
> >
> > Yeah, that would be a sight in January... :-/
>
> And what "sight" would that be? Some warmer clothes?

Do people really bike on snow and ice?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:
>
>given the fact that there is no oil or gas available (timewarp yourself to
>the future): what kind of energy and energy storage would you use for
>powering small units like cars?
>

Bio Diesel or Ethanol. Both will come from growing sugar cane or some
other high yield low cost plants.
--
Eduardo K. | To put a pipe in byte mode,
http://www.carfun.cl | type PIPE_TYPE_BYTE.
http://e.nn.cl | (from the Visual C++ help file.)

> I am reminded of you connecting the number of refineries with the capacity
> to produce gasoline when there is no direct connection. You accepted this
> as the "Truth" simply because you wanted to. Even when I pointed out that
> gasoline production has risen by about a third in the past 20yrs (while
> the number of refineries has shrunk) you continue to rant about the
> "enviro-nazis" and how they have "prevented" new refineries, when the fact
> is that there have been no new refineries because it is more economic to
> expand production at existing refineries.

And you continually ignore the fact that this so only because of the
regulatory nightmare our own government has created.

> Pay attention now, for here is the Truth, the fundemental reason why
> energy is more expensive and why it will stay that way:
>
> HERE IT IS:
> ****Until recently, only about 25% of the worlds population used any
> meaningful amount of energy, now about 60% does.****

Of course, in the long run, energy costs must rise as more of the world
needs it. This is inevitable.

However, that doesn't change the fact that there is no reason for our own
government to accelerate this potentially disastrous economic reality.
Instead of standing in the way of oil production, they should be trying to
expand access to proven oil reserves, and they should be trying to loosen
the fetters of insane environmental lunacy so that more refineries can be
built.

Here is just one tiny, local example of this kind of environmental idiocy:
For over 30 years our airport has been trying to extend Rwy 25. For various
reasons, over that period of time, the project has started and stopped, been
delayed, shot down, and resurrected. Each time it has been brought back to
life, the EPA (and the State-level equivalents) have required a brand new
set of "environmental impact statements." I don't know the exact number,
but well over a dozen complete, multi-year EIS's have been done for this
SINGLE PROJECT, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

As of last month, after several years of work, with bulldozers already
pushing dirt around, the FAA and EPA once again asked for a meeting to
"clarify the environmental goals and procedures" with the project, requiring
yet another meeting with airport commissioners, city and state officials.
This required many dozens of hours (at tax-payer expense, of course), for
the umpteen-thousandth time -- and this is for a friggin' RUNWAY EXTENSION
on land that is already owned by the airport, using plans that have been
drawn up for over three decades.

Now can you just imagine what it must take to build a refinery in this
screwed up country?

We should be supporting bills like the one proposed that streamline the
process, yet there continue to be people like you (and others in this group)
who advocate government by misdirection, stalling, and fraud. Since this
seems to go against your known personality traits, I can only guess that
you've found a way to profit from it?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article <g7i2f.468745$xm3.183303@attbi_s21>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>Unfortunately, Europe -- supposedly home to some of the best minds in the
>world -- has been subjected to gas prices two and three times what we are
>currently paying, thanks to a generation of outrageous taxation. If your
>statement were true, by now Europe should have developed many alternate
>energy sources, rather than suffer gasoline priced at over $6.00 per gallon.
>
>Where are they? What are they?

its been 6 a gallon for too little. normal prices are around 4 a gallon.
for US$4 a gallon the best technology is Diesel. 60% of new cars are
Diesel powered. Diesel is clean and cheaper.

new engines are mostly highpressure Diesels of FSI engines (gas engines
but with gas inyected inside the combusion chamber in a way simmilar
to Diesel engines).

The new 1.4liter FSI TwinCharger VW Jetta makes the same power as a 1.8t
engine on the Turbo Jetta and gets much better mileage, meeting the most
stringent emission laws..

So yes. New tech is coming. 6 dollars a gallon will make it come faster.

--
Eduardo K. | To put a pipe in byte mode,
http://www.carfun.cl | type PIPE_TYPE_BYTE.
http://e.nn.cl | (from the Visual C++ help file.)

> The goal of preserving a clean environment is certainly worthy, sharply
> limiting industrial pollution =is= consistent with a free society, since
> "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", the likely
> outcome of eliminating "onerous environmental regulations" would be
> unfettered pollution and a country that smells like 1960s New Jersey.

Not that I have any interest in seeing America return to an industrial
economy, but there a millions of under-educated Americans who desperately
needed those long-gone blue-collar jobs.

It is they who have suffered the brunt of the crazy, over-blown
environmental regulations. That smell you and I haughtily disdained was
the smell of money to them and their families.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> Most environmental regulation is based on junk science.
>
> It doesn't take much science to compare before and after. I'll take
> "after".

While I tend to agree with you, I suspect there are millions of un- and
under-employed blue-collar workers in America who would beg to differ.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>>> Your route sounds like an even better candidate for a bicycle
>>> commute.
>>
>> Yeah, that would be a sight in January... :-/
>
> And what "sight" would that be? Some warmer clothes?

Do they make snow tires for bicycles?

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ebl2f.415582$x96.310523@attbi_s72...
>> It doesn't take much science to compare before and after. I'll take
>> "after".
>
> While I tend to agree with you, I suspect there are millions of un- and
> under-employed blue-collar workers in America who would beg to differ.

That's the third time you've claimed that saving jobs is justification for
destroying the environment.

It's a silly claim. The whole point of environmental protection is to
protect our future. What's worse? Losing 1000 jobs now? Or losing
millions of lives in the future, never mind all the non-human life affected?
It's unfortunate whenever person loses their livelihood, but humans are
adaptable, and the long-term health of the planet takes precedence.

If you think that the loss of jobs needs addressing, then argue to address
it by compensating the families affected through government assistance, long
enough for them to adapt. That cost is inconsequential compared to the
long-term costs of environmental pollution.

Pete

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> Your route sounds like an even better candidate for a bicycle
>>>> commute.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that would be a sight in January... :-/
>>
>> And what "sight" would that be? Some warmer clothes?
>
> Do they make snow tires for bicycles?

"Bikes on Ice? You're Kidding, Right?"

.... as found on http://www.icebike.org/

I would bet it'd be safer / more reliable to ride a bike in snow or ice for
4 miles than a car.

But even if you were completely adverse to riding in bad weather (not *cold*
mind you), what does that really reduce your # of cycling days by? A couple
weeks a year?

Bob Noel wrote:
> Do people really bike on snow and ice?

I used to! :-) there was a mountain pass near how that I
would climb with my bicycle, carrying my cross-country skis so I
could start a nice ski trek from there -- being already warmed
up and ready to go. I never quite figured out though how to carry
the bike on my back when skiing, twould have allowed me
to connect to another road on the other side of the mountain
and push the thing a bit further. I did however find a way to
wrap the tires with some strings to get some more grip on snow
(another technique consisted in putting larger tires on top
of the regular ones); but then, that wasn't commuting, just
having fun.

--Sylvain

"JohnH" > wrote
>
> But even if you were completely adverse to riding in bad weather (not
*cold*
> mind you), what does that really reduce your # of cycling days by? A
couple
> weeks a year?

OOOOhhhh. You haven't spent much time in Iowa, have you?

There is also a factor of arriving to work so sweaty in the summer, that
nobody can stand getting near you for the rest of the day. Also, it does
get really hot there, and you can't take enough off to stay cool, unlike
rutting more on for the cold. Cold is also a real excuse, when you talk
about getting frostbite from a half hour outside, in the wind. Oh, did we
mention that it gets windy there?
--
Jim in NC

"Eduardo K." > wrote

> new engines are mostly highpressure Diesels of FSI engines (gas engines
> but with gas inyected inside the combusion chamber in a way simmilar
> to Diesel engines).

Name some of these new engines, so we can compare what we are talking
about. If you are talking about the ones I am thinking about, the
sequential injection takes place at the intake valve, on the manifold side.
--
Jim in NC

In article >, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

> > > But being stopped in rush hour traffic alone in their car isn't? Many
> > > commutes in So Cal are 45 minutes or more. Riding
> > > the train or bus allows active work to be done...
> >
> > I suspect that Martin hasn't visited So Cal all that much.
>
> what has this to do with me?

Earlier you stated that you had not seem suits waiting for a bus
or subway:

begin quote:
"Ot might be different in the big metros like NY/DC or LA (IIRC there is a
train connecting cities along the cost) - I've never been to the really big
metros; but the areas where I've been I never saw business-like dressed
people waiting or boarding a bus."
end quote

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

In article >, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

> Now Jay, this is a 100,000 people town including the surrounding villages.
> How does this compare to Iowa City?

100,000 people on how much land?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Recently, Martin Hotze > posted:

> given the fact that there is no oil or gas available (timewarp
> yourself to the future): what kind of energy and energy storage would
> you use for powering small units like cars?
>
Well, there appear to be more options than gets typically discussed.
Recently, a local company has gotten a bit of media attention for their
non-poluting engine that could reduce dependence on fossil fuel
consumption, though I think at this point it makes more sense as an
alternative source of electrical energy for home use than for autos.
Still, the inventors think that use in autos is possible.

http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/business/112782213464580.xml?bttec&coll=2

Regards,

Neil

> My wife walks 15 minutes each direction every day to the bus and to work.
> We could afford an additional car, but there is no parking downtown where
> she works, so we would be forced to rent a spot in a parking garage.
> Busses
> go every 5 to 10 minutes during the day (6am to 8pm) each direction and it
> is almost the same time with a bus as with a car.
>
>
> Now Jay, this is a 100,000 people town including the surrounding villages.
> How does this compare to Iowa City?

About the same. Iowa City's "metro area" (made up of three other small
towns) is about 110,000 people.

The one block walk wouldn't bother me. The wasted MONTH (actually 4.8
work-weeks) of time each year (yes, that's what 45 minutes per day adds up
to each year) would.

Eliminate your wife's wasted time, and your country's productivity would
soar!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> While I tend to agree with you, I suspect there are millions of un- and
>> under-employed blue-collar workers in America who would beg to differ.
>
> That's the third time you've claimed that saving jobs is justification for
> destroying the environment.
>
> It's a silly claim. The whole point of environmental protection is to
> protect our future. What's worse? Losing 1000 jobs now? Or losing
> millions of lives in the future, never mind all the non-human life
> affected?

As I said, I tend to agree with you. I have no desire to see America
re-industrialize -- I happen to *like* the service economy. :-)

But then, I also won't dare complain about how there are no decent jobs for
unskilled workers, as so many do. Too many environmental activists refuse
to see any connection between their actions in the '60s and '70s, and the
long-term consequences.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article <UCs2f.471120$xm3.174829@attbi_s21>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Too many environmental activists refuse
> to see any connection between their actions in the '60s and '70s, and the
> long-term consequences.

to be more accurate: too many activists fail to see the negative consequences
of their actions, only seeing little successes.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

> Not that I have any interest in seeing America return to an industrial
> economy, but there a millions of under-educated Americans who desperately
> needed those long-gone blue-collar jobs.
>
> It is they who have suffered the brunt of the crazy, over-blown
> environmental regulations. That smell you and I haughtily disdained was
> the smell of money to them and their families.

That somebody profits from destroying the environment is no reason to
let it be so. The same arguments can be made for casinos, logging the
redwoods, and cocaine as a legitimate business.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Analogy: death sentence for speeding.

Analogy: Fatal speeding accident. The laws of physics take care of the
rest.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

>>Do they make snow tires for bicycles?
>
> the tires on my mountain bike would make pretty good snow tires. Ice might
> be
> a problem though.

I wonder if you can get spiked tires for bicycles, like the ones they used
in (that insane "sport") motorcycle racing on frozen lakes.

Although, to be honest, I haven't seen one of those races in many years. I
wonder if they finally outlawed them?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> Eliminate your wife's wasted time, and your country's productivity would
>> soar!
>
> add in the additional car, parking fees, etc ... than you might be even.

Iowa City has been trying to "European-ize" their downtown in a similar
fashion. Just this year they closed the last available open parking lot in
downtown, (they're building condos on it) leaving only parking meters and
multi-story parking garages available for parking.

End result? All new business development since 1998 has moved to our sister
city, Coralville. In the end, all these well-intentioned, over-educated
city activists accomplished was to ensure the financial success of
Coralville.

Which, of course, is what every business-person *told* them would happen
when they announced their plan.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck opined

>>>> Your route sounds like an even better candidate for a bicycle
>>>> commute.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that would be a sight in January... :-/
>>
>> And what "sight" would that be? Some warmer clothes?

>Do they make snow tires for bicycles?

the tires on my mountain bike would make pretty good snow tires. Ice might be
a problem though.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

In article <0li2f.468753$xm3.119049@attbi_s21>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>The bus stops 1 block from my home -- which sucks in bad weather. It then
>goes downtown -- a distance of 2.5 miles -- but takes forever to get there.
>It travels down narrow city streets that were never designed for busses,
>stopping every block, backing up traffic everywhere along the way.
>
>Once downtown, I would have to transfer to another bus to travel the
>remaining 1.5 mile to the hotel, with it once again stopping every 200 yards
>along the way. The entire trip would take a bit more than an hour.
>
>Or, I can drive to my office in less than 15 minutes.
>

Its all in the design and the service focus. I was in germany last winter
and there was a bus stop 1 block away from where I was staying. It took
me only 3 days to adjust my morning routing so as to arrive exactly
on time with the bus to the bus stop, thus avoiding all waiting on the
bus stop. And yes, german busses are VERY exact.

I was 3 stops sway from the end of the bus line and the bus took 12 minutes
to arrive Downtown where I could take any bus to another part of the city.

I could reach anywhere in the city in less than 40 minutes, and it was
a lot more than 2.5 miles....

A lot of people had NO car or used it only in the weekends. Every street had
bikepaths and they were occupied all year round. In the summer a lot of
people rode their bikes to work. And yes, you can leave you bike at the
station with just a small chain and the bike will be there when you came back.

side note: In the city I was there was some public outcry for
a recent bus accident that left one fatality. It was the first public
transportation accident in 15 years and the first public transporttion
fatality in the city in 40 years, my host told me...


--
Eduardo K. | To put a pipe in byte mode,
http://www.carfun.cl | type PIPE_TYPE_BYTE.
http://e.nn.cl | (from the Visual C++ help file.)

In article >,
Morgans > wrote:
>
>"Eduardo K." > wrote
>
>> new engines are mostly highpressure Diesels of FSI engines (gas engines
>> but with gas inyected inside the combusion chamber in a way simmilar
>> to Diesel engines).
>
> Name some of these new engines, so we can compare what we are talking
>about. If you are talking about the ones I am thinking about, the
>sequential injection takes place at the intake valve, on the manifold side.

2.0 FSI Audi: http://www.audiworld.com/news/01/iaa/fsi/content.shtml

quote:

The FSI engine's special combustion principle is critical to its efficiency. On this engine, fuel is not injected into the intake port, but directly into the combustion chamber. The injector, which is supplied by a single-piston pump and common rail fuel line, is in the side of the cylinder head, and controls the injection time to within thousandths of a second, at injection pressures of up to 110 bar.



--
Eduardo K. | To put a pipe in byte mode,
http://www.carfun.cl | type PIPE_TYPE_BYTE.
http://e.nn.cl | (from the Visual C++ help file.)

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:UCs2f.471120$xm3.174829@attbi_s21...
>
> But then, I also won't dare complain about how there are no decent jobs
> for unskilled workers, as so many do.

It's quicker and easier to train an unskilled worker for the service sector
than for manufacturing.

My #2 son started at Walgreens when he was 17 doing part time work at
$6.25/hour. He moved up to Pharmacy Tech when 18 ($9.00/hr) and will finish
his degree in Pharmacology this coming May. $$$$

> Too many environmental activists refuse to see any connection between
> their actions in the '60s and '70s, and the long-term consequences.

At least they won't admit their all-or-nothing approach.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <UCs2f.471120$xm3.174829@attbi_s21>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> Too many environmental activists refuse
>> to see any connection between their actions in the '60s and '70s, and the
>> long-term consequences.
>
> to be more accurate: too many activists fail to see the negative
> consequences
> of their actions, only seeing little successes.
>
And as Michel Fumento has pointed out, most of those "successes" were
actually reforms that were well in place or developing strongly long before
regulations were enacted due to market pressures (dig out the story of
Alaskan fisheries and their water treatment facilities for a rib-splitting
laugher). The ones that still defy regulations are governmental entities,
mainly the Feds.

You still don't get it. The number of refineries doesn't matter...the
output does.

Mike
MU-2

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:0al2f.415579$x96.414573@attbi_s72...
>> The goal of preserving a clean environment is certainly worthy, sharply
>> limiting industrial pollution =is= consistent with a free society, since
>> "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", the likely
>> outcome of eliminating "onerous environmental regulations" would be
>> unfettered pollution and a country that smells like 1960s New Jersey.
>
> Not that I have any interest in seeing America return to an industrial
> economy, but there a millions of under-educated Americans who desperately
> needed those long-gone blue-collar jobs.
>
> It is they who have suffered the brunt of the crazy, over-blown
> environmental regulations. That smell you and I haughtily disdained was
> the smell of money to them and their families.
> --

Those jobs are gone for good. Even if there were no enviornmental
regulation, low skill jobs are gone to low wage places.

Mike
MU-2

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:0al2f.415579$x96.414573@attbi_s72...
>
> Not that I have any interest in seeing America return to an industrial
> economy, but there a millions of under-educated Americans who desperately
> needed those long-gone blue-collar jobs.
>
> It is they who have suffered the brunt of the crazy, over-blown
> environmental regulations. That smell you and I haughtily disdained was
> the smell of money to them and their families.

Right, cost of labor has nothing to do with losing all those blue-collar
jobs. And it probably really was environmental regulations that led to the
average American hourly labor rate of $18 plus benefits versus about $1.50
in China.

Michael

Jay Honeck opined

>>>Do they make snow tires for bicycles?
>>
>> the tires on my mountain bike would make pretty good snow tires. Ice might
>> be a problem though.

>I wonder if you can get spiked tires for bicycles, like the ones they used
>in (that insane "sport") motorcycle racing on frozen lakes.

http://www.icebike.org/Equipment/tires.htm

>Although, to be honest, I haven't seen one of those races in many years. I
>wonder if they finally outlawed them?

I have a copy of /On Any Sunday./ One really wants to stay onthe bike.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> Eliminate your wife's wasted time, and your country's productivity would
>> soar!
>
> add in the additional car, parking fees, etc ... than you might be even.

You forgot to point out that people with any sense actually make use of the
time they spend on the bus, rather than just staring out the window wishing
they were driving.

The time is only wasted if one fails to do something with it. Contrast with
driving oneself, where you cannot (or at least should not) be doing anything
else.

Pete

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> WHINE !! BITCH!! MOAN!! NOT IN MY BACK YARD!! I want gas! I want cheap gas!!
> I want this I want that!
>
> Grow the **** up, America!!
>

Matt, let me know when you can debate something without resorting to
personal attacks or insults, then I will debate it with you.

And.. I don't work in academia. I actually work for a living.

I also dont consider myself whining about prices for gas. I pay for it
as I go. Its nice to have enough disposable income to do so without
flinching.

The refineries ARE in my back yard. They pay their share in property
taxes to the localities and school systems. They also provide jobs to
the economy. I'd love for them to expand, and provide more capital to
our infrastructure here. But not at the cost of polluting unnecessarily.

Anyways, unless you have something meaningful to contribute to this
rather than unwarranted insults, I will leave you to your rant.

Dave

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:g7i2f.468745$xm3.183303@attbi_s21...
>
>>>Another unfortunate conclusion is it's going to take fuel prices in
>>>that range to make alternative energy sources widely competitive.
>>
>>You make many good points, Roger, except this one. I keep reading (and
>>hearing) this statement over and over, from TV, radio and newspaper
>>commentators -- and everyone just blithely accepts it as "Truth" with a
>>capital "T".
>>
>>Unfortunately, Europe -- supposedly home to some of the best minds in the
>>world -- has been subjected to gas prices two and three times what we are
>>currently paying, thanks to a generation of outrageous taxation. If your
>>statement were true, by now Europe should have developed many alternate
>>energy sources, rather than suffer gasoline priced at over $6.00 per
>>gallon.
>>
>>Where are they? What are they?
>>
>>The frightening answer is: There aren't any -- even at $6.00 per gallon.
>>The only other alternative is that Europe simply doesn't possess the
>>scientific and industrial wherewithal to develop them -- which seems
>>highly unlikely.
>>--
>
>
>
> In Europe they are about twice as efficient using petroleum for
> transportation as in the US. Instead of developing alternative fuels, they
> have become more efficient at using existing fuels. In contrast, Brazil has
> replaced about half of gasoline with ethanol (made from sugar cane), so it
> can be done, it just doesn't make sense everywhere. You need a lot of land
> and the right climate to produce enough bio fuels to run a modern economy.

And do biofuels really make sense, unless you are using waste products
alone. It has been a number of years since I saw a thorough analysis,
but my recollection is that grown biofuels make about as much sense as
hydrogen, given today's technology. The energy required to grow the
biofuel (corn was the topic of the analysis I read years ago), including
fuel for the farm equipment, the fertilizer, transportation to a
processing plant, and the processing energy itself made the biofuel at
best energy neutral compared to directly buring the oil used to make the
biofuel, and typically it actually used more oil to burn biofuel than to
burn the oil directly in the form of gasoline.

Maybe this equation has changed with better technology, but I really wonder.

As a subsidy to farmers, biofuel probably makes more sense than paying
them to not plant a field, but I'm not even sure about that!

Matt

JohnH wrote:

>>I, for example, would be a perfect candidate for mass transit. My
>>home is four miles from my office,
>
>
> Your route sounds like an even better candidate for a bicycle commute.
>
>

Yes, if you live in the south. Bikes only work about half the year here
in northern PA.


Matt

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >, "JohnH" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>I, for example, would be a perfect candidate for mass transit. My
>>>>>home is four miles from my office,
>>>>
>>>>Your route sounds like an even better candidate for a bicycle
>>>>commute.
>>>
>>>Yeah, that would be a sight in January... :-/
>>
>>And what "sight" would that be? Some warmer clothes?
>
>
> Do people really bike on snow and ice?

Some do, but it is pretty dangerous. It isn't so bad when the temps get
below zero as the traction then increases quite a bit as compared to
temps between 25 and 40. However, the wind chill at 0 and lower makes a
pretty uncomfortable ride.


Matt

> There is also a factor of arriving to work so sweaty in the summer,
> that nobody can stand getting near you for the rest of the day.
> Also, it does get really hot there, and you can't take enough off to
> stay cool, unlike rutting more on for the cold. Cold is also a real
> excuse, when you talk about getting frostbite from a half hour
> outside, in the wind. Oh, did we mention that it gets windy there?

You may have missed where jay said his commute is only 4 miles. After a
couple weeks of conditioning, he probably wouldn't even break a sweat. He
also has the ability to take a shower when he gets to work.

It's unfortunate most Americans would rather live with refinery effluent to
power their 1 occupant SUVs than consider (shudder) using their own power to
move themselves.

"Eduardo K." > wrote

>
> 2.0 FSI Audi: http://www.audiworld.com/news/01/iaa/fsi/content.shtml
>
> quote:
>
> The FSI engine's special combustion principle is critical to its
efficiency. On this engine, fuel is not injected into the intake port, but
directly into the combustion chamber. The injector, which is supplied by a
single-piston pump and common rail fuel line, is in the side of the cylinder
head, and controls the injection time to within thousandths of a second, at
injection pressures of up to 110 bar.

COOL!!!
--
Jim in NC

>> Your route sounds like an even better candidate for a bicycle
>> commute.
>
> Yes, if you live in the south. Bikes only work about half the year
> here in northern PA.

What causes them to cease functioning the other half of the year?

If you meant "it's too cold to ride", consider about twice as many people
regularily commute by bicycle in PA than in GA...

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/commuter.htm

JohnH wrote:

>>>Your route sounds like an even better candidate for a bicycle
>>>commute.
>>
>>Yes, if you live in the south. Bikes only work about half the year
>>here in northern PA.
>
>
> What causes them to cease functioning the other half of the year?

Snow and ice mainly and the road salt would likely ruin a bike in now
time at all. I can just see the alloy parts after two weeks of riding
in road salt.


> If you meant "it's too cold to ride", consider about twice as many people
> regularily commute by bicycle in PA than in GA...

Cold is a problem also. I live 22 miles from where I work and it takes
me 90 minutes to ride that far in the summer (hint: it isn't level where
I live). That would be a long ride wearing a lot of clothes at zero or
below.


> http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/commuter.htm

I'm not surprised. Most northerners are a lot tougher than southerners.
:-)


Matt

"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>> WHINE !! BITCH!! MOAN!! NOT IN MY BACK YARD!! I want gas! I want cheap
>> gas!! I want this I want that!
>>
>> Grow the **** up, America!!
>>
>
> Matt, let me know when you can debate something without resorting to
> personal attacks or insults, then I will debate it with you.

Well, Dave, my apologies because my last point was a general take, not
directed to you (notice I said' Grow up America", not "Grow up, Dave"). I
notice you have very strong leanings and understanding toward free markets.
I'm not concerned about you selling short :~)

I do know I tend to lose it when people make foolish caveats especially ones
that are logical fallacies such as "without all this regulation we'd be in
(insert Armageddon class crisis)".

>
> And.. I don't work in academia. I actually work for a living.

That helps, but those in academia consider that they "work for a living",
too. What's more, working for a living is no basis for understanding how
markets work. Even many managers don't "get it". Many are hired for their
political acumen, not for their knowledge or leadership qualities.

>
> I also dont consider myself whining about prices for gas. I pay for it as
> I go. Its nice to have enough disposable income to do so without
> flinching.
>
> The refineries ARE in my back yard. They pay their share in property taxes
> to the localities and school systems. They also provide jobs to the
> economy. I'd love for them to expand, and provide more capital to our
> infrastructure here. But not at the cost of polluting unnecessarily.

Yes, indeed. Thing is, like so much of life, regulation stopped having a
goal (reduced pollution) and became a goal in itself (i.e., self-serving
bureaucracies). For example, years ago, when the coal fired power plants
were first required to install "scrubbers", they regulations stipulated
levels caps for emissions. They were also ordered to install specific
equipment to reach those levels. As it was, the equipment mandated was
egregiously costly and maintenance was enormous. It also created a lot of
toxic waste to be disposed of. It turned out that emissions could have been
as good or better using other means of emissions reductions with less cost
and less maintenance. That's why I'm very skeptical of the fallacies that
"without all these regulations, ...blah, blah, blah).


> Anyways, unless you have something meaningful to contribute to this rather
> than unwarranted insults, I will leave you to your rant.

My rant addresses so many people that become enamored with a pristine world
and completely miss the points that, first, every advantage has it's costs,
that actions have consequences including "Unintended Consequences".

I also notice a strong propensity for those who demand a risk free life, a
pristine world, and great prosperity, are often the most vocal when their
actions play out. It's an attitude that is understandable for children, but
inexcusable for adults. Hence my admonishment to Americans in general to
"grow up". Such childish perspective is becoming the rule, rather than the
exception. That there is no Santa Claus is apparently missed by wayyy to
many.

Rant to continue later :~)

Dave, I consider you an ally, not an adversary in this topic. If my take was
fuzzy (duh!), my apologies.


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
(You mentioned that refining capacity has grown despie the reduced number of
actual refineries)

(18.6 Mbbl in 1981 vs 16.8Mbbl today)

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20051010&view=1

/excerpt

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., falsely claimed that the "major
oil companies haven't even tried to build one single new refinery in this
country in 30 years" and that they "do not really want to expand refinery
capacity because it would cut into their record-setting profits."

The fact is they increased capacity and use at least on a
refinery-by-refinery basis. In 1981, the U.S. had 324 refineries with a
total capacity of processing 18.6 million barrels of crude per day. Today
just 149 refineries have a daily capacity of 16.8 million barrels.

The refineries are doing more than ever, but their numbers are dwindling and
no new ones are being built. The reason is not greed, but cost and
regulations. From 1994 to 2003, the refining industry spent $47.4 billion
not to build new refineries, but to bring existing ones into compliance with
environmental rules. That's where those "profits" go.

The last refinery built in the U.S. was in Garyville, La., in 1976.

Twenty-nine years later, approval of a new refinery could require as many as
800 different permits.

And just where would you build it? After Hampton Roads Energy Corp. proposed
a refinery near Portsmouth, Va., in the late 1970s, environmental groups and
local residents fought the plan. After court battles in front of federal and
state regulators, the firm gave up and canceled the project in 1984.

/end excerpt

> Cold is a problem also. I live 22 miles from where I work and it
> takes me 90 minutes to ride that far in the summer (hint: it isn't
> level where I live). That would be a long ride wearing a lot of
> clothes at zero or below.

Then don't ride a bike if it's too hard for you; not everyone is capable of
it. I'm not sure how you felt this was directed to you anyway; I was simply
pointing out to Jay that a 4 mile commute is usually quite practical via
bicycle. If it's really bad weather, use another means or better yet stay
home or at the inn.

>> http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/commuter.htm
>
> I'm not surprised. Most northerners are a lot tougher than
> southerners. :-)

In which case a 22 miler ought to be a piece of cake for a tough northerner
like you! :-)

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 02:40:56 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"JohnH" > wrote
>>
>> But even if you were completely adverse to riding in bad weather (not
>*cold*
>> mind you), what does that really reduce your # of cycling days by? A
>couple
>> weeks a year?
>
>OOOOhhhh. You haven't spent much time in Iowa, have you?
>
>There is also a factor of arriving to work so sweaty in the summer, that
>nobody can stand getting near you for the rest of the day. Also, it does
>get really hot there, and you can't take enough off to stay cool, unlike
>rutting more on for the cold. Cold is also a real excuse, when you talk
>about getting frostbite from a half hour outside, in the wind. Oh, did we
>mention that it gets windy there?

One year, my wife and I took our road bikes to Oshkosh. We were able
to ride them on the grounds until about 3 days before the fly-in
proper opened. We then took them out to the stand "On the hill" by the
bus stop. When ready to fly home, we put them on the "welcome wagon"
for a ride to the Deb.

We stayed in town. Weather was near 100 most of the time, but for two
days where it was cold, windy and rain. Riding in 100 degrees
wasn't all that bad. It was when you stopped it got miserable.
Did I mention I came down with one of the worst colds I've ever had
the night after we arrived?

Every place I've worked had showers. Even when I worked 18 miles from
here we had one younger guy who rode his bike nearly every day unless
the weather was *really* bad. Really bad means thunderstorms and wind
too strong to ride, or ice on the roads. He didn't ride when the
temps got much below 15 degrees, but he'd ride in rain so heavy my
windshield wipers would hardly take care of it.

He'd get to work, shed his rain gear, take a shower and head for the
office. When I worked at the main plant here in town we had a number
of people who rode in, including some upper management. I know one
who was making well up into the 6 figure range. Normally they'd all
head for the showers as soon as they made it to work.

If Midland were laid out differently I'd bet we'd have hundreds of
workers riding into town. The problem is the town is bisected by a
river with only two bridges. A third river coming in from the WSW
joins the first river right between the two bridges. No place in town
is more than about 6 miles from me with the airport only being a tad
over 4, but it takes 10.6 to get there. The shortest route is via
suicide alley where no one with an IQ over 70 would ride. The safest
is across the other bridge which is only about 3/4 of a mile from the
first, BUT you have to travel 5 to 6 miles farther to get to it.
There's another river in the way and that can only be crossed 4 miles
west of town where you then have to go nearly 3 miles south and then 3
miles back north to get to the bridge. If you live north of the
express way (US-10) there is no safe route into town via bike. Heavy
traffic on narrow streets/roads with no, or almost no shoulders. No
place to be on a bike.

They really are working on making our streets bicycle friendly.
and plans call for bike lanes although we'll have to watch for
impatient drivers passing on the shoulder. We have a very long way to
go before getting any where near as bike friendly as Boulder Co.

OTOH my wife is getting rid of her 37 MPG mini, mini van and replacing
it with a Prius. Now if I could get that kind of gain with a
replacement for the 4-Runner which gets 18 MPG around town. Anyone
make a SUV that gets 36 MPG that I can afford?

Some have mentioned losing jobs to low cost labor, but several
corporations have mentioned opening plants in other countries due to
low energy costs compared to here. Depending on the product, a high
tech chemical company doesn't save nearly as much on cheap labor as
they do with cheap energy.

In our specific area we don't have all that many unskilled jobs as
most of the work around here is high tech due to the nature of the
work, not that we can get labor cheaper some where else.

We do have a lot of farms that could use unskilled help in the summer,
but try and find someone who'll work out in the field.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>

<Snip>

> He'd get to work, shed his rain gear, take a shower and head for the
> office. When I worked at the main plant here in town we had a number
> of people who rode in, including some upper management. I know one
> who was making well up into the 6 figure range. Normally they'd all
> head for the showers as soon as they made it to work.

Would that be the Dow plant?

> If Midland were laid out differently I'd bet we'd have hundreds of
> workers riding into town. The problem is the town is bisected by a
> river with only two bridges. A third river coming in from the WSW
> joins the first river right between the two bridges.

<Snip>

Ahhh, "The Tridge", I remember it well...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
- CMU grad 1984
- Former intern in Dow Chemical's PR Dept
- Married to a Mount Pleasant "townie"

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

> ... I tend to lose it when people make foolish caveats especially ones
> that are logical fallacies such as "without all this regulation we'd
> be in (insert Armageddon class crisis)".

....or "without all this regulation we'd be in (insert free market
Utopia)."

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

> You still don't get it. The number of refineries doesn't matter...the
> output does.

Actually, we do a agree on that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> It is they who have suffered the brunt of the crazy, over-blown
>> environmental regulations. That smell you and I haughtily disdained was
>> the smell of money to them and their families.
>
> Right, cost of labor has nothing to do with losing all those blue-collar
> jobs. And it probably really was environmental regulations that led to the
> average American hourly labor rate of $18 plus benefits versus about $1.50
> in China.

Of course, there are many facets to the problem -- wages being one of them.

But that's a different thread.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Then don't ride a bike if it's too hard for you; not everyone is capable
> of it. I'm not sure how you felt this was directed to you anyway; I was
> simply pointing out to Jay that a 4 mile commute is usually quite
> practical via bicycle. If it's really bad weather, use another means or
> better yet stay home or at the inn.

You've actually got me thinking about it, John. I only realized what a
perfect candidate I was for riding my bike to work after this thread.

Until this year, I was driving my kids to school each morning. Now, my son
is riding his bike to school, and my daughter and I walk to hers. There
really isn't any good reason NOT to ride my bike, other than time and
laziness.

And we actually are seriously discussing selling our home and moving into
the Inn next spring, at least for a while. Man, that commute would be hard
to take! :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:uCN2f.420540$x96.326280@attbi_s72...
>> You still don't get it. The number of refineries doesn't matter...the
>> output does.
>
> Actually, we do a agree on that.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Then what is the significance of the fact that no new refineries have been
built.

Mike
MU-2

Here is the official data:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/gasoline.html

Go there, then to the Production XLS file under History. Gasoline
production is up substantially in the past 20yrs as you would expect from
the increased number of cars and increased population.

The reason no new refineries have been built is that it is cheaper to expand
existing ones because they already have all the infrastructure for bringing
crude in, the real estate is already owned and they are often close to large
markets. The return on capital by increasing capacity at an existing
refinery might be double the return of building a new refinery. It doesn't
take a genius CEO to figure that one out. Is enviornmental and other
regulation a factor? Of course it is, but is not a big factor when
considering a multi-billion dollar refinery.

Mike
MU-2


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
> (You mentioned that refining capacity has grown despie the reduced number
> of actual refineries)
>
> (18.6 Mbbl in 1981 vs 16.8Mbbl today)
>
> http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20051010&view=1
>
>

Hey Roger! I did the same two years ago except I bought an old bike (for
$35) specifically for the trip and gave it away when it was time to fly
home. Having the mobility of a bicycle and not having to lock it up (due to
its low value) was great! I was staying at Basler and riding all the way
around the airport was much faster than the buses and going to the grocery
store was east too.

Mike
MU-2

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 02:40:56 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"JohnH" > wrote
>>>
>>> But even if you were completely adverse to riding in bad weather (not
>>*cold*
>>> mind you), what does that really reduce your # of cycling days by? A
>>couple
>>> weeks a year?
>>
>>OOOOhhhh. You haven't spent much time in Iowa, have you?
>>
>>There is also a factor of arriving to work so sweaty in the summer, that
>>nobody can stand getting near you for the rest of the day. Also, it does
>>get really hot there, and you can't take enough off to stay cool, unlike
>>rutting more on for the cold. Cold is also a real excuse, when you talk
>>about getting frostbite from a half hour outside, in the wind. Oh, did we
>>mention that it gets windy there?
>
> One year, my wife and I took our road bikes to Oshkosh. We were able
> to ride them on the grounds until about 3 days before the fly-in
> proper opened. We then took them out to the stand "On the hill" by the
> bus stop. When ready to fly home, we put them on the "welcome wagon"
> for a ride to the Deb.
>
> We stayed in town. Weather was near 100 most of the time, but for two
> days where it was cold, windy and rain. Riding in 100 degrees
> wasn't all that bad. It was when you stopped it got miserable.
> Did I mention I came down with one of the worst colds I've ever had
> the night after we arrived?
>
> Every place I've worked had showers. Even when I worked 18 miles from
> here we had one younger guy who rode his bike nearly every day unless
> the weather was *really* bad. Really bad means thunderstorms and wind
> too strong to ride, or ice on the roads. He didn't ride when the
> temps got much below 15 degrees, but he'd ride in rain so heavy my
> windshield wipers would hardly take care of it.
>
> He'd get to work, shed his rain gear, take a shower and head for the
> office. When I worked at the main plant here in town we had a number
> of people who rode in, including some upper management. I know one
> who was making well up into the 6 figure range. Normally they'd all
> head for the showers as soon as they made it to work.
>
> If Midland were laid out differently I'd bet we'd have hundreds of
> workers riding into town. The problem is the town is bisected by a
> river with only two bridges. A third river coming in from the WSW
> joins the first river right between the two bridges. No place in town
> is more than about 6 miles from me with the airport only being a tad
> over 4, but it takes 10.6 to get there. The shortest route is via
> suicide alley where no one with an IQ over 70 would ride. The safest
> is across the other bridge which is only about 3/4 of a mile from the
> first, BUT you have to travel 5 to 6 miles farther to get to it.
> There's another river in the way and that can only be crossed 4 miles
> west of town where you then have to go nearly 3 miles south and then 3
> miles back north to get to the bridge. If you live north of the
> express way (US-10) there is no safe route into town via bike. Heavy
> traffic on narrow streets/roads with no, or almost no shoulders. No
> place to be on a bike.
>
> They really are working on making our streets bicycle friendly.
> and plans call for bike lanes although we'll have to watch for
> impatient drivers passing on the shoulder. We have a very long way to
> go before getting any where near as bike friendly as Boulder Co.
>
> OTOH my wife is getting rid of her 37 MPG mini, mini van and replacing
> it with a Prius. Now if I could get that kind of gain with a
> replacement for the 4-Runner which gets 18 MPG around town. Anyone
> make a SUV that gets 36 MPG that I can afford?
>
> Some have mentioned losing jobs to low cost labor, but several
> corporations have mentioned opening plants in other countries due to
> low energy costs compared to here. Depending on the product, a high
> tech chemical company doesn't save nearly as much on cheap labor as
> they do with cheap energy.
>
> In our specific area we don't have all that many unskilled jobs as
> most of the work around here is high tech due to the nature of the
> work, not that we can get labor cheaper some where else.
>
> We do have a lot of farms that could use unskilled help in the summer,
> but try and find someone who'll work out in the field.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>> ... I tend to lose it when people make foolish caveats especially ones
>> that are logical fallacies such as "without all this regulation we'd be
>> in (insert Armageddon class crisis)".
>
> ...or "without all this regulation we'd be in (insert free market
> Utopia)."

Gee!! I've been a student of free markets (Chicago, Austrian, Hoover under
Sowell, Georgetown under Williams) for 25 years and I don't recall any of
them making anything even remotely similar to that claim. If anything, it
claims the opposite and refers to it as "chaotic" and a great struggle to
stay competitive.

Perhaps you can refer us to someone making such a claim (besides, say, your
uncle, or a statist who used it disparagingly). Knowing full well that many
have claimed that libertarianism/classical free-market types are
actually..._fascist_. (yes, from such disparate luminaries as Bill O'Reilly
and Amitai Etzioni and Noam Chomsky.

So perhaps you can enlighten us..

Thanks,

Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:uCN2f.420540$x96.326280@attbi_s72...
>> You still don't get it. The number of refineries doesn't matter...the
>> output does.
>
> Actually, we do a agree on that.

That's good! It's nice to see people get along and agree on something.

Here's some numbers you can pick apart:

"In 1981, the U.S. had 324 refineries with a total capacity of processing
18.6 million barrels of crude per day. Today just 149 refineries have a
daily capacity of 16.8 million barrels."

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20051010&view=1


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:uCN2f.420540$x96.326280@attbi_s72...
>>> You still don't get it. The number of refineries doesn't matter...the
>>> output does.
>>
>> Actually, we do a agree on that.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> Then what is the significance of the fact that no new refineries have been
> built.
>
That total output capacity is down?
--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:bFN2f.424183$_o.410547@attbi_s71...
>>> It is they who have suffered the brunt of the crazy, over-blown
>>> environmental regulations. That smell you and I haughtily disdained
>>> was the smell of money to them and their families.
>>
>> Right, cost of labor has nothing to do with losing all those blue-collar
>> jobs. And it probably really was environmental regulations that led to
>> the average American hourly labor rate of $18 plus benefits versus about
>> $1.50 in China.
>
> Of course, there are many facets to the problem -- wages being one of
> them.

Such as the fact that dealing with environmental regulations requires
hundreds of people, not merely making $18 an hour, but six figures, just to
deal with paperwork before a single iota of work gets done?

>
> But that's a different thread.

Not really!
--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:BKN2f.420564$x96.88206@attbi_s72...
>> Then don't ride a bike if it's too hard for you; not everyone is capable
>> of it. I'm not sure how you felt this was directed to you anyway; I was
>> simply pointing out to Jay that a 4 mile commute is usually quite
>> practical via bicycle. If it's really bad weather, use another means or
>> better yet stay home or at the inn.
>
> You've actually got me thinking about it, John. I only realized what a
> perfect candidate I was for riding my bike to work after this thread.
>
> Until this year, I was driving my kids to school each morning. Now, my
> son is riding his bike to school, and my daughter and I walk to hers.
> There really isn't any good reason NOT to ride my bike, other than time
> and laziness.
>
> And we actually are seriously discussing selling our home and moving into
> the Inn next spring, at least for a while. Man, that commute would be
> hard to take! :-)
> --

24 feet for us. How far would yours be?

It's the customers/contractors that kill me. (Closest right now is 310
miles).


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

In article t>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

> Here is the official data:
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/gasoline.html
>
> Go there, then to the Production XLS file under History. Gasoline
> production is up substantially in the past 20yrs as you would expect from
> the increased number of cars and increased population.
>
> The reason no new refineries have been built is that it is cheaper to expand
> existing ones because they already have all the infrastructure ...[snip]

At what point will it become too expensive to expand existing refineries?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

> "In 1981, the U.S. had 324 refineries with a total capacity of
> processing 18.6 million barrels of crude per day. Today just 149
> refineries have
> a daily capacity of 16.8 million barrels."

If we truly have a refinery shortage, why aren't people waiting in lines to
buy fuel?

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Here is the official data:
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/gasoline.html
>
> Go there, then to the Production XLS file under History. Gasoline
> production is up substantially in the past 20yrs as you would expect from
> the increased number of cars and increased population.

Lets see: 1982-83 average is 6800bbl/day (at 81% capacity), 2004-05 avg is
8800 (at 96% capacity). Not quite 30%. I would suspect that more efficient
process and equipment has been a factor as well.

Now, since 1982, how much as US consumption of gasoline and other fuels
increased?

How much has the importation of gasoline (as oopsed to raw petroleum)
increased? I suspect that transportation of gasoline is much more costly
than petroleum since gasoline is explosive rather than merely flamable,
correct?

>
> The reason no new refineries have been built is that it is cheaper to
> expand existing ones because they already have all the infrastructure for
> bringing crude in, the real estate is already owned and they are often
> close to large markets.

When they expand, does it not require additional EPA compliance? How much
could they expand in the areas they already occupy?

> The return on capital by increasing capacity at an existing refinery might
> be double the return of building a new refinery.

Probably even more, like four or five times given the length of time before
a ROE is realized.

But how much can one enhance equipment when the refinery was built using, at
the latest, 35 year old technology?

> It doesn't take a genius CEO to figure that one out. Is enviornmental
> and other regulation a factor? Of course it is, but is not a big factor
> when considering a multi-billion dollar refinery.

Ten years (minimum) delay and $billions$ before a single drop of fuel comes
out of the pipe is a big factor I'd say.

So why have they allowed more than half to close, given all that
infrastructure and accessibility?

Also, how many of our remaining 149 refineries are in either hurricane
zones, or hitching a ride on the San Andreas fault in California?


>> (18.6 Mbbl in 1981 vs 16.8Mbbl today)
>>
>> http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20051010&view=1
>>
"
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., falsely claimed that the "major
oil companies haven't even tried to build one single new refinery in this
country in 30 years" and that they "do not really want to expand refinery
capacity because it would cut into their record-setting profits."

The fact is they increased capacity and use at least on a
refinery-by-refinery basis. In 1981, the U.S. had 324 refineries with a
total capacity of processing 18.6 million barrels of crude per day. Today
just 149 refineries have a daily capacity of 16.8 million barrels.

The refineries are doing more than ever, but their numbers are dwindling and
no new ones are being built. The reason is not greed, but cost and
regulations. From 1994 to 2003, the refining industry spent $47.4 billion
not to build new refineries, but to bring existing ones into compliance with
environmental rules."

------------------------------------------------------------

So, again, are there costs with EPA/OSHA/et al compliance for _expanding_
existing refineries?

"JohnH" > wrote in message
...
>
>> "In 1981, the U.S. had 324 refineries with a total capacity of
>> processing 18.6 million barrels of crude per day. Today just 149
>> refineries have
>> a daily capacity of 16.8 million barrels."
>
> If we truly have a refinery shortage, why aren't people waiting in lines
> to buy fuel?
Read the article; it states _why_ quite clearly.

It also gives a good picture of the trend.
--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "JohnH" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> "In 1981, the U.S. had 324 refineries with a total capacity of
>>> processing 18.6 million barrels of crude per day. Today just 149
>>> refineries have
>>> a daily capacity of 16.8 million barrels."
>>
>> If we truly have a refinery shortage, why aren't people waiting in
>> lines to buy fuel?
> Read the article; it states _why_ quite clearly.
>
> It also gives a good picture of the trend.

Must have missed that - perhaps it was buired in all that stupid whiney
"banana" tripe.

So - again - what is the reason we aren't waiting in lines?

LOL. The irony.....

OOOPS... Not YOU.. the OTHER MATT... whiting or something or other..

Whiting, if you are following this, my retort was for you, and you alone.

Dave

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>>WHINE !! BITCH!! MOAN!! NOT IN MY BACK YARD!! I want gas! I want cheap
>>>gas!! I want this I want that!
>>>
>>>Grow the **** up, America!!
>>>
>>
>>Matt, let me know when you can debate something without resorting to
>>personal attacks or insults, then I will debate it with you.
>
>
> Well, Dave, my apologies because my last point was a general take, not
> directed to you (notice I said' Grow up America", not "Grow up, Dave"). I
> notice you have very strong leanings and understanding toward free markets.
> I'm not concerned about you selling short :~)
>
> I do know I tend to lose it when people make foolish caveats especially ones
> that are logical fallacies such as "without all this regulation we'd be in
> (insert Armageddon class crisis)".
>
>
>>And.. I don't work in academia. I actually work for a living.
>
>
> That helps, but those in academia consider that they "work for a living",
> too. What's more, working for a living is no basis for understanding how
> markets work. Even many managers don't "get it". Many are hired for their
> political acumen, not for their knowledge or leadership qualities.
>
>
>>I also dont consider myself whining about prices for gas. I pay for it as
>>I go. Its nice to have enough disposable income to do so without
>>flinching.
>>
>>The refineries ARE in my back yard. They pay their share in property taxes
>>to the localities and school systems. They also provide jobs to the
>>economy. I'd love for them to expand, and provide more capital to our
>>infrastructure here. But not at the cost of polluting unnecessarily.
>
>
> Yes, indeed. Thing is, like so much of life, regulation stopped having a
> goal (reduced pollution) and became a goal in itself (i.e., self-serving
> bureaucracies). For example, years ago, when the coal fired power plants
> were first required to install "scrubbers", they regulations stipulated
> levels caps for emissions. They were also ordered to install specific
> equipment to reach those levels. As it was, the equipment mandated was
> egregiously costly and maintenance was enormous. It also created a lot of
> toxic waste to be disposed of. It turned out that emissions could have been
> as good or better using other means of emissions reductions with less cost
> and less maintenance. That's why I'm very skeptical of the fallacies that
> "without all these regulations, ...blah, blah, blah).
>
>
>
>>Anyways, unless you have something meaningful to contribute to this rather
>>than unwarranted insults, I will leave you to your rant.
>
>
> My rant addresses so many people that become enamored with a pristine world
> and completely miss the points that, first, every advantage has it's costs,
> that actions have consequences including "Unintended Consequences".
>
> I also notice a strong propensity for those who demand a risk free life, a
> pristine world, and great prosperity, are often the most vocal when their
> actions play out. It's an attitude that is understandable for children, but
> inexcusable for adults. Hence my admonishment to Americans in general to
> "grow up". Such childish perspective is becoming the rule, rather than the
> exception. That there is no Santa Claus is apparently missed by wayyy to
> many.
>
> Rant to continue later :~)
>
> Dave, I consider you an ally, not an adversary in this topic. If my take was
> fuzzy (duh!), my apologies.
>
>

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> You've actually got me thinking about it, John. I only realized what a
> perfect candidate I was for riding my bike to work after this thread.


Recumbent? Get bent? It's what I ride ....at the Y.

http://www.ihpva.org/FAQ/


Montblack

"JohnH" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "JohnH" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>> "In 1981, the U.S. had 324 refineries with a total capacity of
>>>> processing 18.6 million barrels of crude per day. Today just 149
>>>> refineries have
>>>> a daily capacity of 16.8 million barrels."
>>>
>>> If we truly have a refinery shortage, why aren't people waiting in
>>> lines to buy fuel?
>> Read the article; it states _why_ quite clearly.
>>
>> It also gives a good picture of the trend.
>
> Must have missed that - perhaps it was buired in all that stupid whiney
> "banana" tripe.
>
> So - again - what is the reason we aren't waiting in lines?

Maybe because the US imports refined FINISHED products (much more costly to
buy as well as transport). Maybe if your weren't so stupid and whiney you'd
have discovered that for yourself.

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Then don't ride a bike if it's too hard for you; not everyone is capable
>>of it. I'm not sure how you felt this was directed to you anyway; I was
>>simply pointing out to Jay that a 4 mile commute is usually quite
>>practical via bicycle. If it's really bad weather, use another means or
>>better yet stay home or at the inn.
>
>
> You've actually got me thinking about it, John. I only realized what a
> perfect candidate I was for riding my bike to work after this thread.
>
> Until this year, I was driving my kids to school each morning. Now, my son
> is riding his bike to school, and my daughter and I walk to hers. There
> really isn't any good reason NOT to ride my bike, other than time and
> laziness.
>
> And we actually are seriously discussing selling our home and moving into
> the Inn next spring, at least for a while. Man, that commute would be hard
> to take! :-)

Yea, especially if you had an upstairs room!

Matt

JohnH wrote:

>>"In 1981, the U.S. had 324 refineries with a total capacity of
>>processing 18.6 million barrels of crude per day. Today just 149
>>refineries have
>>a daily capacity of 16.8 million barrels."
>
>
> If we truly have a refinery shortage, why aren't people waiting in lines to
> buy fuel?

Because the increase in prices has stabilized the demand, for the moment
anyway. Lines will appear in the very near future, just as rolling
blackouts and brownouts began to appear a few years ago. We are running
out of energy generating capacity, be it liquid fuels or electricity.
We're just now seeing the leading edge of this problem, but if we don't
begin to dramatically increase production capacity or increase
conservation at a rate to keep the demand at current levels, we'll have
some serious issues in less than five years.


Matt

Dave S wrote:

> OOOPS... Not YOU.. the OTHER MATT... whiting or something or other..
>
> Whiting, if you are following this, my retort was for you, and you alone.
>
> Dave
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> "Dave S" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>
>>>
>>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>>> WHINE !! BITCH!! MOAN!! NOT IN MY BACK YARD!! I want gas! I want
>>>> cheap gas!! I want this I want that!
>>>>
>>>> Grow the **** up, America!!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Matt, let me know when you can debate something without resorting to
>>> personal attacks or insults, then I will debate it with you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, Dave, my apologies because my last point was a general take, not
>> directed to you (notice I said' Grow up America", not "Grow up,
>> Dave"). I notice you have very strong leanings and understanding
>> toward free markets. I'm not concerned about you selling short :~)
>>
>> I do know I tend to lose it when people make foolish caveats
>> especially ones that are logical fallacies such as "without all this
>> regulation we'd be in (insert Armageddon class crisis)".
>>
>>
>>> And.. I don't work in academia. I actually work for a living.
>>
>>
>>
>> That helps, but those in academia consider that they "work for a
>> living", too. What's more, working for a living is no basis for
>> understanding how markets work. Even many managers don't "get it".
>> Many are hired for their political acumen, not for their knowledge or
>> leadership qualities.
>>
>>
>>> I also dont consider myself whining about prices for gas. I pay for
>>> it as I go. Its nice to have enough disposable income to do so
>>> without flinching.
>>>
>>> The refineries ARE in my back yard. They pay their share in property
>>> taxes to the localities and school systems. They also provide jobs to
>>> the economy. I'd love for them to expand, and provide more capital to
>>> our infrastructure here. But not at the cost of polluting unnecessarily.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, indeed. Thing is, like so much of life, regulation stopped having
>> a goal (reduced pollution) and became a goal in itself (i.e.,
>> self-serving bureaucracies). For example, years ago, when the coal
>> fired power plants were first required to install "scrubbers", they
>> regulations stipulated levels caps for emissions. They were also
>> ordered to install specific equipment to reach those levels. As it
>> was, the equipment mandated was egregiously costly and maintenance was
>> enormous. It also created a lot of toxic waste to be disposed of. It
>> turned out that emissions could have been as good or better using
>> other means of emissions reductions with less cost and less
>> maintenance. That's why I'm very skeptical of the fallacies that
>> "without all these regulations, ...blah, blah, blah).
>>
>>
>>
>>> Anyways, unless you have something meaningful to contribute to this
>>> rather than unwarranted insults, I will leave you to your rant.
>>
>>
>>
>> My rant addresses so many people that become enamored with a pristine
>> world and completely miss the points that, first, every advantage has
>> it's costs, that actions have consequences including "Unintended
>> Consequences".
>>
>> I also notice a strong propensity for those who demand a risk free
>> life, a pristine world, and great prosperity, are often the most vocal
>> when their actions play out. It's an attitude that is understandable
>> for children, but inexcusable for adults. Hence my admonishment to
>> Americans in general to "grow up". Such childish perspective is
>> becoming the rule, rather than the exception. That there is no Santa
>> Claus is apparently missed by wayyy to many.
>>
>> Rant to continue later :~)
>>
>> Dave, I consider you an ally, not an adversary in this topic. If my
>> take was fuzzy (duh!), my apologies.
>>
>>
>

Well, Staten, then you are pretty incompetent at using a news reader as
I didn't write anything included above. And I'm also smart enough not
to top post.


Matt

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "JohnH" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> "JohnH" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> "In 1981, the U.S. had 324 refineries with a total capacity of
>>>>> processing 18.6 million barrels of crude per day. Today just 149
>>>>> refineries have
>>>>> a daily capacity of 16.8 million barrels."
>>>>
>>>> If we truly have a refinery shortage, why aren't people waiting in
>>>> lines to buy fuel?
>>> Read the article; it states _why_ quite clearly.
>>>
>>> It also gives a good picture of the trend.
>>
>> Must have missed that - perhaps it was buired in all that stupid whiney
>> "banana" tripe.
>>
>> So - again - what is the reason we aren't waiting in lines?
>
> Maybe because the US imports refined FINISHED products (much more costly
> to buy as well as transport). Maybe if your weren't so stupid and whiney
> you'd have discovered that for yourself.
>

Not really true. The US only imports about 14% of its gasoline and US
gasoline production is up *not* down as your article implies.

Mike
MU-2

Matt Whiting wrote:
> anyway. Lines will appear in the very near future, just as rolling
> blackouts and brownouts began to appear a few years ago. We are running
> out of energy generating capacity,

actually we weren't running out of energy generating capacity,
but the analogy is good since this is another example of
price gouging...

--Sylvain

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Maybe because the US imports refined FINISHED products (much more costly
>> to buy as well as transport).
>
> Not really true. The US only imports about 14% of its gasoline and US
> gasoline production is up *not* down as your article implies.
>
The article doesn't make a distinction about type of fuel, only refinery
capacity. Also, the gasoline to other fuels mix has increased, correct? I
suspect the US produces much less heating oil than in the past, most heating
being done with natural gas or electric.

As well, what amount of finished product did we import in the past? AIUI,
it was zero until the past few years.
--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> anyway. Lines will appear in the very near future, just as rolling
>> blackouts and brownouts began to appear a few years ago. We are running
>> out of energy generating capacity,
>
> actually we weren't running out of energy generating capacity,

We're not "running out", but our generating capacity is now running
something like 96% as opposed to running 50-60% in the past.

Would you run your engine near redline for an extended period?

> but the analogy is good since this is another example of
> price gouging...
>
In deference to those who cite me for too often being harsh, I'll just say
your grasp of the fuels market is distinctly abysmal.

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:uCN2f.420540$x96.326280@attbi_s72...
>
>>>You still don't get it. The number of refineries doesn't matter...the
>>>output does.
>>
>>Actually, we do a agree on that.
>
> That's good! It's nice to see people get along and agree on something.
>
> Here's some numbers you can pick apart:
>
> "In 1981, the U.S. had 324 refineries with a total capacity of processing
> 18.6 million barrels of crude per day. Today just 149 refineries have a
> daily capacity of 16.8 million barrels."

Well, they said *output* is the important thing. Another post said that in 1981
the refineries were producing at 81% of capacity and they are now producing at
96% of capacity. That means that production has increased by 1.055 million
barrels of crude per day.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Matt Barrow wrote:

> As well, what amount of finished product did we import in the past? AIUI,
> it was zero until the past few years.

Certainly not zero. Hess (for one) has been importing gasoline since the mid
70s. Not sure when BP got their shoe in the door.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

>>> ... I tend to lose it when people make foolish caveats especially
>>> ones that are logical fallacies such as "without all this regulation
>>> we'd be in (insert Armageddon class crisis)".
>>
>> ...or "without all this regulation we'd be in (insert free market
>> Utopia)."
>
> Gee!! I've been a student of free markets (Chicago, Austrian, Hoover
> under Sowell, Georgetown under Williams) for 25 years and I don't
> recall any of them making anything even remotely similar to that
> claim. If anything, it claims the opposite and refers to it as
> "chaotic" and a great struggle to stay competitive.

As I'm sure you know, I'm not speaking of serious free market thinkers,
but rather the simplistic knee jerks who imagine that we'd have plenty
of cheap gasoline with no downside consequences if we simply eliminated
environmental protection regulations. My point was that such
black/white thinking is common on both sides of the environmental
protection issue.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

> If we truly have a refinery shortage, why aren't people waiting in lines
> to buy fuel?

Because the price of gas has doubled?

Funny how that works...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> If we truly have a refinery shortage, why aren't people waiting in
>> lines to buy fuel?
>
> Because the price of gas has doubled?


"Everywhere, every day on the radio, television, and in the newspapers, all
I
hear is how the "Record Price of Oil" is killing America.

Yet, strangely, Americans keep driving *more*. And I don't see anyone
flying less."

- you!


> Funny how that works...

indeed.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:bFN2f.424183$_o.410547@attbi_s71...
>>>> It is they who have suffered the brunt of the crazy, over-blown
>>>> environmental regulations. That smell you and I haughtily disdained
>>>> was the smell of money to them and their families.
>>>
>>> Right, cost of labor has nothing to do with losing all those blue-collar
>>> jobs. And it probably really was environmental regulations that led to
>>> the average American hourly labor rate of $18 plus benefits versus about
>>> $1.50 in China.
>>
>> Of course, there are many facets to the problem -- wages being one of
>> them.
>
> Such as the fact that dealing with environmental regulations requires
> hundreds of people, not merely making $18 an hour, but six figures, just
> to deal with paperwork before a single iota of work gets done?

And this is necessarily a bad thing? What is it that bothers you? The fact
that PHd's who study ecology and the impact of man-made disturbances are
fairly compensated for their efforts? No, that can't be it because you are a
free-market proponent, and in the free market they are being paid what they
are worth. The fact that environmental impact studies are done at all?
Should we simply stand by and let whoever can produce the cheapest
product/service win, regardless of any consequences? If that is the case, we
made a big mistake wiping out slavery in this country.

Michael




>
>>
>> But that's a different thread.
>
> Not really!
> --
> Matt
>
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:fK_2f.5263$Iq3.2156@trndny01...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "In 1981, the U.S. had 324 refineries with a total capacity of processing
>> 18.6 million barrels of crude per day. Today just 149 refineries have a
>> daily capacity of 16.8 million barrels."
>
> Well, they said *output* is the important thing. Another post said that in
> 1981 the refineries were producing at 81% of capacity and they are now
> producing at 96% of capacity. That means that production has increased by
> 1.055 million barrels of crude per day.

The statement is "a total capacity".

Capacity, the 18.6Mbbl and 16.8Mbbl, is measured at 100%. Overall capacity
has dropped around 10% and the # of refineries has dropped about 55%. Thus,
the refineries are running about 40% more product, but with little
allowance for downtime or maintenance. As the article states, the existing
refineries have been expanded (hence the 40% increase in production), but
how much is it feasible to keep running old technology? Old technology is
much less environmentally friendly? Remember, too, that these were built
using 1970s technology. How old is your computer?

In the 1970's, a powerful automobile engine was 350-450 cubic inches and
250-300HP (using today's calculations); today, a 3.5L (217 c.i.) generates
the same HP, gets about double the MPG and has a fraction of he emissions,
The refining technology is likely on parallel.

Would you run your engine just below redline for 30 years? For 30 years
without oil changes (no pun intended) or overhauls?
Remember, too, that many of these were built using 1970s technology. How old
is your computer?

Also, the trend is downward regarding number of refineries. More will close
in the coming years. Remember , too, what happened when Katrina hit a
localized area and took out 20% or so of the overall capacity.


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:vN_2f.4165$vi2.342@trndny04...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> As well, what amount of finished product did we import in the past?
>> AIUI, it was zero until the past few years.
>
> Certainly not zero. Hess (for one) has been importing gasoline since the
> mid 70s. Not sure when BP got their shoe in the door.

During the 1970's crunch? With the costs of transporting gasoline vs. raw
petroleum, that would not have made economic sense once the oil bust hit in
the 80's.

How much more does it cost to transport gasoline (explosive) as opposed to
raw crude (merely flammable)? What would the economies be in importing prior
to the past few years?


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> news:bFN2f.424183$_o.410547@attbi_s71...
>>>>> It is they who have suffered the brunt of the crazy, over-blown
>>>>> environmental regulations. That smell you and I haughtily disdained
>>>>> was the smell of money to them and their families.
>>>>
>>>> Right, cost of labor has nothing to do with losing all those
>>>> blue-collar jobs. And it probably really was environmental regulations
>>>> that led to the average American hourly labor rate of $18 plus benefits
>>>> versus about $1.50 in China.
>>>
>>> Of course, there are many facets to the problem -- wages being one of
>>> them.
>>
>> Such as the fact that dealing with environmental regulations requires
>> hundreds of people, not merely making $18 an hour, but six figures, just
>> to deal with paperwork before a single iota of work gets done?
>
> And this is necessarily a bad thing? What is it that bothers you? The fact
> that PHd's who study ecology and the impact of man-made disturbances are
> fairly compensated for their efforts?

To write 8000 page EIS's? For ten years running?

> No, that can't be it because you are a free-market proponent, and in the
> free market they are being paid what they are worth.

To produce...what?

> The fact that environmental impact studies are done at all?

They're bogus!

> Should we simply stand by and let whoever can produce the cheapest
> product/service win, regardless of any consequences?

You were on track until that last part.
> If that is the case, we made a big mistake wiping out slavery in this
> country.

Geez, you're one non-sequitur after another (not to mention other things).
--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

On 2005-10-12, Matt Barrow > wrote:
> refineries have been expanded (hence the 40% increase in production), but
> how much is it feasible to keep running old technology? Old technology is
> much less environmentally friendly? Remember, too, that these were built
> using 1970s technology. How old is your computer?

Are the refineries really using old technology? New ones might not have
been built but old ones may have been upgraded with newer technology
(possibly how they have output increased per refinery).

The guts of my computer are just under 3 years old. However, trivial
parts (case, CD-ROM drive, monitor, keyboard) are over twice this age.
Is it not possible that refineries haven't undergone refits like my
computer has - so the ironwork might be from the 1970s, but the guts are
much newer?

Some machinery in any case is built to last. Railway locomotives, ships,
airliners, power stations, telephone exchanges etc. are often built to
have a nominal life span of over 30 years. I would expect the same to be
true of a refinery.

> Remember, too, that many of these were built using 1970s technology. How old
> is your computer?

You make that comparison again, but I don't think it's valid - Moore's
Law (really observation) which drives the computer market is really an
exception rather than the norm. In any case as we're starting to run
into physical limits right now (and generally, desktop computers remain
useful for longer - for the typical office job - an 833MHz Pentium 3
computer made 6 years ago is still more than adequate, but using a 6
year old computer 6 years ago was often very painful).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

> You've actually got me thinking about it, John. I only realized what
> a perfect candidate I was for riding my bike to work after this
> thread.

Good on you, you environmental whacko! ;^)

Let us know how it goes.

Sylvain wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> anyway. Lines will appear in the very near future, just as rolling
>> blackouts and brownouts began to appear a few years ago. We are
>> running out of energy generating capacity,
>
>
> actually we weren't running out of energy generating capacity,
> but the analogy is good since this is another example of
> price gouging...

Sorry, but we are running out of electrical generating capacity and
gasoline refining capacity. You don't have to believe it now, but you
will in the not too distant future.

Matt

Sylvain wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> anyway. Lines will appear in the very near future, just as rolling
>> blackouts and brownouts began to appear a few years ago. We are
>> running out of energy generating capacity,
>
>
> actually we weren't running out of energy generating capacity,
> but the analogy is good since this is another example of
> price gouging...

California is certainly a leading indicator, but it certainly isn't the
only place that will have this problem.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip61.htm

Martin Hotze wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>Maybe this equation has changed with better technology, but I really wonder.
>
>
> this will change as soon as there is no oil available. it might be 50 or
> 100 or 200 years, but the day will come.

But the solution will still not be biofuels as you will have no
pretroleum left to make the fertilizers to grow the fuel crops nor run
the tractors to harvest them. And if the energy required to grow the
crops really is more than the yield, then your answer can't be to power
the tractors with biofuel. :-)

The only real source of energy that is for all practical purposes
unlimited, is solar energy or a derivative of it such as the wind. I
suppose you could also put tidal sourced energy into that category as
well as long as the moon keeps spinning around us.

Matt

Matt Barrow wrote:

> Would you run your engine just below redline for 30 years?

That has absolutely nothing to do with running a business or a plant. The
Japanese taught us well -- the idea is called "just in time." The general idea
is that you minimize inventory and don't keep idle machinery. You *do* keep a
margin which is called "percent fill at relief" in the telecom world, but no
sane person keeps nearly 20% of their plant idle (as was the case in the early 80s).

And, yes, if I owned a manufacturing plant, I would run it as close to 100%
capacity as I could. That would make me the most money.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-10-12, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>> refineries have been expanded (hence the 40% increase in production), but
>> how much is it feasible to keep running old technology? Old technology is
>> much less environmentally friendly? Remember, too, that these were built
>> using 1970s technology. How old is your computer?
>
> Are the refineries really using old technology? New ones might not have
> been built but old ones may have been upgraded with newer technology
> (possibly how they have output increased per refinery).

They were originally built with old technology in place, but I can't imagine
they been completely retooled.

>
> The guts of my computer are just under 3 years old. However, trivial
> parts (case, CD-ROM drive, monitor, keyboard) are over twice this age.

How much could you upgrade a 16bit processor with a 64bit one given the
different data bus?

> Is it not possible that refineries haven't undergone refits like my
> computer has - so the ironwork might be from the 1970s, but the guts are
> much newer?
>
> Some machinery in any case is built to last. Railway locomotives, ships,
> airliners,

Here's an example: the Boeing 737-100 engines compared to the powerplants on
the -300 and later series.
I figure that would be the appropriae analogy. Also, the comparison I used
with a 1970's automobile engine with current technology. You could
completely replace the engine, but the drivetrain would not be really
compatible.

> power stations, telephone exchanges etc. are often built to
> have a nominal life span of over 30 years. I would expect the same to be
> true of a refinery.

Their servicability might be 30 years, but imagine a telephone exchange with
the old switching technology (mechanical). Or another analogy would be the
old copper wire being replaced with fibre optic.

There's a point when you just have to chuck the old stuff an build anew.
That's probably why the numbers have gone from 362 to 149.

>
>> Remember, too, that many of these were built using 1970s technology. How
>> old
>> is your computer?
>
> You make that comparison again, but I don't think it's valid - Moore's
> Law (really observation) which drives the computer market is really an
> exception rather than the norm.

It's an analogy, not an example. Use my analogy of automobile engines as
another.

> In any case as we're starting to run
> into physical limits right now (and generally, desktop computers remain
> useful for longer - for the typical office job - an 833MHz Pentium 3
> computer made 6 years ago is still more than adequate, but using a 6
> year old computer 6 years ago was often very painful).

For a desktop computer, sure. Now imagine running your servers with old
technology, especially with an increased load.

The company I worked for coming out of college in 1982 (MS program) was
running IBM 370's, then 3083's. The computer room was about 30'x24' . When I
left in 1998, they were running HP servers in one small corner of that room.
They replaced the old coax cables with FO cables.

In sum, there's probably much that can be upgraded in existing refineries,
but there are limits.At a certain point you meet the point of diminishing
returns. A further question is: how much regulation comes into play when
re-tooling or expanding a refinery?

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Sylvain wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> anyway. Lines will appear in the very near future, just as rolling
>>> blackouts and brownouts began to appear a few years ago. We are running
>>> out of energy generating capacity,
>>
>>
>> actually we weren't running out of energy generating capacity,
>> but the analogy is good since this is another example of
>> price gouging...
>
> Sorry, but we are running out of electrical generating capacity and
> gasoline refining capacity. You don't have to believe it now, but you
> will in the not too distant future.

We won't run out and are not RUNNING out; the capacity can't keep up with
demand, and expansion is just about as heavily regulated as the initial
construction.

>
> Matt

The other Matt

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>>>> ... I tend to lose it when people make foolish caveats especially ones
>>>> that are logical fallacies such as "without all this regulation we'd be
>>>> in (insert Armageddon class crisis)".
>>>
>>> ...or "without all this regulation we'd be in (insert free market
>>> Utopia)."
>>
>> Gee!! I've been a student of free markets (Chicago, Austrian, Hoover
>> under Sowell, Georgetown under Williams) for 25 years and I don't recall
>> any of them making anything even remotely similar to that claim. If
>> anything, it claims the opposite and refers to it as "chaotic" and a
>> great struggle to stay competitive.
>
> As I'm sure you know, I'm not speaking of serious free market thinkers,
> but rather the simplistic knee jerks who imagine that we'd have plenty of
> cheap gasoline with no downside consequences if we simply eliminated
> environmental protection regulations. My point was that such black/white
> thinking is common on both sides of the environmental protection issue.

Well, it certainly is on the environmental side. Which "serious
environmental thinkers" have posited that many regulations are overdone? The
Free Market is NOT anarchy. Their position is market dictates and is
supported by tort law if necessary.

I guesstimate you're old enough to remember the old "phosphates" issue from
the early 60's. Well, long before regulations on phosphates were in place,
Proctor & Gamble and others came up with alternatives. It took only
publicity to get most in gear and P&G did well by announcing they were
changing their formulations. Their competitors had to keep up.

You are aware, I would guess, that much environmental regulation is
supported by business, not for the general benefit, but to quash
competitors, or for other self-directed benefits. The example I used of coal
fired power plants is one; the manufacturer of scrubbing equipment was a BIG
supporter. Theirs was not the best solution, but it was the political
cronyism solution.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:a7i3f.4957$KR1.4396@trndny06...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> Would you run your engine just below redline for 30 years?
>
> That has absolutely nothing to do with running a business or a plant. The
> Japanese taught us well -- the idea is called "just in time." The general
> idea is that you minimize inventory and don't keep idle machinery. You
> *do* keep a margin which is called "percent fill at relief" in the telecom
> world, but no sane person keeps nearly 20% of their plant idle (as was the
> case in the early 80s).

Complete non-sequitur.

>
> And, yes, if I owned a manufacturing plant, I would run it as close to
> 100% capacity as I could. That would make me the most money.

In the short run.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe because the US imports refined FINISHED products (much more costly
>>> to buy as well as transport).
>>
>> Not really true. The US only imports about 14% of its gasoline and US
>> gasoline production is up *not* down as your article implies.
>>
> The article doesn't make a distinction about type of fuel, only refinery
> capacity. Also, the gasoline to other fuels mix has increased, correct? I
> suspect the US produces much less heating oil than in the past, most
> heating being done with natural gas or electric.

Total distillates (diesel, heating oil, kerosene) refined in the US have
increased 80% over the past 23yrs.

>
> As well, what amount of finished product did we import in the past? AIUI,
> it was zero until the past few years.
> --
Gasoline imports have increased over time, but still remain at low levels.

When you take all the facts together, it seems that refining capacity over
the past 25yrs has been driven by economics not regulation. The "lack of
refining capacity" hysteria is simply the latest thing for pundits to talk
about. The conservatives want to blame the enviornmentalists and the
liberals want to blame the greedy oil companies. Hopefully the rules will
remain unchanged and economics will continue to drive decision making.
Refiners are flush with cash and don't need taxpayer handouts either
directly or indirectly through relaxed regulation. Putting things in
perspective: we had two "fifty year" storms in two weeks than directly hit
major refining areas, having a huge reaction seems unwarranted. One factor
that gets ignored is that, if you build new refineries, each one adds huge
amounts of capacity. It would only take a few new refineries to create a
refining glut.

Mike
MU-2


> Matt
>
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>
>

Probably not that much difference when you are talking about tanker sized
quantities. Just fill it up and pump in CO2 above the gasoline. The CO2 is
heavy and doesn't require containment. I don't actually know whether they
do this or not but it seems fairly simple. It may be imported by pipeline
also.

Mike
MU-2


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:vN_2f.4165$vi2.342@trndny04...
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>> As well, what amount of finished product did we import in the past?
>>> AIUI, it was zero until the past few years.
>>
>> Certainly not zero. Hess (for one) has been importing gasoline since the
>> mid 70s. Not sure when BP got their shoe in the door.
>
> During the 1970's crunch? With the costs of transporting gasoline vs. raw
> petroleum, that would not have made economic sense once the oil bust hit
> in
> the 80's.
>
> How much more does it cost to transport gasoline (explosive) as opposed to
> raw crude (merely flammable)? What would the economies be in importing
> prior to the past few years?
>
>
> --
> Matt
>
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>
>

That total capacity figure might just be wrong. The DOE has every major
product up over the period.

Mike
MU-2


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:fK_2f.5263$Iq3.2156@trndny01...
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> "In 1981, the U.S. had 324 refineries with a total capacity of
>>> processing
>>> 18.6 million barrels of crude per day. Today just 149 refineries have a
>>> daily capacity of 16.8 million barrels."
>>
>> Well, they said *output* is the important thing. Another post said that
>> in
>> 1981 the refineries were producing at 81% of capacity and they are now
>> producing at 96% of capacity. That means that production has increased by
>> 1.055 million barrels of crude per day.
>
> The statement is "a total capacity".
>
> Capacity, the 18.6Mbbl and 16.8Mbbl, is measured at 100%. Overall capacity
> has dropped around 10% and the # of refineries has dropped about 55%.
> Thus,
> the refineries are running about 40% more product, but with little
> allowance for downtime or maintenance. As the article states, the existing
> refineries have been expanded (hence the 40% increase in production), but
> how much is it feasible to keep running old technology? Old technology is
> much less environmentally friendly? Remember, too, that these were built
> using 1970s technology. How old is your computer?
>
> In the 1970's, a powerful automobile engine was 350-450 cubic inches and
> 250-300HP (using today's calculations); today, a 3.5L (217 c.i.) generates
> the same HP, gets about double the MPG and has a fraction of he emissions,
> The refining technology is likely on parallel.
>
> Would you run your engine just below redline for 30 years? For 30 years
> without oil changes (no pun intended) or overhauls?
> Remember, too, that many of these were built using 1970s technology. How
> old
> is your computer?
>
> Also, the trend is downward regarding number of refineries. More will
> close
> in the coming years. Remember , too, what happened when Katrina hit a
> localized area and took out 20% or so of the overall capacity.
>
>
> --
> Matt
>
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>
>

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe because the US imports refined FINISHED products (much more
>>>> costly to buy as well as transport).
>>>
>>> Not really true. The US only imports about 14% of its gasoline and US
>>> gasoline production is up *not* down as your article implies.
>>>
>> The article doesn't make a distinction about type of fuel, only refinery
>> capacity. Also, the gasoline to other fuels mix has increased, correct? I
>> suspect the US produces much less heating oil than in the past, most
>> heating being done with natural gas or electric.
>
> Total distillates (diesel, heating oil, kerosene) refined in the US have
> increased 80% over the past 23yrs.

And gasoline is up 25% (6600-8800Mbbl).

>
>>
>> As well, what amount of finished product did we import in the past? AIUI,
>> it was zero until the past few years.
>> --
> Gasoline imports have increased over time, but still remain at low levels.

14% of US usage.
>
> When you take all the facts together, it seems that refining capacity over
> the past 25yrs has been driven by economics not regulation.

I never said otherwise. I also never said our capacity was down. What I'd
said was that capacity growth was consrained, that we were becoming too
centralized in our geographic dispersment (see the results of Hurricane
Katrina).

> The "lack of refining capacity"

That's your point, not mine nor the point of the IBD article. The point is
that our capacity is constrained and cannot grow enough to meet growing
demand.

> hysteria is simply the latest thing for pundits to talk about.

The article I linked to was hardly hysterical. The hysteric were from Reid
and Waxman coming from the other direction. As much, I would hardly say
those two bozos had any grasp of the situation.

> The conservatives want to blame the enviornmentalists and the liberals
> want to blame the greedy oil companies. Hopefully the rules will remain
> unchanged and economics will continue to drive decision making. Refiners
> are flush with cash and don't need taxpayer handouts either directly or
> indirectly through relaxed regulation. Putting things in perspective: we
> had two "fifty year" storms in two weeks than directly hit major refining
> areas, having a huge reaction seems unwarranted. One factor that gets
> ignored is that, if you build new refineries, each one adds huge amounts
> of capacity. It would only take a few new refineries to create a refining
> glut.

Well, let's let the market decide how much is enough, okay?

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Probably not that much difference when you are talking about tanker sized
> quantities. Just fill it up and pump in CO2 above the gasoline. The CO2
> is heavy and doesn't require containment. I don't actually know whether
> they do this or not but it seems fairly simple. It may be imported by
> pipeline also.
>

Believe me, transporting hazard material is never "simple", especially when
it jumps from "Flamable" to "Explosive". Check what tanker trucks go through
in the final miles from pipeline head or refinery to the gas stations.

But, yes, our biggest source of refined gasoline is from Canada which is
likely pipelined rather than shipped over water routes.

Of course, think how much EPA regulations cover gasoline pipelines.

>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How much more does it cost to transport gasoline (explosive) as opposed
>> to
>> raw crude (merely flammable)? What would the economies be in importing
>> prior to the past few years?

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> That total capacity figure might just be wrong. The DOE has every major
> product up over the period.
>

The DOE is measuring output, not capacity. Capacity is measured at the 100%
level, but only a fool runs long-term at or near 100%.

Historically, heavy equipment runs at 65-80% of capacity, so as to allow
maintenance and fallbacks in the event of a partial system failure. There
are strategic issues as well.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe because the US imports refined FINISHED products (much more
>>>>> costly to buy as well as transport).
>>>>
>>>> Not really true. The US only imports about 14% of its gasoline and US
>>>> gasoline production is up *not* down as your article implies.
>>>>
>>> The article doesn't make a distinction about type of fuel, only refinery
>>> capacity. Also, the gasoline to other fuels mix has increased, correct?
>>> I suspect the US produces much less heating oil than in the past, most
>>> heating being done with natural gas or electric.
>>
>> Total distillates (diesel, heating oil, kerosene) refined in the US have
>> increased 80% over the past 23yrs.
>
> And gasoline is up 25% (6600-8800Mbbl).

Yes, everything is up, gasoline, diesel, heating oil, kerosese but people
say that enviornmental regulation has prevented capacity expansion. It
simply isn't true.


>>> As well, what amount of finished product did we import in the past?
>>> AIUI, it was zero until the past few years.
>>> --
>> Gasoline imports have increased over time, but still remain at low
>> levels.
>
> 14% of US usage.

Yes and it is important to recognize that if oil exporters build refineries
to capture downstream revenue and export gasoline (instead of crude) that
expanding US refining capacity accomplishes nothing. If the Candians start
exporting lumber instead of logs should the US build more sawmills? It is
the same thing.

>>
>> When you take all the facts together, it seems that refining capacity
>> over the past 25yrs has been driven by economics not regulation.
>
> I never said otherwise. I also never said our capacity was down. What I'd
> said was that capacity growth was consrained, that we were becoming too
> centralized in our geographic dispersment (see the results of Hurricane
> Katrina).

You may not have said it, but you presented an article that claims that
refining capacity is down from 18.6MM bbl to 16.9MM bbl. I agree that *this
quarter* we are too geographically concentrated but these are supposed to be
50yr storms. The refineries are on the Gulf Coast because that is where
imported crude arrives and land is cheap. It makes sense to locate the
refineries in what are the best locations the overwhelming majority of the
time instead of moving them somewhere else.

>
>> The "lack of refining capacity"
>
> That's your point, not mine nor the point of the IBD article. The point is
> that our capacity is constrained and cannot grow enough to meet growing
> demand.
>

The article is allegedly the source of the reduction of refining capacity
from 18.6 to 16.9

>> hysteria is simply the latest thing for pundits to talk about.
>
> The article I linked to was hardly hysterical. The hysteric were from Reid
> and Waxman coming from the other direction. As much, I would hardly say
> those two bozos had any grasp of the situation.
>
>> The conservatives want to blame the enviornmentalists and the liberals
>> want to blame the greedy oil companies. Hopefully the rules will remain
>> unchanged and economics will continue to drive decision making. Refiners
>> are flush with cash and don't need taxpayer handouts either directly or
>> indirectly through relaxed regulation. Putting things in perspective: we
>> had two "fifty year" storms in two weeks than directly hit major refining
>> areas, having a huge reaction seems unwarranted. One factor that gets
>> ignored is that, if you build new refineries, each one adds huge amounts
>> of capacity. It would only take a few new refineries to create a
>> refining glut.
>
> Well, let's let the market decide how much is enough, okay?

I'm for that. I expect to see ongoing increases in capacity as we have
every decade for the past 100yrs.

Mike
MU-2

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> That total capacity figure might just be wrong. The DOE has every major
>> product up over the period.
>>
>
> The DOE is measuring output, not capacity. Capacity is measured at the
> 100% level, but only a fool runs long-term at or near 100%.
>
> Historically, heavy equipment runs at 65-80% of capacity, so as to allow
> maintenance and fallbacks in the event of a partial system failure. There
> are strategic issues as well.
>

True but unless refiners were running about 60% capacity in 1982 then
capacity must he higher today. My cousin ran Chevron's refining business
for a period in the 80s and they were *always* spending a hundred million
here and a hundred million there to expand capacity at existing refineries.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> And gasoline is up 25% (6600-8800Mbbl).
>
> Yes, everything is up, gasoline, diesel, heating oil, kerosese but people
> say that enviornmental regulation has prevented capacity expansion. It
> simply isn't true.

Well, the article says no such thing regarding EXPANSION, though it does
mention the $$billions spent over the last ten years complying with
environmental regulations at EXISTING refineries.

>
>>
>> 14% of US usage.
>
> Yes and it is important to recognize that if oil exporters build
> refineries to capture downstream revenue and export gasoline (instead of
> crude) that expanding US refining capacity accomplishes nothing. If the
> Candians start exporting lumber instead of logs should the US build more
> sawmills? It is the same thing.

Well when lumber becomes much more dangerous and expensive to transport they
should. Also, if EPA regs forbid making lumber, then what?

>
>>>
>
> You may not have said it, but you presented an article that claims that
> refining capacity is down from 18.6MM bbl to 16.9MM bbl. I agree that
> *this quarter* we are too geographically concentrated but these are
> supposed to be 50yr storms. The refineries are on the Gulf Coast because
> that is where imported crude arrives and land is cheap. It makes sense to
> locate the refineries in what are the best locations the overwhelming
> majority of the time instead of moving them somewhere else.

And how many are hitchhiking on the San Andreas fault?
>
>>
>>> The "lack of refining capacity"
>>
>> That's your point, not mine nor the point of the IBD article. The point
>> is that our capacity is constrained and cannot grow enough to meet
>> growing demand.
>>
>
> The article is allegedly the source of the reduction of refining capacity
> from 18.6 to 16.9

Pardon? What is the source of the reduction?
>

>>
>> Well, let's let the market decide how much is enough, okay?
>
> I'm for that. I expect to see ongoing increases in capacity as we have
> every decade for the past 100yrs.

Well, if # of refineries had slipped 55% and total capacity has slipped 10%,
that trend is no longer in place.

If the trend continues, in 100 years we will have one refinery. Just how
much can you expand production?

>> Because the price of gas has doubled?
>
> "Everywhere, every day on the radio, television, and in the newspapers,
> all I
> hear is how the "Record Price of Oil" is killing America.
>
> Yet, strangely, Americans keep driving *more*. And I don't see anyone
> flying less."
> - you!

Are you being purposefully dense, John, or does it just come naturally?
I'm sure you know that I wrote that in a thread that pre-dated the
incredible run-up in gas prices after Katrina.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> You've actually got me thinking about it, John. I only realized what
>> a perfect candidate I was for riding my bike to work after this
>> thread.
>
> Good on you, you environmental whacko! ;^)

Well, I've lost 20 pounds since spring through diet and regular exercise.
Combining work and work-out doesn't sound like a bad idea!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> When you take all the facts together, it seems that refining capacity over
> the past 25yrs has been driven by economics not regulation. The "lack of
> refining capacity" hysteria is simply the latest thing for pundits to talk
> about. The conservatives want to blame the enviornmentalists and the
> liberals want to blame the greedy oil companies. Hopefully the rules will
> remain unchanged and economics will continue to drive decision making.
> Refiners are flush with cash and don't need taxpayer handouts either
> directly or indirectly through relaxed regulation.

I never thought I'd live long enough to hear a free-marketer like Mike refer
to "relaxed regulations" as a "taxpayer handout."

What a bizarre world this has become.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:42:24 -0400, "JohnH" >
wrote:

>"Everywhere, every day on the radio, television, and in the newspapers, all
>I
>hear is how the "Record Price of Oil" is killing America.
>
>Yet, strangely, Americans keep driving *more*.

Don't know where you are getting that information, but the news I
watch tells me that the high cost of fuel definately has curtailed
driving.

It's nearly impossible to buy a Toyota Prius in California, so my
sister in law who lives there tells me. Dealerships all across the
country are having problems selling SUV's for some reason, couldn't be
their wretched gas milage could it?

Corky Scott

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Bpv3f.435576$_o.30020@attbi_s71...
> I never thought I'd live long enough to hear a free-marketer like Mike
> refer to "relaxed regulations" as a "taxpayer handout."
>
> What a bizarre world this has become.

It's only "bizarre" to black & white thinkers. The world has always been
nuanced shades of gray, and only seems bizarre to people who insist there's
always simply a "right" side and a "wrong" side to every argument.

Pete

> Well, if # of refineries had slipped 55% and total capacity has slipped
> 10%, that trend is no longer in place.
>
> If the trend continues, in 100 years we will have one refinery. Just how
> much can you expand production?
>

I don't buy the story that capacity has slipped 10%.

Mike
MU-2

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Bpv3f.435576$_o.30020@attbi_s71...
>> When you take all the facts together, it seems that refining capacity
>> over the past 25yrs has been driven by economics not regulation. The
>> "lack of refining capacity" hysteria is simply the latest thing for
>> pundits to talk about. The conservatives want to blame the
>> enviornmentalists and the liberals want to blame the greedy oil
>> companies. Hopefully the rules will remain unchanged and economics will
>> continue to drive decision making. Refiners are flush with cash and don't
>> need taxpayer handouts either directly or indirectly through relaxed
>> regulation.
>
> I never thought I'd live long enough to hear a free-marketer like Mike
> refer to "relaxed regulations" as a "taxpayer handout."
>
> What a bizarre world this has become.

He didn't read the article (he's misquoted it about five times, confuses
capacity with output...), then he goes off of numerous tangents and into
various non-sequiturs. He's playing "Pay no attention to that man behind the
curtain".