The price of gas [Archive]

Dean Wilkinson

May 18th 04, 01:26 AM

>
> Does anyone here have any web references that counter that rubbish?
>
> Ben

Yes, haven't you heard about the theories on oil plumes and oil field
replenishment from deeper sources? Read on:

By CHRISTOPHER COOPER
The Wall Street Journal

HOUSTON - Something mysterious is going on at Eugene Island 330.

Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast
of
Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while,
it behaved
like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island
330's output
peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed
to about
4,000 barrels a day.

Then suddenly - some say almost inexplicably - Eugene Island's
fortunes
reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing
13,000
barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400
million
barrels from 60 million.

Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out
of the
pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed
10 years
ago.

All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene
Island is
rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles
below the
Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility
that oil
may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.

"It kind of blew me away," says Jean Whelan, a geochemist and senior
researcher
from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.
Connected to
Woods Hole since 1973, Whelan says she considered herself a
traditional thinker
until she encountered the phenomenon in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, she
says, "I
believe there is a huge system of oil just migrating" deep
underground.
Conventional wisdom says the world's supply of oil is finite, and that
it was
deposited in horizontal reservoirs near the surface in a process that
took
millions of years.

Since the economies of entire countries ride on the fundamental notion
that oil
reserves are exhaustible, any contrary evidence "would change the way
people
see the game, turn the world view upside down," says Daniel Yergin, a
petroleum
futurist and industry consultant in Cambridge, Mass. "Oil and
renewable
resource are not words that often appear in the same sentence."

Doomsayers to the contrary, the world contains far more recoverable
oil than
was believed even 20 years ago. Between 1976 and 1996, estimated
global oil
reserves grew 72 percent, to 1.04 trillion barrels. Much of that
growth came in
the past 10 years, with the introduction of computers to the oil
patch, which
made drilling for oil more predictable.

Still, most geologists are hard-pressed to explain why the world's
greatest oil
pool, the Middle East, has more than doubled its reserves in the past
20 years,
despite half a century of intense exploitation and relatively few new
discoveries.

It would take a pretty big pile of dead dinosaurs and prehistoric
plants to
account for the estimated 660 billion barrels of oil in the region,
notes
Norman Hyne, a professor at the University of Tulsa in Oklahoma.

"Off-the-wall theories often turn out to be right," he says.

Even some of the most staid U.S. oil companies find the Eugene Island
discoveries intriguing. "These reservoirs are refilling with oil,"
acknowledges
David Sibley, a Chevron Corp. geologist who has monitored the work at
Eugene
Island. Sibley cautions, however, that much research remains to be
done on the
source of that oil. "At this point, it's not black and white. It's
gray," he
says.

Although the world has been drilling for oil for generations, little
is known
about the nature of the resource or the underground activities that
led to its
creation. And because even conservative estimates say known oil
reserves will
last 40 years or more, most big oil companies haven't concerned
themselves much
with hunting for deep sources like the reservoirs scientists believe
may exist
under Eugene Island.

Economics never hindered the theorists, however. One, Thomas Gold, a
respected
astronomer and professor emeritus at Cornell University in Ithaca,
N.Y., has
held for years that oil is actually a renewable, primordial syrup
continually
manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous
pressures.

As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attacked by
bacteria,
making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the
dinosaurs, he
says.

While many scientists discount Gold's theory as unproved, "it made a
believer
out of me," says Robert Hefner, chairman of Seven Seas Petroleum Inc.,
a
Houston firm that specializes in ultradeep drilling and has worked
with the
professor on his experiments. Seven Seas continues to use
"conventional"
methods in seeking reserves, though the halls of the company often
ring with
dissent.

"My boss and I yell at each other all the time about these theories,"
says Russ
Cunningham, a geologist and exploration manager for Seven Seas who
isn't sold
on Gold's ideas.

Knowing that clever theories don't fill the gas tank, Roger Anderson,
an
oceanographer and executive director of Columbia University's Energy
Research
Center in New York, proposed studying the behavior of oil in a
reservoir in
hopes of finding a new way to help companies vacuum up what their
drilling was
leaving behind.

He focused on Eugene Island, a kidney-shaped subsurface mountain that
slopes
steeply into the Gulf depths. About 80 miles off the Louisiana coast,
the
underwater landscape surrounding Eugene Island is otherworldly, cut
with deep
fissures and faults that spontaneously belch gas and oil.
In 1985, as he stood on the deck of a shrimp boat towing an
oil-sniffing
contraption through the area, Anderson pondered Eugene Island's
strange history.

"Migrating oil and anomalous production. I sort of linked the two
ideas
together," he says.
Five years later, the U.S. Department of Energy ponied up $10 million
to
investigate the Eugene Island geologic formation, and especially the
oddly
behaving field at its crest. A consortium of companies leasing chunks
of the
formation, including such giants as Chevron, Exxon Corp. and Texaco
Corp.,
matched the federal grant.

The Eugene Island researchers began their investigation about the same
time
that 3-D seismic technology was introduced to the oil business,
allowing
geologists to see promising reservoirs as a cavern in the ground
rather than as
a line on a piece of paper.

Taking the technology one step further, Anderson used a powerful
computer to
stack 3-D images of Eugene Island on top of one another. That resulted
in a 4-D
image, showing not only the reservoir in three spatial dimensions, but
showing
also the movement of its contents over time as PennzEnergy siphoned
out oil.
>
> What Anderson noticed as he played his time-lapse model was how much oil
PennzEnergy had missed over the years. The remaining crude, surrounded
by
water and wobbling like giant globs of Jell-O in the computer model,
gave
PennzEnergy new targets as it reworked Eugene Island.
> What captivated scientists, though, was a deep fault in the bottom corner
of the computer scan that was gushing oil like a garden hose. "We
could see
the stream," Anderson says. "It wasn't even debated that it was
happening."
>
> Woods Hole's Whelan, invited by Anderson to join the Eugene Island
investigation, postulated that superheated methane gas - a compound
that is
able to absorb vast amounts of oil - was carrying crude from a deep
source
below. The age of the crude pushed through the stream, and its hotter
temperature helped support that theory. The scientists decided to
drill into
the fault.
>
> As prospectors, the scientists were fairly lucky. As researchers they
weren't. The first well they drilled hit natural gas, a pocket so
pressurized "that it scared us," Anderson says; that well is still
producing. The second stab, however, collapsed the fault. "Some oil
flowed.
I have 15 gallons of it in my closet," Anderson says. But it wasn't
successful enough to advance Whelan's theory.
>
> A third well was drilled at a spot on an adjacent lease, where the fault
disappeared from seismic view. The researchers missed the stream but
hit a
fair-size reservoir, one that is still producing.
>
> It was here, in 1995, that the scientists ran out of grant money and
PennzEnergy lost interest in continuing. "I'm not discounting the
possibility that there is oil moving into these reservoirs," says
William
Van Wie, a PennzEnergy senior vice president. "I question only the
rate."
>
> Whelan hasn't lost interest, however, and is seeking to investigate
further the mysterious vents and seeps. While industry geologists have
generally assumed such eruptions are merely cracks in a shallow oil
reservoir, they aren't sure.
>
> Noting that many of the seeps are occurring in deep water, rather than in
the relative shallows of the continental shelf, Whelan wonders if they
may
link a deeper source.
>
> This summer, a tiny submarine chartered by a Louisiana State University
researcher will attempt to install a series of measuring devices on
vents
near the Eugene Island property. Whelan hopes this will give her some
idea
of how quickly Eugene Island is refilling. "We need to know if we're
talking
years or if we're talking hundreds of thousands of years," she says.

Jay Beckman

May 18th 04, 02:25 AM

"Dean Wilkinson" > wrote in message
m...
> >
> > Does anyone here have any web references that counter that rubbish?
> >
> > Ben
>
> Yes, haven't you heard about the theories on oil plumes and oil field
> replenishment from deeper sources? Read on:
>
> By CHRISTOPHER COOPER
> The Wall Street Journal
>
> HOUSTON - Something mysterious is going on at Eugene Island 330.
>

Amazing article...thanks for posting.

Jay Beckman
Student Pilot - KCHD
18.6 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!

Jim Fisher

May 18th 04, 02:33 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> Yeah, but will we be able to afford all that cool technology?
>
> It doesn't become "viable" until oil is unaffordable.

Probably not, Jay. I would like to think that capitalism will keep prices
in check. It's always worked in the past. I've no doubt it will work in
the future.

The bonus for us is that we can finally tell the OPEC nations kiss our
shiny, hairy, American asses for good. Let 'em all kill themselves and we
will all live happily ever after.

--
Jim Fisher

Jim Fisher

May 18th 04, 02:41 AM

"Dean Wilkinson" > wrote in message
> Economics never hindered the theorists, however. One, Thomas Gold, a
> respected astronomer and professor emeritus at Cornell University in
Ithaca,
> N.Y., has held for years that oil is actually a renewable, primordial
syrup
> continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and
tremendous
> pressures.
>
> As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attacked by
> bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the
> dinosaurs, he says.

That is an absolutely astounding hypothesis.

The entire article was some of the more interesting reading I've done in a
while. Thanks.

--
Jim Fisher

Philip Sondericker

May 18th 04, 03:00 AM

in article , Jim Fisher at
wrote on 5/17/04 6:33 PM:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> Yeah, but will we be able to afford all that cool technology?
>>
>> It doesn't become "viable" until oil is unaffordable.
>
> Probably not, Jay. I would like to think that capitalism will keep prices
> in check. It's always worked in the past. I've no doubt it will work in
> the future.
>
> The bonus for us is that we can finally tell the OPEC nations kiss our
> shiny, hairy, American asses for good. Let 'em all kill themselves and we
> will all live happily ever after.
>
> --
> Jim Fisher

Some day, historians will view our current obsession with petrolium much the
same way we look upon ancient commodities such as spices and silk. Just as
we wonder what all the fuss was about, they'll marvel at how much strife has
resulted from this particular natural resource.

Flyin'8

May 18th 04, 03:13 AM

>
>In 2004 dollars, the high was $2.50 a gallon. We are very unlikely to
>reach that level.

Don't know where you are living, but where I am at the price is over
$2.50 / gal.

Tom Sixkiller

May 18th 04, 05:05 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> So oil is now over $40/barrel and this is being blamed for the fact that
gas
> is now over $2/gallon and avgas is well over $3/gallon.
>
> As one news report put it, oil is the most expensive it has been since the
> 1970's. Ummm, anyone remember what the price of gas was in the 1970's when
> oil was pushing $60/barrel? It was less than a dollar a gallon....
>
Cost of refining is MUCH higher.

Cub Driver

May 18th 04, 10:39 AM

On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:13:22 -0700, Flyin'8 > wrote:

>Don't know where you are living, but where I am at the price is over
>$2.50 / gal.

You should speak to your state legislators. Gas downtown is $1.9599.
Nationwide it is about the same, last I read (day before yesterday).

Adjust the figures according to account for greedy legislatures. Your
gas would have to rise to north of $3 to be equivalent to 1982.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Tom Sixkiller

May 18th 04, 11:03 AM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:13:22 -0700, Flyin'8 > wrote:
>
> >Don't know where you are living, but where I am at the price is over
> >$2.50 / gal.
>
> You should speak to your state legislators. Gas downtown is $1.9599.
> Nationwide it is about the same, last I read (day before yesterday).
>
> Adjust the figures according to account for greedy legislatures. Your
> gas would have to rise to north of $3 to be equivalent to 1982.
>

Hmmm...and Al Gore and John Kerry have BOTH (among many others) said that we
should be paying $4-$5 a gallon like they do in Europe.

G.R. Patterson III

May 18th 04, 02:29 PM

Jim Fisher wrote:
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > Yeah, but will we be able to afford all that cool technology?
> >
> > It doesn't become "viable" until oil is unaffordable.
>
> Probably not, Jay. I would like to think that capitalism will keep prices
> in check. It's always worked in the past. I've no doubt it will work in
> the future.

If you look at the history of similar items (petroleum is a good example), they start
off with pretty high prices and then get cheap as people switch over and economies of
scale come into play.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

Tom Sixkiller

May 18th 04, 02:35 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >I'm too young to comment on the 70's oil fiasco, but was there as much
> >doomsday talk back then about 'Peak Oil' as there seems to be today?
>
> A great deal more. We all believed that the oil would be gone in 25
> years. Doomsday is almost upon us.
>

Are you referring to the 1970's, or the 1870's? :~)

The same hyperbole was with us even then.

Tom Sixkiller

May 18th 04, 02:36 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Ogaqc.15021$gr.1331340@attbi_s52...
> > Hear hear!
> >
> > > My common response to this "We're runnin' outta earl!" is that I just
> can't
> > > WAIT until oil becomes so damn expensive that alternative fuels
finally
> > > become reality.
>
> Yeah, but will we be able to afford all that cool technology?
>
> It doesn't become "viable" until oil is unaffordable.

I want a nuclear powered F33A Bonanza.

CVBreard

May 18th 04, 02:44 PM

>I want a nuclear powered F33A Bonanza.

In the 1950s (1960s?), there was a serious USAF project/study to use a nuclear
reactor to power a B-36..

Talk about long range / flight endurance records!

It was serious stuff, folks.

Jay Honeck

May 18th 04, 02:51 PM

> It was serious stuff, folks.

It was a fascinating concept, but they simply couldn't work around the
problem of inevitable accidents.

"Nuclear Plane crashes -- Thousands Perish!" simply was unacceptable then --
and now.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

CVBreard

May 18th 04, 03:02 PM

>Cost of refining is MUCH higher

Crude oil is roughly $1/gallon (a barrel of oil is 42 gallons).

Regular unleaded gasoline is about $1.40/gallon at the refinery loading dock.

The rest is taxes, transportation, taxes, profit at several levels and taxes.

The amazing thing is that they can take crude and transform it into motor
gasoline for just $0.40/gallon.

If you know what happens to crude (all the distilling and pumping and cracking
and hydro-treating and reforming and blending and testing and storing and
hauling and whatnot) before it gets to your gasoline tank, you might consider
it a small miracle that it's 'only' $2/gallon (including taxes).

G.R. Patterson III

May 18th 04, 03:37 PM

Flyin'8 wrote:
>
> >
> >In 2004 dollars, the high was $2.50 a gallon. We are very unlikely to
> >reach that level.
>
> Don't know where you are living, but where I am at the price is over
> $2.50 / gal.

Wow! Regular mogas is a bit over $1.70/gal here in Joisey.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

Tom Sixkiller

May 18th 04, 03:39 PM

"CVBreard" > wrote in message
...
> >Cost of refining is MUCH higher
>
> Crude oil is roughly $1/gallon (a barrel of oil is 42 gallons).
>
> Regular unleaded gasoline is about $1.40/gallon at the refinery loading
dock.
>
> The rest is taxes, transportation, taxes, profit at several levels and
taxes.
>
> The amazing thing is that they can take crude and transform it into motor
> gasoline for just $0.40/gallon.
>
> If you know what happens to crude (all the distilling and pumping and
cracking
> and hydro-treating and reforming and blending and testing and storing and
> hauling and whatnot) before it gets to your gasoline tank, you might
consider
> it a small miracle that it's 'only' $2/gallon (including taxes).

Hell, most people don't understand how bananas get to their grocery stores
Produce Department.

A few years back economist Walter Williams did three hours of a show as a
fill in for Rush Limbaugh. Some of the responses were hysterically funny.

Tom Sixkiller

May 18th 04, 03:42 PM

"CVBreard" > wrote in message
...
> >Cost of refining is MUCH higher
>
> Crude oil is roughly $1/gallon (a barrel of oil is 42 gallons).
>
> Regular unleaded gasoline is about $1.40/gallon at the refinery loading
dock.
>
> The rest is taxes, transportation, taxes, profit at several levels and
taxes.
>
> The amazing thing is that they can take crude and transform it into motor
> gasoline for just $0.40/gallon.
>
> If you know what happens to crude (all the distilling and pumping and
cracking
> and hydro-treating and reforming and blending and testing and storing and
> hauling and whatnot) before it gets to your gasoline tank, you might
consider
> it a small miracle that it's 'only' $2/gallon (including taxes).

Hell, the whole story of the exploration aspect is a wonder. (Nephew is a
Petroleum Geologist and he can lose you two minutes into the discussion).

C J Campbell

May 18th 04, 03:43 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:vxoqc.19775$gr.1626453@attbi_s52...
> > It was serious stuff, folks.
>
> It was a fascinating concept, but they simply couldn't work around the
> problem of inevitable accidents.
>
> "Nuclear Plane crashes -- Thousands Perish!" simply was unacceptable
then --
> and now.

Except that thousands don't perish when other nuclear powered things crash,
even nuclear weapons.

Tom Sixkiller

May 18th 04, 03:46 PM

Allen

May 18th 04, 03:49 PM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Flyin'8 wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >In 2004 dollars, the high was $2.50 a gallon. We are very unlikely to
> > >reach that level.
> >
> > Don't know where you are living, but where I am at the price is over
> > $2.50 / gal.
>
> Wow! Regular mogas is a bit over $1.70/gal here in Joisey.
>
> George Patterson
> I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

Regular is between $1.70 and $1.90 here in Waco. That much spread in such a
small area tells me it is not all based on the price of crude. When the
orange growers wanted the price of O. J. up they all screamed about the
terrible late freezes that ruined the blossoms. O. J. went up and never
came back down. When is the last time you have heard of orange crops being
froze? The coffee crop froze in Columbia and Brazil, the price went up and
never came down. Now the dairy farmers have all sold their herds, the price
has gone up and will never go down. Where did the herds all go? Did the
price of beef plunge? NO. All you need is some type of perception of a
causal force and you set the price where you want.

Allen

Tom Sixkiller

May 18th 04, 03:55 PM

"Allen" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Flyin'8 wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >In 2004 dollars, the high was $2.50 a gallon. We are very unlikely to
> > > >reach that level.
> > >
> > > Don't know where you are living, but where I am at the price is over
> > > $2.50 / gal.
> >
> > Wow! Regular mogas is a bit over $1.70/gal here in Joisey.
> >
> > George Patterson
> > I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.
>
> Regular is between $1.70 and $1.90 here in Waco. That much spread in such
a
> small area tells me it is not all based on the price of crude. When the
> orange growers wanted the price of O. J. up they all screamed about the
> terrible late freezes that ruined the blossoms. O. J. went up and never
> came back down.

Hmmm...they did here. We'ew paying for frozen OJ wha we did five or ten
years ago (89 cents a can)

> When is the last time you have heard of orange crops being
> froze? The coffee crop froze in Columbia and Brazil, the price went up
and
> never came down.

And demand?

>Now the dairy farmers have all sold their herds, the price
> has gone up and will never go down. Where did the herds all go? Did the
> price of beef plunge? NO. All you need is some type of perception of a
> causal force and you set the price where you want.

Oh, if it were that easy.

Tom Sixkiller

May 18th 04, 03:56 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:vxoqc.19775$gr.1626453@attbi_s52...
> > > It was serious stuff, folks.
> >
> > It was a fascinating concept, but they simply couldn't work around the
> > problem of inevitable accidents.
> >
> > "Nuclear Plane crashes -- Thousands Perish!" simply was unacceptable
> then --
> > and now.
>
> Except that thousands don't perish when other nuclear powered things
crash,
> even nuclear weapons.
>
Three Mile Island spewed less radioactivity than Denver gets on a sunny day.

G.R. Patterson III

May 18th 04, 04:02 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> It was a fascinating concept, but they simply couldn't work around the
> problem of inevitable accidents.

Not true. They couldn't lick the shielding problem.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

G.R. Patterson III

May 18th 04, 04:09 PM

CVBreard wrote:
>
> In the 1950s (1960s?), there was a serious USAF project/study to use a nuclear
> reactor to power a B-36..

No, they used a B-36 to carry a reactor up to run some tests to see how the reactor
behaved in flight. There was no proposal to power the B-36 with one. They *did* get
far enough along on a design for an atomic aircraft for one of the model companies
(Aurora, IIRC) to market a plastic kit of the plane during the early and mid 60s.

As part of the research, they also built two huge towers west of Oak Ridge, TN shaped
like goal posts. There was a containment building for a reactor core located between
the towers. The towers served as cranes to lift the reactor out of it's shell and
into the air for studies. Last time I looked, the towers were still visible from the
eastbound lanes of I-40 west of Knoxville.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

PaulH

May 18th 04, 04:25 PM

>>>Then the uncertainty premium will disappear
> and prices will drop. I doubt that any actual release would be
> necessary, but a million barrels a day ought to take care of it and
> could be sustained until after the election :)

The uncertainty premium isn't going away soon regardless of what Bush
or anyone else does. Saudi Arabia has the world's largest oil
reserves and that infrastructure has now become a terrorist target.
It's not going to be difficult for terrorists to damage that target.
Even a little damage is going to jack up the uncertainty a lot.

Dylan Smith

May 18th 04, 04:42 PM

In article >, CVBreard wrote:
> If you know what happens to crude (all the distilling and pumping and cracking
> and hydro-treating and reforming and blending and testing...

Having spent 6 years living in Houston, I can tell you what it smells
like and how it leaves light brown deposits on the leading edge of an
aircraft though!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Teacherjh

May 18th 04, 05:57 PM

>>
> It was a fascinating concept, but they simply couldn't work around the
> problem of inevitable accidents.

Not true. They couldn't lick the shielding problem.
<<

I think I'd just as soon not have JQ Public be buying sufficient quantities of
fissionable material to fly an airplane as a matter or course.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

No Such User

May 18th 04, 06:08 PM

In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
>As one news report put it, oil is the most expensive it has been since the
>1970's. Ummm, anyone remember what the price of gas was in the 1970's when
>oil was pushing $60/barrel? It was less than a dollar a gallon....
>
In the 70's oil was in the $20-$30 range.

>

No Such User

May 18th 04, 06:11 PM

In article <vxoqc.19775$gr.1626453@attbi_s52>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>It was a fascinating concept, but they simply couldn't work around the
>problem of inevitable accidents.
>
>"Nuclear Plane crashes -- Thousands Perish!" simply was unacceptable then --
>and now.
>
Nonsense. The nuclear airplane project was abandoned because the reactor
and the required shielding made the airplane too heavy to be practical.
The worst that would happen in a nuclear plane crash would be a very
expensive toxic materials clean-up.

G.R. Patterson III

May 18th 04, 06:25 PM

Teacherjh wrote:
>
> I think I'd just as soon not have JQ Public be buying sufficient quantities of
> fissionable material to fly an airplane as a matter or course.

The Feds wouldn't turn it over to the general public any more than they allow you to
set up a nuclear power plant in your back yard today. It would also take a few tons
of reactor grade material and a 4 billion dollar purification facility to produce a
nuclear bomb. A "dirty" bomb is, of course, well within the capabilities of New
Jersey Power and Light (to name one member of the public that owns fissionable
material).

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

Todd Pattist

May 18th 04, 06:42 PM

(CVBreard) wrote:

>In the 1950s (1960s?), there was a serious USAF project/study to use a nuclear
>reactor to power a B-36..

Come to my field any Saturday - there are lots of us flying
nuclear powered aircraft.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

C J Campbell

May 18th 04, 06:43 PM

"No Such User" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
> >As one news report put it, oil is the most expensive it has been since
the
> >1970's. Ummm, anyone remember what the price of gas was in the 1970's
when
> >oil was pushing $60/barrel? It was less than a dollar a gallon....
> >
> In the 70's oil was in the $20-$30 range.

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

So the price of oil nearly did hit $60/barrel, but it was in the early '80s.
Still, even in 1983 the price of gasoline never came near $2/gallon.

My point is that the price of oil seems to have little relationship to the
price of gasoline, despite what the media continually report. But then, what
else would you expect from the news media? I mean, these are the idiots who
could not get a degree in anything more rigorous than 'communications.' It
is astounding, really, that they even know that gasoline has something to do
with oil. They probably learned most of what they know from Hollywood.

Elwood Dowd

May 18th 04, 07:14 PM

> So the price of oil nearly did hit $60/barrel, but it was in the early '80s.
> Still, even in 1983 the price of gasoline never came near $2/gallon.

I hate to be the voice of reason---but has anyone considered the massive
inflation rate between then and now? How does our $2/gallon translate
into 1983 dollars?

C J Campbell

May 18th 04, 07:55 PM

"Elwood Dowd" > wrote in message
...
> > So the price of oil nearly did hit $60/barrel, but it was in the early
'80s.
> > Still, even in 1983 the price of gasoline never came near $2/gallon.
>
> I hate to be the voice of reason---but has anyone considered the massive
> inflation rate between then and now? How does our $2/gallon translate
> into 1983 dollars?
>

How does the price of oil translate into 1983 dollars?

Inflation might be one reason gas costs more now (although describing the
rate of inflation from 1983 until now as 'massive' might seem extreme to
anyone who lived in the late '60s or the '70s). It certainly does not appear
to be the price of oil, which does not seem to have kept up with inflation
during that time.

Mike Rapoport

May 18th 04, 08:19 PM

The graph you presented doesn't agree with the DOE information nor my
recollection. See:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_marketing_monthly/current/pdf/pmmtab1.pdf

Mike
MU-2

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "No Such User" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
> > >As one news report put it, oil is the most expensive it has been since
> the
> > >1970's. Ummm, anyone remember what the price of gas was in the 1970's
> when
> > >oil was pushing $60/barrel? It was less than a dollar a gallon....
> > >
> > In the 70's oil was in the $20-$30 range.
>
> http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
>
> So the price of oil nearly did hit $60/barrel, but it was in the early
'80s.
> Still, even in 1983 the price of gasoline never came near $2/gallon.
>
> My point is that the price of oil seems to have little relationship to the
> price of gasoline, despite what the media continually report. But then,
what
> else would you expect from the news media? I mean, these are the idiots
who
> could not get a degree in anything more rigorous than 'communications.' It
> is astounding, really, that they even know that gasoline has something to
do
> with oil. They probably learned most of what they know from Hollywood.
>
>

Mike Rapoport

May 18th 04, 08:24 PM

Here is another :

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/chronology/petrochrohotgraph.htm

Your chart is in constant 2000 dollars.

Mike
MU-2

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "No Such User" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
> > >As one news report put it, oil is the most expensive it has been since
> the
> > >1970's. Ummm, anyone remember what the price of gas was in the 1970's
> when
> > >oil was pushing $60/barrel? It was less than a dollar a gallon....
> > >
> > In the 70's oil was in the $20-$30 range.
>
> http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
>
> So the price of oil nearly did hit $60/barrel, but it was in the early
'80s.
> Still, even in 1983 the price of gasoline never came near $2/gallon.
>
> My point is that the price of oil seems to have little relationship to the
> price of gasoline, despite what the media continually report. But then,
what
> else would you expect from the news media? I mean, these are the idiots
who
> could not get a degree in anything more rigorous than 'communications.' It
> is astounding, really, that they even know that gasoline has something to
do
> with oil. They probably learned most of what they know from Hollywood.
>
>

John Fitzpatrick

May 18th 04, 09:44 PM

Wonder what the price of avgas is going to have on the GA community.
The price of 100 is running anywhere from $2.75 to $3.50 here in upstate NY.

John
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
. net...
> Here is another :
>
>
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/chronology/petrochrohotgraph.htm
>
> Your chart is in constant 2000 dollars.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "No Such User" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
> > > >As one news report put it, oil is the most expensive it has been
since
> > the
> > > >1970's. Ummm, anyone remember what the price of gas was in the 1970's
> > when
> > > >oil was pushing $60/barrel? It was less than a dollar a gallon....
> > > >
> > > In the 70's oil was in the $20-$30 range.
> >
> > http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
> >
> > So the price of oil nearly did hit $60/barrel, but it was in the early
> '80s.
> > Still, even in 1983 the price of gasoline never came near $2/gallon.
> >
> > My point is that the price of oil seems to have little relationship to
the
> > price of gasoline, despite what the media continually report. But then,
> what
> > else would you expect from the news media? I mean, these are the idiots
> who
> > could not get a degree in anything more rigorous than 'communications.'
It
> > is astounding, really, that they even know that gasoline has something
to
> do
> > with oil. They probably learned most of what they know from Hollywood.
> >
> >
>
>

leslie

May 18th 04, 11:53 PM

CVBreard ) wrote:
: >I want a nuclear powered F33A Bonanza.
:
: In the 1950s (1960s?), there was a serious USAF project/study to use
: a nuclear reactor to power a B-36..
:
: Talk about long range / flight endurance records!
:
: It was serious stuff, folks.
:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b3-84.htm
Convair NB-36H - US Air Force Museum Bomber Virtual Aircraft Gallery

--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

gerrcoin

May 19th 04, 01:02 AM

Jim Fisher wrote:

> The bonus for us is that we can finally tell the OPEC nations kiss our
> shiny, hairy, American asses for good. Let 'em all kill themselves and we
> will all live happily ever after.
>

I doubt that will happen any time soon. America accounts for 25% of
the worlds oil consumption all by itself.

Peter Duniho

May 19th 04, 01:25 AM

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Come to my field any Saturday - there are lots of us flying
> nuclear powered aircraft.

Yeah, but your reactor is 93 million miles away, and unavailable at night.

But hey, on the plus side, it's the only practical fusion reactor I know of.
:)

Pete

Larry Dighera

May 19th 04, 04:41 AM

On 18 May 2004 13:44:45 GMT, (CVBreard) wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>>I want a nuclear powered F33A Bonanza.
>
>In the 1950s (1960s?), there was a serious USAF project/study to use a nuclear
>reactor to power a B-36..
>
>Talk about long range / flight endurance records!
>
>It was serious stuff, folks.

Hasn't NASA built nuclear fueled Stirling engines? Here's a clue:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/tmsb/stirling/doc/stirling_bckgrd.html
However, about this time NASA became interested in development of
free-piston Stirling engines for space power applications. These
engines use helium as the working fluid, drive linear alternators
to produce electricity and are hermetically sealed. These 12.5 kWe
per cylinder engines were intended for use with a nuclear reactor
power system; the Space Demonstrator Engine (or SPDE) was the
earliest 12.5 kWe per cylinder engine that was designed, built and
tested by MTI. A later engine of this size, the Component Test
Power Convertor (or CTPC), used a "Starfish" heat-pipe heater
head, instead of the pumped-loop used by the SPDE. Recently, in
the 1992-93 time period, this work was terminated due to the
termination of the related SP-100 nuclear power system work and
NASA's new emphasis on "better, faster, cheaper" systems and
missions.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/outerplanets-00a2.html
Europa Orbiter was replanned to use a new "Sterling" nuclear
generator design which would use less plutonium

http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/boeing_lockheed_offer.htm

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

Cub Driver

May 19th 04, 10:20 AM

On 18 May 2004 13:44:45 GMT, (CVBreard) wrote:

>In the 1950s (1960s?), there was a serious USAF project/study to use a nuclear
>reactor to power a B-36..

A friend of mine actually worked on that--at Pratt & Whitney, I think.
He would have graduated from college in 1957. He worked at P&W from
June to about the following January, when he realized that the world
was all screwed up, whereupon he quit and went to Cannon Mountain New
Hampshire as a ski patrolman. He hasn't held a regular job since, and
he claims that the nuclear power plant is what convinced him that he
was not a career engineer.

He flies one of those low-wing trikes, but he used to own a J-3, so I
still talk to him.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

May 19th 04, 10:23 AM

On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:09:12 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>There was no proposal to power the B-36 with one.

Well, of course it wasn't a B-36, but Convair did indeed have a
knockoff of the 36 on the drawing board with the reactor behind the
crew compartment.

Convair was desperate for any engine that would enable it to keep
building the 36. The Boeing B-52 was coming along fast.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

May 19th 04, 10:25 AM

On 18 May 2004 14:02:09 GMT, (CVBreard) wrote:

>The amazing thing is that they can take crude and transform it into motor
>gasoline for just $0.40/gallon.

And bring it to the corner station for another 60 cents, while paying
enough in taxes to take care of all the state's roads.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

May 19th 04, 10:29 AM

On Tue, 18 May 2004 11:14:53 -0700, Elwood Dowd > wrote:

>I hate to be the voice of reason---but has anyone considered the massive
>inflation rate between then and now? How does our $2/gallon translate
>into 1983 dollars?

Prices have not quite doubled since 1982. (Recall that Paul Volker,
Ronald Reagan, and Alan Greenspan stomped hard on inflation beginning
in 1980.) (I use 1982 as a basis because it was that year that I built
my house.)

So in 1983 dollars, our gasoline costs about $1.05 or $1.10.

(Recall also that Bill Clinton raised taxes a nickel. You should knock
off 2 cents to account for that.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

calafradulistic

May 19th 04, 01:17 PM

is that all? We pay twice that in Oz.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> So oil is now over $40/barrel and this is being blamed for the fact that
gas
> is now over $2/gallon and avgas is well over $3/gallon.
>
> As one news report put it, oil is the most expensive it has been since the
> 1970's. Ummm, anyone remember what the price of gas was in the 1970's when
> oil was pushing $60/barrel? It was less than a dollar a gallon....
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>
>
>

Tom Sixkiller

May 19th 04, 03:53 PM

"calafradulistic" > wrote in message
. au...
> is that all? We pay twice that in Oz.
>
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > So oil is now over $40/barrel and this is being blamed for the fact that
> gas
> > is now over $2/gallon and avgas is well over $3/gallon.

Some places pay a LOT less ($1.85 for autogas and $2.35 for 100LL)

David CL Francis

May 19th 04, 09:27 PM

On Tue, 18 May 2004 at 07:43:49 in message
>, C J Campbell
> wrote:
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>news:vxoqc.19775$gr.1626453@attbi_s52...
>> > It was serious stuff, folks.
>>
>> It was a fascinating concept, but they simply couldn't work around the
>> problem of inevitable accidents.
>>
>> "Nuclear Plane crashes -- Thousands Perish!" simply was unacceptable
>then --
>> and now.
>
>Except that thousands don't perish when other nuclear powered things crash,
>even nuclear weapons.

I remember someone talking about nuclear powered aircraft many years
ago. He said that it would solve one aviation problem; about the
placement of the cg. Wherever the reactor was placed, with its
shielding, that's where the cg would be. ;-)
--
David CL Francis

James Blakely

May 19th 04, 10:04 PM

Hey George:

Is New Jersey still full service stations only? I've heard that
self-service stations were recently allowed.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Flyin'8 wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >In 2004 dollars, the high was $2.50 a gallon. We are very unlikely to
> > >reach that level.
> >
> > Don't know where you are living, but where I am at the price is over
> > $2.50 / gal.
>
> Wow! Regular mogas is a bit over $1.70/gal here in Joisey.
>
> George Patterson
> I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

G.R. Patterson III

May 20th 04, 01:53 AM

James Blakely wrote:
>
> Is New Jersey still full service stations only?

As far as I know.

> I've heard that
> self-service stations were recently allowed.

I haven't heard anything to that effect or seen one around here.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

Mike Rapoport

May 20th 04, 02:59 PM

The good(???) news is that a lot of what we are paying for aviation fuels is
markup at the FBO level. The standard markup seems to be $1/gallon, so if
gas is $3.00 then the acutal wholsale price is less than $2 and probably
about $1.50 before delivery. Of the $1.50, perhaps $1.00 is the price of
crude, so a doubling of crude prices should only increase the price of avgas
by $1.00.

Mike
MU-2

"John Fitzpatrick" > wrote in message
.. .
> Wonder what the price of avgas is going to have on the GA community.
> The price of 100 is running anywhere from $2.75 to $3.50 here in upstate
NY.
>
> John
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > Here is another :
> >
> >
>
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/chronology/petrochrohotgraph.htm
> >
> > Your chart is in constant 2000 dollars.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "No Such User" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
> > > > >As one news report put it, oil is the most expensive it has been
> since
> > > the
> > > > >1970's. Ummm, anyone remember what the price of gas was in the
1970's
> > > when
> > > > >oil was pushing $60/barrel? It was less than a dollar a gallon....
> > > > >
> > > > In the 70's oil was in the $20-$30 range.
> > >
> > > http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
> > >
> > > So the price of oil nearly did hit $60/barrel, but it was in the early
> > '80s.
> > > Still, even in 1983 the price of gasoline never came near $2/gallon.
> > >
> > > My point is that the price of oil seems to have little relationship to
> the
> > > price of gasoline, despite what the media continually report. But
then,
> > what
> > > else would you expect from the news media? I mean, these are the
idiots
> > who
> > > could not get a degree in anything more rigorous than
'communications.'
> It
> > > is astounding, really, that they even know that gasoline has something
> to
> > do
> > > with oil. They probably learned most of what they know from Hollywood.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Philip Sondericker

May 21st 04, 02:48 AM

in article , Dean Wilkinson at
wrote on 5/17/04 5:26 PM:

>>
>> Does anyone here have any web references that counter that rubbish?
>>
>> Ben
>
> Yes, haven't you heard about the theories on oil plumes and oil field
> replenishment from deeper sources? Read on:

Or, for quite another viewpoint, we have the following:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/20/markets/oil_reserves/index.htm?cnn=yes

I make no claims as to the accuracy of anything contained in the above
article. But it's an interesting counterpoint to the article claiming that
oil reserves are actually increasing. Is this just more of the usual
alarmism?

G.R. Patterson III

May 21st 04, 04:08 AM

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
>
> Wow! Regular mogas is a bit over $1.70/gal here in Joisey.

Update. Today I passed a station in central NJ with $1.98/gal regular. It's going up.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

Peter Gottlieb

May 21st 04, 04:20 AM

No one really knows. On one side, claims of doom have been around for
decades, on the other side, whatever exists cannot last forever. I have no
idea either.

What I do know is that the heavy use of oil has had adverse environmental
effects and has created dangerous instability in the Middle East. I believe
that it would be in this country's best interests to somehow decrease
reliance on foreign oil, and preferrably, reduce oil usage overall. I do
not know the best way to accomplish those goals.

If these problems had easy solutions they would have been solved already.

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Dean Wilkinson
at
> wrote on 5/17/04 5:26 PM:
>
> >>
> >> Does anyone here have any web references that counter that rubbish?
> >>
> >> Ben
> >
> > Yes, haven't you heard about the theories on oil plumes and oil field
> > replenishment from deeper sources? Read on:
>
> Or, for quite another viewpoint, we have the following:
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/20/markets/oil_reserves/index.htm?cnn=yes
>
> I make no claims as to the accuracy of anything contained in the above
> article. But it's an interesting counterpoint to the article claiming that
> oil reserves are actually increasing. Is this just more of the usual
> alarmism?
>

Peter Gottlieb

May 21st 04, 04:22 AM

When gas approaches $2/gal in Jersey, you know prices have gone up. Still a
bargain though.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
> >
> > Wow! Regular mogas is a bit over $1.70/gal here in Joisey.
>
> Update. Today I passed a station in central NJ with $1.98/gal regular.
It's going up.
>
> George Patterson
> I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

Cub Driver

May 21st 04, 10:50 AM

On Fri, 21 May 2004 01:48:23 GMT, Philip Sondericker
> wrote:

>I make no claims as to the accuracy of anything contained in the above
>article. But it's an interesting counterpoint to the article claiming that
>oil reserves are actually increasing. Is this just more of the usual
>alarmism?

The Wall Street Journal had an article the other day dealing with
Hubbert's Peak.

Hubbert predicted that oil production in any field or country would
peak (and then decline) at a fairly predictable time, and history has
borne him out. In the U.S. as I recall it was 1972 (I was surprised it
was so late). In the North Sea it was 2000. Saudi according to the
article is fairly close to peaking, and nothing has been discovered in
the past half-century that could replace Saudi oil.

The article made no mention of fields regenerating, though obviously
it is possible in a given case. (Shucks, there could have been an
undiscovered field/lode/pool near the Mexican one mentioned, which
began to "leak" into the original site.)

As a rule, the WSJ takes a *very* skeptical view of doomsday
scenarios.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

May 21st 04, 10:54 AM

On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:08:58 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>It's going up.

Yes. The yellow light came on in my Accord (I didn't even know it had
a yellow light!) so I filled up downtown at $2.039 because I reckoned
I didn't have fuel enough to carry me to BJ's Wholesale Club, where
it's still $1.969. BJ's is usually a nickel cheaper than the rest of
the world. Most of the brand-name stations in Portsmouth on the strip
sell it for $2.019.

And I see that my scenario of the White House liberating the Strategic
Oil Supply has been shot down by the prezdint.

That was the first time I ever put $25 into the tank. (Come to think
of it, I haven't seen that Hummer on Route 108 lately, heh heh.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Jay Honeck

May 21st 04, 02:41 PM

One thing no one has brought up (surprisingly) is the monetary exchange rate
change over the last few years.

Our American dollar buys a lot less than it did just a few years ago.
Factor *that* in, and gas may be cheaper than it's ever been.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Tom Sixkiller

May 21st 04, 05:30 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:08:58 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> > wrote:
>
> >It's going up.
>
> Yes. The yellow light came on in my Accord (I didn't even know it had
> a yellow light!) so I filled up downtown at $2.039 because I reckoned
> I didn't have fuel enough to carry me to BJ's Wholesale Club, where
> it's still $1.969. BJ's is usually a nickel cheaper than the rest of
> the world. Most of the brand-name stations in Portsmouth on the strip
> sell it for $2.019.
>
> And I see that my scenario of the White House liberating the Strategic
> Oil Supply has been shot down by the prezdint.
>
> That was the first time I ever put $25 into the tank. (Come to think
> of it, I haven't seen that Hummer on Route 108 lately, heh heh.)

Well, you probably did, but it was in different dollars than now.

Excerpt from
http://www.poorandstupid.com/2004_05_16_chronArchive.asp#108514537144124262

/begin quote
-----------------------------------------------
One of the first ways people adjust to high gasoline prices -- if they are
gasoline buyers, that is -- is they use less gas. That means they may shift
some of their economic activity from things that involve driving long
distances in an SUV to other things that involve driving shorter distances
in a normal car. Now why should that hurt the economy?

Another way people adjust to high prices -- if they are gasoline sellers,
that is -- is they find ways to produce more gas. They drill more oil wells.
They open new refineries. Now why should that hurt the economy?

Are you seeing a pattern here? When prices rise, buyers try to buy less.
Sellers try to sell more. And what do you know -- as a result of both those
things, pretty soon the price starts to fall. No, it's not magic. It's basic
economics. It works every time.

This isn't the 1970s or the 1980s. Today we're not seeing radical price
increases as the result of the sudden cut-off of supply. There's still
plenty of oil to go around -- and it's just getting a little more expensive
at the moment.

How much more expensive? That's a matter of perspective. Sure, it grabs your
attention when regular gasoline tops $2 a gallon for the first time. "Record
gas prices!" the headlines scream. But the reality is that when you adjust
for inflation, a gallon of gas cost almost 50% more in 1981 than it does
today.

And here's an even more amazing statistic. Over time, thanks to technology,
we've gotten much more efficient in the way we use gasoline, oil, and energy
of all kinds. In 1974 when the first "oil crisis" hit, it took over 17
quadrillion BTUs of energy to produce $1 million of gross domestic product
(measured in constant year-2000 dollars). Today it takes less then 10
quadrillion BTUs.

One more statistic: in 1978 the US consumed over 18 million barrels of oil
every day, when annual GDP was $5 trillion. Today we use only 10% more oil
every day than we did then, but GDP has more than doubled to almost $11
trillion.

The bottom line: oil is important, but it just doesn't matter quite the same
way that it used to
------------------------------------------------------------
/end quote

Tom Sixkiller

May 21st 04, 05:39 PM

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
> What I do know is that the heavy use of oil has had adverse environmental
> effects and has created dangerous instability in the Middle East. I
believe
> that it would be in this country's best interests to somehow decrease
> reliance on foreign oil, and preferrably, reduce oil usage overall. I do
> not know the best way to accomplish those goals.
>
"Over time, thanks to technology, we've gotten much more efficient in the
way we use gasoline, oil, and energy of all kinds. In 1974 when the first
"oil crisis" hit, it took over 17 quadrillion BTUs of energy to produce $1
million of gross domestic product (measured in constant year-2000 dollars).
Today it takes less then 10 quadrillion BTUs.

One more statistic: in 1978 the US consumed over 18 million barrels of oil
every day, when annual GDP was $5 trillion. Today we use only 10% more oil
every day than we did then, but GDP has more than doubled to almost $11
trillion."

Tom Sixkiller

May 21st 04, 05:52 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:pGnrc.4194$ny.878510@attbi_s53...
> One thing no one has brought up (surprisingly) is the monetary exchange
rate
> change over the last few years.
>
> Our American dollar buys a lot less than it did just a few years ago.
> Factor *that* in, and gas may be cheaper than it's ever been.

I worked in a gas station in high school in 1971 and remember gas being 28
(up to about 31) cents a gallon. Now, how much were you making back 33 years
ago? As a point of reference, I was making about 1/15th then as what I make
now and I'm sure most everyone else in a similar boat.

By these numbers, gas would be about $4.35 a gallon.

Oh, I was getting 12 or so MPG in a 1969 Chevelle 396...about half what we
get in both our cars and about 75% what we get in our evil SUV.

Oh, and when I was in London back in 2001, gas was about $4.75 a gallon
(liters/gallons and dollar/pound conversions) and a bit less in The
Netherlands.

Tom Sixkiller

May 21st 04, 05:58 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 01:48:23 GMT, Philip Sondericker
> > wrote:
>
> >I make no claims as to the accuracy of anything contained in the above
> >article. But it's an interesting counterpoint to the article claiming
that
> >oil reserves are actually increasing. Is this just more of the usual
> >alarmism?
>
> The Wall Street Journal had an article the other day dealing with
> Hubbert's Peak.
>
> Hubbert predicted that oil production in any field or country would
> peak (and then decline) at a fairly predictable time, and history has
> borne him out.

"Marion King Hubbert, a geophysicist and a geologist for the USGS, is known
for predicting, in 1956, that U.S. oil production would peak in 1970 and
decline thereafter. This peak has come to be known as Hubbert's peak and is
used to allegedly demonstrate that the current demand for oil will lead to a
crisis and that that crisis is nearly upon us."

> In the U.S. as I recall it was 1972 (I was surprised it
> was so late). In the North Sea it was 2000. Saudi according to the
> article is fairly close to peaking, and nothing has been discovered in
> the past half-century that could replace Saudi oil.
>
> The article made no mention of fields regenerating, though obviously
> it is possible in a given case. (Shucks, there could have been an
> undiscovered field/lode/pool near the Mexican one mentioned, which
> began to "leak" into the original site.)
>

Are you referring to David Goodstein's book "Out of Gas"?

Mike Rapoport

May 21st 04, 06:18 PM

Are you sure about this data? I don't have data back to 1978 but input into
refineries has gone from 11.7 million barrels a day to 15.9 from 1982
through last week. I find it hard to believe that petroleum consumption
dropped by 1/3 from 1978 to 1982
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/ftparea/wogirs/xls/psw10vwcr.xls'

Mike
MU-2

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > What I do know is that the heavy use of oil has had adverse
environmental
> > effects and has created dangerous instability in the Middle East. I
> believe
> > that it would be in this country's best interests to somehow decrease
> > reliance on foreign oil, and preferrably, reduce oil usage overall. I
do
> > not know the best way to accomplish those goals.
> >
> "Over time, thanks to technology, we've gotten much more efficient in the
> way we use gasoline, oil, and energy of all kinds. In 1974 when the first
> "oil crisis" hit, it took over 17 quadrillion BTUs of energy to produce $1
> million of gross domestic product (measured in constant year-2000
dollars).
> Today it takes less then 10 quadrillion BTUs.
>
> One more statistic: in 1978 the US consumed over 18 million barrels of oil
> every day, when annual GDP was $5 trillion. Today we use only 10% more oil
> every day than we did then, but GDP has more than doubled to almost $11
> trillion."
>
>
>
>
>

Tom Sixkiller

May 21st 04, 07:26 PM

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Are you sure about this data? I don't have data back to 1978 but input
into
> refineries has gone from 11.7 million barrels a day to 15.9 from 1982
> through last week. I find it hard to believe that petroleum consumption
> dropped by 1/3 from 1978 to 1982
> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/ftparea/wogirs/xls/psw10vwcr.xls'
>
> Mike
> MU-2

CONSUMED!

And remember the price skyrocketing from 1978...the lines around the corner?

That's also when the Detroit battleships went a gleaming...

>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > > What I do know is that the heavy use of oil has had adverse
> environmental
> > > effects and has created dangerous instability in the Middle East. I
> > believe
> > > that it would be in this country's best interests to somehow decrease
> > > reliance on foreign oil, and preferrably, reduce oil usage overall. I
> do
> > > not know the best way to accomplish those goals.
> > >
> > "Over time, thanks to technology, we've gotten much more efficient in
the
> > way we use gasoline, oil, and energy of all kinds. In 1974 when the
first
> > "oil crisis" hit, it took over 17 quadrillion BTUs of energy to produce
$1
> > million of gross domestic product (measured in constant year-2000
> dollars).
> > Today it takes less then 10 quadrillion BTUs.
> >
> > One more statistic: in 1978 the US consumed over 18 million barrels of
oil
> > every day, when annual GDP was $5 trillion. Today we use only 10% more
oil
> > every day than we did then, but GDP has more than doubled to almost $11
> > trillion."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Mike Rapoport

May 21st 04, 07:31 PM

So you don't have a source?

Mike
MU-2

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Are you sure about this data? I don't have data back to 1978 but input
> into
> > refineries has gone from 11.7 million barrels a day to 15.9 from 1982
> > through last week. I find it hard to believe that petroleum consumption
> > dropped by 1/3 from 1978 to 1982
> > http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/ftparea/wogirs/xls/psw10vwcr.xls'
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
>
> CONSUMED!
>
> And remember the price skyrocketing from 1978...the lines around the
corner?
>
> That's also when the Detroit battleships went a gleaming...
>
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > > . net...
> > > > What I do know is that the heavy use of oil has had adverse
> > environmental
> > > > effects and has created dangerous instability in the Middle East. I
> > > believe
> > > > that it would be in this country's best interests to somehow
decrease
> > > > reliance on foreign oil, and preferrably, reduce oil usage overall.
I
> > do
> > > > not know the best way to accomplish those goals.
> > > >
> > > "Over time, thanks to technology, we've gotten much more efficient in
> the
> > > way we use gasoline, oil, and energy of all kinds. In 1974 when the
> first
> > > "oil crisis" hit, it took over 17 quadrillion BTUs of energy to
produce
> $1
> > > million of gross domestic product (measured in constant year-2000
> > dollars).
> > > Today it takes less then 10 quadrillion BTUs.
> > >
> > > One more statistic: in 1978 the US consumed over 18 million barrels of
> oil
> > > every day, when annual GDP was $5 trillion. Today we use only 10% more
> oil
> > > every day than we did then, but GDP has more than doubled to almost
$11
> > > trillion."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Mike Rapoport

May 21st 04, 07:45 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
out.
>
> "Marion King Hubbert, a geophysicist and a geologist for the USGS, is
known
> for predicting, in 1956, that U.S. oil production would peak in 1970 and
> decline thereafter. This peak has come to be known as Hubbert's peak and
is
> used to allegedly demonstrate that the current demand for oil will lead to
a
> crisis and that that crisis is nearly upon us."
>

Remakably he was only off by a couple of years.

Mike
MU-2

Jay Honeck

May 21st 04, 10:49 PM

> I worked in a gas station in high school in 1971 and remember gas being 28
> (up to about 31) cents a gallon.

Heh. I worked in a gas station in 1979-80, when gas first busted a buck a
gallon in the Milwaukee, WI area.

You'd have thought I was the anti-Christ, working behind that counter. It
was as if every person filling their tank had determined that *I* was
PERSONALLY responsible for the price of gasoline...

I don't envy the folks in gas stations nowadays, after the price surpassed
TWO bucks a gallon. Of course, everything is pay-at-the-pump now, so I
suppose they're getting off a bit easier...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Tom Sixkiller

May 22nd 04, 05:16 AM

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> out.
> >
> > "Marion King Hubbert, a geophysicist and a geologist for the USGS, is
> known
> > for predicting, in 1956, that U.S. oil production would peak in 1970 and
> > decline thereafter. This peak has come to be known as Hubbert's peak and
> is
> > used to allegedly demonstrate that the current demand for oil will lead
to
> a
> > crisis and that that crisis is nearly upon us."
> >
>
> Remakably he was only off by a couple of years.

Production peaked due to interference by EPA and others, not due to
availability or resources. IOW he was right for the wrong reasons.

Peter Gottlieb

May 22nd 04, 05:27 AM

This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others," meaning
government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves?

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Production peaked due to interference by EPA and others, not due to
> availability or resources. IOW he was right for the wrong reasons.
>
>

Tom Sixkiller

May 22nd 04, 05:34 AM

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
> This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others," meaning
> government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves?

Reserves (from the time) and known resources are much higher than what we're
extracting.

>
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Production peaked due to interference by EPA and others, not due to
> > availability or resources. IOW he was right for the wrong reasons.
> >
> >
>
>
>

Peter Gottlieb

May 22nd 04, 06:24 AM

Wasn't there an article in the WSJ a week or two ago where some oil company
execs said the regs weren't the primary issue?

I didn't look into it further. What's the problem? Failure of the
marketplace to place sufficient refining capacity on line? The price of
bringing more well capacity online is too high or unpalatable to the public?
What? Or is it working the way it's supposed to and there are just a bunch
of people annoyed at higher prices?

Are you an expert in the field (no pun intended) or just going with a gut
feeling? Just curious, because while I would gladly discuss with someone
with significant industry knowledge I really don't have any time to debate
environmental politics or with someone who bases their knowledge on one
party's propaganda (either one). No offense but it's late.

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> et...
> > This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others," meaning
> > government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves?
>
> Reserves (from the time) and known resources are much higher than what
we're
> extracting.
>

Cub Driver

May 22nd 04, 10:16 AM

On Fri, 21 May 2004 13:41:41 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Our American dollar buys a lot less than it did just a few years ago.
>Factor *that* in, and gas may be cheaper than it's ever been.

Oil is priced in dollars, so in theory that shouldn't affect us at
all.

Of course, the Saudis sell for dollars and buy stuff in euros, and
they're not stupid. One reason oil is bumping around $40/barrel is
that the oil producers countries want to reclaim their buying power.

Another reason--and probably a much larger one--is the huge growth in
manufacturing (and attendant prosperity) in China and to a lesser
extent India. We can look forward to an era in which the things China
produces (sneakers, radios) will get cheaper and cheaper, while the
things China consumes (oil) will get more expensive.

And it is easy to exaggerate the weakness in the dollar. Not too many
years ago the euro was launched at $1.18. Now it is $1.20. Big deal.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

May 22nd 04, 10:20 AM

>> I worked in a gas station in high school in 1971 and remember gas being 28
>> (up to about 31) cents a gallon.

That's right. 29.9 cents. Three bucks filled the tank of my 1962
Volkswagen.

But note that the VW cost me new $1,620 with quarter-windows and AM
radio.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Dylan Smith

May 22nd 04, 10:31 AM

In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> Reserves (from the time) and known resources are much higher than what we're
> extracting.

I think the point is not that we are about to run out of oil, but we're
going to run out of *cheap* oil.

Necessity being the mother of invention will mean that as the *cheap*
oil all disappears, new technologies will become economically viable
(biodiesels, renewable sources, energy from agricultural waste) that
aren't at the moment because oil is so much cheaper.

In our urban society, the threads are intricately woven, so even those
of us who don't fly or don't drive will see the cost of living increase
for a while. We'll survive, but it might not be all milk and honey for a
few years whilst we get used not to the lack of oil, but the lack of
cheap oil.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Martin Hotze

May 22nd 04, 10:52 AM

On Sat, 22 May 2004 05:16:47 -0400, Cub Driver wrote:

>Oil is priced in dollars, so in theory that shouldn't affect us at
>all.

some countries (like Russia) are openly thinking of changing that.

(..)
>And it is easy to exaggerate the weakness in the dollar. Not too many
>years ago the euro was launched at $1.18. Now it is $1.20. Big deal.

but the Euro was down to about 80 US cents.

#m

--
Martin!!! Maaaaartiiiin!!! Can you please flame this guy for me?
'HECTOP' in rec.aviation.piloting

Wdtabor

May 22nd 04, 12:38 PM

>
>This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others," meaning
>government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves?
>
>

I was there at the scene of the crime.

There are really two 'shortages' in domestic production.

One is the shortfall in refinery capacity. We haven't built a new refinery in
the US for 15 years, and that is entirely because of EPA regs and NIMBY
protests disguised as environmental concern.

But the shortfall in recovering domestic reserves is more complicated.
Enviromentalism is part of it, but there are economic reasons as well.

In the 70's and into the early 80's, we had a lot of domestic capability, and
the JR Ewings of the country saved our butts during the embargo. Unfortunately
for them, they made a lot of money doing it, so we destroyed them.

First was the "Windfall Profits Tax". Oil exploration has always been boom and
bust. Wildcatters made alot of money during the booms and invested in new
equipment and grew their companies during those times. During the lean years,
the capital reserves sustained them to the next boom. So, Nixon and Ford,
seeing the boom during the embargo years, called those profits obscene and
confiscated them with the "Windfall Profits Tax." Carter continued the price
controls Nixon started, then dropped them on everything EXCEPT petroleum and
health care, bleeding the Ewings with skyrocketing costs and controled prices
for their products. Then he finished off the domestic oil industry with the
Fuel Use Act, which attempted to force gas producers to sell their gas to
homeowners in the NorthEast at prices that did not justify the pipeline
capacity needed to get it there, by not letting them sell the gas to industry
in the South were they could make a profit at the controlled prices.

So, all our JR Ewings went bankrupt. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of
equipment rusted away or was sold for scrap. The Arabs put the final nail in
the coffin by boosting production so the price feel for a while to 11 or 12
dollars a barrel.

Now, all the wildcatters who know how to get the oil have huge bankruptcies in
the resume and can't raise the money for new equipment. Further, the banks know
that the Arabs can drop the price any time they want to drive domestic
producers broke if they become a threat to their monopoly. So the banks arent'
going to finance domestic production so long as th Arabs can manipulate the
market to destroy their competitors.

The field is left to a few multinationals. And we're screwed.

Government meddling in the free market did it, but it was alot more complicated
than the EPA alone.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Dylan Smith

May 22nd 04, 01:15 PM

In article >, Cub Driver wrote:
> And it is easy to exaggerate the weakness in the dollar. Not too many
> years ago the euro was launched at $1.18. Now it is $1.20. Big deal.

It's incredibly weak against the pound though - at the moment, it's
about GBP1 = $1.75 or so (when I last went to the US, it was about GBP1
= $1.85 - that was at the end of Feb. It made flying almost free of
charge for me... For the last few years, the norm was GBP1 = $1.50)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[email protected]

May 22nd 04, 01:44 PM

On 22-May-2004, Cub Driver > wrote:

> Xref: east.cox.net rec.aviation.piloting:387143
> X-Received-Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 05:18:09 EDT (news1.east.cox.net)
>
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 13:41:41 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
> >Our American dollar buys a lot less than it did just a few years ago.
> >Factor *that* in, and gas may be cheaper than it's ever been.
>
> Oil is priced in dollars, so in theory that shouldn't affect us at
> all.
>
> Of course, the Saudis sell for dollars and buy stuff in euros, and
> they're not stupid. One reason oil is bumping around $40/barrel is
> that the oil producers countries want to reclaim their buying power.
>
> Another reason--and probably a much larger one--is the huge growth in
> manufacturing (and attendant prosperity) in China and to a lesser
> extent India. We can look forward to an era in which the things China
> produces (sneakers, radios) will get cheaper and cheaper, while the
> things China consumes (oil) will get more expensive.

I dissagree, I think the US standard of living will fall some and Chinas
will rise (as you said).
But there cost will rise, not fall.
My hope is that this will allow the US to start making radios and shoes
again.
They will cost us more, hence the lowewr standard of living, but I can deal
with that.
Everyone cannot be in services, and sustain an economy.

Les

>
> And it is easy to exaggerate the weakness in the dollar. Not too many
> years ago the euro was launched at $1.18. Now it is $1.20. Big deal.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
> Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Newps

May 22nd 04, 03:23 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> In our urban society, the threads are intricately woven, so even those
> of us who don't fly or don't drive will see the cost of living increase
> for a while. We'll survive, but it might not be all milk and honey for a
> few years whilst we get used not to the lack of oil, but the lack of
> cheap oil.

Y'all worry too much. We have plenty of cheap oil. 5 years ago the price
of gas, for a few months, was 86 cents a gallon. We'll be right back to
where we're supposed to be by winter. Except California, you're problems
are not economic.

Larry Dighera

May 22nd 04, 04:49 PM

On Wed, 19 May 2004 21:27:29 +0100, David CL Francis
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>I remember someone talking about nuclear powered aircraft many years
>ago. He said that it would solve one aviation problem; about the
>placement of the cg. Wherever the reactor was placed, with its
>shielding, that's where the cg would be. ;-)

Here's some information on the subject:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000918.html
ATOMIC PLANES IN THE WORKS?
The first line sure is juicy: "After more than six decades of
research, the first atom-powered airplane is cleared for takeoff."

And even if the substance doesn't quite back up the tantalizing intro
in the current Popular Mechanics -- which it doesn't -- this is still
an interesting concept.

The attraction of a nuclear plane is that it doesn't run out of fuel.
Convert a drone to atomic power, and it could stay aloft just about
forever, the thinking goes.

The nuclear drone wouldn't have a traditional fission reactor, running
on uranium or plutonium. Instead, it would be powered by hafnium-178.

"In the late 1990s, researchers at the University of Texas in Dallas
made a remarkable and unexpected discovery about [halfnium]," the
magazine says. "When they bombarded the metal with 'soft' X-rays like
those your dentist uses to examine your teeth, the metal released a
burst of gamma rays 60 times more powerful than the X-rays."

This reaction could be safer than conventional ones, the magazine
argues.

"The gamma ray output drops precipitously the moment power to the
X-ray machine is turned off... Since it produces only gamma radiation,
less shielding is required. And should an accident occur, there is
less of an environmental concern than with fission. Hafnium-178 has a
half-life of only 31 years compared to thousands of years for other
reactor fuels. In addition, unlike uranium or plutonium, hafnium-178
cannot support a chain reaction, which means it cannot be used to make
rogue nuclear weapons."

But, despite the potentially attractive features, an atomic drone is
nowhere near takeoff.

"Project managers for Northrop Grumman and the U.S. Air Force Research
Laboratory tell Popular Mechanics they have begun discussions that
could lead to the conversion of a Global Hawk [drone] to a
nuclear-powered aircraft… They have not yet signed a contract to
convert a Global Hawk to nuclear power, they are aware of discussions
taking place within the Air Force." (emphasis mine)

THERE'S MORE: Some scientists are pouring cold water all over the
halfnium idea, reader MS points out. "May not make physical sense,"
was the opinion of 5 of 12 Pentagon researchers appointed to look into
halfnium bombs.

AND MORE: Defense Tech "deserves better than Popular Mechanics doing a
fair imitation of the National Inquirer," says Los Alamos consultant
and nuclear proliferation expert Russell Seitz.

With so-called "isomers" like halfnium-178, he writes, "energy has
both to be put in and gotten out. The mere fact that more and better
physicists using fiercer x-ray sources and more sensitive gamma
detectors can't get any signal out of the same isotopes -- even upon
many experimental iterations and variations -- satisfies me that
[this] is just another example of the economics of desire."

AND MORE: The Defense Department was looking at atomic planes back in
the 1940's, reader JM notes, with a project called "Nuclear Energy for
the Propulsion of Aircraft," or NEPA. And for a year or so, the
Pentagon considered irradiating human test subjects, to see how much
nuclear exposure pilots could take. After Manhattan Project scientist
Dr. Joseph Hamilton pointed out that such experiments would have "a
little of the Buchenwald touch," the idea was finally, and thankfully,
dropped.

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

Tom Sixkiller

May 22nd 04, 05:19 PM

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
> Wasn't there an article in the WSJ a week or two ago where some oil
company
> execs said the regs weren't the primary issue?
>
> I didn't look into it further. What's the problem? Failure of the
> marketplace to place sufficient refining capacity on line?

If there's not enough capacity to meet the market demand, that would
indicate the market palce is not acting without significant interference.

> The price of
> bringing more well capacity online is too high or unpalatable to the
public?
> What? Or is it working the way it's supposed to and there are just a
bunch
> of people annoyed at higher prices?

Check out how much it costs to get past the EPA and the rest fo the
government alphabet soup to build refining capacity, to drill, or other
facilities.

> Are you an expert in the field (no pun intended) or just going with a gut
> feeling? Just curious, because while I would gladly discuss with someone
> with significant industry knowledge I really don't have any time to debate
> environmental politics or with someone who bases their knowledge on one
> party's propaganda (either one). No offense but it's late.

No offense, but you can look up hard data, and stay away from the mainstream
media, who are not known as experts, either, not just party propaganda (in
my case the CATO Institute, which is non-partisan...they give Dem's and
Repug's both barrels)

> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > et...
> > > This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others,"
meaning
> > > government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves?
> >
> > Reserves (from the time) and known resources are much higher than what
> we're
> > extracting.
> >
>
>

Tom Sixkiller

May 22nd 04, 05:26 PM

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> So you don't have a source?
>

Hold on...

You keep using PRODUCTION while I'm talking about CONSUMPTION.

> Mike
> MU-2
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > Are you sure about this data? I don't have data back to 1978 but
input
> > into
> > > refineries has gone from 11.7 million barrels a day to 15.9 from 1982
> > > through last week. I find it hard to believe that petroleum
consumption
> > > dropped by 1/3 from 1978 to 1982
> > > http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/ftparea/wogirs/xls/psw10vwcr.xls'
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > MU-2
> >
> > CONSUMED!
> >
> > And remember the price skyrocketing from 1978...the lines around the
> corner?
> >
> > That's also when the Detroit battleships went a gleaming...
> >
> > >
> > > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > > > . net...
> > > > > What I do know is that the heavy use of oil has had adverse
> > > environmental
> > > > > effects and has created dangerous instability in the Middle East.
I
> > > > believe
> > > > > that it would be in this country's best interests to somehow
> decrease
> > > > > reliance on foreign oil, and preferrably, reduce oil usage
overall.
> I
> > > do
> > > > > not know the best way to accomplish those goals.
> > > > >
> > > > "Over time, thanks to technology, we've gotten much more efficient
in
> > the
> > > > way we use gasoline, oil, and energy of all kinds. In 1974 when the
> > first
> > > > "oil crisis" hit, it took over 17 quadrillion BTUs of energy to
> produce
> > $1
> > > > million of gross domestic product (measured in constant year-2000
> > > dollars).
> > > > Today it takes less then 10 quadrillion BTUs.
> > > >
> > > > One more statistic: in 1978 the US consumed over 18 million barrels
of
> > oil
> > > > every day, when annual GDP was $5 trillion. Today we use only 10%
more
> > oil
> > > > every day than we did then, but GDP has more than doubled to almost
> $11
> > > > trillion."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Peter Gottlieb

May 22nd 04, 06:53 PM

Eeeek. What a mess.

"We're from Washington, and we're here to help you..."

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others," meaning
> >government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves?
> >
> >
>
> I was there at the scene of the crime.
>
> There are really two 'shortages' in domestic production.
>
> One is the shortfall in refinery capacity. We haven't built a new refinery
in
> the US for 15 years, and that is entirely because of EPA regs and NIMBY
> protests disguised as environmental concern.
>
> But the shortfall in recovering domestic reserves is more complicated.
> Enviromentalism is part of it, but there are economic reasons as well.
>
> In the 70's and into the early 80's, we had a lot of domestic capability,
and
> the JR Ewings of the country saved our butts during the embargo.
Unfortunately
> for them, they made a lot of money doing it, so we destroyed them.
>
> First was the "Windfall Profits Tax". Oil exploration has always been boom
and
> bust. Wildcatters made alot of money during the booms and invested in new
> equipment and grew their companies during those times. During the lean
years,
> the capital reserves sustained them to the next boom. So, Nixon and Ford,
> seeing the boom during the embargo years, called those profits obscene and
> confiscated them with the "Windfall Profits Tax." Carter continued the
price
> controls Nixon started, then dropped them on everything EXCEPT petroleum
and
> health care, bleeding the Ewings with skyrocketing costs and controled
prices
> for their products. Then he finished off the domestic oil industry with
the
> Fuel Use Act, which attempted to force gas producers to sell their gas to
> homeowners in the NorthEast at prices that did not justify the pipeline
> capacity needed to get it there, by not letting them sell the gas to
industry
> in the South were they could make a profit at the controlled prices.
>
> So, all our JR Ewings went bankrupt. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth
of
> equipment rusted away or was sold for scrap. The Arabs put the final nail
in
> the coffin by boosting production so the price feel for a while to 11 or
12
> dollars a barrel.
>
> Now, all the wildcatters who know how to get the oil have huge
bankruptcies in
> the resume and can't raise the money for new equipment. Further, the banks
know
> that the Arabs can drop the price any time they want to drive domestic
> producers broke if they become a threat to their monopoly. So the banks
arent'
> going to finance domestic production so long as th Arabs can manipulate
the
> market to destroy their competitors.
>
> The field is left to a few multinationals. And we're screwed.
>
> Government meddling in the free market did it, but it was alot more
complicated
> than the EPA alone.
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Cub Driver

May 22nd 04, 06:55 PM

On Sat, 22 May 2004 09:31:00 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>In our urban society, the threads are intricately woven,

Indeed they are, and globally as well. Oil at $40/bbl affects Europe
and China as much as it does the U.S.

America-bashers like to point out that the U.S. greedily consumes 25
percent of the world's energy. Of course, it follows that 75 percent
of the world's energy is consumed outside of the U.S., and that the
U.S. has a correspondingly small influence on the price and
availability of oil.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

May 22nd 04, 07:05 PM

On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:15:21 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>For the last few years, the norm was GBP1 = $1.50)

When the euro was launched, the pound was $1.60, so the change isn't
really that much. While the drop against the euro under 2 percent, the
drop against the pound is 12.5 percent.

The seemingly big drop in the value of a dollar against the euro is
mostly the result of looking at it against a very strong dollar in
2001. The GBP has strengthened generally, against the euro as well as
the dollar.

I think we will see parity of the dollar vs the euro sooner than we'll
see $30/bbl oil.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

May 22nd 04, 07:08 PM

On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:44:50 GMT, wrote:

>I dissagree, I think the US standard of living will fall some and Chinas
>will rise (as you said).

No, that's not what I said. The American standard of living will
probably continue to rise, thanks to the unequaled productivity of
American workers (now mostly in service sectors rather than in farming
or manufacturing). The growth rate over the past year is close to 5
percent, which is something you expect from developing economies, not
developed ones.

To the extent that trade influences standard of living, the downward
push by higher oil prices will probably be more than offset by the
upward push by the lower cost of imported goods from China and
imported services from India.

China's standard of living will rise also. That's the glory of trade:
everybody wins, if the protectionists get out of the way.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Teacherjh

May 22nd 04, 07:49 PM

>>
thanks to the unequaled productivity of
American workers
<<

How measured? GNP per capita is not necessarily a good measure. How about GNP
per salary dollar? That more closely reflects what business is looking at when
they choose to outsource.

Do you want a high efficiency engine, or a high output engine? Depends how you
want to fly.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Peter Gottlieb

May 22nd 04, 08:03 PM

I want an engine I can run either way.

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> thanks to the unequaled productivity of
> American workers
> <<
>
> How measured? GNP per capita is not necessarily a good measure. How
about GNP
> per salary dollar? That more closely reflects what business is looking at
when
> they choose to outsource.
>
> Do you want a high efficiency engine, or a high output engine? Depends
how you
> want to fly.
>
> Jose
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Mike Rapoport

May 23rd 04, 02:01 AM

I agree that refining capacity has been impacted by various enviornmental
regs. These haven't affected drilling (and hence production) much though.

Mike
MU-2
"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> et...
> > This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others," meaning
> > government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves?
>
> Reserves (from the time) and known resources are much higher than what
we're
> extracting.
>
> >
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Production peaked due to interference by EPA and others, not due to
> > > availability or resources. IOW he was right for the wrong reasons.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Mike Rapoport

May 23rd 04, 03:31 AM

When it is profitable enough then more refining capacity will be built. On
the production side, the market is telling you that it is not very
attractive to drill at recent prices.

Mike
MU-2

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
> Wasn't there an article in the WSJ a week or two ago where some oil
company
> execs said the regs weren't the primary issue?
>
> I didn't look into it further. What's the problem? Failure of the
> marketplace to place sufficient refining capacity on line? The price of
> bringing more well capacity online is too high or unpalatable to the
public?
> What? Or is it working the way it's supposed to and there are just a
bunch
> of people annoyed at higher prices?
>
> Are you an expert in the field (no pun intended) or just going with a gut
> feeling? Just curious, because while I would gladly discuss with someone
> with significant industry knowledge I really don't have any time to debate
> environmental politics or with someone who bases their knowledge on one
> party's propaganda (either one). No offense but it's late.
>
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > et...
> > > This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others,"
meaning
> > > government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves?
> >
> > Reserves (from the time) and known resources are much higher than what
> we're
> > extracting.
> >
>
>

Cub Driver

May 23rd 04, 10:17 AM

>How measured?

Productivity is measured by the factors that measure productivity.
Basically, you divide Gross National Product by hours worked, adjust
for inflation, etc etc.

Asking how you measure productivity is like asking how you measure
speed. You do it with the tools developed for that purpose.

Over the past hundred years, nothing like the American growth engine
has ever been seen. That doesn't necessarily mean that we can continue
to ride the unicycle for another hundred years, but I would rather
start down the road on the American unicycle than on any other.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Jay Honeck

May 23rd 04, 01:54 PM

> Check out how much it costs to get past the EPA and the rest fo the
> government alphabet soup to build refining capacity, to drill, or other
> facilities.

You can extend that statement to EVERYTHING nowadays.

You should see the cost of all the various EPA reports just for our airport
to extend a friggin' runway by a 1000 feet. It's incredible.

Best of all, we have paid this fee (really a "hidden" tax) over and over,
because OTHER government agencies have conspired to delay or change the
design of this runway a dozen times, over the last 10 of 15 years.

And each time the plan is changed, guess what? You need ANOTHER
"environmental impact statement"...

The company that contracts this service simply massages the old data,
reissues it in new book form, and cashes yet another check.

What a scam.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

May 23rd 04, 01:55 PM

> When it is profitable enough then more refining capacity will be built.
On
> the production side, the market is telling you that it is not very
> attractive to drill at recent prices.

I was under the impression that restrictive EPA regulations had essentially
halted new refinery construction?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Wdtabor

May 23rd 04, 01:59 PM

>
>You can extend that statement to EVERYTHING nowadays.
>
>You should see the cost of all the various EPA reports just for our airport
>to extend a friggin' runway by a 1000 feet. It's incredible.
>
>Best of all, we have paid this fee (really a "hidden" tax) over and over,
>because OTHER government agencies have conspired to delay or change the
>design of this runway a dozen times, over the last 10 of 15 years.
>
>And each time the plan is changed, guess what? You need ANOTHER
>"environmental impact statement"...
>
>The company that contracts this service simply massages the old data,
>reissues it in new book form, and cashes yet another check.
>
>What a scam.

WWW.lp.org

Are you ready yet? Or do you have to be punished some more?

I will be in Atlanta Memorial Day weekend for the Libertarian Party convention.
Those who can attend, should and those who cannot, it will be on C-Span.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Bob Fry

May 23rd 04, 02:23 PM

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > Check out how much it costs to get past the EPA and the rest fo the
> > government alphabet soup to build refining capacity, to drill, or other
> > facilities.
>
> You can extend that statement to EVERYTHING nowadays.
>
> You should see the cost of all the various EPA reports just for our airport
> to extend a friggin' runway by a 1000 feet. It's incredible.

Jay, as I recall, you haven't traveled outside of the country. Too
bad, 'cause then you could see the cost of living without something
like the EPA or other agencies.

With all their problems, the government alphabet agencies have made
this a better place to live. Have they done so in a perfectly
efficient manner? No. But I sure don't see a mass exodus from the
USA to Mexico, other 3rd world countries, or even to Europe. Maybe
we've got a somewhat balanced approach here.

Bob Fry

May 23rd 04, 02:30 PM

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > When it is profitable enough then more refining capacity will be built.
> On
> > the production side, the market is telling you that it is not very
> > attractive to drill at recent prices.
>
> I was under the impression that restrictive EPA regulations had essentially
> halted new refinery construction?

Caveat: I know as much about the refinery business as Jay ;-)

EPA regulations don't "halt new refinery construction." Their
safeguards no doubt make it more expensive. My guess is the same as
an earlier poster: until the price of gasoline rises enough to pay for
the extra costs, new refineries won't be built. It's pretty simple.
Awww, now we can't fly our toys for cheap.

Don't like it? Write your representatives and vote. Or move to any
3rd world country where the same multi-national corporations regularly
destroy the surrounding environment and have periodic disasters with
their equipment, killing people and causing further damage. It's not
that they're particularly evil or even greedy, they're just doing
business according to the local rules. Ours are tougher.

David Megginson

May 23rd 04, 02:58 PM

Bob Fry wrote:

> Awww, now we can't fly our toys for cheap.

So now gas is 27% of the cost of ownership instead of 25%?

All the best,

David

Peter Gottlieb

May 23rd 04, 04:38 PM

Perhaps your Libertarian party has some good ideas but at this time it is
not a serious contender and I don't see it as being one in the forseeable
future (there are many reasons for this and this isn't the appropriate place
to go into that discussion). The only thing you can hope for is that some
good ideas and concepts are adopted by one of the two big parties.

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
>
> WWW.lp.org
>
> Are you ready yet? Or do you have to be punished some more?
>
> I will be in Atlanta Memorial Day weekend for the Libertarian Party
convention.
> Those who can attend, should and those who cannot, it will be on C-Span.
>
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Tom Sixkiller

May 23rd 04, 05:10 PM

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> I agree that refining capacity has been impacted by various enviornmental
> regs. These haven't affected drilling (and hence production) much
though.
>

Environmental regs haven't affected drilling? Are you kidding?

Tom Sixkiller

May 23rd 04, 05:15 PM

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> When it is profitable enough then more refining capacity will be built.

Don't think so. Couldn't do it if they if they wanted to. If the regs were
"relaxed", it would still be prohibitive after the cost of dealing with the
regs were amortized.

> On
> the production side, the market is telling you that it is not very
> attractive to drill at recent prices.

As one person pointed out to me: the oil companies that took a beating the
past ten years or so were the ones that merely did refining, not drilling.
(He mentioned Texaco and a few others I don't recall / recognize).

Tom Sixkiller

May 23rd 04, 05:16 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Ra1sc.10707$af3.571010@attbi_s51...
> > When it is profitable enough then more refining capacity will be built.
> On
> > the production side, the market is telling you that it is not very
> > attractive to drill at recent prices.
>
> I was under the impression that restrictive EPA regulations had
essentially
> halted new refinery construction?

And any NEW drilling.

Tom Sixkiller

May 23rd 04, 05:17 PM

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > writes:
>
> > > When it is profitable enough then more refining capacity will be
built.
> > On
> > > the production side, the market is telling you that it is not very
> > > attractive to drill at recent prices.
> >
> > I was under the impression that restrictive EPA regulations had
essentially
> > halted new refinery construction?
>
> Caveat: I know as much about the refinery business as Jay ;-)
>
> EPA regulations don't "halt new refinery construction." Their
> safeguards no doubt make it more expensive.

The cost of the initial PAPERWORK runs into $$$BBBBILLIONS, much less the
actual construction.

Tom Sixkiller

May 23rd 04, 05:24 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Z91sc.99636$xw3.5914852@attbi_s04...
> > Check out how much it costs to get past the EPA and the rest fo the
> > government alphabet soup to build refining capacity, to drill, or other
> > facilities.
>
> You can extend that statement to EVERYTHING nowadays.
>
> You should see the cost of all the various EPA reports just for our
airport
> to extend a friggin' runway by a 1000 feet. It's incredible.

You should see the OSHA crap we run through. Our friggin' insurance company
got our accident rate down to a fourth what it was when OSHA was running it
all (and it was still rising).

>
> Best of all, we have paid this fee (really a "hidden" tax) over and over,
> because OTHER government agencies have conspired to delay or change the
> design of this runway a dozen times, over the last 10 of 15 years.

Don't get me started! :~)

Sometime I'll fly out there and let my boss tell you about the 14.5 acre
mini-mall he was trying to build that cost over $2MILLION just to get past
the EPA crap, and bribes...ahemmm, campaign contributions, before the first
shovel full of dirt was turned. That was in friggin' South Dakota.

>
> And each time the plan is changed, guess what? You need ANOTHER
> "environmental impact statement"...

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

>
> The company that contracts this service simply massages the old data,
> reissues it in new book form, and cashes yet another check.
>
> What a scam.

Bet they got some nice retired gub'mint types working for them.

Tom Sixkiller

May 23rd 04, 05:27 PM

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > writes:
>
> > > Check out how much it costs to get past the EPA and the rest fo the
> > > government alphabet soup to build refining capacity, to drill, or
other
> > > facilities.
> >
> > You can extend that statement to EVERYTHING nowadays.
> >
> > You should see the cost of all the various EPA reports just for our
airport
> > to extend a friggin' runway by a 1000 feet. It's incredible.
>
> Jay, as I recall, you haven't traveled outside of the country. Too
> bad, 'cause then you could see the cost of living without something
> like the EPA or other agencies.

False alternative.

>
> With all their problems, the government alphabet agencies have made
> this a better place to live. Have they done so in a perfectly
> efficient manner? No.

And the Holocaust and the Stalin Purges were just frat pranks that got out
of hand.

>But I sure don't see a mass exodus from the
> USA to Mexico, other 3rd world countries, or even to Europe.

You should read more.

> Maybe
> we've got a somewhat balanced approach here.

It's not balanced at all. What's more, total stupidity in other countries
doesn't excuse blatant stupidity (or corruption) here.

Peter Gottlieb

May 23rd 04, 05:29 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > When it is profitable enough then more refining capacity will be built.
>
> Don't think so. Couldn't do it if they if they wanted to. If the regs were
> "relaxed", it would still be prohibitive after the cost of dealing with
the
> regs were amortized.
>

If refining is so incredibly expensive here then why isn't the refining
being done where it is cheaper and the final product shipped here for
consumption?

The logical conclusion is that refining here, with all the regulations, is
still economically favorable as compared to refining elsewhere.

Tom Sixkiller

May 23rd 04, 06:04 PM

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > > When it is profitable enough then more refining capacity will be
built.
> >
> > Don't think so. Couldn't do it if they if they wanted to. If the regs
were
> > "relaxed", it would still be prohibitive after the cost of dealing with
> the
> > regs were amortized.
> >
>
> If refining is so incredibly expensive here then why isn't the refining
> being done where it is cheaper and the final product shipped here for
> consumption?

Probably because it's easdier/safer to transport crude than gasoline.

>
> The logical conclusion is that refining here, with all the regulations, is
> still economically favorable as compared to refining elsewhere.

And that's not even the point. (Try staying on the topic...or understanding
it to begin with).

Wdtabor

May 23rd 04, 06:16 PM

>
>Perhaps your Libertarian party has some good ideas but at this time it is
>not a serious contender and I don't see it as being one in the forseeable
>future (there are many reasons for this and this isn't the appropriate place
>to go into that discussion). The only thing you can hope for is that some
>good ideas and concepts are adopted by one of the two big parties.

I agree that we are not serious contenders for the forseeable future in terms
of winning national elections. (However our local Libertarian candidate for
mayor of VA Beach came within 4 percent of unseating an 18 year incumbent
Democrat) and I look at the LP as more of a vehicle for introducing the
American ublic to some quaint ideas like freedom, self governance and personal
responsibility.

But if we get the FairTax through Congress, working with the GOP and a handful
of Democrats, we will be serious contenders from that time on.

Still, though I have to work with the GOP to get things done, I feel a lot
'cleaner' for being a Libertarian.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Wdtabor

May 23rd 04, 06:21 PM

>
>You should see the OSHA crap we run through. Our friggin' insurance company
>got our accident rate down to a fourth what it was when OSHA was running it
>all (and it was still rising).
>

There is nothing OSHA does that your business insurance underwriter cannot do
better and cheaper.

Likewise, there is nothing that the EPA does that could not be done better
through strict liability for damages to the property of others enforced through
the courts.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Peter Gottlieb

May 23rd 04, 07:40 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> > If refining is so incredibly expensive here then why isn't the refining
> > being done where it is cheaper and the final product shipped here for
> > consumption?
>
> Probably because it's easdier/safer to transport crude than gasoline.

LNG is routinely transported. And I don't see and refineries around here,
all gasoline is shipped in.

>
> > The logical conclusion is that refining here, with all the regulations,
is
> > still economically favorable as compared to refining elsewhere.
>
> And that's not even the point. (Try staying on the topic...or
understanding
> it to begin with).
>

So what is the "point?" That you want to gripe that life is tough and you
should be free to do exactly as you please no matter how it affects others,
no matter what the economics are? The subject is titled "The price of gas"
so if not economics then what are we talking about?

This all boils down to economics. THAT is what the most important
consideration is. Short term pain (in the form of supply/demand imbalances)
result in longer term changes which tend to correct the short term problems,
but only when the economics favor the changes. At some price point it will
be favorable to either deal with this government's licensing and build
capacity here or to adjust the distribution and ship from refineries in
other countries. Or does simple economics break down when dealing with oil?

Wdtabor

May 23rd 04, 08:30 PM

>At some price point it will
>be favorable to either deal with this government's licensing and build
>capacity here or to adjust the distribution and ship from refineries in
>other countries. Or does simple economics break down when dealing with oil?

But that price point wil be lower if the government simply gets out of the way
and lets the market do it's thing, leaving us more money to spend on avionics
or hookers or dentistry or whatever other item we would PREFER to spend our
money to obtain.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

G.R. Patterson III

May 23rd 04, 08:52 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> You can extend that statement to EVERYTHING nowadays.
>
> You should see the cost of all the various EPA reports just for our airport
> to extend a friggin' runway by a 1000 feet. It's incredible.

But you don't have competitors that don't have to deal with the EPA. American oil
companies do.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

G.R. Patterson III

May 23rd 04, 08:57 PM

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:Ra1sc.10707$af3.571010@attbi_s51...
> > > When it is profitable enough then more refining capacity will be built.
> > On
> > > the production side, the market is telling you that it is not very
> > > attractive to drill at recent prices.
> >
> > I was under the impression that restrictive EPA regulations had
> essentially
> > halted new refinery construction?
>
> And any NEW drilling.

And any existing well that ceases to produce has to be permanently capped. When OPEC
drops the price down, an expensive well must either run at a loss or close
permanently.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

G.R. Patterson III

May 23rd 04, 09:04 PM

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> >How measured?
>
> Productivity is measured by the factors that measure productivity.
> Basically, you divide Gross National Product by hours worked, adjust
> for inflation, etc etc.

That used to be the method back when the U.S. was primarily blue collar and work
hours were a good measurement. In the "professional" area, productivity is measured
by dividing GNP by people employed. In the telecom field, "productivity" went up a
great deal just by firing a bunch of people and changing over to a 70 to 90 hour work
week for the rest. Actual productivity per employee-hour went down.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

Bob Fry

May 23rd 04, 10:03 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > writes:

> > Jay, as I recall, you haven't traveled outside of the country. Too
> > bad, 'cause then you could see the cost of living without something
> > like the EPA or other agencies.
>
> False alternative.

How so?

> > With all their problems, the government alphabet agencies have made
> > this a better place to live. Have they done so in a perfectly
> > efficient manner? No.
>
> And the Holocaust and the Stalin Purges were just frat pranks that got out
> of hand.

??Hello, are we discussing the same subject? Regulation?

> You should read more.

Reading is good. I read a lot. But there's no substitute for direct,
first-hand knowledge.

> > Maybe
> > we've got a somewhat balanced approach here.
>
> It's not balanced at all. What's more, total stupidity in other countries
> doesn't excuse blatant stupidity (or corruption) here.

It's somewhat balanced. You seem to have extreme views so I can see
how anything more than anarchy would disappoint you.

Bob Fry

May 23rd 04, 10:12 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > writes:

> The cost of the initial PAPERWORK runs into $$$BBBBILLIONS, much less the
> actual construction.

Wow! Imagine all the paper! Why, I'll bet it reaches from here to my
front door!

Imagine, Tom, if you could post something other than myths from talk
radio...

Bob Fry

May 23rd 04, 10:16 PM

(Wdtabor) writes:

> But that price point wil be lower if the government simply gets out of the way
> and lets the market do it's thing, leaving us more money to spend on avionics
> or hookers or dentistry or whatever other item we would PREFER to spend our
> money to obtain.

Yes. We need more Enrons to let us have more money.

BTW, very free markets were tried around 100+ years ago; and from that
unpleasant experience came Teddy Roosevelt, anti-trust laws,
meat-packing plant inspections, and on and on.

Peter Gottlieb

May 23rd 04, 10:24 PM

That goes without saying. But right now we have either the "tax and spend"
Democrats or the "spend and borrow" Republicans and guess who gets to pay
either way?

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> >At some price point it will
> >be favorable to either deal with this government's licensing and build
> >capacity here or to adjust the distribution and ship from refineries in
> >other countries. Or does simple economics break down when dealing with
oil?
>
> But that price point wil be lower if the government simply gets out of the
way
> and lets the market do it's thing, leaving us more money to spend on
avionics
> or hookers or dentistry or whatever other item we would PREFER to spend
our
> money to obtain.
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Tom Sixkiller

May 24th 04, 04:18 AM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:Ra1sc.10707$af3.571010@attbi_s51...
> > > > When it is profitable enough then more refining capacity will be
built.
> > > On
> > > > the production side, the market is telling you that it is not very
> > > > attractive to drill at recent prices.
> > >
> > > I was under the impression that restrictive EPA regulations had
> > essentially
> > > halted new refinery construction?
> >
> > And any NEW drilling.
>
> And any existing well that ceases to produce has to be permanently capped.
When OPEC
> drops the price down, an expensive well must either run at a loss or close
> permanently.

Quite. And how many of those wells were capped using old technology that
only extracted a fraction of what's down there?

Tom Sixkiller

May 24th 04, 04:21 AM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> > Productivity is measured by the factors that measure productivity.
> > Basically, you divide Gross National Product by hours worked, adjust
> > for inflation, etc etc.
>
> That used to be the method back when the U.S. was primarily blue collar
and work
> hours were a good measurement. In the "professional" area, productivity is
measured
> by dividing GNP by people employed. In the telecom field, "productivity"
went up a
> great deal just by firing a bunch of people and changing over to a 70 to
90 hour work
> week for the rest.

That's become the measure that most of the economy is using.

> Actual productivity per employee-hour went down.

Most businesses still have not figured out that cheaper workers (foreign,
recent immigrants, etc.) are cheaper for a reason.

How about we find some cheaper executives? :~)

Tom Sixkiller

May 24th 04, 04:24 AM

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > writes:
>
> > > Jay, as I recall, you haven't traveled outside of the country. Too
> > > bad, 'cause then you could see the cost of living without something
> > > like the EPA or other agencies.
> >
> > False alternative.
>
> How so?

Your logic states (more or less directly...it's called "drawing a logical
conclusion") you either have our EPA of the environment is a shambles.

Technically, "False Dilemma" - From the logical Fallacies Index --
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm

Peter Gottlieb

May 24th 04, 04:37 AM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Most businesses still have not figured out that cheaper workers (foreign,
> recent immigrants, etc.) are cheaper for a reason.
>
> How about we find some cheaper executives? :~)
>

That reminds me of a Wasserman cartoon where some economists discover some
REALLY bad news - that economists could be outsourced.

Heck, they send the factories and labor needs overseas, why not just go all
the way and send the entire company there? There becomes a point where it
is questionable how much a "US company" is really a US company at all.

Tom Sixkiller

May 24th 04, 05:53 AM

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...

The source you asked for:

http://smartmoney.com/aheadofthecurve/index.cfm?story=20040521

BTW, he's doing a correction that the "Quadrillion" BTU's should have been
"Billion".

leslie

May 24th 04, 06:28 AM

Cub Driver ) wrote:
:
: >How measured?
:
: Productivity is measured by the factors that measure productivity.
: Basically, you divide Gross National Product by hours worked, adjust
: for inflation, etc etc.
:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0412-13.htm
Exposing the Conservative Straw Man - "Productivity"

"Exposing the Conservative Straw Man - "Productivity"
by Thom Hartmann

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a September 28, 1821 letter, "The government
of the United States, at a very early period, when establishing its
tariff on foreign importations, were very much guided in their
selection of objects by a desire to encourage manufactures within
ourselves."

Conservatives don't want you to know this, and - even more
frenetically - are working to prevent any discussion of
"protectionist" tariffs on labor. Their main argument - a straw man -
is that "productivity" is responsible for the loss of American jobs,
not a fundamental realignment in the rules of the game of business
starting in the Reagan era and climaxing with NAFTA and GATT/WTO.

Business publications love to quote 19th century economist David
Ricardo as saying, in "On Wages," his 1817 work, "Labour, like all
other things which are purchased and sold, and which may be increased
or diminished in quantity, has its natural and its market price."

Thus, they say, it's natural that American wages should have been in a
free fall ever since Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and GATT: America's
roughly 100-million workers now have to compete "on a level playing
field" with five billion impoverished people around the world.
Offshoring is simply the normal extension, they say, of Ricardo's
classic view of economics.

What they forget is that Ricardo also wrote, in the following
sentence, "The natural price of labour is that price which is
necessary to enable the labourers, one with another, to subsist and to
perpetuate their race, without either increase or diminution."

[snip]

"But offshoring isn't the problem for American workers!" conservatives
shout. "It's the increase in productivity. American businesses need
fewer workers because automation and hard work have made our workers
more productive."

This is a tragic lie, and it's been bought hook, line, and sinker by
most American politicians and even many economists.

Productivity is, very simply, the measurement of how many products or
services can be produced for how many dollars of labor expended. But
offshoring distorts productivity figures in two ways.

First, foreign labor is cheaper, but produces nearly identical amounts
of product or service. The result is "increased productivity."

Second, many corporations don't put offshore labor onto their balance
sheets as a labor expense. Because they hire offshore companies as
subcontractors to do work previously done by their own employees, they
get to reduce the number and cost of their employees while having an
only slightly increased line-item on their P&L for the subcontractor.
The result is that it looks like their remaining employees are getting
more done, because the offshore employees are no longer counted in the
productivity figures.

But the Indians and Chinese know something you won't hear on
conservative "business" programs. While China and India eagerly let
multinational corporations move work from America to their nations,
they fiercely protect their own domestic industries primarily through
the use of tariffs - taxes on imported goods - and the strict
regulation of imported labor..."

Ricardo's "natural price of labour" is also known as the iron law of
wages:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0110-05.htm
The Price of Globalization

"The Price of Globalization
by William Pfaff

[snip]

The iron law of wages is also simple and logical. It says that wages
will tend to stabilize at or about subsistence level. That seemed
inevitable to Ricardo, since while workers are necessary, and so have
to be kept alive, they have no hope of any better treatment since they
are infinitely available, replaceable, and generally interchangeable..."

Communist China offers an example of the iron law of wages:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/siliconvalley/4597519.htm
Mercury News | 11/24/2002 | Cheap products' human cost

"ZHONGSHAN, China - Pan Qing Mei hoists a soldering gun and briskly
fastens chips and wires to motherboards streaming past on a conveyor
belt. Fumes from the lead solder rise past her face toward a
ventilating fan high above the floor of the spotless factory..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8254-2002May12.html
Worked Till They Drop (washingtonpost.com)

"SONGGANG, China -- On the night she died, Li Chunmei must have been
exhausted.

Co-workers said she had been on her feet for nearly 16 hours, running
back and forth inside the Bainan Toy Factory, carrying toy parts from
machine to machine. When the quitting bell finally rang shortly after
midnight, her young face was covered with sweat..."

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1C232991
Photo essay: China's hi-tech toxics (child labor)

"Photo journalist Jeroen Bouman gets a rare glimpse inside the illegal
Chinese workshops where young teenagers work long hours amid noxious
fumes, recycling computers from the US and Europe. The industry has
turned four villages in Guiyu, Guangdong province, into toxic waste
tips. Drinking water is now brought by lorries from 30 kilometres
away..."

The U.S. may be seeing the start of the iron law of wages:

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_01212004
Jobs shift from higher-paying to lower-paying industries

"In 48 of the 50 states, jobs in higher-paying industries have given
way to jobs in lower-paying industries since the recession ended in
November 2001 (see map)..."

A friend just returned from a trip to Communist China and reported that
the pollution was bad, like the "Smoke Pollution in Benzi, China" picture
at this site:

http://www.wri.org/wri/wr-98-99/airpoll.htm
Health Effects of Air Pollution

--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

Cub Driver

May 24th 04, 11:02 AM

> new refineries won't be built.

We can and do import gasoline already refined. That way we export the
mess elsewhere.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Ash Wyllie

May 24th 04, 02:11 PM

Peter Gottlieb opined

>"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>> > When it is profitable enough then more refining capacity will be built.
>>
>> Don't think so. Couldn't do it if they if they wanted to. If the regs were
>> "relaxed", it would still be prohibitive after the cost of dealing with
>the
>> regs were amortized.
>>

>If refining is so incredibly expensive here then why isn't the refining
>being done where it is cheaper and the final product shipped here for
>consumption?

WE are importing refined products from Europe and Venezuala. 10 or 20%, IIRC.
But it is an inflexible pipeline, and some overseas refineries are not willing
to upgrade in order to produce the latest EPA mandated concoctions.

>The logical conclusion is that refining here, with all the regulations, is
>still economically favorable as compared to refining elsewhere.

-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

Bob Fry

May 24th 04, 02:14 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > writes:

> > > > Jay, as I recall, you haven't traveled outside of the country. Too
> > > > bad, 'cause then you could see the cost of living without something
> > > > like the EPA or other agencies.
> > >
> > > False alternative.
> >
> > How so?
>
> Your logic states (more or less directly...it's called "drawing a logical
> conclusion") you either have our EPA of the environment is a shambles.

I was stating some observations, not "drawing a logical conclusion."
Presumably you can cite your own observation of an industrial country
with little or no environmental regs that doesn't do environmental
damage?

Keep reading. You won't get any smarter, but you'll keep yourself busy.

Tom Sixkiller

May 24th 04, 05:15 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> > new refineries won't be built.
>
> We can and do import gasoline already refined. That way we export the
> mess elsewhere.

From where? Pipeline maybe (Canada or Mexico?), but surely not by sea going
tanker. (If they are, I'm moving further inland).

Tom Sixkiller

May 24th 04, 05:24 PM

"leslie" > wrote in message
...
> Cub Driver ) wrote:
> :
> : >How measured?
> :
> : Productivity is measured by the factors that measure productivity.
> : Basically, you divide Gross National Product by hours worked, adjust
> : for inflation, etc etc.
> :
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0412-13.htm
> Exposing the Conservative Straw Man - "Productivity"
>
> "Exposing the Conservative Straw Man - "Productivity"
> by Thom Hartmann
>
[snip]
>
> Conservatives don't want you to know this, and - even more
> frenetically - are working to prevent any discussion of
> "protectionist" tariffs on labor. Their main argument - a straw man -
> is that "productivity" is responsible for the loss of American jobs,

That's interesting, consider that's not the arguments I've heard.

> not a fundamental realignment in the rules of the game of business
> starting in the Reagan era and climaxing with NAFTA and GATT/WTO.

[rest of brushed off version of Marx's "Labor Theory of Value" snipped.

Tom Sixkiller

May 24th 04, 05:28 PM

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Gottlieb opined
>
> >"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> >> nk.net...
> >> > When it is profitable enough then more refining capacity will be
built.
> >>
> >> Don't think so. Couldn't do it if they if they wanted to. If the regs
were
> >> "relaxed", it would still be prohibitive after the cost of dealing with
> >the
> >> regs were amortized.
> >>
>
> >If refining is so incredibly expensive here then why isn't the refining
> >being done where it is cheaper and the final product shipped here for
> >consumption?
>
> WE are importing refined products from Europe and Venezuala. 10 or 20%,
IIRC.
> But it is an inflexible pipeline, and some overseas refineries are not
willing
> to upgrade in order to produce the latest EPA mandated concoctions.
>
> >The logical conclusion is that refining here, with all the regulations,
is
> >still economically favorable as compared to refining elsewhere.

The conclusion might be at the end of your previous paragraph.

I've heard that US refineries are operating at damn near 100% of ALLOWED
capacity. Can anyone verify that?

Mike Rapoport

May 24th 04, 07:03 PM

Luskin is just talking his book. A lot of what's in the article is
distorted half truths like the reserve information.

Mike
MU-2

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
> The source you asked for:
>
> http://smartmoney.com/aheadofthecurve/index.cfm?story=20040521
>
> BTW, he's doing a correction that the "Quadrillion" BTU's should have been
> "Billion".
>
>
>

Mike Rapoport

May 24th 04, 07:05 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > I agree that refining capacity has been impacted by various
enviornmental
> > regs. These haven't affected drilling (and hence production) much
> though.
> >
>
> Environmental regs haven't affected drilling? Are you kidding?
>
>

Let's see...where have I been. I was an energy analyst for about a decade
and since then I have made a reasonable living investing in energy
companies. Where have you been? Listening to AM radio?

Mike
MU-2

Mike Rapoport

May 24th 04, 07:43 PM

Input into refineries is consumption. Nobody except refineries buys crude.

Mike
MU-2

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > So you don't have a source?
> >
>
> Hold on...
>
> You keep using PRODUCTION while I'm talking about CONSUMPTION.
>
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > > Are you sure about this data? I don't have data back to 1978 but
> input
> > > into
> > > > refineries has gone from 11.7 million barrels a day to 15.9 from
1982
> > > > through last week. I find it hard to believe that petroleum
> consumption
> > > > dropped by 1/3 from 1978 to 1982
> > > > http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/ftparea/wogirs/xls/psw10vwcr.xls'
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > > MU-2
> > >
> > > CONSUMED!
> > >
> > > And remember the price skyrocketing from 1978...the lines around the
> > corner?
> > >
> > > That's also when the Detroit battleships went a gleaming...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > > > > . net...
> > > > > > What I do know is that the heavy use of oil has had adverse
> > > > environmental
> > > > > > effects and has created dangerous instability in the Middle
East.
> I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > that it would be in this country's best interests to somehow
> > decrease
> > > > > > reliance on foreign oil, and preferrably, reduce oil usage
> overall.
> > I
> > > > do
> > > > > > not know the best way to accomplish those goals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > "Over time, thanks to technology, we've gotten much more efficient
> in
> > > the
> > > > > way we use gasoline, oil, and energy of all kinds. In 1974 when
the
> > > first
> > > > > "oil crisis" hit, it took over 17 quadrillion BTUs of energy to
> > produce
> > > $1
> > > > > million of gross domestic product (measured in constant year-2000
> > > > dollars).
> > > > > Today it takes less then 10 quadrillion BTUs.
> > > > >
> > > > > One more statistic: in 1978 the US consumed over 18 million
barrels
> of
> > > oil
> > > > > every day, when annual GDP was $5 trillion. Today we use only 10%
> more
> > > oil
> > > > > every day than we did then, but GDP has more than doubled to
almost
> > $11
> > > > > trillion."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Mike Rapoport

May 24th 04, 07:51 PM

High real estate prices on the west coast have halted refinery construction
there as much as anything else. All factors are in play of
course...permitting requirements, local opposition, tax climate, the price
of steel, the non-desirablility of living next door to a refinery. When all
these variables are considered, there is a price level where a new refinery
will be built. When we get there, the refinery will be built.

Mike
MU-2

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Ra1sc.10707$af3.571010@attbi_s51...
> > When it is profitable enough then more refining capacity will be built.
> On
> > the production side, the market is telling you that it is not very
> > attractive to drill at recent prices.
>
> I was under the impression that restrictive EPA regulations had
essentially
> halted new refinery construction?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

Mike Rapoport

May 24th 04, 07:59 PM

"In a democracy, the people eventually get what they want." I don't know
who originally said that, but its true. The people have what they "PREFER".
The perfectly fair system is the one where everyone is equally unhappy.

Mike
MU-2

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> >At some price point it will
> >be favorable to either deal with this government's licensing and build
> >capacity here or to adjust the distribution and ship from refineries in
> >other countries. Or does simple economics break down when dealing with
oil?
>
> But that price point wil be lower if the government simply gets out of the
way
> and lets the market do it's thing, leaving us more money to spend on
avionics
> or hookers or dentistry or whatever other item we would PREFER to spend
our
> money to obtain.
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Ash Wyllie

May 25th 04, 02:38 AM

Tom Sixkiller opined

>"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
>> Peter Gottlieb opined
>>
>> >"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> >> nk.net...
>> >> > When it is profitable enough then more refining capacity will be
>built.
>> >>
>> >> Don't think so. Couldn't do it if they if they wanted to. If the regs
>were
>> >> "relaxed", it would still be prohibitive after the cost of dealing with
>> >the
>> >> regs were amortized.
>> >>
>>
>> >If refining is so incredibly expensive here then why isn't the refining
>> >being done where it is cheaper and the final product shipped here for
>> >consumption?
>>
>> WE are importing refined products from Europe and Venezuala. 10 or 20%,
>IIRC.
>> But it is an inflexible pipeline, and some overseas refineries are not
>willing
>> to upgrade in order to produce the latest EPA mandated concoctions.
>>
>> >The logical conclusion is that refining here, with all the regulations,
>is
>> >still economically favorable as compared to refining elsewhere.

>The conclusion might be at the end of your previous paragraph.

>I've heard that US refineries are operating at damn near 100% of ALLOWED
>capacity. Can anyone verify that?

It is 90%+ of installed capacity. Which leaves very little room for error.

In 1981, according to the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association,
321 refineries pumped out 18.6 million barrels a day of gasoline. Today
only 149 refineries, run by 60 companies in 33 different states, pump out
16.8 million barrels of gasoline daily - almost 2 million barrels a day
less. They are operating at 93 percent of capacity, well above the
industrial average, with little time left for maintenance and upgrades.

Tom Bray, Washington Times

-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

leslie

May 25th 04, 02:59 AM

Tom Sixkiller ) wrote:
:
: "leslie" > wrote in message
: ...
: > Cub Driver ) wrote:
: > :
: > : >How measured?
: > :
: > : Productivity is measured by the factors that measure productivity.
: > : Basically, you divide Gross National Product by hours worked, adjust
: > : for inflation, etc etc.
: > :
: >
: > http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0412-13.htm
: > Exposing the Conservative Straw Man - "Productivity"
: >
: > "Exposing the Conservative Straw Man - "Productivity"
: > by Thom Hartmann
: >
: [snip]
: >
: > Conservatives don't want you to know this, and - even more
: > frenetically - are working to prevent any discussion of
: > "protectionist" tariffs on labor. Their main argument - a straw man -
: > is that "productivity" is responsible for the loss of American jobs,
:
: That's interesting, consider that's not the arguments I've heard.
:
: > not a fundamental realignment in the rules of the game of business
: > starting in the Reagan era and climaxing with NAFTA and GATT/WTO.
:
: [rest of brushed off version of Marx's "Labor Theory of Value" snipped.
:

I didn't mention Marx at all. Communist China is no workers' paradise.

In 2004, the voters are going to elect a President who believes in
offshoring jobs and granting non-immigrant work visas, both supported
by corporate lobbyists.

Here's a good web site for those tracking offshoring:

http://www.goinstitute.org/news/index.shtml
GOInstitute.org - A peer-to-peer exchange for Outsourcing Professionals.

--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

Tom Sixkiller

May 25th 04, 07:58 AM

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > > I agree that refining capacity has been impacted by various
> enviornmental
> > > regs. These haven't affected drilling (and hence production) much
> > though.
> > >
> >
> > Environmental regs haven't affected drilling? Are you kidding?
> >
> >
>
> Let's see...where have I been. I was an energy analyst for about a decade
> and since then I have made a reasonable living investing in energy
> companies. Where have you been? Listening to AM radio?
>

I don't get a good AM signal here.

Do your energy companies have to abide by more and more, or less and less
environmental regulation? Is it easier or harder to drill now than it was
back 30 or so years ago?

Ask your energy companies how mush they do new drilling now than they did in
years past.

Are you always so goddamn pompous?

Tom Sixkiller

May 25th 04, 07:59 AM

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Input into refineries is consumption. Nobody except refineries buys
crude.

Output from refineries is business/consumer consumption and that's what the
numbers measure.

Tom Sixkiller

May 25th 04, 08:00 AM

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> High real estate prices on the west coast have halted refinery
construction
> there as much as anything else. All factors are in play of
> course...permitting requirements, local opposition, tax climate, the price
> of steel, the non-desirablility of living next door to a refinery. When
all
> these variables are considered, there is a price level where a new
refinery
> will be built. When we get there, the refinery will be built.
>

Nice...you just contradicted what you said in your post to me.

Tom Sixkiller

May 25th 04, 08:05 AM

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> "In a democracy, the people eventually get what they want." I don't know
> who originally said that, but its true. The people have what they
"PREFER".
> The perfectly fair system is the one where everyone is equally unhappy.

It might have been Lincoln Steffen, the ACP member who returned from Russia
in the 30's and marvelled how "equally shabby" everyone was as though it was
a GOOD thng.

Tom Sixkiller

May 25th 04, 02:00 PM

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
> >I've heard that US refineries are operating at damn near 100% of ALLOWED
> >capacity. Can anyone verify that?
>
>
> It is 90%+ of installed capacity. Which leaves very little room for error.
>
> In 1981, according to the National Petrochemical and Refiners
Association,
> 321 refineries pumped out 18.6 million barrels a day of gasoline. Today
> only 149 refineries, run by 60 companies in 33 different states, pump
out
> 16.8 million barrels of gasoline daily - almost 2 million barrels a day
> less. They are operating at 93 percent of capacity, well above the
> industrial average, with little time left for maintenance and upgrades.
>
> Tom Bray, Washington Times

Sounds "damn near" to me.

What about drillings? I recall (my memory started to go longggg before I hit
50) that the only new drillings are off shore, and that is so restricted by
EPA (and other alphabet soup) that it has to be an EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD
reading before they spend the money. Any idea of the ratio of cost of
drilling to cost of government paperwork and bureaucratic BS? :~)

Mike Rapoport

May 25th 04, 04:17 PM

As of Friday there were 1056 rigs drilling onshore in the US and 95 drilling
offshore.

Mike
MU-2

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
> "Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >I've heard that US refineries are operating at damn near 100% of
ALLOWED
> > >capacity. Can anyone verify that?
> >
> >
> > It is 90%+ of installed capacity. Which leaves very little room for
error.
> >
> > In 1981, according to the National Petrochemical and Refiners
> Association,
> > 321 refineries pumped out 18.6 million barrels a day of gasoline.
Today
> > only 149 refineries, run by 60 companies in 33 different states, pump
> out
> > 16.8 million barrels of gasoline daily - almost 2 million barrels a
day
> > less. They are operating at 93 percent of capacity, well above the
> > industrial average, with little time left for maintenance and
upgrades.
> >
> > Tom Bray, Washington Times
>
> Sounds "damn near" to me.
>
> What about drillings? I recall (my memory started to go longggg before I
hit
> 50) that the only new drillings are off shore, and that is so restricted
by
> EPA (and other alphabet soup) that it has to be an EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD
> reading before they spend the money. Any idea of the ratio of cost of
> drilling to cost of government paperwork and bureaucratic BS? :~)
>
>
>
>

Peter Gottlieb

May 25th 04, 04:41 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...

> Do your energy companies have to abide by more and more, or less and less
> environmental regulation? Is it easier or harder to drill now than it was
> back 30 or so years ago?

These don't seem like useful comparisons. Many environmental regulations
came about because of eggregious pollution cases so some of the regulation
is due to their own irresponsibility in the past. I do not believe the
present corporate quarterly-results-driven culture would do much better.
Also, the push to enact legislation limiting their liability makes it look
like they want the profits without the responsibility.

There is virtually no industry which is not more regulated than it was in
the past. This is a fact of life in virtually every country. You can spend
your life complaining about and fighting it or you can adapt and deal with
it. It is left as an exercise to the reader as to which one will work out
better for you.

Peter Gottlieb

May 25th 04, 04:46 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> What about drillings? I recall (my memory started to go longggg before I
hit
> 50) that the only new drillings are off shore, and that is so restricted
by
> EPA (and other alphabet soup) that it has to be an EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD
> reading before they spend the money. Any idea of the ratio of cost of
> drilling to cost of government paperwork and bureaucratic BS? :~)
>

Offshore rigs are extremely expensive to build and operate. This surely has
an effect on how many are constructed.

Sure they are regulated. The damage potential to the environment from them
is large and besides the environment itself, entire local economies can be
ruined for long periods of time when an accident occurs.

Perhaps it would be a good first step if the oil companies would step up to
the plate and offer to fully compensate other parties for all damage that
occurs due to their operations, including reduction in property values.

I am not against oil companies and progress but I do think that every
company must take responsibility for their actions and effects and the costs
of their operations on others. Only when all externalities are internalized
can the most efficient economic choices be made.

Mike Rapoport

May 25th 04, 04:51 PM

Refineries don't "output" crude.

Mike
MU-2

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > Input into refineries is consumption. Nobody except refineries buys
> crude.
>
> Output from refineries is business/consumer consumption and that's what
the
> numbers measure.
>
>
>

Mike Rapoport

May 25th 04, 04:51 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > nk.net...
> > > > I agree that refining capacity has been impacted by various
> > enviornmental
> > > > regs. These haven't affected drilling (and hence production) much
> > > though.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Environmental regs haven't affected drilling? Are you kidding?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Let's see...where have I been. I was an energy analyst for about a
decade
> > and since then I have made a reasonable living investing in energy
> > companies. Where have you been? Listening to AM radio?
> >
>
> I don't get a good AM signal here.
>
> Do your energy companies have to abide by more and more, or less and less
> environmental regulation? Is it easier or harder to drill now than it was
> back 30 or so years ago?

That isn't the point. The point is whether or not enviornmental
restrictions have had a meaningful effect on depressing drilling activity.
Obviously they have had some effect. The main depressent on drilling has
been the need to go deeper and deeper to find less and less.

> Ask your energy companies how mush they do new drilling now than they did
in
> years past.

See above. Budgets are up across the industry due to better pricing but
drilling will never reach the levels of 40 yrs ago simply due to the fact
that the resource has been largely exploited in the US.

> Are you always so goddamn pompous?
>

Only when I am dealing with a jackass who considers himself an expert of
everything.without knowing anything about the subjects he pontificates on.
Face the facts, you have absolutely no idea what the cost or effect of
eviornmental regulations is on O&G drilling. Industrywide they are a
rounding error.

Mike
MU-2

Jay Honeck

May 27th 04, 04:49 PM

> Or does simple economics break down when dealing with oil?

There is more than a bit of truth in that off-handed remark.

While the laws of economics still work, the normal structure of supply and
demand sure doesn't. There is nothing "simple" about economics when
dealing with oil.

There are simply too many countries, too many ideologies, too many axes to
grind, and too much money involved for this to be anything but difficult.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Captain Wubba

June 1st 04, 03:24 PM

I'm no expert in the field, but one of my best friends is. He's a
geophysicist (With MS degrees in geophysics and geology) who works for
a company that does seismic analysis of potential oil fields for many
of the major oil companies. He's reluctant to participate on usenet as
himself in a discussion (gee, I wonder why), but I asked him some
specific questions about this topic, and paraphrase below. Take it for
what it is worth.

1. Using current technology, how long will current oil reserves last?

This is a difficult question. The lower-end estimates are at about
75-100 years at current useage levels (and average increases)and
current technologies. The higher-end estimates are at over 500 years.
There is no clear consensus in the field about this, in part because
new technologies are developing quickly, and we are constantly
discovering new areas where exploration could be very profitable, and
because the data we are getting on field size and composition is
becoming better all the time. My personal 'guestimate' is much closer
to the 500 years than to the 75 years. Certainly we won't run out of
oil any time during our lifetimes, or our childrens.

2. Like where?

Off the coast of Brazil is very promising, as is the area off Sierra
Leone. The Gulf of Mexico also has great potential. The problems with
each areas are different tho. In the Gulf, the problems are primarily
political and environmental. Florida has consistently acted to
restrict oil field exploitation for fear of pollution. Brazil has some
problems as well politically, in that one of their demands (so far, to
at least one major proposal) has been that Brazilian companies and
workers make up at least 90% of suppliers to any development. But
Brazil doesn't have the kind of experience in the field that would be
needed for a large-scale project. Deep-water rig exploration is highly
specialized (and dangerous), and the people who have the experience
are the Americans and North-Sea types. There are plenty of other
areas. Russia has large numbers of unexplored fields, and both Canad
and Alaska in the US still have great potential. We aren't sure about
ANWR. Obviously there is some oil down there, but we don't know the
extent yet. Political debates aside, it might not even be worth it to
develop.

3. What about other places in the US?

There is plenty of oil under the US. The question is when does it
become economically feasible to get it. At $20 a barrel, there is
really no incentive to spent billions of dollars exploring the Gulf of
Mexico (or even dealing with political bureaucracies like Brazil). At
$50 a barrel it becomes very reasonable to spend that kind of money to
get to what we think are extensive (but relatively hard-to-get-at)
reserves. Same with Alaska and Canada, and even other places like
Pennsylvania where the size of fields might be relatively limited, and
the quality relatively low, but when the price per barrel reaches some
number, it then makes sense to start production from there.
Additionally, the US has large reserves of shale-oil. This can't be
distilled using conventional processes, but there are a number of
technologies that look very promising for managing both the production
and the pollution problems associated with this, and when they are
solved (quite possibly within the next decade) many billions of
barrels of shale-oil will very readily available.

4. What about the middle east?

There are still vast reserves in the middle east. [He told me these
were just ballpark numbers]The total known oil reserves in the world
are estimated to be about 1250 billion barrels. Known reserves just in
Saudi Arabia are along the lines of 400-500 billion barrels. Demand is
supposed to be about 90-100 million barrels per day by 2010. Right
now, it's about 75-80 million. Iraq has large reserves, as does Libya
and several other nations. Remember, these are *known* reserves. There
is quite a bit more out there that we can get (albeit expensively),
and a great deal more beyond that that we can't get to just yet. But
the technology flows with the cost of oil, to a great degree. Saudi
does *not* want oil at $40 a barrel. Because at $40 a barrel, oil
companies are a lot more likely to spend the billions necessary to
develop the shale-oil stuff, the alternative fuel stuff (soybeans
anyone?), and the direct exploitation technology (improved
slant-drilling, cheaper processing for lower-quality crude, deeper
water technology) that will make Saudi oil much less important. Saudi
has enough oil, and enough of an incentive to keep it relatively cheap
that it can slow the development of other technology.

5. How much of this is government overregulation?

LOL. *Which* government? Brazil? Sierra Leone? Russia? Saudi? The EPA?
The state of Florida? Yes, the governmental regulations are a big part
of it. ANWR might have huge amounts of exploitable oil underneath it.
but the government says we can't go get it. At least not yet. But in
my mind, the bigger problem is refinery capacity. Most of the
refineries are at or near capacity, and these things cost a ton of
money to build, and nobody wants them in their backyard. There are
several different types of refineries, but even the 'cheapest' kind
(Called a 'topping' refinery), which can usually only process the
cleanest, highest-quality oil, costs a ton of money, and produces some
obnoxious stuff. The most expensive refineries (Called 'complex' or
'cracking' refineries) can easily cost billions of dollars, are huge,
and can be very polluting. If we start using lower-quality crude, then
we'll need more of the big, complex refineries.

These are not his direct quotes, and I'm sure I mangled some of what
he said, but I thought his opinions might be useful in this
discussion.

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message >...
> Wasn't there an article in the WSJ a week or two ago where some oil company
> execs said the regs weren't the primary issue?
>
> I didn't look into it further. What's the problem? Failure of the
> marketplace to place sufficient refining capacity on line? The price of
> bringing more well capacity online is too high or unpalatable to the public?
> What? Or is it working the way it's supposed to and there are just a bunch
> of people annoyed at higher prices?
>
> Are you an expert in the field (no pun intended) or just going with a gut
> feeling? Just curious, because while I would gladly discuss with someone
> with significant industry knowledge I really don't have any time to debate
> environmental politics or with someone who bases their knowledge on one
> party's propaganda (either one). No offense but it's late.
>
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > et...
> > > This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others," meaning
> > > government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves?
> >
> > Reserves (from the time) and known resources are much higher than what
> we're
> > extracting.
> >

Jay Honeck

June 1st 04, 10:18 PM

> I'm no expert in the field, but one of my best friends is.

Thank you for taking the time to write a most enlightening post.

One thing though: You're going to ruin Usenet's reputation for hyperbole if
you keep this up!

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

Roger Halstead

June 3rd 04, 11:45 PM

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:18:20 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> I'm no expert in the field, but one of my best friends is.
>
>Thank you for taking the time to write a most enlightening post.
>
>One thing though: You're going to ruin Usenet's reputation for hyperbole if
>you keep this up!

I still maintain until the average American learns to conserve, gas is
going to be a problem.

No I do not believe that the average American has done much if
anything to reduce their use of gas. It is the attitude they think
they have that creates the problem.

We are going to get few, if any more refineries. Maybe for shale oil
reclamation and technology added to bring out fields that are no
longer good producers, or never were like the ones in central
Michigan.

The problem with those big numbers on reserves is the stuff is not
readily obtainable/available, or still leaves the US at the mercy of
foreign oil. Maybe not the same foreign oil, but foreign never the
less.

There is a real problem with what is defined as current identified
reserves, developed reserves, and accessible reserves.

Regardless we need to get away from our present dependency on gas and
particularly on some one else's. Nor do we want to use our own
reserves as that would leave us even more dependent later on.

Over 20 years ago my wife and I decided we didn't like spending so
much for day-by-day travel. What did we do? As we both worked we
moved from a very nice and relatively new home into a smaller one that
was located in between our work places and the kids had to settle for
changing schools. That alone cut our driving by half.
Was it convenient? No, but it made economic sense.

No, not every one could do that, but a lot could and more could over
time.
Most of us do not need to make 5 trips into town every day. If the
kids have to go to soccer practice, hockey practice, music
lessons...etc, work out schedules with others on any thing that can be
worked out.It may not be nearly as convenient, but it may become a
necessity. Work out different times with the music teacher so trips
can be combined. At least make an effort.

Just remember, what ever the reason the price of gas is high, if we
only use half as much *they* (whether they is OPEC, or the refinery)
won't have the leverage to charge as much.

I quit work and went back to school at age 47. Got a degree and after
graduation got a job that was less than half the distance I had been
driving. No, I never did make the cost back, but it was worth it.

One other energy savings we all need to take a realistic look at is
recycling. Recycling some products makes sense both from economic
and energy standpoints. Recycling some other products is inefficient
from an energy, resource, and economic approach and serves nothing
more than "make work" that has the appearance of being economically
correct.

We tend to blame every one but ourselves. We "claim" we've done all
we can, but that is an out and out excuse.

Even if the refineries had lots of slack and were artificially setting
the price high it is the demand *we* create that allows them to do so.
If they had surplus capacity the price would come down by supply and
demand, but that won't happen as long as we keep coming up with
excuses as to why we have to use as much as we do.

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