Repercussions for people outside New Orleans

[George Patterson]

Back when Andrew came through, the damage created tremendous and lasting
shortages of building materials. Plywood became unobtainable in the northeast
for a short period of time and scarce for nearly a year after that. Prices went
up and stayed there. A few years later, manufacturers reduced the thicknesses
and quality of the material. Kiln-dried lumber disappeared and is still hard to
find in this area. We are just now seeing the return of some decent quality
plywood -- it's being billed as "classic" material.

I believe we can expect the same sort of thing when the restoration effort gets
under way after Katrina. I think that, if any of you guys have projects in mind
that require plywood (perhaps work on your hangar?), it might be a good idea to
buy it now.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Dan Luke]

"George Patterson" wrote:

> if any of you guys have projects in mind that require plywood
> (perhaps work on your hangar?), it might be a good idea to buy it now.

Just try buying any roofing materials in the next 12 months.

[Jay Honeck]

> I believe we can expect the same sort of thing when the restoration effort
> gets under way after Katrina. I think that, if any of you guys have
> projects in mind that require plywood (perhaps work on your hangar?), it
> might be a good idea to buy it now.

Better buy gas, too. The gougers and racketeers have already jumped to $3
per gallon in Des Moines, as of this morning.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Beckman]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:GqqRe.79170$084.12017@attbi_s22...
>> I believe we can expect the same sort of thing when the restoration
>> effort gets under way after Katrina. I think that, if any of you guys
>> have projects in mind that require plywood (perhaps work on your
>> hangar?), it might be a good idea to buy it now.
>
> Better buy gas, too. The gougers and racketeers have already jumped to $3
> per gallon in Des Moines, as of this morning.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Fox showed a station in Atlanta where the low test was $5.65/gal ... The
guest they had on did, however, mention that this is probably an intentional
move to deter a rush on the pumps and keep the supply as available as
possible...

I'm afraid this is just gonna get uglier and uglier...and to boot, my wife
and I are heading off shortly for a week-long vacation in Durango, CO and
Santa Fe, NM...driving it, no less...timing, sheesh.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Arizona Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "JH" == Jay Honeck > writes:

JH> Better buy gas, too. The gougers and racketeers have already
JH> jumped to $3 per gallon in Des Moines, as of this morning.

<Snicker> Uh, Jay, that would be free market entrepeneurs. Or have
you suddenly gone righteous/socialist on us?

[Jay Honeck]

> JH> Better buy gas, too. The gougers and racketeers have already
> JH> jumped to $3 per gallon in Des Moines, as of this morning.
>
> <Snicker> Uh, Jay, that would be free market entrepeneurs. Or have
> you suddenly gone righteous/socialist on us?

Thousands of gas stations jacking gas prices nationwide, in lock-step with
each other, because of a trumped up "disaster" (and in the face of the
release of the Strategic Oil Reserve, which will totally off-set any effect
of Katrina) is not "entrepreneurship" -- it's criminal.

But it's an inevitable and utterly predictable result of our government's
ill-thought-out destruction of independently owned gas stations in the 1980s
and '90s. All we have left now are the big company stations, controlled by
a relatively small number of owners -- so it's easy for them to control
pricing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Guy Elden Jr]

There are _far_ more variables involved with the pricing of gasoline to
just say it's price fixing that's going on right now.

Anyways, to try and get this newsgroup _back_ on topic, I present to
you the following bit of information a friend of mine just pointed me
to. Might make us Americans appreciate just a bit more our "free"
private pilot certificates.

Check out how much they charge for a instrument skill test _after_ a
partial completion!

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/srg_fcl_Scharges_ppl_05.pdf

--
Guy

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:


>
> But it's an inevitable and utterly predictable result of our government's
> ill-thought-out destruction of independently owned gas stations in the 1980s
> and '90s. All we have left now are the big company stations, controlled by
> a relatively small number of owners -- so it's easy for them to control
> pricing.

That's BS. Here in Montana we had regulated gas prices until about 5
years ago. Every link in the chain was required to sell it for at least
8% more than he bought it for. The reasoning was to protect the little
guy. Screw the little guy. If you can't make a profit then go do
something else. As soon as we got rid of that stupid law gas prices
fell because everyone could set their own price. To say the big guys
come in and force the price up is a red herring. Today the most
expensive gas is always the mom and pop shop. Here the cheapest gas is
at Costco, one of the larger companies. Next cheapest is the medium
sized stations with convenience stores, like Super America. They use
their cheap gas to get you in the store to buy overpriced dairy products
and donuts. Then comes mom and pop, bitching about the damn corporations

[[email protected]]

What 99.5% of people fail to understand is that without getting certain
parts of the infrstructure back online, it won't matter how much crude
you release from the national reserves because the refining and
delivery system won't be online.

Right now you have just about 2.5 million barrels per day refining
completely shut down for one if not all three of the following reasons:

1: The plant itself is under water. If there is as little as 6" of
water in a lot of these plants, the units can't be run because many of
the pumps and their motors are in standing water.

2. They don't have any electricty....no power no operations

3. The natural gas piplines that provide the fuel to run the plants are
not operating....same outcome as #2.

One thing that has greatly helped is that the EPA had temporarily
dropped the rules on reformulated gas. Under the rules the gas that was
blended for the northeast coupldn't be piped anywhwere else because of
the smog rules. And so on and so on. What this means is that the
plants can run just a single blend of regular unleaded instead of the
60+ custom blends that the EPA mandated. This allows the plants to run
longer production runs and not have to limit the runs on how much of
one blend or another they need. Now they can run until all the storage
capacity is filled with the single blend and not get gonged by the EPA.
In the short term it's going to play some havok with the smog levels
in some locations, but that's better than having the entire country
screwed up by idiodic rules.

The worst thing people can do now is panic over the price and start
trying to hoard and store fuel. That causes an artificial shortage. One
station operator in Atlanta pointed out one customer to a news crew.
Said that he was in the station with a third vehicle and six more jerry
cans in less than an hour....just what we need.....

Once things shake out a little and the pipeline people and the plant
operations people get their basic power, water, fuel and feedstocks
back into some kind of operation, there won't as much of a problem.
Most of the drilling and production companies are already working to
get the rigs and production platforms back into action as fast as
possible.

BTW most places price their fuel based on what the next tanker drop is
expected to cost them and not what the current stock cost, and they
base that number on the daily spot market price.

Craig C.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-01, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Thousands of gas stations jacking gas prices nationwide, in lock-step with
> each other, because of a trumped up "disaster" (and in the face of the
> release of the Strategic Oil Reserve, which will totally off-set any effect
> of Katrina) is not "entrepreneurship" -- it's criminal.

The Strategic Oil Reserve is crude oil. With 6 major refineries
currently shut down due to Katrina, releasing that reserve doesn't
really do much if the shortage is now in refining.

The price of refined fuel has gone up because of the laws of supply and
demand - there is extra demand as people try to hoard, and restricted
supply because refineries are offline. It's just the free market you're
so enthusiastic about operating in its normal manner.

--
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"

[kontiki]

wrote:
> What 99.5% of people fail to understand is that without getting certain
> parts of the infrstructure back online, it won't matter how much crude
> you release from the national reserves because the refining and
> delivery system won't be online.
>
Exactly. If nothing else, this should demonstrate to people just how
thin our supply lines really er... for evrything, not just gasoline.
I have often said that we are now just a disater away from anarchy,
and this hiurricane shows illustrates that.

Listen up people, it is WAY past time for us to develop more of our
own oil reserves and build another refinery (at least). We are now
seeing the absolute total folly of not building required infrastructure
to support our current economic lifestyles.

Personally, if I were in a position of responsibility and had failed
so miserably at maintaining adequate facilities and preparing contingent
operations I should FIRED.... perion, end of story.

[John T]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message

>
> The Strategic Oil Reserve is crude oil. With 6 major refineries
> currently shut down due to Katrina, releasing that reserve doesn't
> really do much if the shortage is now in refining.

There are refineries in operation. The SPR release is to help offset the
dropping offline of nearly 25% of our domestic crude production (Gulf rigs).
My understanding is much of the SPR crude is going to midwest refineries to
keep them running.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> Listen up people, it is WAY past time for us to develop more of our
> own oil reserves and build another refinery (at least). We are now
> seeing the absolute total folly of not building required infrastructure
> to support our current economic lifestyles.
>
> Personally, if I were in a position of responsibility and had failed
> so miserably at maintaining adequate facilities and preparing contingent
> operations I should FIRED.... perion, end of story.

They can't maintain contingent operations, because they can't build new
refineries -- period.

Look at the environmental laws that restrict refineries. Look at the number
of refineries built since those laws hit the books.

It ain't a coincidence, and anyone who says that the "free market" is at
work here just hasn't looked at the problem.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:QJtRe.320321$xm3.146714@attbi_s21...
>> JH> Better buy gas, too. The gougers and racketeers have already
>> JH> jumped to $3 per gallon in Des Moines, as of this morning.
>>
>> <Snicker> Uh, Jay, that would be free market entrepeneurs. Or have
>> you suddenly gone righteous/socialist on us?
>
> Thousands of gas stations jacking gas prices nationwide, in lock-step with
> each other, because of a trumped up "disaster" (and in the face of the
> release of the Strategic Oil Reserve, which will totally off-set any
> effect of Katrina) is not "entrepreneurship" -- it's criminal.
>

What do you think is in the SPR...gasoline?


Mike
MU-2

[Jay Honeck]

> The price of refined fuel has gone up because of the laws of supply and
> demand - there is extra demand as people try to hoard, and restricted
> supply because refineries are offline. It's just the free market you're
> so enthusiastic about operating in its normal manner.

Anyone who thinks this is the "Free Market" at work clearly hasn't looked
closely at the issues.

Yes, in the very short term, prices shoot up when supply is diminished.
However, between regulation and taxation, there is practically nothing
"free" about the oil/gas market, from supply, through refining, to end-user
sales.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Rapoport]

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> The Strategic Oil Reserve is crude oil. With 6 major refineries
>> currently shut down due to Katrina, releasing that reserve doesn't
>> really do much if the shortage is now in refining.
>
> There are refineries in operation. The SPR release is to help offset the
> dropping offline of nearly 25% of our domestic crude production (Gulf
> rigs). My understanding is much of the SPR crude is going to midwest
> refineries to keep them running.
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
> ____________________
>
>

There is more refining capacity offline that production capacity. Releasing
crude from the SPR will do nothing.

Mike
MU-2

[Jay Honeck]

> What do you think is in the SPR...gasoline?

No. Why?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:XpERe.80402$084.49625@attbi_s22...
>> Listen up people, it is WAY past time for us to develop more of our
>> own oil reserves and build another refinery (at least). We are now
>> seeing the absolute total folly of not building required infrastructure
>> to support our current economic lifestyles.
>>
>> Personally, if I were in a position of responsibility and had failed
>> so miserably at maintaining adequate facilities and preparing contingent
>> operations I should FIRED.... perion, end of story.
>
> They can't maintain contingent operations, because they can't build new
> refineries -- period.
>
> Look at the environmental laws that restrict refineries. Look at the
> number of refineries built since those laws hit the books.
>
> It ain't a coincidence, and anyone who says that the "free market" is at
> work here just hasn't looked at the problem.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

What laws are you talking about?

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

What good is supplying more crude to shut-down refineries going to do?

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:VvERe.80409$084.5932@attbi_s22...
>> What do you think is in the SPR...gasoline?
>
> No. Why?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jay Honeck]

> What good is supplying more crude to shut-down refineries going to do?

It's replacing the crude that is (temporarily, we hope) not coming in from
the Gulf oil platforms that have been displaced or destroyed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

> I believe we can expect the same sort of thing when the restoration effort
> gets under way after Katrina. I think that, if any of you guys have
> projects in mind that require plywood (perhaps work on your hangar?), it
> might be a good idea to buy it now.

A lot of building material has been going to Iraq.

[Mike Rapoport]

You don't get it. There is more loss of refining capacity along the Gulf,
than loss of production capacity in the Gulf. There is an EXCESS of crude
supply along the Gulf.

Mike
MU-2



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:K2FRe.321353$xm3.17092@attbi_s21...
>> What good is supplying more crude to shut-down refineries going to do?
>
> It's replacing the crude that is (temporarily, we hope) not coming in from
> the Gulf oil platforms that have been displaced or destroyed.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[sfb]

Really not sure who doesn't get it. When demand exceeds supply, prices
go up and the price of crude has been on a skyrocket.

The process is sequential - crude to refining to distribution. If any
single step is broken, output stop. The AP reports the Coast Guard says
20 oil rigs and platforms are missing in the Gulf of Mexico. Unless they
were drilling for ice cream, methinks there will soon be a crude oil
shortage.

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> You don't get it. There is more loss of refining capacity along the
> Gulf, than loss of production capacity in the Gulf. There is an
> EXCESS of crude supply along the Gulf.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:QJtRe.320321$xm3.146714@attbi_s21...
>> JH> Better buy gas, too. The gougers and racketeers have already
>> JH> jumped to $3 per gallon in Des Moines, as of this morning.
>>
>> <Snicker> Uh, Jay, that would be free market entrepeneurs. Or have
>> you suddenly gone righteous/socialist on us?
>
> Thousands of gas stations jacking gas prices nationwide, in lock-step with
> each other, because of a trumped up "disaster" (and in the face of the
> release of the Strategic Oil Reserve, which will totally off-set any
> effect of Katrina) is not "entrepreneurship" -- it's criminal.
>
> But it's an inevitable and utterly predictable result of our government's
> ill-thought-out destruction of independently owned gas stations in the
> 1980s and '90s. All we have left now are the big company stations,
> controlled by a relatively small number of owners -- so it's easy for them
> to control pricing.

The release of the reserve is going to help very little. The big problem is
not lack of crude oil it is the fact that they can't turn on the lights at
the refineries that produce 10% of our gas.

[N93332]

"sfb" > wrote in message news:TEFRe.28069$Bc2.4672@trnddc06...
> Really not sure who doesn't get it. When demand exceeds supply, prices go
> up and the price of crude has been on a skyrocket.

But crude HASN'T skyrocketed. Watching CNBC shows that crude is currently at
68.85 which isn't THAT much higher than it was last week. Crude hasn't gone
up (much), but the refining it has.

[sfb]

The post you cut says there is an excess of crude, but the price
increases over the last few months refute that unless the laws of supply
and demand have gone sour. Today's prices may be the lull before the
storm until the full extent of Kartina is known.

"N93332" > wrote in message
...
> "sfb" > wrote in message
> news:TEFRe.28069$Bc2.4672@trnddc06...
>> Really not sure who doesn't get it. When demand exceeds supply,
>> prices go up and the price of crude has been on a skyrocket.
>
> But crude HASN'T skyrocketed. Watching CNBC shows that crude is
> currently at 68.85 which isn't THAT much higher than it was last week.
> Crude hasn't gone up (much), but the refining it has.
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"sfb" > wrote in message news:TEFRe.28069$Bc2.4672@trnddc06...
> Really not sure who doesn't get it. When demand exceeds supply, prices go
> up and the price of crude has been on a skyrocket.
>
> The process is sequential - crude to refining to distribution. If any
> single step is broken, output stop. The AP reports the Coast Guard says 20
> oil rigs and platforms are missing in the Gulf of Mexico. Unless they were
> drilling for ice cream, methinks there will soon be a crude oil shortage.
>

There is a reason why crude is backing down now....it is because people are
starting to figure out that.the ONLY customers for crude are refineries.

It is thinking like yours that keeps me in business.

Mike
MU-2

[Chris]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:QJtRe.320321$xm3.146714@attbi_s21...
>> JH> Better buy gas, too. The gougers and racketeers have already
>> JH> jumped to $3 per gallon in Des Moines, as of this morning.
>>
>> <Snicker> Uh, Jay, that would be free market entrepeneurs. Or have
>> you suddenly gone righteous/socialist on us?
>
> Thousands of gas stations jacking gas prices nationwide, in lock-step with
> each other, because of a trumped up "disaster" (and in the face of the
> release of the Strategic Oil Reserve, which will totally off-set any
> effect of Katrina) is not "entrepreneurship" -- it's criminal.
>
The strategic oil reserve will do nothing. It is refining capacity that's
the problem. Gas prices are rising in Europe with US wholesale buyers
looking to European refineries to supply gas.

[Chris]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:XpERe.80402$084.49625@attbi_s22...
>> Listen up people, it is WAY past time for us to develop more of our
>> own oil reserves and build another refinery (at least). We are now
>> seeing the absolute total folly of not building required infrastructure
>> to support our current economic lifestyles.
>>
>> Personally, if I were in a position of responsibility and had failed
>> so miserably at maintaining adequate facilities and preparing contingent
>> operations I should FIRED.... perion, end of story.
>
> They can't maintain contingent operations, because they can't build new
> refineries -- period.
>
> Look at the environmental laws that restrict refineries. Look at the
> number of refineries built since those laws hit the books.
>
> It ain't a coincidence, and anyone who says that the "free market" is at
> work here just hasn't looked at the problem.

The free market is at work which is why Europe is facing higher gas prices
as US buyers come looking for gas.

Personally I would shut them out and say if you were not buying from us
before go away, and leave the US to rot this time but money always wins out.

[Mike Rapoport]

"sfb" > wrote in message news:k0GRe.28079$Bc2.4142@trnddc06...
> The post you cut says there is an excess of crude, but the price increases
> over the last few months refute that unless the laws of supply and demand
> have gone sour. Today's prices may be the lull before the storm until the
> full extent of Kartina is known.
>
> "N93332" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "sfb" > wrote in message
>> news:TEFRe.28069$Bc2.4672@trnddc06...
>>> Really not sure who doesn't get it. When demand exceeds supply, prices
>>> go up and the price of crude has been on a skyrocket.
>>
>> But crude HASN'T skyrocketed. Watching CNBC shows that crude is currently
>> at 68.85 which isn't THAT much higher than it was last week. Crude hasn't
>> gone up (much), but the refining it has.
>>
>
>

Yes, the price increase over the past few months is a function of global
supply/demand and the markets observation that higher prices aren't changing
consumers' behavior yet. The price action late last week and early this
week is a function of panic/speculation based on not knowing what the affect
of Katrina would be on production and refining. Now that it looks like the
affect on production will be modest and the effect of refining will be
significant, everything will start to readjust.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:XpERe.80402$084.49625@attbi_s22...
>>> Listen up people, it is WAY past time for us to develop more of our
>>> own oil reserves and build another refinery (at least). We are now
>>> seeing the absolute total folly of not building required infrastructure
>>> to support our current economic lifestyles.
>>>
>>> Personally, if I were in a position of responsibility and had failed
>>> so miserably at maintaining adequate facilities and preparing contingent
>>> operations I should FIRED.... perion, end of story.
>>
>> They can't maintain contingent operations, because they can't build new
>> refineries -- period.
>>
>> Look at the environmental laws that restrict refineries. Look at the
>> number of refineries built since those laws hit the books.
>>
>> It ain't a coincidence, and anyone who says that the "free market" is at
>> work here just hasn't looked at the problem.
>
> The free market is at work which is why Europe is facing higher gas prices
> as US buyers come looking for gas.
>
> Personally I would shut them out and say if you were not buying from us
> before go away, and leave the US to rot this time but money always wins
> out.
>

Actually if you owned the gasoline or worked for the people who owned it,
you would sell it to those who were willing to pay the most for it. You
would do this because you would know that there is somebody somewhere on the
planet that would be willing to sell to the US buyers for a higher price and
the only one hurt by your action would be you or those you represent. The
reality is that the worldwide supply of gasoline is now reduced from what it
was last week and therefore gasoline is worth more. The price will rise
until demand is reduced to equal supply. It is an inescapable fact.

Mike
MU-2

[sfb]

Please explain how 20 platforms disappearing in the Gulf is only a
modest effect on production?

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "sfb" > wrote in message
> news:k0GRe.28079$Bc2.4142@trnddc06...
>> The post you cut says there is an excess of crude, but the price
>> increases over the last few months refute that unless the laws of
>> supply and demand have gone sour. Today's prices may be the lull
>> before the storm until the full extent of Kartina is known.
>>
>> "N93332" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "sfb" > wrote in message
>>> news:TEFRe.28069$Bc2.4672@trnddc06...
>>>> Really not sure who doesn't get it. When demand exceeds supply,
>>>> prices go up and the price of crude has been on a skyrocket.
>>>
>>> But crude HASN'T skyrocketed. Watching CNBC shows that crude is
>>> currently at 68.85 which isn't THAT much higher than it was last
>>> week. Crude hasn't gone up (much), but the refining it has.
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Yes, the price increase over the past few months is a function of
> global supply/demand and the markets observation that higher prices
> aren't changing consumers' behavior yet. The price action late last
> week and early this week is a function of panic/speculation based on
> not knowing what the affect of Katrina would be on production and
> refining. Now that it looks like the affect on production will be
> modest and the effect of refining will be significant, everything will
> start to readjust.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Most GOM production is natural gas not crude. Most of the "platforms" you
are referencing are actually drilling rigs not production platforms and I
haven't seen the number 20 "disappearing" anyway. Obviously this is all bad
stuff, but it is refined distillates and natural gas that are most affected.

Mike
MU-2





"sfb" > wrote in message news:ZtGRe.31577$Uz2.21522@trnddc02...
> Please explain how 20 platforms disappearing in the Gulf is only a modest
> effect on production?
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "sfb" > wrote in message
>> news:k0GRe.28079$Bc2.4142@trnddc06...
>>> The post you cut says there is an excess of crude, but the price
>>> increases over the last few months refute that unless the laws of supply
>>> and demand have gone sour. Today's prices may be the lull before the
>>> storm until the full extent of Kartina is known.
>>>
>>> "N93332" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "sfb" > wrote in message
>>>> news:TEFRe.28069$Bc2.4672@trnddc06...
>>>>> Really not sure who doesn't get it. When demand exceeds supply, prices
>>>>> go up and the price of crude has been on a skyrocket.
>>>>
>>>> But crude HASN'T skyrocketed. Watching CNBC shows that crude is
>>>> currently at 68.85 which isn't THAT much higher than it was last week.
>>>> Crude hasn't gone up (much), but the refining it has.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the price increase over the past few months is a function of global
>> supply/demand and the markets observation that higher prices aren't
>> changing consumers' behavior yet. The price action late last week and
>> early this week is a function of panic/speculation based on not knowing
>> what the affect of Katrina would be on production and refining. Now that
>> it looks like the affect on production will be modest and the effect of
>> refining will be significant, everything will start to readjust.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>
>

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-01, Chris > wrote:
> Personally I would shut them out and say if you were not buying from us
> before go away, and leave the US to rot this time but money always wins out.

My, aren't you bitter.

--
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"

[Bob Moore]

"sfb" > wrote

> Please explain how 20 platforms disappearing in the Gulf is only a
> modest effect on production?


Probably because there were about 4,000 to start with. At least
that is according to a map of platforms shown on CNN.

Bob Moore

[john smith]

My wife came home from work yesterday and told me that a very large
supply of gasoline the company she works for has been holding in reserve
for corporate operations has been confiscated by the federal government.

[Darrel Toepfer]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Thousands of gas stations jacking gas prices nationwide, in lock-step with
> each other, because of a trumped up "disaster" (and in the face of the
> release of the Strategic Oil Reserve, which will totally off-set any effect
> of Katrina) is not "entrepreneurship" -- it's criminal.

The stuff in the reserve is crude, still has to be refined...
Some of the strategic reserves are in the effected area, gotta have
power and fuel to move it...

[John T]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> There is more refining capacity offline that production capacity.
> Releasing crude from the SPR will do nothing.

Percentage-wise, that is correct. However, the SPR oil will go to
refineries (mostly in the Midwest as I understand it) that are streamlining
gasoline production (thanks to the EPA relaxing regional formula
restrictions). This will help reduce or eliminate shortages.

Even if that's not the case, releasing the SPR signaled the market the
government will Do Something to settle oil futures prices.

Even if the effect of SPR oil on actual short-term fuel supplies ends up
being minimal, releasing the oil is the right thing to do. This is the very
type of emergency it should be used for (even if it was a different type of
emergency that spawned its creation).

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

[Darrel Toepfer]

sfb wrote:

> Really not sure who doesn't get it. When demand exceeds supply, prices
> go up and the price of crude has been on a skyrocket.
>
> The process is sequential - crude to refining to distribution. If any
> single step is broken, output stop. The AP reports the Coast Guard says
> 20 oil rigs and platforms are missing in the Gulf of Mexico. Unless they
> were drilling for ice cream, methinks there will soon be a crude oil
> shortage.

The LOOP system is offline due to power requirements. Once power is
restored and suitable destination is available the supertankers can
start offloading. That suppliments offshore production, does nothing for
increasing refining capacity...

[Darrel Toepfer]

Chris wrote:

> Personally I would shut them out and say if you were not buying from us
> before go away, and leave the US to rot this time but money always wins out.

Your existance kinda makes me sorry about my german heritage...

Any chance I could drop by for a visit, if I do happen to travel Europe
next year?

[Mike Rapoport]

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>
>> There is more refining capacity offline that production capacity.
>> Releasing crude from the SPR will do nothing.
>
> Percentage-wise, that is correct. However, the SPR oil will go to
> refineries (mostly in the Midwest as I understand it) that are
> streamlining gasoline production (thanks to the EPA relaxing regional
> formula restrictions). This will help reduce or eliminate shortages.
>
> Even if that's not the case, releasing the SPR signaled the market the
> government will Do Something to settle oil futures prices.
>
> Even if the effect of SPR oil on actual short-term fuel supplies ends up
> being minimal, releasing the oil is the right thing to do. This is the
> very type of emergency it should be used for (even if it was a different
> type of emergency that spawned its creation).
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
> ____________________
>
>

If the SPR oil goes to refineries in the midwest (where the supply of crude
is unaffected) how will that really help? I agree that announcing the
availiiblity of SPR oil has some marginal calming effect on the markets in
the immediate term, but it is not going to affect the supply of gasoline in
any meaningful way.

Mike
MU-2

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
> My wife came home from work yesterday and told me that a very large supply
> of gasoline the company she works for has been holding in reserve for
> corporate operations has been confiscated by the federal government.

Could we have some details on this statement like who your wife works for?
If not this is the kind of fear mongering that will make things go from bad
to worse.

[John T]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> If the SPR oil goes to refineries in the midwest (where the supply of
> crude is unaffected) how will that really help?

It will help ensure the supply of crude (that may have been coming from Gulf
sources/locations) is not interrupted.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> Actually if you owned the gasoline or worked for the people who owned it,
> you would sell it to those who were willing to pay the most for it. You
> would do this because you would know that there is somebody somewhere on
> the planet that would be willing to sell to the US buyers for a higher
> price and the only one hurt by your action would be you or those you
> represent. The reality is that the worldwide supply of gasoline is now
> reduced from what it was last week and therefore gasoline is worth more.
> The price will rise until demand is reduced to equal supply. It is an
> inescapable fact.

No one argues that it is supply and demand at work. It always is.

My point is that our "supply" side has been artificially restricted by
onerous environmental laws. These laws are so complex and expensive to
interpret that no one has built a new refinery in the U.S. since their
inception.

Thus, we find ourselves in the pickle we're in. One hurricane, and we're
*all* dead, economically.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > The price of refined fuel has gone up because of the laws of supply and
> > demand - there is extra demand as people try to hoard, and restricted
> > supply because refineries are offline. It's just the free market you're
> > so enthusiastic about operating in its normal manner.
>
> Anyone who thinks this is the "Free Market" at work clearly hasn't looked
> closely at the issues.

Jay. I'm as big a right-winger as anybody here, but you're talking
candyland stuff here.

Let's say you're a gas station in Atlanta and your supplier just told
you, "that gas in your tanks is all you're going to have for the next
15 days," and you normally get a delivery every 3 days. What do you do?
You jack the price up.

If you have to drive to New Orleans to look for your family, you'll pay
the $6/gallon and bitch, but at least you could buy gas. At $3/gal,
everybody will come and fill their tanks and leave them parked in their
driveways. Meanwhile, every station has run dry "just in case."
Meanwhile the guys who *need* a tank of gas can't get it at any price.
At $6/gal, you leave your tank half-full and decide whether you really
need to drive. This is exactly the free market at work, allocating
supply to the people who want (need) it the most.

> Yes, in the very short term, prices shoot up when supply is diminished.
> However, between regulation and taxation, there is practically nothing
> "free" about the oil/gas market, from supply, through refining, to end-user
> sales.

The only twig of truth you have to stand on here is OPEC, and they're
not really a factor at this point. No one's witholding significant
supply right now. As for shipping, refining, and sales, it's about as
free a market as you can get. There are environmental regs on refining
but they are far from decisive. One of the main reasons we haven't
built new refineries is that it's more economically efficient to
upgrade an existing one where you don't have to build everything from
scratch, not to mention not needing double the amount of labor to
operate it.

And what is regulated about end-user sales? That market is so
competitive that most gas stations sell the stuff at break-even if not
a slight loss. They make money on milk and Marlboros.

-cwk.

[Chris]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-09-01, Chris > wrote:
>> Personally I would shut them out and say if you were not buying from us
>> before go away, and leave the US to rot this time but money always wins
>> out.
>
> My, aren't you bitter.
Its not bitterness at all, perhaps this is the time for the US public to get
a wake up call an see that how they carry on is not sustainable. in terms of
motoring,
when most of us have gone to the effort of having cars with good economy it
just seems stupid to let the resource go where there is tremendous waste.
Maybe if they had to do less driving , (I know, its a sacrifice,) then the
fuel available would go a lot further.

[Chris]

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
...
> Chris wrote:
>
>> Personally I would shut them out and say if you were not buying from us
>> before go away, and leave the US to rot this time but money always wins
>> out.
>
> Your existance kinda makes me sorry about my german heritage...
>
> Any chance I could drop by for a visit, if I do happen to travel Europe
> next year?

Us Gasoline supply has been cut by a third. My point is let the people in
the US reduce their consumption by a third. Price stays down, no one else
gets f****d up. As has been said in the thread, this was a problem waiting
to happen, the politicians knew about it, the local authorities new about it
and business knew about it but they ignored it. They will probably spend
more money sorting out the mess than it would have cost to put in proper
preventative measures.

at the end of the day a little sort term sacrifice should be not big deal
and if the public are ****ed off about it take it up with their politicians.

Drifting across to the European fuel markets throwing big dollars to grab
all the fuel will not solve the basic problem.

Why the hell should I to pay more for my fuel because of the ineptitude of
the US authorities.

Walking a bit more might even sort the fat *******s out too.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Chris wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I would shut them out and say if you were not buying from us
>>> before go away, and leave the US to rot this time but money always wins
>>> out.
>>
>> Your existance kinda makes me sorry about my german heritage...
>>
>> Any chance I could drop by for a visit, if I do happen to travel Europe
>> next year?
>
> Us Gasoline supply has been cut by a third. My point is let the people in
> the US reduce their consumption by a third. Price stays down, no one else
> gets f****d up. As has been said in the thread, this was a problem waiting
> to happen, the politicians knew about it, the local authorities new about
> it and business knew about it but they ignored it. They will probably
> spend more money sorting out the mess than it would have cost to put in
> proper preventative measures.
>
> at the end of the day a little sort term sacrifice should be not big deal
> and if the public are ****ed off about it take it up with their
> politicians.
>
> Drifting across to the European fuel markets throwing big dollars to grab
> all the fuel will not solve the basic problem.
>
> Why the hell should I to pay more for my fuel because of the ineptitude of
> the US authorities.
>
> Walking a bit more might even sort the fat *******s out too.

You need to remember Germany and the rest of the EU states are smaller than
many of our states and we have 50 of them and you can drive to 49 of them.
Some of the EU states are smaller than some of our counties. So yea, we
drive more than you. But guess what. Had the Red Army every come screaming
through the Fulda Gap we would have been burning our gas to save you ass and
you guys loved our ass when that was hanging over your head.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article . com>,
wrote:
> The only twig of truth you have to stand on here is OPEC, and they're
> not really a factor at this point. No one's witholding significant
> supply right now. As for shipping, refining, and sales, it's about as
> free a market as you can get. There are environmental regs on refining
> but they are far from decisive. One of the main reasons we haven't
> built new refineries is that it's more economically efficient to
> upgrade an existing one where you don't have to build everything from
> scratch, not to mention not needing double the amount of labor to
> operate it.

Right now, as I understand it, there are two big problems with supply:
refinery capacity and delivery. Refinery capacity has been a growing
problem for some time, and the environmental laws requiring special
blends for certain parts of the country compound this capacity problem.

Delivery is a largely new problem spawned by the destruction of the
hurricane.

The bottom line is that environmental laws have a fairly substantial
financial impact on all industry, and the petroleum industry in
particular. New refineries could be built, but it would be so expensive
to build and operate them in compliance with environmental laws that it
would not be worth it.

On top of all of the other costs, most areas pay AT LEAST 50 cents per
gallon in state and federal consumer taxes. Suspension of these taxes
would help to ease gas prices, but those crafty politicians know that if
the gas taxes are suspended, it will be nearly impossible to bring them
back, at least to their current levels. And holy cow if government
might have to cut back on spending and learn to be more efficient.

On another note, anyone who lives near the ocean in a city that's 18
feet below sea level is living on borrowed time until the next disaster.
If businesses were refused insurance and government aid for disasters
such as this, and the poor were forced to work for a living, no one (or
very few) would live in areas like New Orleans because the financial
risk would be too great. Since the government swoops in to cover much
of the financial loss, there's less at risk for the individual, and
lives are needlessly lost.


JKG

[Jay Honeck]

> Us Gasoline supply has been cut by a third. My point is let the people in
> the US reduce their consumption by a third. Price stays down, no one else
> gets f****d up. As has been said in the thread, this was a problem waiting
> to happen, the politicians knew about it, the local authorities new about
> it and business knew about it but they ignored it.

Right, but what you fail to realize is that this is a SELF-IMPOSED disaster,
by well-meaning Americans who thought that they were helping the world by
making it impossible for oil companies to build any new refineries.

The hurricane was inevitable; the consequences were not.

I suspect, given what you're saying, that you probably agreed with their
environmental approach. You probably cheered as, one by one, more and more
restrictive U.S. laws were passed, making it harder and harder for suppliers
to refine crude oil into gasoline. Until now.

Now that their short-sightedness is hurting everyone, badly -- worldwide --
maybe you'll realize just how much harm environmental extremists have done.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[kontiki]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> The
> reality is that the worldwide supply of gasoline is now reduced from what it
> was last week and therefore gasoline is worth more. The price will rise
> until demand is reduced to equal supply. It is an inescapable fact.

It is really more of a distribution problem than a supply problem. It is a
fact that the 20+ different blends required by 20+ different states have
drastically reduced the efficiency of refineries and distribution channels.
This adds about 20 cents per gallon of cost to fuel.

Its like trying to pour W100 down a funnel.

[kontiki]

John T wrote:

>
> Percentage-wise, that is correct. However, the SPR oil will go to
> refineries (mostly in the Midwest as I understand it) that are streamlining
> gasoline production (thanks to the EPA relaxing regional formula
> restrictions). This will help reduce or eliminate shortages.

Exactly. Abolishing the EPA requirements of all of those different blends
will do far more to make gasoline available than any amount of crude oil
from the SPR.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-01, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Thus, we find ourselves in the pickle we're in. One hurricane, and we're
> *all* dead, economically.

Now that's just hyperbole, sorry. You're not all dead economically - far
from it.

--
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"

[JohnH]

> I think that, if any of you guys
> have projects in mind that require plywood (perhaps work on your
> hangar?), it might be a good idea to buy it now.

Perhaps is is more important for people to have homes than hoard for "hangar
improvements"?

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-01, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Now that their short-sightedness is hurting everyone, badly -- worldwide --
> maybe you'll realize just how much harm environmental extremists have done.

Short sightedness? Leaving everyone to freely pollute would be short
sighted. This disaster, although on a massive scale, will be a mere blip
compared to the permanent damage that allowing unfettered pollution
would cause. Perhaps you ought to move to China, where there are few
environmental regulations. A friend of mine lived there. The stories he
told would make your wossnames spin. It is NASTY living in a polluted
cesspool. Of course, it's not in your back yard so you probably don't
mind so much so long as your fuel is cheap. So what if refinery workers
are being poisoned and so what if residents of Texas City have a life
expectency twenty years shorter than they do now. Having lived in that
area, I can tell you that the environmental regulations need
*tightening* or the whole area will be a toxic wasteland for our
children and grandchildren to spend billions on cleaning up.

You know I didn't need the marker beacon to tell me when I was over the
OM for Galveston on the ILS 13? You knew the OM was coming because you
could smell this foul, sickening smell from the refineries. Any time
there was a temperature inversion, the air turned green. The otherwise
gorgeous blue winter days in Texas were marred by the stench of the
refineries in Pasadena. It used to be worse - the DE I flew with for my
instrument and glider rides told me what the sickness rates used to be
like and the rivers devoid of fish. Rivers that would periodically catch
fire. Xylene showers. Industrial accidents that were so common no one
even blinked.

I've lived in one of America's most polluted cities - I dread to think
what the place would have been like without the fairly weak
environmental regulations that were in place. It is NOT impossible for
oil companies to build more refineries. I think Mike Rappoport explained
it pretty well already. Much of the 'self imposed' disaster is because
the western world has generally moved to a just-in-time system of doing
pretty much everything, where everything is run at exactly capacity with
absolutely no margin for error - intentionally, to cut costs to the bare
minimum.

--
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]]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article . com>,
> ckingsbury wrote:
> > The only twig of truth you have to stand on here is OPEC, and they're
> > not really a factor at this point. No one's witholding significant

>
> Right now, as I understand it, there are two big problems with supply:
> refinery capacity and delivery. Refinery capacity has been a growing
> problem for some time, and the environmental laws requiring special
> blends for certain parts of the country compound this capacity problem.
>

As I understand it, refining is actually a pretty low-margin business,
which tends to discourage investing in one iota more capacity than you
can sell tomorrow. The issue of blends is an interesting one and I have
heard people with no dog in the fight take both sides. Broadly speaking
it is nowhere near as profound as the lead/no-lead aspect which affects
100LL production. Surely doesn't help, but I'm not convinced it's
anywhere near a primary cause.

> Delivery is a largely new problem spawned by the destruction of the
> hurricane.

It's also part of a wider dependence on highly-tuned supply chains.
Holding inventory costs money and these days most businesses are trying
to do Just-in-Time processes as much as possible. This is like filling
your car with just enough gas to make the specific trip- it saves the
weight of hauling around gas, but if the gas station at the other end
is closed, you'll run out of gas before you get to the next one.

> The bottom line is that environmental laws have a fairly substantial
> financial impact on all industry, and the petroleum industry in
> particular. New refineries could be built, but it would be so expensive
> to build and operate them in compliance with environmental laws that it
> would not be worth it.

Tightness of refinery capacity leads to short-term price volatility but
is not the main reason. Gas prices had been relatively stable from the
early 80s until last year, despite (1) no new refineries being built
and (2) major growth in consumer demand for gasoline. In the short term
the loss of a pipeline or refinery can cause regional spikes but these
disappear the minute the production comes back.

However, refining capacity has absolutely zilch to do with crude prices
and they are the primary determinant of pump prices, 85% according to
this FTC study:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/07/gaspricefactor.htm

The root cause here is a major secular increase in demand for oil,
especially from China which has exploded in the past 2 years. We could
build ten more refineries next week and that would do nothing to
extract more crude
or reduce Chinese demand for it. There's little threat of running out
of oil anytime soon (at $80 extracting from shale/tar sands becomes
profitable, and reserves of those are enormous) but unless we find
major new easily-accessible reserves (unlikely, it's not as though
we're not looking) or the Chinese decide they don't ll want to drive
cars and have electric lights after all, prices aren't going back to
$1.50 in our lifetime.

> On top of all of the other costs, most areas pay AT LEAST 50 cents per
> gallon in state and federal consumer taxes. Suspension of these taxes
> would help to ease gas prices, but those crafty politicians know that if

You know, I could care less about "the environment" (I mean, a 10-day
forecast fore one city is as good as a ouija board, but these guys
think they can forecast global weather patterns 100 years into the
future?) but reliance on imported oil is starting to scare me. All we
need is Iran to light the fuse on a nuke and some 10-cent Castro
impersonator in Venezuela to yell "f--k you Yanqui!" and our entire
economy skids off the cliff in a few months.

Compared to the 1970s we use about half as much oil per dollar of GDP,
which is why this run-up has not wrecked the economy. To the extent
that we reduce our dependence on oil or other foreign energy sources,
we increase our economic and ultimately military security. Every dollar
the price of crude goes down means millions less to finance Iranian
nukes and Saudi terrorists.

So, in my mind the high price of gas is the best way to spur
conservation. The government could mandate things but all of us as
individuals will figure out better and cheaper ways on our own. I would
not support a tax increase however, because I don't support increasing
the size of government, period.

> On another note, anyone who lives near the ocean in a city that's 18
> feet below sea level is living on borrowed time until the next disaster.

New Orleans developed into a metropolis long before there was insurance
for anything, not to mention the epidemics of yellow fever that killed
more than any hurricane. A much more interesting argument can be made
that the levees are the critical piece. Without them, the river would
have moved west and left New Orleans with a mud puddle instead of a
deepwater port. Without the port, the city loses a primary reason to
exist, and dries up like a midwestern town whose railway spur gets shut
down.

-cwk.

[Matt Whiting]

Chris wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:XpERe.80402$084.49625@attbi_s22...
>
>>>Listen up people, it is WAY past time for us to develop more of our
>>>own oil reserves and build another refinery (at least). We are now
>>>seeing the absolute total folly of not building required infrastructure
>>>to support our current economic lifestyles.
>>>
>>>Personally, if I were in a position of responsibility and had failed
>>>so miserably at maintaining adequate facilities and preparing contingent
>>>operations I should FIRED.... perion, end of story.
>>
>>They can't maintain contingent operations, because they can't build new
>>refineries -- period.
>>
>>Look at the environmental laws that restrict refineries. Look at the
>>number of refineries built since those laws hit the books.
>>
>>It ain't a coincidence, and anyone who says that the "free market" is at
>>work here just hasn't looked at the problem.
>
>
> The free market is at work which is why Europe is facing higher gas prices
> as US buyers come looking for gas.
>
> Personally I would shut them out and say if you were not buying from us
> before go away, and leave the US to rot this time but money always wins out.

You mean the way the USA left Europe to rot after WW II?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Chris wrote:

> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On 2005-09-01, Chris > wrote:
>>
>>>Personally I would shut them out and say if you were not buying from us
>>>before go away, and leave the US to rot this time but money always wins
>>>out.
>>
>>My, aren't you bitter.
>
> Its not bitterness at all, perhaps this is the time for the US public to get
> a wake up call an see that how they carry on is not sustainable. in terms of
> motoring,
> when most of us have gone to the effort of having cars with good economy it
> just seems stupid to let the resource go where there is tremendous waste.
> Maybe if they had to do less driving , (I know, its a sacrifice,) then the
> fuel available would go a lot further.
>
>

Where do you live? I'm guessing it isn't in an area where the nearest
grocery store is 5 miles away.


Matt

[Dan Luke]

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
> On 2005-09-01, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> Now that their short-sightedness is hurting everyone, badly --
>> worldwide --
>> maybe you'll realize just how much harm environmental extremists have
>> done.
>
> Short sightedness? Leaving everyone to freely pollute would be short
> sighted. This disaster, although on a massive scale, will be a mere
> blip
> compared to the permanent damage that allowing unfettered pollution
> would cause. Perhaps you ought to move to China, where there are few
> environmental regulations. A friend of mine lived there. The stories
> he
> told would make your wossnames spin. It is NASTY living in a polluted
> cesspool. Of course, it's not in your back yard so you probably don't
> mind so much so long as your fuel is cheap. So what if refinery
> workers
> are being poisoned and so what if residents of Texas City have a life
> expectency twenty years shorter than they do now. Having lived in that
> area, I can tell you that the environmental regulations need
> *tightening* or the whole area will be a toxic wasteland for our
> children and grandchildren to spend billions on cleaning up.
>
> You know I didn't need the marker beacon to tell me when I was over
> the
> OM for Galveston on the ILS 13? You knew the OM was coming because you
> could smell this foul, sickening smell from the refineries. Any time
> there was a temperature inversion, the air turned green. The otherwise
> gorgeous blue winter days in Texas were marred by the stench of the
> refineries in Pasadena. It used to be worse - the DE I flew with for
> my
> instrument and glider rides told me what the sickness rates used to be
> like and the rivers devoid of fish. Rivers that would periodically
> catch
> fire. Xylene showers. Industrial accidents that were so common no one
> even blinked.
>
> I've lived in one of America's most polluted cities - I dread to think
> what the place would have been like without the fairly weak
> environmental regulations that were in place. It is NOT impossible for
> oil companies to build more refineries. I think Mike Rappoport
> explained
> it pretty well already. Much of the 'self imposed' disaster is because
> the western world has generally moved to a just-in-time system of
> doing
> pretty much everything, where everything is run at exactly capacity
> with
> absolutely no margin for error - intentionally, to cut costs to the
> bare
> minimum.

Attaboy, Dylan.

I'm a Houston native, myself, and one of my strongest childhood memories
is of our family reunion being driven from Milby Park by the vile stench
coming from a nearby chemical plant.

Houston is still a nasty place under a temperature inversion, but it
used to be worse before there were even the half-hearted environmental
regulations that are in place now. Upper Galveston Bay is still so
polluted by Buffalo Bayou--Houston's filthy industrial artery--that its
fish cannot be eaten.

Jay, you simply have no idea.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[sfb]

The challenges are the roads from the warehouse to the store.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Where do you live? I'm guessing it isn't in an area where the nearest
> grocery store is 5 miles away.
>
>
> Matt

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:fZIRe.321609$xm3.157996@attbi_s21...
>> Actually if you owned the gasoline or worked for the people who owned it,
>> you would sell it to those who were willing to pay the most for it. You
>> would do this because you would know that there is somebody somewhere on
>> the planet that would be willing to sell to the US buyers for a higher
>> price and the only one hurt by your action would be you or those you
>> represent. The reality is that the worldwide supply of gasoline is now
>> reduced from what it was last week and therefore gasoline is worth more.
>> The price will rise until demand is reduced to equal supply. It is an
>> inescapable fact.
>
> No one argues that it is supply and demand at work. It always is.
>
> My point is that our "supply" side has been artificially restricted by
> onerous environmental laws. These laws are so complex and expensive to
> interpret that no one has built a new refinery in the U.S. since their
> inception.
>
> Thus, we find ourselves in the pickle we're in. One hurricane, and we're
> *all* dead, economically.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


Your assumption is not correct. It is not enviornmental regulation that is
preventing new refineries from being built. The biggest reason that no
"new" refineries have been built is that it is cheaper to increase capacity
at an existing refinery than to build a new one.

Obviously it costs refiner's to clean their emissions but it cost society
more if they don't. The increase in real estate and steel prices are larger
impediments to adding refining capacity than enviornmenal regulation.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

HELLO!!! ARE YOU LISTENING JAY???

Where do you get this BS?

IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD NEW REFINERIES.

sorry for shouting.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:bgKRe.302703$_o.171971@attbi_s71...
>> Us Gasoline supply has been cut by a third. My point is let the people in
>> the US reduce their consumption by a third. Price stays down, no one else
>> gets f****d up. As has been said in the thread, this was a problem
>> waiting to happen, the politicians knew about it, the local authorities
>> new about it and business knew about it but they ignored it.
>
> Right, but what you fail to realize is that this is a SELF-IMPOSED
> disaster, by well-meaning Americans who thought that they were helping the
> world by making it impossible for oil companies to build any new
> refineries.
>
> The hurricane was inevitable; the consequences were not.
>
> I suspect, given what you're saying, that you probably agreed with their
> environmental approach. You probably cheered as, one by one, more and
> more restrictive U.S. laws were passed, making it harder and harder for
> suppliers to refine crude oil into gasoline. Until now.
>
> Now that their short-sightedness is hurting everyone, badly --
> worldwide -- maybe you'll realize just how much harm environmental
> extremists have done.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[sfb]

Alexander's Gas and Oil Connections, August 2004.

"... you'd think oil companies would be falling over each other to build
new refineries. Not so. There hasn't been a new refinery built in the
United States in 28 years and more than 200 smaller facilities have
closed.''

"Nobody seems to want to build a refinery in their back yard," David
O'Reilly, chairman of ChevronTexaco, told a US Chamber of Commerce
luncheon the other day, deploring what he said was a regulatory and
permitting morass and almost certain citizen opposition to any new
refinery project.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnn43384.htm

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> HELLO!!! ARE YOU LISTENING JAY???
>
> Where do you get this BS?
>
> IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD NEW REFINERIES.
>
> sorry for shouting.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:bgKRe.302703$_o.171971@attbi_s71...
>>> Us Gasoline supply has been cut by a third. My point is let the
>>> people in the US reduce their consumption by a third. Price stays
>>> down, no one else gets f****d up. As has been said in the thread,
>>> this was a problem waiting to happen, the politicians knew about it,
>>> the local authorities new about it and business knew about it but
>>> they ignored it.
>>
>> Right, but what you fail to realize is that this is a SELF-IMPOSED
>> disaster, by well-meaning Americans who thought that they were
>> helping the world by making it impossible for oil companies to build
>> any new refineries.
>>
>> The hurricane was inevitable; the consequences were not.
>>
>> I suspect, given what you're saying, that you probably agreed with
>> their environmental approach. You probably cheered as, one by one,
>> more and more restrictive U.S. laws were passed, making it harder and
>> harder for suppliers to refine crude oil into gasoline. Until now.
>>
>> Now that their short-sightedness is hurting everyone, badly --
>> worldwide -- maybe you'll realize just how much harm environmental
>> extremists have done.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>
>

[john smith]

You know, I really like some of these off topic threads.
I actually learn somethings I didn't know.
Granted, it is Usenet.
However, the contributions by several of the regulars has to be given
credibility based on previous contributions.
Thanks guys/gals!

[Mike Rapoport]

Yes, I am aware that there are those who's job it is to complain about any
cost imposed on them

From 2003 to the present gasoline consumption, and therefore production, has
tripled while no new refineries have been built and many have been closed.
Basically the refineries have been rebuilt on the same footprint and now
output vastly more product.

Mike
MU-2


"sfb" > wrote in message news:MbMRe.28381$FL1.9166@trnddc09...
> Alexander's Gas and Oil Connections, August 2004.
>
> "... you'd think oil companies would be falling over each other to build
> new refineries. Not so. There hasn't been a new refinery built in the
> United States in 28 years and more than 200 smaller facilities have
> closed.''
>
> "Nobody seems to want to build a refinery in their back yard," David
> O'Reilly, chairman of ChevronTexaco, told a US Chamber of Commerce
> luncheon the other day, deploring what he said was a regulatory and
> permitting morass and almost certain citizen opposition to any new
> refinery project.
>
> http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnn43384.htm
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> HELLO!!! ARE YOU LISTENING JAY???
>>
>> Where do you get this BS?
>>
>> IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD NEW REFINERIES.
>>
>> sorry for shouting.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> news:bgKRe.302703$_o.171971@attbi_s71...
>>>> Us Gasoline supply has been cut by a third. My point is let the people
>>>> in the US reduce their consumption by a third. Price stays down, no one
>>>> else gets f****d up. As has been said in the thread, this was a problem
>>>> waiting to happen, the politicians knew about it, the local authorities
>>>> new about it and business knew about it but they ignored it.
>>>
>>> Right, but what you fail to realize is that this is a SELF-IMPOSED
>>> disaster, by well-meaning Americans who thought that they were helping
>>> the world by making it impossible for oil companies to build any new
>>> refineries.
>>>
>>> The hurricane was inevitable; the consequences were not.
>>>
>>> I suspect, given what you're saying, that you probably agreed with their
>>> environmental approach. You probably cheered as, one by one, more and
>>> more restrictive U.S. laws were passed, making it harder and harder for
>>> suppliers to refine crude oil into gasoline. Until now.
>>>
>>> Now that their short-sightedness is hurting everyone, badly --
>>> worldwide -- maybe you'll realize just how much harm environmental
>>> extremists have done.
>>> --
>>> Jay Honeck
>>> Iowa City, IA
>>> Pathfinder N56993
>>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[john smith]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> If the SPR oil goes to refineries in the midwest (where the supply of crude
> is unaffected) how will that really help? I agree that announcing the
> availiiblity of SPR oil has some marginal calming effect on the markets in
> the immediate term, but it is not going to affect the supply of gasoline in
> any meaningful way.

Any thoughts as to how the SPR oil will be allocated?
Auction?

[john smith]

> "john smith" > wrote in message
>>My wife came home from work yesterday and told me that a very large supply
>>of gasoline the company she works for has been holding in reserve for
>>corporate operations has been confiscated by the federal government.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Could we have some details on this statement like who your wife works for?
> If not this is the kind of fear mongering that will make things go from bad
> to worse.

I will not divulge that information.
I haven't seen that the information has been made public as yet.

[john smith]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> Delivery is a largely new problem spawned by the destruction of the
> hurricane.

Wow! We destroyed a hurricane!!!
Now if we can just destroy all the others there will be no more disasters!!!

:-))

[Darrel Toepfer]

Chris wrote:

>>>Personally I would shut them out and say if you were not buying from us
>>>before go away, and leave the US to rot this time but money always wins
>>>out.

> Walking a bit more might even sort the fat *******s out too.

Wow, to think of the billions we spent in WWI&II and the lives loss to
save your useless tits out east...

[Darrel Toepfer]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> On another note, anyone who lives near the ocean in a city that's 18
> feet below sea level is living on borrowed time until the next disaster.
> If businesses were refused insurance and government aid for disasters
> such as this, and the poor were forced to work for a living, no one (or
> very few) would live in areas like New Orleans because the financial
> risk would be too great. Since the government swoops in to cover much
> of the financial loss, there's less at risk for the individual, and
> lives are needlessly lost.

The people still struggling to make repairs from hurricanes from the
past 3 years, ain't living off of a gov'nment teet. And lots of them are
50 miles or more from any coast... It took me over 5 months to have my
roof and fence replaced and that was with insurance and my own money.
Lots of people can't afford that luxury...

[Darrel Toepfer]

john smith wrote:

> Any thoughts as to how the SPR oil will be allocated?
> Auction?

Can't say, but we built a metering skid for the one in the Sulphur, La.
area (West Hackberry). That was after the salt dome got penetrated by a
well digger and set on fire. They had no idea how much was in there nor
how much was lost. So they used the skid to meter what was pumped out
and from then on, what was pumped back into it... Badly twisted my ankle
on that b*tch when I jumped off of it from making final adjustments, a
steel toed boot got hung between the fins on the explosion proof box. 3
days later I put down my crutches and limped down the isle that weekend
to marry my wife, 25 years ago come January...

[Mike Rapoport]

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> If the SPR oil goes to refineries in the midwest (where the supply of
>> crude is unaffected) how will that really help? I agree that announcing
>> the availiiblity of SPR oil has some marginal calming effect on the
>> markets in the immediate term, but it is not going to affect the supply
>> of gasoline in any meaningful way.
>
> Any thoughts as to how the SPR oil will be allocated?
> Auction?

No. The SPR "lends" the crude to the refiner and the refiner than replaces
it at a later date.

Mike
MU-2

[[email protected]]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> HELLO!!! ARE YOU LISTENING JAY???
>
> Where do you get this BS?
>
> IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD NEW REFINERIES.
>
> sorry for shouting.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

True, it's not physically impossible to build a new refinery here in
the US, but it's nearly financially and enviromentally impossible. EPA
regs and enviromental studies and all the paperwork that has to be
accomplished and signed off prior to even designing the plant has
pretty well made new construction a non-starter since the late 70's.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-01, > wrote:
> You know, I could care less about "the environment" (I mean, a 10-day
> forecast fore one city is as good as a ouija board, but these guys
> think they can forecast global weather patterns 100 years into the

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a
meterologist and a climatologist.

Now imagine this analogy. You have a pan of water on a stove. The
meterologist is predicting where the bubbles will appear, and where the
convection will happen, and what it will do over the next 30 seconds.
The climatologist is looking at the flame, and noting that if you turn
the gas up, the water as a whole will heat faster leading to more
bubbles and convection. The climatologist isn't trying to predict where
the bubbles and the convection will happen, but just noting that turning
up the heat will certainly increase them. His job is quite frankly much
easier than the guy who has to predict the actual small scale
convections and the location of the bubbles.

In the same way, it is well understood and well known that increasing
the concentration of CO2 (and other gases) keeps more of the sun's
energy in Earth's atmosphere. It is therefore a certainty that if you
keep more of the Sun's energy, the Earth warms up, as certain as 1+1=2
or as certain as turning the gas up on the pot of water causes it to
heat more quickly. Just because the guy who predicts where the
convections are can't easily predict them 10 days from now, it doesn't
mean the guy who sees the heat has been turned up can't predict that the
whole system will contain more energy in 100 years time.

--
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"

[Dan Luke]

"Darrel Toepfer" wrote:

>> On another note, anyone who lives near the ocean in a city that's 18
>> feet below sea level is living on borrowed time until the next
>> disaster. If businesses were refused insurance and government aid
>> for disasters such as this, and the poor were forced to work for a
>> living, no one (or very few) would live in areas like New Orleans
>> because the financial risk would be too great. Since the government
>> swoops in to cover much of the financial loss, there's less at risk
>> for the individual, and lives are needlessly lost.
>
> The people still struggling to make repairs from hurricanes from the
> past 3 years, ain't living off of a gov'nment teet. And lots of them
> are 50 miles or more from any coast... It took me over 5 months to
> have my roof and fence replaced and that was with insurance and my own
> money. Lots of people can't afford that luxury...

Isn't it wonderful that we dumbasses living down here are able to
benefit from the wisdom of all the smart people in the rest of the
country?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

>> Thus, we find ourselves in the pickle we're in. One hurricane, and we're
>> *all* dead, economically.
>
> Now that's just hyperbole, sorry. You're not all dead economically - far
> from it.

True enough.

But this event will have a devastating impact on our economy, thanks largely
to incredibly poor governance.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, you simply have no idea.

Really?

I grew up in a city that hosted the largest tractor plant in the world (JI
Case's "Clausen Works"), right on the shores of Lake Michigan. Ten
thousand men worked there every day.

Racine was also host to Modine Manufacturing, Twin Disc, Walker
Manufacturing, and a hundred other smaller manufacturing plants. The skies
overhead were black with soot, and the lake water was very polluted.

Throughout the '70s, as more and more environmental laws were enacted, the
air slowly cleared, and the water quality improved. And, one by one, each
of these plants closed.

The Clausen Works survived, at a much diminished capacity, until just a
couple of years ago. It's now a great, barren, concrete and asphalt plain.
Although a couple of those companies maintain a presence in Racine, their
production facilities are long gone.

Now, our Lake water is so clear, that the lake perch have been devastated by
the salmon -- the poor things simply have no place to hide, because the
water is actually *too* clean. And the boating is great -- for those few
who can afford it.

And all those jobs? All those families? All that infrastructure? All
gone.

Now, obviously, there's a lot more to the utter demise of the Rust Belt than
merely environmental lunacy. The unions got greedy, and came to expect
that a guy turning a nut with a wrench all day was really worth $60K per
year. And management got fat and lazy, thinking that the gravy train would
last forever.

But if you don't think that over-the-top, complex and expensive
environmental regulation played a major part in our economic collapse (and
that is truly what it was/is), you are either a fool or you just haven't
been paying attention. And now we're seeing it happen in the oil
industry -- the very heart and mainstay of our economic system.

We have seen the enemy, and it is us.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> As I understand it, refining is actually a pretty low-margin business,
> which tends to discourage investing in one iota more capacity than you
> can sell tomorrow.

Right -- and why do you suppose that is? It certainly didn't used to be.

Let's see. The price of crude is sky high. Oil company profits are sky
high. Yet oil refining is a low-margin business. Hmm.... What's going on
here?

Can anyone say "Regulatory Insanity"? That industry can't fart without
filling out reams of EPA paperwork, in triplicate. And each one of those
forms is filled out by a very highly paid person -- that you and I are
directly subsidizing at the pump.

> So, in my mind the high price of gas is the best way to spur
> conservation. The government could mandate things but all of us as
> individuals will figure out better and cheaper ways on our own. I would
> not support a tax increase however, because I don't support increasing
> the size of government, period.

True enough. But what a stupid time to have this happen, when there's a
real surplus of oil on the market.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Your assumption is not correct. It is not enviornmental regulation that
> is
> preventing new refineries from being built. The biggest reason that no
> "new" refineries have been built is that it is cheaper to increase
> capacity at an existing refinery than to build a new one.

Your point is irrelevant. Their costs are lower largely because of the
onerous environmental regulations that essentially prevent the construction
of new refineries until the cost of gasoline has risen so incredibly high
that consumption will fall to a level where the refinery is no longer
needed.

This phenomenon is called "social engineering", and is diametrically opposed
to the laws of "supply and demand." Educated observers have always known
that this was the ultimate goal of the most radical environmentalists (and,
hell -- the ADMIT it) -- to make construction of refineries (or nuclear
power plants, for that matter) economically impossible.

They have succeeded.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>> Jay, you simply have no idea.
>
> Really?
>
> I grew up in a city that hosted the largest tractor plant in the world
> (JI Case's "Clausen Works"), right on the shores of Lake Michigan.
> Ten thousand men worked there every day.
>
> Racine was also host to Modine Manufacturing, Twin Disc, Walker
> Manufacturing, and a hundred other smaller manufacturing plants. The
> skies overhead were black with soot, and the lake water was very
> polluted.
>
> Throughout the '70s, as more and more environmental laws were enacted,
> the air slowly cleared, and the water quality improved. And, one by
> one, each of these plants closed.
>
> The Clausen Works survived, at a much diminished capacity, until just
> a couple of years ago. It's now a great, barren, concrete and asphalt
> plain. Although a couple of those companies maintain a presence in
> Racine, their production facilities are long gone.
>
> Now, our Lake water is so clear, that the lake perch have been
> devastated by the salmon -- the poor things simply have no place to
> hide, because the water is actually *too* clean. And the boating is
> great -- for those few who can afford it.
>
> And all those jobs? All those families? All that infrastructure?
> All gone.
>
> Now, obviously, there's a lot more to the utter demise of the Rust
> Belt than merely environmental lunacy. The unions got greedy, and
> came to expect that a guy turning a nut with a wrench all day was
> really worth $60K per year. And management got fat and lazy, thinking
> that the gravy train would last forever.
>
> But if you don't think that over-the-top, complex and expensive
> environmental regulation played a major part in our economic collapse
> (and that is truly what it was/is), you are either a fool or you just
> haven't been paying attention. And now we're seeing it happen in the
> oil industry -- the very heart and mainstay of our economic system.
>
> We have seen the enemy, and it is us.

Incredible. You have actually argued that gross pollution of the Great
Lakes was acceptable.

As for who is a fool and who isn't, your recent posts haver settled that
matter for me.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> > The people still struggling to make repairs from hurricanes from the
> > past 3 years, ain't living off of a gov'nment teet. And lots of them
> > are 50 miles or more from any coast... It took me over 5 months to
> > have my roof and fence replaced and that was with insurance and my own
> > money. Lots of people can't afford that luxury...
>
> Isn't it wonderful that we dumbasses living down here are able to
> benefit from the wisdom of all the smart people in the rest of the
> country?


Isn't it wonderful that you who live down there are able to demonstrate
your ignorance toward the impact natural disasters have on other parts
of the country?

I live in the mid-atlantic states, and we experienced severe flooding,
damage and destruction as a result of the residual rains of hurricane
Ivan last year. Communities have not yet fully recovered. However,
very few lost their lives despite the fact that the massive flooding up
here was in no way anticipated.



JKG

[TaxSrv]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> ...
> Can anyone say "Regulatory Insanity"? That industry
can't fart without
> filling out reams of EPA paperwork, in triplicate. And
each one of those
> forms is filled out by a very highly paid person -- that
you and I are
> directly subsidizing at the pump.
>

OK, so say Exxon Mobil's U.S. sales are $100 billion So,
with the salaries of those few people in the numerator, what
effect on pump prices do you compute?

Fred F.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Darrel Toepfer > wrote:
> > On another note, anyone who lives near the ocean in a city that's 18
> > feet below sea level is living on borrowed time until the next disaster.
> > If businesses were refused insurance and government aid for disasters
> > such as this, and the poor were forced to work for a living, no one (or
> > very few) would live in areas like New Orleans because the financial
> > risk would be too great. Since the government swoops in to cover much
> > of the financial loss, there's less at risk for the individual, and
> > lives are needlessly lost.
>
> The people still struggling to make repairs from hurricanes from the
> past 3 years, ain't living off of a gov'nment teet. And lots of them are
> 50 miles or more from any coast... It took me over 5 months to have my
> roof and fence replaced and that was with insurance and my own money.
> Lots of people can't afford that luxury...


That's not my point. There are catastrophic events that happen no
matter where you live, but the incidence and severity of catastrophic
events are markedly higher along the southeastern/gulf coast. If there
was little or no government money and insurers refused to cover for
hurricane damage, chances are good that the population density in these
large cities would not be at risk because there would be no reason for
folks to live there... there would be very small economies.

The "refugee" situation in New Orleans is largely a result of socialist
government policies that permit large numbers of people to live in
poverty.




JKG

[JohnH]

> Incredible. You have actually argued that gross pollution of the
> Great Lakes was acceptable.
>
> As for who is a fool and who isn't, your recent posts haver settled
> that matter for me.

His intense haterd for anyone who gives a crap about the environment seems
to be turning him into a blathering idiot.

Jay, quit whining already. Maybe you an relax by filing the air with lead
deposits. ;)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-02, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> Now that's just hyperbole, sorry. You're not all dead economically - far
>> from it.
>
> True enough.
>
> But this event will have a devastating impact on our economy, thanks largely
> to incredibly poor governance.

Devastating? Hardly. Perhaps to the poor sods stuck in the affected
region, but not to the rest of the country. The US economy is a lot more
resilient than you give it credit for.

If your unemployment rate goes above 10% as a direct consequence of
Katrina and the events surrounding it, I will personally come to Iowa
and buy you a beer. I don't think I'll be forking out for a
transatlantic airfare to do that any time soon.

--
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"

[Andre]

I think the biggest issue here is what is the cause of the heating up. Most
climatologists say it is the CO2, but people in other fields have noted that
the earth goes through this all the time, heating and cooling.

In the 60's and 70's they were telling us to prepare for another ice age.
Now it is global warming.

The truth is we can't control the elements, as much as we would like to
pretend we can. Time and money invested in NO to keep the river there, thus
the industry means that we must accept the problems we create.

When Cyrus diverted the waters of Babylon, the river could no longer support
the city. The people moved on and the city disappeared.

[Dan Luke]

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:

> The "refugee" situation in New Orleans is largely a result of socialist
> government policies that permit large numbers of people to live in
> poverty.

What's the alternative? Would you prefer even stronger socialist policies to
subsidize them out of poverty?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
>> "john smith" > wrote in message
>>>My wife came home from work yesterday and told me that a very large
>>>supply of gasoline the company she works for has been holding in reserve
>>>for corporate operations has been confiscated by the federal government.
>
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Could we have some details on this statement like who your wife works
>> for? If not this is the kind of fear mongering that will make things go
>> from bad to worse.
>
> I will not divulge that information.
> I haven't seen that the information has been made public as yet.

Well then john at this point we'll just have to believe your full of crap.

[Mike Rapoport]

No.. New refineries have not been built because it is cheaper to increase
the capacity of existing ones. These retrofits are subject to all the
enviornmental regulation that a new refinery would be subjet to.

Mike
MU-2

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> HELLO!!! ARE YOU LISTENING JAY???
>>
>> Where do you get this BS?
>>
>> IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD NEW REFINERIES.
>>
>> sorry for shouting.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>
> True, it's not physically impossible to build a new refinery here in
> the US, but it's nearly financially and enviromentally impossible. EPA
> regs and enviromental studies and all the paperwork that has to be
> accomplished and signed off prior to even designing the plant has
> pretty well made new construction a non-starter since the late 70's.
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:duXRe.323227$xm3.46758@attbi_s21...
>> As I understand it, refining is actually a pretty low-margin business,
>> which tends to discourage investing in one iota more capacity than you
>> can sell tomorrow.
>
> Right -- and why do you suppose that is? It certainly didn't used to
> be.
>
> Let's see. The price of crude is sky high. Oil company profits are sky
> high. Yet oil refining is a low-margin business. Hmm.... What's going
> on here?
>
> Can anyone say "Regulatory Insanity"? That industry can't fart without
> filling out reams of EPA paperwork, in triplicate. And each one of those
> forms is filled out by a very highly paid person -- that you and I are
> directly subsidizing at the pump.
>

Jay, I enjoy your trip and event reports but keep your job as an inkeeper.
You won't make it as a securities analyst. The regulatory paperwork burden
isn't even a rounding error to the energy industry.



>> So, in my mind the high price of gas is the best way to spur
>> conservation. The government could mandate things but all of us as
>> individuals will figure out better and cheaper ways on our own. I would
>> not support a tax increase however, because I don't support increasing
>> the size of government, period.
>
> True enough. But what a stupid time to have this happen, when there's a
> real surplus of oil on the market.
> --

Yes and very true. We had the prefect opportunity five years ago when the
CAFE standards were scheduled for an increase but our brilliant new
president decided not of implement them. If he had, about 80% of the US
vehicle fleet would be getting a couple more MPG which, as it turns out,
would exactly match the reduced gasoline output from Katrina.


Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

No. All the retrofitted refineries are subjet to the same enviornmental
restrictions as a new one would be.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:vAXRe.323239$xm3.96521@attbi_s21...
>
>> Your assumption is not correct. It is not enviornmental regulation that
>> is
>> preventing new refineries from being built. The biggest reason that no
>> "new" refineries have been built is that it is cheaper to increase
>> capacity at an existing refinery than to build a new one.
>
> Your point is irrelevant. Their costs are lower largely because of the
> onerous environmental regulations that essentially prevent the
> construction of new refineries until the cost of gasoline has risen so
> incredibly high that consumption will fall to a level where the refinery
> is no longer needed.
>
> This phenomenon is called "social engineering", and is diametrically
> opposed to the laws of "supply and demand." Educated observers have
> always known that this was the ultimate goal of the most radical
> environmentalists (and, hell -- the ADMIT it) -- to make construction of
> refineries (or nuclear power plants, for that matter) economically
> impossible.
>
> They have succeeded.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[john smith]

>>>"john smith" > wrote in message
>>>>My wife came home from work yesterday and told me that a very large
>>>>supply of gasoline the company she works for has been holding in reserve
>>>>for corporate operations has been confiscated by the federal government.

>>Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>Could we have some details on this statement like who your wife works
>>>for? If not this is the kind of fear mongering that will make things go
>>>from bad to worse.

>>>"john smith" > wrote in message
>>I will not divulge that information.
>>I haven't seen that the information has been made public as yet.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Well then john at this point we'll just have to believe your full of crap.

Curious... Why is it so important that you know what company it is?

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:

> Devastating? Hardly. Perhaps to the poor sods stuck in the affected
> region, but not to the rest of the country. The US economy is a lot more
> resilient than you give it credit for.
>
> If your unemployment rate goes above 10% as a direct consequence of
> Katrina and the events surrounding it, I will personally come to Iowa
> and buy you a beer. I don't think I'll be forking out for a
> transatlantic airfare to do that any time soon.


The reality is that gas prices will begin to decline (I suspect within a
couple of weeks, if not sooner), the economy will remain solid, and the
areas affected by the hurricane will recover. Communities have
recovered from hurricanes, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, etc., and it
will happen again.

I see that the news media is in full force with the overly negative
sensational news coverage. I have to dig to find any positive stories
at all, though I'm sure that there are plenty of heroic and herculean
efforts being made by many wonderful folks in the affected area. It
amazes me that these media companies don't seem to have the same level
of compassion and volunteer spirit that they suggest everyone else
should display. I'm not sure how running around trying to film all of
the dead bodies or find the most spectacular destruction is in any way
constructive.



JKG

[Gig 601XL Builder]

There is one huge exception to this Mike. A new refinery in a new location
has a much more significant environmental impact study that has to be done.



"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> No. All the retrofitted refineries are subjet to the same enviornmental
> restrictions as a new one would be.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:vAXRe.323239$xm3.96521@attbi_s21...
>>
>>> Your assumption is not correct. It is not enviornmental regulation that
>>> is
>>> preventing new refineries from being built. The biggest reason that no
>>> "new" refineries have been built is that it is cheaper to increase
>>> capacity at an existing refinery than to build a new one.
>>
>> Your point is irrelevant. Their costs are lower largely because of the
>> onerous environmental regulations that essentially prevent the
>> construction of new refineries until the cost of gasoline has risen so
>> incredibly high that consumption will fall to a level where the refinery
>> is no longer needed.
>>
>> This phenomenon is called "social engineering", and is diametrically
>> opposed to the laws of "supply and demand." Educated observers have
>> always known that this was the ultimate goal of the most radical
>> environmentalists (and, hell -- the ADMIT it) -- to make construction of
>> refineries (or nuclear power plants, for that matter) economically
>> impossible.
>>
>> They have succeeded.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>
>

[john smith]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> The reality is that gas prices will begin to decline (I suspect within a
> couple of weeks, if not sooner), the economy will remain solid, and the
> areas affected by the hurricane will recover. Communities have
> recovered from hurricanes, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, etc., and it
> will happen again.
> I see that the news media is in full force with the overly negative
> sensational news coverage. I have to dig to find any positive stories
> at all, though I'm sure that there are plenty of heroic and herculean
> efforts being made by many wonderful folks in the affected area. It
> amazes me that these media companies don't seem to have the same level
> of compassion and volunteer spirit that they suggest everyone else
> should display. I'm not sure how running around trying to film all of
> the dead bodies or find the most spectacular destruction is in any way
> constructive.

Isn't it interesting that the media isn't telling us that the fuel at
the pumps and the oil at the refineries was purchased a year ago.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>>"john smith" > wrote in message
>>>>>My wife came home from work yesterday and told me that a very large
>>>>>supply of gasoline the company she works for has been holding in
>>>>>reserve for corporate operations has been confiscated by the federal
>>>>>government.
>
>>>Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>>Could we have some details on this statement like who your wife works
>>>>for? If not this is the kind of fear mongering that will make things go
>>>>from bad to worse.
>
>>>>"john smith" > wrote in message
>>>I will not divulge that information.
>>>I haven't seen that the information has been made public as yet.
>
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Well then john at this point we'll just have to believe your full of
>> crap.
>
> Curious... Why is it so important that you know what company it is?

You made a statement in a public forum that is of the type that could cause
panic or other negative reaction. When asked for reasonable information to
support your statement you decline.

If you yell fire you might ought to expect someone to ask where the smoke
is.

[john smith]

>>Curious... Why is it so important that you know what company it is?

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> You made a statement in a public forum that is of the type that could cause
> panic or other negative reaction. When asked for reasonable information to
> support your statement you decline.

How is the confiscation of a private company's fuel storage for
emergency operations going to panic the general public?

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-02, Jonathan Goodish > wrote:
> should display. I'm not sure how running around trying to film all of
> the dead bodies or find the most spectacular destruction is in any way
> constructive.

Well, I'm sure it'll be used in the inevitable soppy disaster movie
about Katrina that Hollywood is bound to make in around 5 years time :/

--
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"

[Darrel Toepfer]

john smith wrote:

> Isn't it interesting that the media isn't telling us that the fuel at
> the pumps and the oil at the refineries was purchased a year ago.

Only thing that old is the oil itself, and it took a few years to get to
where its refinable...

Gasoline, unlike wine, doesn't improve with age...

[Darrel Toepfer]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>>Curious... Why is it so important that you know what company it is?
>
> You made a statement in a public forum that is of the type that could cause
> panic or other negative reaction. When asked for reasonable information to
> support your statement you decline.
>
> If you yell fire you might ought to expect someone to ask where the smoke
> is.

Or get cuffs slapped on you for having done so...

[Matt Barrow]

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> > The reality is that gas prices will begin to decline (I suspect within a
> > couple of weeks, if not sooner), the economy will remain solid, and the
> > areas affected by the hurricane will recover. Communities have
> > recovered from hurricanes, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, etc., and it
> > will happen again.
> > I see that the news media is in full force with the overly negative
> > sensational news coverage. I have to dig to find any positive stories
> > at all, though I'm sure that there are plenty of heroic and herculean
> > efforts being made by many wonderful folks in the affected area. It
> > amazes me that these media companies don't seem to have the same level
> > of compassion and volunteer spirit that they suggest everyone else
> > should display. I'm not sure how running around trying to film all of
> > the dead bodies or find the most spectacular destruction is in any way
> > constructive.
>
> Isn't it interesting that the media isn't telling us that the fuel at
> the pumps and the oil at the refineries was purchased a year ago.
>

And when prices are rising rapidly, you base your CURRENT pricing on where
the market is HEADED, not where it WAS.

[[email protected]]

I agree with you about the NIMBYism regarding industry and power sites.

Heck, there are even people against putting up wind turbines "because
it would destroy the look of the area and kill birds (not true, btw)".
Yet they have no trouble building their gaudy stick frame McMansion
after clear cutting the land and causing their fellow neighbours major
storm water drainage.

There was a contrevisity a year or two ago about an oil company wanting
to shut and bulldoze a very recently built refinery in California. The
company wouldn't sell it, they wanted to bulldoze it and sell the land.
The community / state wanted to keep it. I dont' know the outcome.

I've personally thought the Saudi's should build a refinery in Mexico
and pipe the fuel products up to the US. Less regulation in Mexico
should make it possible for the Saudi's to cheaply bribe the officials
to get it built. And the Saudi's stand to make more money by selling
the end product, not raw material.

As long as a nuclear power plant has a containment dome, I'm all for
it. A coal fired power station puts more radiation into the air than
would ever be permissible for a nuclear plant.

d

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Dylan Smith > wrote:
>
>> Devastating? Hardly. Perhaps to the poor sods stuck in the affected
>> region, but not to the rest of the country. The US economy is a lot more
>> resilient than you give it credit for.
>>
>> If your unemployment rate goes above 10% as a direct consequence of
>> Katrina and the events surrounding it, I will personally come to Iowa
>> and buy you a beer. I don't think I'll be forking out for a
>> transatlantic airfare to do that any time soon.
>
>
> The reality is that gas prices will begin to decline (I suspect within a
> couple of weeks, if not sooner), the economy will remain solid, and the
> areas affected by the hurricane will recover. Communities have
> recovered from hurricanes, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, etc., and it
> will happen again.
>
> I see that the news media is in full force with the overly negative
> sensational news coverage. I have to dig to find any positive stories
> at all, though I'm sure that there are plenty of heroic and herculean
> efforts being made by many wonderful folks in the affected area. It
> amazes me that these media companies don't seem to have the same level
> of compassion and volunteer spirit that they suggest everyone else
> should display. I'm not sure how running around trying to film all of
> the dead bodies or find the most spectacular destruction is in any way
> constructive.
>
>

Actually the media hasn't seemed to go running around that much. Most of the
reporters I've seen seem to be sticking to one place which is a little
unusual for them. For example FOX, as of last, had only shown one body. It
is was kind of hard to miss it was on I-10 which is pretty much where
Shepard Smith has been reporting from.

It's my bet we don't know how bad it is yet.

[Mike Rapoport]

Agreed but what is the cost of that study compared to the multi-billion
dollar cost of the refinery? Less than 1%. My point is not that there
are no obstacles to constructing a new refinery but rather that those
obstacles are not the reason that new refineries have not been built.

Mike
MU-2


"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:Sr%Re.10479$7f5.787@okepread01...
> There is one huge exception to this Mike. A new refinery in a new location
> has a much more significant environmental impact study that has to be
> done.
>
>
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> No. All the retrofitted refineries are subjet to the same enviornmental
>> restrictions as a new one would be.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> news:vAXRe.323239$xm3.96521@attbi_s21...
>>>
>>>> Your assumption is not correct. It is not enviornmental regulation
>>>> that is
>>>> preventing new refineries from being built. The biggest reason that no
>>>> "new" refineries have been built is that it is cheaper to increase
>>>> capacity at an existing refinery than to build a new one.
>>>
>>> Your point is irrelevant. Their costs are lower largely because of the
>>> onerous environmental regulations that essentially prevent the
>>> construction of new refineries until the cost of gasoline has risen so
>>> incredibly high that consumption will fall to a level where the refinery
>>> is no longer needed.
>>>
>>> This phenomenon is called "social engineering", and is diametrically
>>> opposed to the laws of "supply and demand." Educated observers have
>>> always known that this was the ultimate goal of the most radical
>>> environmentalists (and, hell -- the ADMIT it) -- to make construction of
>>> refineries (or nuclear power plants, for that matter) economically
>>> impossible.
>>>
>>> They have succeeded.
>>> --
>>> Jay Honeck
>>> Iowa City, IA
>>> Pathfinder N56993
>>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>> The reality is that gas prices will begin to decline (I suspect within a
>> couple of weeks, if not sooner), the economy will remain solid, and the
>> areas affected by the hurricane will recover. Communities have recovered
>> from hurricanes, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, etc., and it will happen
>> again.
>> I see that the news media is in full force with the overly negative
>> sensational news coverage. I have to dig to find any positive stories at
>> all, though I'm sure that there are plenty of heroic and herculean
>> efforts being made by many wonderful folks in the affected area. It
>> amazes me that these media companies don't seem to have the same level of
>> compassion and volunteer spirit that they suggest everyone else should
>> display. I'm not sure how running around trying to film all of the dead
>> bodies or find the most spectacular destruction is in any way
>> constructive.
>
> Isn't it interesting that the media isn't telling us that the fuel at the
> pumps and the oil at the refineries was purchased a year ago.

Where do they keep it? Must be huge this 17,520,000,000 gallon tank.

Mike
MU-2

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"john smith" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>Curious... Why is it so important that you know what company it is?
>
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> You made a statement in a public forum that is of the type that could
>> cause panic or other negative reaction. When asked for reasonable
>> information to support your statement you decline.
>
> How is the confiscation of a private company's fuel storage for emergency
> operations going to panic the general public?

Oh, Please!

[Gig 601XL Builder]

It's not the cost of the study it is the years spent in court to overcome
the objections raised by the study.


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Agreed but what is the cost of that study compared to the multi-billion
> dollar cost of the refinery? Less than 1%. My point is not that there
> are no obstacles to constructing a new refinery but rather that those
> obstacles are not the reason that new refineries have not been built.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:Sr%Re.10479$7f5.787@okepread01...
>> There is one huge exception to this Mike. A new refinery in a new
>> location has a much more significant environmental impact study that has
>> to be done.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>> No. All the retrofitted refineries are subjet to the same enviornmental
>>> restrictions as a new one would be.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> MU-2
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>> news:vAXRe.323239$xm3.96521@attbi_s21...
>>>>
>>>>> Your assumption is not correct. It is not enviornmental regulation
>>>>> that is
>>>>> preventing new refineries from being built. The biggest reason that
>>>>> no "new" refineries have been built is that it is cheaper to increase
>>>>> capacity at an existing refinery than to build a new one.
>>>>
>>>> Your point is irrelevant. Their costs are lower largely because of the
>>>> onerous environmental regulations that essentially prevent the
>>>> construction of new refineries until the cost of gasoline has risen so
>>>> incredibly high that consumption will fall to a level where the
>>>> refinery is no longer needed.
>>>>
>>>> This phenomenon is called "social engineering", and is diametrically
>>>> opposed to the laws of "supply and demand." Educated observers have
>>>> always known that this was the ultimate goal of the most radical
>>>> environmentalists (and, hell -- the ADMIT it) -- to make construction
>>>> of refineries (or nuclear power plants, for that matter) economically
>>>> impossible.
>>>>
>>>> They have succeeded.
>>>> --
>>>> Jay Honeck
>>>> Iowa City, IA
>>>> Pathfinder N56993
>>>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[john smith]

>>Isn't it interesting that the media isn't telling us that the fuel at the
>>pumps and the oil at the refineries was purchased a year ago.

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Where do they keep it? Must be huge this 17,520,000,000 gallon tank.

Come on, Mike!
Help me out here... how do future contracts work?

[john smith]

> "john smith" > wrote in message
>>>>Curious... Why is it so important that you know what company it is?

>>Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>You made a statement in a public forum that is of the type that could
>>>cause panic or other negative reaction. When asked for reasonable
>>>information to support your statement you decline.

> "john smith" > wrote in message
>>How is the confiscation of a private company's fuel storage for emergency
>>operations going to panic the general public?

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Oh, Please!

That is not an answer.
Perhaps in the wake of all the lunacy going on in New Orleans, I still
underestimate the stupidity of the masses you are implying?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"john smith" > wrote in message
.. .
>> "john smith" > wrote in message
>>>>>Curious... Why is it so important that you know what company it is?
>
>>>Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>>You made a statement in a public forum that is of the type that could
>>>>cause panic or other negative reaction. When asked for reasonable
>>>>information to support your statement you decline.
>
>> "john smith" > wrote in message
>>>How is the confiscation of a private company's fuel storage for emergency
>>>operations going to panic the general public?
>
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Oh, Please!
>
> That is not an answer.
> Perhaps in the wake of all the lunacy going on in New Orleans, I still
> underestimate the stupidity of the masses you are implying?

There's a question mark there but I still have a little problem parsing that
as a question but to answer previous question.

There is currently a shortage of gas. People are already nervous about it.
They here that the authorities are confiscating gas. They all run out and
buy gas and there is then no gas for those that need it. Or worse. They hear
your little story and then see a green truck at their local gas station and
think all the gas is being confiscated and start shooting at the nice men
that are also all dressed in green.

Never underestimate the stupidity of scared people.

Is that clear enough for you?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>Isn't it interesting that the media isn't telling us that the fuel at the
>>>pumps and the oil at the refineries was purchased a year ago.
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> Where do they keep it? Must be huge this 17,520,000,000 gallon tank.
>
> Come on, Mike!
> Help me out here... how do future contracts work?

I believe that October futures are what is being traded now. If I go buy
contracts for a million gallons of unleaded fuel I own the rights to gas
that is going to be delivered in October. If I buy it at say $2.69/Gal and I
can sell it at a later time up to the delivery date for a higher amount I
make money. If I choose not to sell the contract I'm going to be looking for
a real big gas tank come October.

[sfb]

Isn't it time to stop beating this dead horse? The guys who own and
operate refineries are reluctant to invest in new refining capacity.
Maybe the home would let you out so you could explain to them that they
know not of what they speak.


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Agreed but what is the cost of that study compared to the
> multi-billion dollar cost of the refinery? Less than 1%. My point
> is not that there are no obstacles to constructing a new refinery but
> rather that those obstacles are not the reason that new refineries
> have not been built.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>

[Darrel Toepfer]

john smith wrote:

> Perhaps in the wake of all the lunacy going on in New Orleans, I still
> underestimate the stupidity of the masses you are implying?

Words for today:

Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops
bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows
little sign of breaking down in the near future.

Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the
person who doesn't get it.

Karmageddon: It's like, when everybody is sending off all these
really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's
like, a serious bummer.

Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when
they come at you rapidly.

Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole!

Fight boredom:
http://www.humorhaus.com/hh757.htm

[john smith]

> There is currently a shortage of gas. People are already nervous about it.
> They here that the authorities are confiscating gas. They all run out and
> buy gas and there is then no gas for those that need it. Or worse. They hear
> your little story and then see a green truck at their local gas station and
> think all the gas is being confiscated and start shooting at the nice men
> that are also all dressed in green.
> Never underestimate the stupidity of scared people.
> Is that clear enough for you?

How does one make the leap from confiscating a private company's
reserves to public retail outlets?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

You really just don't get it do you john.

[Jay Honeck]

> HELLO!!! ARE YOU LISTENING JAY???
>
> Where do you get this BS?
>
> IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD NEW REFINERIES.

Hmmm. Zero refineries built in the 28 years since EPA regulations were
rolled out.

That would be, exactly, zero.

Sure, Mike, it's not impossible. But it will probably take a presidential
rescinding of the stupid EPA laws to get it done.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> No.. New refineries have not been built because it is cheaper to increase
> the capacity of existing ones. These retrofits are subject to all the
> enviornmental regulation that a new refinery would be subjet to.

That's not true.

There are a million ways to expand any existing business -- refineries
included -- without tripping the government's "regulation Nazis."

Whatever the oil companies have done by way of expansion-in-place has been
terribly limited by the financial burden of overly-restrictive EPA rules --
to the ultimate detriment of everyone.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Yes and very true. We had the prefect opportunity five years ago when the
> CAFE standards were scheduled for an increase but our brilliant new
> president decided not of implement them. If he had, about 80% of the US
> vehicle fleet would be getting a couple more MPG which, as it turns out,
> would exactly match the reduced gasoline output from Katrina.

So, of course, we wouldn't now be seeing a 30% increase in the price at the
pump if only Bush had implemented stricter mileage rules in 2000?

I'm afraid you're dreaming, Mike. We'd only have had more expensive cars
then AND the same, higher gas prices today.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> As long as a nuclear power plant has a containment dome, I'm all for
> it. A coal fired power station puts more radiation into the air than
> would ever be permissible for a nuclear plant.

I'm a long-term nuclear proponent, and have never heard that fact.

Can you site a source, please?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Doof]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:z2PSe.310396$_o.167366@attbi_s71...
>> HELLO!!! ARE YOU LISTENING JAY???
>>
>> Where do you get this BS?
>>
>> IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD NEW REFINERIES.
>
> Hmmm. Zero refineries built in the 28 years since EPA regulations were
> rolled out.
>
> That would be, exactly, zero.
>
> Sure, Mike, it's not impossible. But it will probably take a
> presidential rescinding of the stupid EPA laws to get it done.

The time may have finally arrived when spending mega$$billions to build a
new refinery may be economically feasible. Of course, that the EPA created
the scenario where the costs attained that level will likely be missed.

How much more does it cost (does it?) to ship gasoline (explosive) compared
to raw petroleum?

[RST Engineering]

I do believe that the Supreme Court would be most interested in the
executive branch rescinding something that the legislative branch enacted.

Jim



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:z2PSe.310396$_o.167366@attbi_s71...

>
> Sure, Mike, it's not impossible. But it will probably take a
> presidential rescinding of the stupid EPA laws to get it done.

[Doof]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:YePSe.310414$_o.34843@attbi_s71...
>> As long as a nuclear power plant has a containment dome, I'm all for
>> it. A coal fired power station puts more radiation into the air than
>> would ever be permissible for a nuclear plant.
>
> I'm a long-term nuclear proponent, and have never heard that fact.
>
> Can you site a source, please?

I'm not the OP, but check "The Nuclear Energy Option", by Bernard L. Cohen,
which has numerous references to pollution from coal (specifically Chapters
3,5,12).

This doesn't even begin to include the leftover ash residue which contains a
bunch of toxic chemicals, especially since Clinton shut down the biggest US
area (southern Utah) producing low sulfur coal back a few years (to placate
his Pacific rim coal producing campaign donors).

Tom S.

[Doof]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>I do believe that the Supreme Court would be most interested in the
>executive branch rescinding something that the legislative branch enacted.
>

Executive Order.

"Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool."
--Paul Begala, Clinton presidential aide, July 1998

>>
>> Sure, Mike, it's not impossible. But it will probably take a
>> presidential rescinding of the stupid EPA laws to get it done.
>
>

[sfb]

Aren't Executive Orders limited by the laws passed by Congress giving
the Executive the power?

"Doof" > wrote in message
...
>
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I do believe that the Supreme Court would be most interested in the
>>executive branch rescinding something that the legislative branch
>>enacted.
>>
>
> Executive Order.
>
> "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool."
> --Paul Begala, Clinton presidential aide, July 1998
>
>>>
>>> Sure, Mike, it's not impossible. But it will probably take a
>>> presidential rescinding of the stupid EPA laws to get it done.
>>
>>
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:lbPSe.310410$_o.124941@attbi_s71...
>> Yes and very true. We had the prefect opportunity five years ago when
>> the CAFE standards were scheduled for an increase but our brilliant new
>> president decided not of implement them. If he had, about 80% of the US
>> vehicle fleet would be getting a couple more MPG which, as it turns out,
>> would exactly match the reduced gasoline output from Katrina.
>
> So, of course, we wouldn't now be seeing a 30% increase in the price at
> the pump if only Bush had implemented stricter mileage rules in 2000?
>
> I'm afraid you're dreaming, Mike. We'd only have had more expensive cars
> then AND the same, higher gas prices today.

We could be getting a ****load of better gas mileage if cities and towns
would synchronized their traffic signals. Of course, then they'd lose
revenue from fines for speeding (to beat constant stale yellow lights) or
from those beloved traffic cams (in which, on a national average) that have
been set at lights shortened from 7 seconds to 4.5. Also, it would alleviate
a lot a gridlock, and that would undercut the localities argument for even
more money and personnel.

It would also require a lot of traffic engineers to get off their lame asses
and do what they were trained to do. CAFE standards just let them
pontificate while exacerbating the situation.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> We could be getting a **** of better gas mileage if cities and towns
> would synchronized their traffic signals.

Some communities may deliberately screwup the traffic lights in order
to reduce the traffic through their community. Maybe I'm just being
cynical, but some lights around here (Burlington, Lexington) are just so
messed up that it couldn't possibly be just random.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[TaxSrv]

"sfb" > wrote:
> Aren't Executive Orders limited by the laws passed
> by Congress giving the Executive the power?
>

No. Executive Orders are orders issued to one or more
Executive agencies. However, an executive order cannot
conflict with or nullify any existing law passed by
Congress.

Fred F.

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
> > We could be getting a **** of better gas mileage if cities and towns
> > would synchronized their traffic signals.
>
> Some communities may deliberately screwup the traffic lights in order
> to reduce the traffic through their community. Maybe I'm just being
> cynical, but some lights around here (Burlington, Lexington) are just so
> messed up that it couldn't possibly be just random.
>

It probably isn't if my six years experience with road building a dozen
years ago is any indication.

Consider the motives: more revenue, more clout when asking for budget
increases. These are bureaucracies running these shows; what would be their
incentives for good performance versus artificially contrived gridlock?

In the meantime drivers are on the CITY mileage part of the MPG stickers on
their vehicles...probably the low end of it.

There are only four traffic lights in my town and not too bad, but some
towns I've been in are atrocious. Denver used to be pretty good, but now
it's a disaster. Even more, it's either the grossest incompetence (20 cars
at a light waiting for one or tow or ZERO vehicles to pass by, usually all
having to stop at a stale green and wait the entire cycle.

God, how many millions or billions of gallons of gas do we waste in that
manner each year?

Conservation? How about first somebody doing their damn jobs?


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

[sfb]

Many communities have gone to sensor based on demand traffic signals
which are impossible to coordinate. Ironically, one argument is saving
gasoline as waiting for the light to change is reduced.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
news:OA_Se.30>
> We could be getting a ****load of better gas mileage if cities and
> towns
> would synchronized their traffic signals. Of course, then they'd lose
> revenue from fines for speeding (to beat constant stale yellow lights)
> or
> from those beloved traffic cams (in which, on a national average) that
> have
> been set at lights shortened from 7 seconds to 4.5. Also, it would
> alleviate
> a lot a gridlock, and that would undercut the localities argument for
> even
> more money and personnel.
>
> It would also require a lot of traffic engineers to get off their lame
> asses
> and do what they were trained to do. CAFE standards just let them
> pontificate while exacerbating the situation.
>
>
>
>

[sfb]

Isn't the answer then yes as the Executive branch is always limited by
the law.

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "sfb" > wrote:
>> Aren't Executive Orders limited by the laws passed
>> by Congress giving the Executive the power?
>>
>
> No. Executive Orders are orders issued to one or more
> Executive agencies. However, an executive order cannot
> conflict with or nullify any existing law passed by
> Congress.
>
> Fred F.
>

[TaxSrv]

"sfb" wrote:
> Isn't the answer then yes as the Executive branch is
always limited by
> the law.
>

They're limited by law if law exists, and of course they're
always bound by the Constitution. Most Executive Orders
cover matters where there is no law on a specific topic.

Fred F.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Hmmm. Zero refineries built in the 28 years since EPA regulations were
> rolled out.

If new refineries were necessary and the EPA regs were the blocking factor, new
refineries would've been set up elsewhere and we would be importing refined fuel.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> Some communities may deliberately screwup the traffic lights in order
> to reduce the traffic through their community. Maybe I'm just being
> cynical, ....

You're not. I've heard traffic engineers brag that this is deliberate and claim
that it makes things safer. When I lived in Smyrna, GA years ago, the lights on
South Cobb Drive had two settings. During the two rush hour periods, they were
set to stop everyone at every light. At other times, they were timed to allow
anything doing within about 5 mph of the speed limit to see only greens. The
engineer said that was for safety reasons.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Doof]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:_g6Te.14454$aG.7587@trndny01...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm. Zero refineries built in the 28 years since EPA regulations were
>> rolled out.
>
> If new refineries were necessary and the EPA regs were the blocking
> factor, new refineries would've been set up elsewhere and we would be
> importing refined fuel.

We are.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-05, Matt Barrow > wrote:
> We could be getting a ****load of better gas mileage if cities and towns
> would synchronized their traffic signals.

Better still - rip out the large numbers of traffic lights that can be
replaced by roundabouts. Many junctions in the US which have traffic
lights would have a roundabout elsewhere and would flow much better.

Houston had synced traffic lights (not that I drove in downtown much).

The worst ones were the lights near where I lived in League City - ten
second long all red phases, and one particularly bad timed light which
wouldn't let the lane go for a good 30 seconds after it was clear.

When I was last there (abotu 4 weeks ago) it hadn't been fixed.

--
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"

[Matt Barrow]

"sfb" > wrote in message news:Su0Te.2855$AB4.1904@trnddc03...
> Many communities have gone to sensor based on demand traffic signals
> which are impossible to coordinate. Ironically, one argument is saving
> gasoline as waiting for the light to change is reduced.
>

(Please note that I've been out of the highway engineering field for a dozen
years, but I have several old associates still in the field who are abreast
of these things)

Most (not all, but most) of the sensors you speak of are for allowing the
passage of emergency vehicles, not for determining traffic flows. Most
communities don't even have those.

Thing is, if you look at traffic flows the way a systems analyst approachs
his work (fundementally the correct way) it becomes rather obvious that the
overwhelming source of the problem is just plain incompetence and much is
deliberate.

My point is that conservation is great (and certainly encouraged by current
prices), but what happens when someone is deliberately rigging the
situation?

I won't even go into the deaths and injuries caused by such governmental
greed.


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

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-09-05, Matt Barrow > wrote:
> > We could be getting a ****load of better gas mileage if cities and towns
> > would synchronized their traffic signals.
>
> Better still - rip out the large numbers of traffic lights that can be
> replaced by roundabouts. Many junctions in the US which have traffic
> lights would have a roundabout elsewhere and would flow much better.
>
> Houston had synced traffic lights (not that I drove in downtown much).
>
> The worst ones were the lights near where I lived in League City - ten
> second long all red phases, and one particularly bad timed light which
> wouldn't let the lane go for a good 30 seconds after it was clear.
>
> When I was last there (abotu 4 weeks ago) it hadn't been fixed.
>
You're assuming the local authorities WANT to fix the situation.

Traffic fines for speeding and red light running brings in $$$BILLIONS!! Do
you really think they want to give that up? At the least, they'd have to
re-engineer the roads for roundabouts. A while back they wanted to repave a
3/4 mile stretch of road. It took seven months and $13million. They didn't
want to do it (spend the money), but the road was the flavor of a cattle
trail.


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

[Mike Rapoport]

I don't have to be let out, I am already talking to them and have been for
a long time. But you are right, this dead horse has suffered enough

Mike
MU-2


"sfb" > wrote in message news:QI1Se.202$cy4.57@trnddc05...
> Isn't it time to stop beating this dead horse? The guys who own and
> operate refineries are reluctant to invest in new refining capacity. Maybe
> the home would let you out so you could explain to them that they know not
> of what they speak.
>
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Agreed but what is the cost of that study compared to the multi-billion
>> dollar cost of the refinery? Less than 1%. My point is not that there
>> are no obstacles to constructing a new refinery but rather that those
>> obstacles are not the reason that new refineries have not been built.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Gasoline pretty much sells at spot prices. On the crude side, most futures
are sold by produces and bought by end consumers (say airlines) not
refiners.

If you go to: http://futures.tradingcharts.com/marketquotes/ you will see
that gasoling futures don't go out very far and there is minimial liquidity
even three months out. To hedge, refiners sell gasoline futures at the same
time that they purchase crude. It there were enough liquidity in the
gasoline futures market, refiners would probably try to lock in refining
margins, but that liquidity isn't there.

I would also distinguish between hedging future prices and 'buying".

Mike
MU-2


"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>Isn't it interesting that the media isn't telling us that the fuel at the
>>>pumps and the oil at the refineries was purchased a year ago.
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> Where do they keep it? Must be huge this 17,520,000,000 gallon tank.
>
> Come on, Mike!
> Help me out here... how do future contracts work?

[sfb]

There are sensor based intersections all over Florida for us ordinary
folks. The easiest way to tell is the bicycles riders are punching the
pedestrian walk button as the bikes lack the metal mass to trip the
sensors.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "sfb" > wrote in message
> news:Su0Te.2855$AB4.1904@trnddc03...
>> Many communities have gone to sensor based on demand traffic signals
>> which are impossible to coordinate. Ironically, one argument is
>> saving
>> gasoline as waiting for the light to change is reduced.
>>
>
> (Please note that I've been out of the highway engineering field for a
> dozen
> years, but I have several old associates still in the field who are
> abreast
> of these things)
>
> Most (not all, but most) of the sensors you speak of are for allowing
> the
> passage of emergency vehicles, not for determining traffic flows. Most
> communities don't even have those.
>
> Thing is, if you look at traffic flows the way a systems analyst
> approachs
> his work (fundementally the correct way) it becomes rather obvious
> that the
> overwhelming source of the problem is just plain incompetence and much
> is
> deliberate.
>
> My point is that conservation is great (and certainly encouraged by
> current
> prices), but what happens when someone is deliberately rigging the
> situation?
>
> I won't even go into the deaths and injuries caused by such
> governmental
> greed.
>
>
> --
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>
>
>
>

[Morgans]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote

> Most (not all, but most) of the sensors you speak of are for allowing the
> passage of emergency vehicles, not for determining traffic flows. Most
> communities don't even have those.

Are you kidding me? NC seems to love the "trip light" concept. Does it
make sense? No. Do they use it at almost every intersection, even 4 lane
highways? Yes.

On a highway between Lenoir and Hickory NC, the lights are all on trip
sensors. It is nearly impossible to go from one town to the other in
daylight hours, without being stopped by at least 3/4ths of the lights.
They are going to have to widen it to 6 lanes. (under planning now) If they
would time the lights so traffic could flow, they could put off widening for
at least 5 years.

By the way, mostly they are magnetic loop type, pavement embedded wires.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

>I do believe that the Supreme Court would be most interested in the
>executive branch rescinding something that the legislative branch enacted.

True, but a president can declare a state of emergency, and simply order it
to be built.

By the time this case works its way to the Supreme Court, we'll be awash in
cheap gasoline!

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:TvCTe.315710$_o.147031@attbi_s71...
> >I do believe that the Supreme Court would be most interested in the
> >executive branch rescinding something that the legislative branch
> >enacted.
>
> True, but a president can declare a state of emergency, and simply order
> it to be built.
>
> By the time this case works its way to the Supreme Court, we'll be awash
> in cheap gasoline!
>
> ;-)

Better yet, require the money that would be paid as the Winfall Profits Tax
be spent on new refining capability within the borders of the US.

[TaxSrv]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> True, but a president can declare a state of emergency,
> and simply order it [a refinery] to be built.
>

No he can't.

Fred F.

[sfb]

One problem the United States has in the world is the foreigners think
the President is some sort of King with divine powers that can make
things happen instantly. It is amazing how many US citizens seem to make
that same mistake.

a) Any Federal District judge which is the lowest level, can issue an
injunction to stop work.

b) The President can't order locals to issue building permits which is
another set of lawsuits waiting to happen.

c) Construction companies will hesitate to risk their business in face
of endless lawsuits.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:TvCTe.315710$_o.147031@attbi_s71...
> >I do believe that the Supreme Court would be most interested in the
> >executive branch rescinding something that the legislative branch
> >enacted.
>
> True, but a president can declare a state of emergency, and simply
> order it to be built.
>
> By the time this case works its way to the Supreme Court, we'll be
> awash in cheap gasoline!
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Doof]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
>>
>> By the time this case works its way to the Supreme Court, we'll be awash
>> in cheap gasoline!
>>
>> ;-)
>
> Better yet, require the money that would be paid as the Winfall Profits
> Tax be spent on new refining capability within the borders of the US.

I wonder what they EPA and the environazis would have to say about that?

Hey, we'll build one in your neighborhood -- hey, no complaining, you wanted
more refining capacity.

You've heard of NIMBY, haven't you?

And people whine while the problem continues to exacerbate. Tough **** --
you made your beds, now sleep in them.

[Doof]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>> True, but a president can declare a state of emergency,
>> and simply order it [a refinery] to be built.
>>
>
> No he can't.
>
Correct, but he can stop one.

[Doof]

"sfb" > wrote in message news:PjDTe.22760$Sx4.19227@trnddc06...
> One problem the United States has in the world is the foreigners think the
> President is some sort of King with divine powers that can make things
> happen instantly. It is amazing how many US citizens seem to make that
> same mistake.

Most, it seems, including most youths, but also many that are WAY beyond
knowing better.

"Mr. President, Please Make Us Proud." That was the cover story in the
January 28 issue of Parade, the

nation's most widely circulated magazine with 37 million copies distributed
inside Sunday newspapers. The magazine had asked "teens across America"

what they would "ask our new President to do for them [and] their families,
schools and communities."

And boy, did the teens have ideas. They seemed to regard the new president
as a combination of Superman, Santa

Claus, and Mother Teresa.


http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v23n4/boaz.pdf

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Doof" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
>>>
>>> By the time this case works its way to the Supreme Court, we'll be awash
>>> in cheap gasoline!
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Better yet, require the money that would be paid as the Winfall Profits
>> Tax be spent on new refining capability within the borders of the US.
>
> I wonder what they EPA and the environazis would have to say about that?
>
> Hey, we'll build one in your neighborhood -- hey, no complaining, you
> wanted more refining capacity.
>
> You've heard of NIMBY, haven't you?
>
> And people whine while the problem continues to exacerbate. Tough **** --
> you made your beds, now sleep in them.
>

As I said in a earlier post I'd be happy to have as many as you can build
here. There is already one slightly over a mile from where I live now and
another one about 17 miles away. We also have 2 chemical plants all fine
corporate citizens.

That smell you smell is the smell of jobs and money.

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:DXETe.25182$7f5.5578@okepread01...
>
> "Doof" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>> By the time this case works its way to the Supreme Court, we'll be
awash
> >>> in cheap gasoline!
> >>>
> >>> ;-)
> >>
> >> Better yet, require the money that would be paid as the Winfall Profits
> >> Tax be spent on new refining capability within the borders of the US.
> >
> > I wonder what they EPA and the environazis would have to say about that?
> >
> > Hey, we'll build one in your neighborhood -- hey, no complaining, you
> > wanted more refining capacity.
> >
> > You've heard of NIMBY, haven't you?
> >
> > And people whine while the problem continues to exacerbate. Tough
**** --
> > you made your beds, now sleep in them.
> >
>
> As I said in a earlier post I'd be happy to have as many as you can build
> here. There is already one slightly over a mile from where I live now and
> another one about 17 miles away. We also have 2 chemical plants all fine
> corporate citizens.
>
> That smell you smell is the smell of jobs and money.
>

What say your neighbors?




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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:DXETe.25182$7f5.5578@okepread01...
>>
>> "Doof" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
>> >>>
>> >>> By the time this case works its way to the Supreme Court, we'll be
> awash
>> >>> in cheap gasoline!
>> >>>
>> >>> ;-)
>> >>
>> >> Better yet, require the money that would be paid as the Winfall
>> >> Profits
>> >> Tax be spent on new refining capability within the borders of the US.
>> >
>> > I wonder what they EPA and the environazis would have to say about
>> > that?
>> >
>> > Hey, we'll build one in your neighborhood -- hey, no complaining, you
>> > wanted more refining capacity.
>> >
>> > You've heard of NIMBY, haven't you?
>> >
>> > And people whine while the problem continues to exacerbate. Tough
> **** --
>> > you made your beds, now sleep in them.
>> >
>>
>> As I said in a earlier post I'd be happy to have as many as you can build
>> here. There is already one slightly over a mile from where I live now and
>> another one about 17 miles away. We also have 2 chemical plants all fine
>> corporate citizens.
>>
>> That smell you smell is the smell of jobs and money.
>>
>
> What say your neighbors?
>
>
>
>
Well the option hasn't come up but I don't hear anyone asking the ones that
are already hear to close down and the population as a whole including the
newspaper editorials seem to be unhappy when they do shut down units and
happy when they expand.

[John Gaquin]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>
> ......Maybe I'm just being
> cynical, but some lights around here (Burlington, Lexington) are just so
> messed up that it couldn't possibly be just random.

They're probably not. There's one town around here (greater Boston) that I
drive through regularly that has signs posted "Signals timed to require
frequent stops".

[Big John]

Jay

You got the Purple Grape full for a reserve?

Big John

[Big John]

Mike

There hasn't been a grass roots refinery built in the Us in over 20
years. Environment, profit, etc., etc.

In the fuel chain, the refineries either ran at a break even or lost
money. Why would anyone spend a billion dollars to lose money?
Current run up in pricing lets refineries make money. The old time oil
interests however remember the boom-bust cycle in the business and I
doubt if any new refineries will be built in the US in the for seeable
future.

We'll just import out gasoline and other products and export our money
:o(

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:00:46 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>HELLO!!! ARE YOU LISTENING JAY???
>
>Where do you get this BS?
>
>IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD NEW REFINERIES.
>
>sorry for shouting.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>news:bgKRe.302703$_o.171971@attbi_s71...
>>> Us Gasoline supply has been cut by a third. My point is let the people in
>>> the US reduce their consumption by a third. Price stays down, no one else
>>> gets f****d up. As has been said in the thread, this was a problem
>>> waiting to happen, the politicians knew about it, the local authorities
>>> new about it and business knew about it but they ignored it.
>>
>> Right, but what you fail to realize is that this is a SELF-IMPOSED
>> disaster, by well-meaning Americans who thought that they were helping the
>> world by making it impossible for oil companies to build any new
>> refineries.
>>
>> The hurricane was inevitable; the consequences were not.
>>
>> I suspect, given what you're saying, that you probably agreed with their
>> environmental approach. You probably cheered as, one by one, more and
>> more restrictive U.S. laws were passed, making it harder and harder for
>> suppliers to refine crude oil into gasoline. Until now.
>>
>> Now that their short-sightedness is hurting everyone, badly --
>> worldwide -- maybe you'll realize just how much harm environmental
>> extremists have done.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> You got the Purple Grape full for a reserve?

Nah, I'm waiting for gas to come back down. It's already dropped 40 cents a
gallon around here...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Roger]

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:05:02 -0400, "John Gaquin"
> wrote:

>
>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>
>> ......Maybe I'm just being
>> cynical, but some lights around here (Burlington, Lexington) are just so
>> messed up that it couldn't possibly be just random.
>
>They're probably not. There's one town around here (greater Boston) that I
>drive through regularly that has signs posted "Signals timed to require
>frequent stops".
>

Boston. The only town where I've ever had a car pass me on the side
walk while I was waiting for a red light.

Here they try to time the lights so traffic flow is smooth when just
under the speed limit on the main roads/streets.
IE, you either keep it legal, drive like Hell, or run the stoplights.

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

Roger

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"John Gaquin" > wrote:

> > ......Maybe I'm just being
> > cynical, but some lights around here (Burlington, Lexington) are just so
> > messed up that it couldn't possibly be just random.
>
> They're probably not. There's one town around here (greater Boston) that I
> drive through regularly that has signs posted "Signals timed to require
> frequent stops".

Yep - I really hate that part of route 16.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Matt Whiting]

Roger wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:05:02 -0400, "John Gaquin"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>
>>>......Maybe I'm just being
>>>cynical, but some lights around here (Burlington, Lexington) are just so
>>>messed up that it couldn't possibly be just random.
>>
>>They're probably not. There's one town around here (greater Boston) that I
>>drive through regularly that has signs posted "Signals timed to require
>>frequent stops".
>>
>
>
> Boston. The only town where I've ever had a car pass me on the side
> walk while I was waiting for a red light.

You've obviously never driven in Italy or Russia. :-)

Matt